ML20091C923
| ML20091C923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1429, NUREG-1429-DRFT, NUREG-1429-DRFT-FC, NUDOCS 9108080044 | |
| Download: ML20091C923 (91) | |
Text
.
ENCLOSURE 6 HUREG-1429 (DRAFT)
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR THE REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Draf t Report for Coment U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9108030044 9.10808 9n PDR
\\
i ABSTRACT The Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (ESRP-LR) is to be used by the NRC staff when performing environmental reviews of applications for the renewal of power reactor licenses. The use of the ESRP-LR provides a framework for the staff to determine whether or not environmental issues important to license renewal have been identified and the impacts evaluated and provides acceptance stan-dards to assist the reviewers in their compliance with the National Environ.
mental Policy Act, i
q,,,6$
p 4 4,4 > 2 n--Mss 14-smk-9 s M A,es-M.,JL4 Atp. ma n, O ng
--g-A.-Amn.+-MO,,
" AJ4 u Rey 2M R: M 4;.NSs-s%4A,p p g4 e,&,b A A ww La & &'.oom adWM-^
==A^-
'&M.y L
1; r
Y 4
s T
A e
h s.. '
3 3
t 1
4 t
I-l t
t I
q -
b -
e I-L ii t
4 5
.w.-
..-m..
- -. - -, ~,.,.,,
.--.mm.m.-
.. - ~.- -.,,, -.... - --.m....byye._%_m m.,,,,,,.,,.-,ww.,%,ne,,y.
_.,,.m_,
.,e.e.-e v
r CONTENTS-t Pace ABSTRAET..............................................................
i GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................
y
'PART'A.- GENERAL INFORMAT10N A.1 Introduction.....................................................
A-1 A.2 Purpose and 5 cope................................................
A-1
-A 3 Document Organization............................................
A-3 A.4 Background.......................................................
A-5 A.5-Review of the Applicant's Environmental Information..............
A-7 A.6 Environmental Document...........................................
A-8 PAR 1 B.
CATEGORY 1 ISSUES B.1 De s c ri ption of Ca tegory 1 I ssues.................................
B-1 PART C.
CATEGORY'2 ISSUES C.1 Description of-Category 2 1ssues.................................
C-1
- C.2 General Instructions to Reviewers for Category 2 Issues..........
C-1 l
C.3 Category 2 1ssues................................................
C-3 C.3.1 A q u a t i c E c o l o gy...........................................
C-3 C 3.2 ~ Terrestrial Resources During Refurbishment................
C-11 C.3.3 Socioeconomics, Housing During Refurbishment and l-Refueling / Maintenance 0utages.............................
C-19 C.3.4 Groundwa ter Qu a lity and Use...............................
C-26 l
iii t
g CONTENTS (Continued)
Page C.3.4.1 Groundwater Use During Operation.................
C-?6 C.3.4.2 Groundwater Quality, Degradation During Operation Cooling Pond Sites....................
C-31 C.3.5 Public Health.............................................
C-37 C.3.5.1 Public Health. Thermophilic Microorganisms.......
C-37 C.3.5.2 Public Health, Electric Shock....................
C-42 C.3.6 Solid Waste Management....................................
C-46 C.3.7 Surface Water Quality-During Refurbishment................
C-51 C.3.8 Consideration of Alternatives.............................
C PART D.
CATEGORY 3 ISSUES D.1; Des cript ion - of C a tegory 3 1s sues.................................
D-1 D.2 Instructions to the' Reviewer for Category 31ssues...............
D-1 D. 3 C a t e g o ry 3 1 s s u e s................................................
D-3 D.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species........................
D-1 ~
D.3.2 Socioeconomics Transportation During Refurbishment......
D-6 l
iv
._._m._
4 e
GLOSSARY,0F ABBREV!ATIONS.
ALARA as low as reasonably achievable ANPR
-advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
BWR boiling water reactor CAA Clean Air Act
- CCC California Coastal Comission CCF comon cause f ailure CFR Code.of Federal Regulations CLB cur. rent licensing basis CWA Clean Water Act DOE-Department of Energy EA-environmental assessment EAB exclusion area boundary EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPRI-Electric Power Research Institute ER environmental report ES-environmental statement ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan ESRP-LR Environmental Standard Review Plan - License Renewal FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency FES final environmental statement FR Federal Register FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act L
FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report GEIS Generic Environmental 1mpact Statement gpm gallons per minute HVTL.
high voltage transmission lines l
IBP International Biological Programe 1NPO Institute of Nuclear-Power Operations-tm kilometer Ky bilo-volts LPGS liquid pathway. generic study LP2 low population zone FDLR Project Directorate License Renewal l-v
.w e
,9-_,
,,y.
,,,. -. -.,-c.-
.re--,
c
LWR light-water reactor MRS monitored retrievable storage 3
m /s cubic meters per second MTlHM metric tons of initial heavy metal HTU metric tons of uranium mwd megawatt days MW(e) megawatt electric NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGS nuclear generating station N01 notice of intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission NUREG official NRC staff reports OL operating license OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PWR pressuri:ed-water reactor RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RG regulatory guide SSCs Systems, Structures, and Components TOS total dissolved solids USC United States Code USGS United States Geological Service vi
s t-ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR THE REVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL i
APPLICATIONSFORNUCLEARPOWERPLANTS(ESRP-LR)
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION i
A.1 JNTRODUCTION Under its rules for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is required to examine the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of renewing licenses of in-dividual nuclear nower plants under the proposed 10 CFR Part 54. To fully implement this responsibility, the NRC is modifying 10 CFR Part 51 and is developing three documents to control and define the necessary environmental reviews. A Regulatory Guide is being developed to assist the applicant in the preparation of an Environmental Report (ER) to be submitted as part of the application for license renewal. A Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS), NUREG-1437, is being developed to establish the bounds and significance of potential environmental impacts during refurbishment and during license renewal term of light-water powe reactors. This document, the EnvironmentalStandardReviewPlanforLicenseRenewal(ESRP-LR),isbeing developed to provide guidance to the staff for the review of the ER and the use of the GEIS.
It should be noted that the analysis in the GEIS is based on license renewal for a period of not more than 20 years for each operating nuclear plant.
A.2 PURR 0SE AND SCOPE This review plan has been prepared as guidance for staff reviewers in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to assist in the environmental reviews of applications for renewal of operating licenses. The plan parallels Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, " Standard Format and Content of Environmental Informa-Rion for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,' which guides applicar.ts on how to structure and present the environmental inform & tion to be submitted as part of the ER included in the application for renewal of an operating license.
A-1
l The Regulatory Guide gives guidelines for the following:
(1) the format I
and content of environmental information to be included in license renewal ap-plications; (2) the use of generic environmental information preserted in the GEIS; and (3) the additional information and analysis needed to supplement the GE'.3 for specific issues and regulatory requirements.
t The primary purpose of this review plan is to ensure the quality and uni-formity of staff reviews and to ensure that these reviews are focused on those i
environmental concerns associated with license renewal as described in 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54. Specifically, it provides guidance to the staff regarding environmental issues that should be reviewed and provides criteria to help the reviewer evaluate the information submitted as part of the license renewal application. It is also the intent of this plan to r.ake information about the regulatory process available and to improve comunication between the NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear power industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process.
The staff review of an application for renewal of an operating license is not intended to be a review of the original environmental concerns. Therefore, guidance offered in this plan differs from that given in NUREG-0555, " Environ-mental Standard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Per-mit Applications for Nuclear Power Plants." For license renewal, the focus is on the environmental impacts associated with approximately 20 additional years of plant operation and any refurbishment necessary to permit the additional operational period. The emphasis intended here is on providing guidance to NRC staff reviewers on how to evaluate the specific environmental concerns associ-ated with renewing an operating license as described in the ER submitted to the NRC.
The manner in which the staff applies this plan can vary from application to application and within a single application for different environmental is-In some cases, the staff may be able to complete some portions of the sues.
review on a generic basis; in other cases, the staff may need to review plant-specific environmental impacts. The staff may select and emphasize par-titular espects of an ESRP-l.R section as appropriate for the specific plant license renewal application under consideration.
A-2
The ESRP-LR is part of a continuing regulatory standards development ac-tivity that documents current methods of review and provides the bases for or-derly modifications to the review process.
It will be revised periodically, as needed, to clarify content, correct any errors, and incorporate modifications approved by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This review plan is a draft document to be revised as experience is gained during the review of the initial license renewal applicatior.s and ER's. The staff will consider coments and suggestions for improvement; these should be sent to the Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regu-latory comission, Washington, D.C., 20555. Notice of errors or omissions should be sent to the same address.
A.3 00Ct%ENT ORGAN 17 AT10N The ESRP-LR has four parts. Part A contains general information concern-ing the purpose, scope, organization and use of the document.
In Part B, those envirenmental issues which are defined as " Category 1" issues in the GE!S are presented. These issues will be excluded from the review of individual plant l
license renewal applications by the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 51.
Part C provides review guidelines for those environmental issues that are defined as
- Category 2" issues in the GEIS. Part D identifies information 5
needs and review guidelines for those environmental issues that are defined as
- Category 3' issues in the GEIS.
l One important concept necessary to understand the organization of both this document and the Gels is the categorization of issues.
In the GEIS, the liRC staff placed each environmental issues into one of three categories. The
-three categories are defined as follows.
Category 1 l
A ger.eric conclusion on the potential impact his been reached in the GE!S l
1:r all effected plants. Such impacts will be excluded from the review of irc'ividual license renewal application by the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Fart E2.
l A-3
Cateoory ?
A generic conclusion on the potential impact has been reached in the GEIS for those plants that fit within defined bounds.
In accordance with the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 51, each individual license renewal application must contain a demonstration that the plant and/or planned activities for license renewal are bounded by the GEIS for this impact.
If such demonstration can not be made, an assessment of the impact rust be provided.
Catecory 3 A generic conclusion on the potential impact was not reached in the GE15 for any affected plants. The proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 51 require that the potential impact must be evaluated in each individual license enewal application.
Each section of the ESRP-LR is organized and intended to be a stand-alone document for the review of a specific environmental issue for license renewal.
Each specific issue will be found in'only one section of this document. There-fore, the reviewer will not need to depend on other sections for the reviews.
Each environmental issue addressed in the ESRP-LR consists of the follow-ing review elements and staff instructions:
Responsibilities. The primary and secondary responsibilities for the NRC staff review are listed.
Purpose and Scope. These paragraphs describe the purpose and scope of the specific environmental issue under review. References are given to appropriate GE!S sections.
l Recuired Data and Information. The reviewer is given 1.he source and sccpe of d to and information needed for the specific review subject.
l l
l A4 l
w
Analysis Procedure. The key review steps for the NRC stafis evalua.
tion of the applicant's environmental assessment are provided.
Evaluation.
Evaluation criteria, along with Federal, State and local laws affecting the environmental issue that inust be evaluated are listed and described as applicable. The evaluation steps necessary for staff consideration are given, Input to the Environmental Document. The principal features, spe-cies, environmental stressors, considerations, evaluations and envi-ronmental inputs needed for the environmental documentation process are listed along with appropriate staff guidance.
References. The essential reference materials are listed for NRC staff consideration.
A.4 BACKGROUND A.4.1 REOUIREMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL' REVIEW The NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) are being supplemented by the addition of Proposed Part 54, " Require-inents for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.' The new requirements stated in 10 CFR 54 are based on two important principles:
3.
In general, the current licensing basis for each operating nuclear power plant provides and maintains an acceptable level of safety for operation during any renewal period. This principle is based on the Comission's initial finding of adequate protection for the initial design snd con-struction of a plant, as well as on the Comission's continuing oversight and regulatory actions for these plants.
-2.
A plent's current licensing basis must be maintained during the renewal l
period, in'part through a program to manage age-related degradation of systems, structures, and components (SSCs) that are important to license rere.a1. Therefore, 10 CFR 54 focuses on age-related concerns requiring license renewal applicants to take the necessary actions to provide l
l A-5 l
i
assurance that age-related degradation will be effectively managed so that the plant will continue to meet an acceptable level of safety during the renewal term.
The granting of a renewed operating license is a major Federal action which requires an environmental review by the NRC. Under the proposed license renewal rule in 10 CFR Part 54, each application for license renewal must include an environmental report (ER) that complies with the requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
A.4.2 REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 51 FOR LICENSE RENEWAL The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 establish new requirements for environmental review of applications for renewal of operating licenses. These amendments would reduce the nutter of environmental issues to be addressed as part of a license renewal application. The scope of issues to be assessed in individual plant license renewal applications will be limited to those issues for which generic conclusions could not be reached. All applicants will have to assess impacts on threatened and endangered species, and impacts on local traffic conditions during periods of license-renewal related refurbishment
(
activities. For other issues to be included in ER's, all applicants will have to demonstrate that their plants f all within the bounds of plants for which generic conclusions could be reached, or, if they do not fall within these bounds, an assessment of the issue must be presented. Also, as part of its ER, an applicant shall include an analysis of whether or not the findings of the above required assessments overturn the cost-benefit balance supporting license renewal found in the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments codify the conclusions of the GEIS for those f
issues for which a generic conclusion can be reached. Appendix B to proposed l
Part 51 surnarizes the findings in the Gels on the scope and magnitude of j
environmer.tal and other effects of renewing the operating license of an l
individual nuclear power plant. In the proposed appendix, the Comission also L
states its finding that the renewal of any operating license for up to 20 years is advantageous to society and will have accrued benefits that outweigh the economic, environmental, and societal costs of license renewal.
A-6 l
In addition, the proposed amendments eliminate the requirement that in all cases, the NRC staff must prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (E!S)forlicenserenewalapplications,andinsteadpermitthertafftoprepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) if certain conditions are met. The basis for this proposed change is that only a limited number of potential impacts heed to be addressed in individual plant licensing.
In many instances, this limited set of potential environmental issues will be found to have imp, cts which are nonexistent or very small and therefore can be analyzed in an environmental assessment. However, there may be plant license renewal proceedings where a supplemental environmental impact statement will be required. A supplemental EIS will be required if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is net concluded in the EA. If no significant impacts are found in the EA, the NRC will issue a FONSI.
On the other hand, if the EA should identify environmental impacts which would prevent the issuance of a FONSI, the environmental review process would require the development of a draft and final supplemental EIS.
A.5 MVIEWOFAPPLICANT'SENVIRONMENTALINFORMATION Proposed 10 CFR 2.109 would allow the licensee's current license to remain in effect during the time the staff is reviewing the license renewal applica-tion, provided the licensee files a sufficient application at least five years before the current operating license is scheduled to expire. Although the staff expects to complete its review of a renewal application before the exist-ing license expires, in some instances the taff may need more time to fully evaluate the technical and environmental information contained in the l
application, l
The environmental review process for individual plant license renewal will tegin with the submission by the applicant of an environmental report focusing c'
.he issues defined in the proposed amendments to Part 51.
j Fo environmental issues, en application for license renewal should in-ciude t following:
A-7 l
For each Category 21 tem, the applicant needs to provide 5nforir tion to demonstrate that the plant seeking a renewed license is within the bounding conditions assumed in the GEIS. For plants outside the as.
sumed boundary, the applicant should supply the additional informa-tion identified in the specific ESRP-LR section contained in Part C of this document, along with any supplemental discussion needed for the staff to understand the data and information submitted.
For each Category 3 item, the applicant will need to furnish the da-ta, information, and analysis identified in this specific ESRP-LR section contained in Part 0 of this document. Necessary supplementa',
discussion needed for the staff to understand each Category 3 issue should also be submitted.
There has been sufficient experience with the environmental ir ts asso-cisted with nuclear power plants to predict, with considerable co.i.ance, the nature and magnitude of potential environmental effects that may arise from renewal of operating licenses. These environmental effects can be described and characterized in such a manner that the results can be applied to individu-al license renewal reviews. Accordingly, by means of a GEIS, the NRC has identified the issues and potential environmental impan s associated with li-cense renewal, assessed their significance, and reached conclusions as to uhether the issues can be excluded fron, consideration in individual plant li-cense renewal application.
The NRC staff will perforta the environmental reviews for license renewal by using this ESRP-LR. The primary reference for information on environmental issues and the staff's conclusions concerning these issues is the GE15.
A.6 ENv!PONMENTAL DOCUMENT The output from the NRC staff review will be an EA or supplemental EIS, and is referred to es the " environmental document" in the individual review sections of this ESRP-LR. The NRC will issue a supplemental EIS if the impact from any of the environmental issues evaluated in the individual review sections is determined to be negative and large or negative, moderate, and not mitigated to a smell impact. The NRC will issue the EA with a FONSI for all other impacts.
A-B
PART B: CATEGORY 1 ISSUES
?
B.1 DTSCRIPTION OF CATEGORY 1 ISSUES Category 1 issues are issues for which a generic conclusion on the potential
--impact has been reached in the Gels for all affected plants. Such issues are excluded from the review of individual license renewal applications by the proposed modifications to 10 CTR Part 51. Category 1 issues are tabulated in the Gels table-10-1. Table B.1 below also lists all-of the Category 1 issues and references the GE15 section where the issue is discussed.
9 e
b
(
B-1 l
l-L.
Table B.1 Category 1 1ssues l
Gels 155UE SECTION Surf ace k' ster Quality. Hydrology, and Use
- (for all plants)
Effects-of refurtishment on surface water use
. 3.4.1 Altered current patterns at intake and 4.2.1.2.1 disctarge structures 4.3.2.2 4.4.2.2
- Altered salinity gradients 4.2.1.2.2 4.3.2.2 4.4.2.2 Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.3 4.3.2.2 4.4.2.2 Tu.prature e'fects on sedinent transport 4.2.1.2.3 espacity-4.3.2.2 4.4.2.2
~ Scourir.9 doc to c'ischarged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 4.3.2.2 4.4.2.2
- tutr epm cation -
- 4.2.1.2.3 4.3.2.2 4.4.2.2 sischargeofchlorineorotherbiocides
- 4. 2.1 ~. 2. 4 4.3.2.2.
4.4.2.2 1
6-2 M
-ewy-y w
+
t w
--we=
r m--s-r=-
s--wp=
c-p-
-r rem---wo-Mw
- e y
+---
?W+-
wp
- w ey y
.,.._. _ _._ _ __ _ _ _ _. _..-_... _._ _. ~ _ __._._. _ _ _....._ _ _ _ _.. _
TableB.1(con't) tischarge of senitary wastes 4.2.1.2.4 4.3.2.7 4.4.P.2
-Lischarge o' otter chemical contaminants 4.2.1.2.4 (e.g., metals)
-.3.2.2 4
-4.4.2.2' 4.4.4 --
l Water use conflicts 4.2.1.3 4.3.2.1 4.4.2.1 Acuatic Ecology (for.allplants)
Refurbishnent-3.5-
- Accumulation of centatinants in secirents 4.2.1.2.4-cr titte 4.3.3 4.4.2.2-A.4.4 Intrainment of itytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.3.1.1 4.3.3 4.4.4 Cold shock 4.P.3.1.5 4.3.3 4.4.4 1Lttmai phr.c tarrier to migrating fish 4.2.3.1.6 4.3.3 4.4.4 rjnnture cniergence of aquatic insects 4.2.3.1.7
-4.3.3 4.4.4 t>-3
-N-..
..vs-
...,,s.-
e e
.i--r g
ww,n---
a--
=.
TableB.1(con't)
Gassuperseturation(gesbutbledisease) 4.P.3.1.8 4.3.3 4.4.4 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.3.1.9 4.3.3 4.4.4 Losses from predation, parasitism, and 4.2.3.1.10 disease among organisms exposed to 4.3.3 subiethal stresses 4.4.4 Stir.ulatien of nuisance orgenisus (e.g.,
4.2.3.1.11 shipworns) 4.3.3 4.4.4 Acuatic Ecoloey (f or pl.ints with tooling'-TE.cr-based Reat dissipation systems)
Entreint.ent of fish and shellfish early life 4.3.3 stages Inpingerent of fish ar.d shellfish 4.3.3 Peat shock 4.3.3 f.rcur.cw6ttr Lee and_0uality. Impacts cf Refurbishment et.cr6.ater u!( art r,tality 3.4.2 rieurewater use conflicts (turf ace water 4.2.2.1.3 used-as nake-up water - potentially affecting aquifer rechtrge)
Ground-ater quality degradation (Rarney wells) 4.2.2.2.2 nectr.6:eter cualdi) CL97L(4 tion (saltwater 4.2.2.2.1 i t.*.r u h i ti.)
6-4
TableL.1-(con't)
Terrestrial f.esotrees t
Cooling terer impacts on crops 4.3.4 Coelir.t twer impcets en native plants 4.3.5.1 Bird ecilisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2 Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial itscurces 4.4.5 Power lir,t-right-of-way menagement (cutting 4.5.6.1 anti herb icide Upp11ca' ht.',
t u o to'ibs'.or.t kni, power lines 4.5.6.T
'r.thets of elects omtgi clic fields (EliF) on 4.5.6.3.?
f
- cr a ar.c #6u.e irlatts, agricultural crops,
-honeytees, wildlife, livestock)
Floodplains and wetlands on power line 4.5.7 right-of-way Air Quality.
i-
. Air Quality 3.3 Land Use l
On-:nc lerd L e 3.2 u
B-5
. ~..
-Table. B.1 (con't)
Human Health. Ir: pacts of Refurtishment todictict. Exposures to the public 3.B.1.7
-(ccupational rhrittien exposures 3.C.2.4 i
Lunan Pealth. Impects of Operation Otrire licente Penewal Microbioicgical organisms (occupational
4.3.6 health)
. Noise 4.3.8 1
Tiectromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2.3 Radiation exposures to public-4.6.2.4 Occupatior.a1 radiation exposures 4.6.3.3 Socioeconomics Public service' impacts (except-3.7.4 Ltransport0tioti)- oi refurbishment
'tetlic service impcets'(including 4.7.4 transpcrtatioti) o. lictnse ran?wal term Off-site lar.c use impcets of-refurbisi.cnt.
3.7.5 Off-sit 6.itnd use impacts of liter.se renewal 4.7.5
_ terr.
Ltistoric rcscurces im;atts of refurbishment
'3.7.7 b-6
- - _. _ -... _ _ - =,
4e.
y..A,.__
m a,e
_ as.
_4_..A 4_u)
A.
Table B.1 (con't) i Histeric resources impacts of license 4.5.8 renewal tern (trah:tiur evi. 'ine; Hi *ct i-tesourt t s ir pacts 01 licts.it 4.i.)
t renewal tern (normal operations)
Aesthetic impacts of refurbishment 3.7.7 Aesthetic impacts of license renewal term 4.7.7 Aesthetic impacts of license renewal term 4.5.8 (transr.41ssion lines)
Environmental Impacts of Festulated Accidents Dester t tris Ecriter.ts 5.3.2 5.6.1 Sevcic l.ctider.ts (Attespherir releases) 5.3.3.2 l
5.5.2 Severe Accidents (f t11 cut onto cpen bodies 5.3.3.3 I
ofwattr) 0.5.3 Severe Accidents (releases from 5.3.3.4 l
groundwater) 5.5.4 l-S eie Accidents (Ecor.on.ic consequences) 5.?.4 l
5.5.5 i
- . <. i t !cc.cer.1 I;itig
- tion Design 5.4
, i:.rn.. n t; r,5,c l
L ',
i
lableE.1(con't) r r
Icl#f b'tfTE l'Pn8CPrent 6.I tit.r.radiclogical waste e
6.4 F.ixec writt r
6.5 Spent fuel f.6 Transportation Decommissioning 7.3.1 T.adiation doses 7.4 7.3.2 l'aste ner.agement 7.4 7.3.3 Air quality 7.4 7.3.4 Kater quality 7.4 7.3.5 Ecologicel resources 7.4 7.3.7 Scciottenor.it ir. pacts 7.4 B-B
l PART C: CATEGORY 2 ISSUES I
i 1
C.1 DESCRlpTION OF CATEGORY 2 ISSUES The definition developed for Category 2 issues is as follows:
A generic conclusion on the potential impact has been reached in the gel $
for those plants that fit within defined bounos.
In accordance with the proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 51, each individual license renewal application must contain a demonstration that the plant and/or planned activities for license renewal are bounded by the Gels for this impact.
If such demonstration can not be made, an assessment of the impact must l
be provided.
_ Category 2 issues are tabulated in the Gels Table 10.1. Part C of this docu-ment contains sub-sections which address the review of each of these issues and references the appropriate location in the GEIS where these issues are discussed.
l C.2 GENERAL-1NSTRUCT10NS TO REVIEWERS FOR CATEGORY 2 ISSUES To review a Category 2 issue, the reviewer needs only three basic documents:
the GEIS, the applicant's environmental report, and this document, NUREG-1429.
l The GEIS describes the issues, assured boundary cor.ditions, analysis and dis-cussion and the conclusions-reached for the environmental impacts for each is-sue. =The reviewer can start with either the Gels or this document to confirm that the issue under consideration is a Category 2 issue.. Table 10.1 in the Gels Chapter 10 summarizes, by discipline, the issue and the conclusions reached-and identifies the issue category.
In this document,-Part C identifies all Category 2 issues and references the appropriate Gels section.-
1 The reviewer has some latitude in the scope of the environmental review to be perferrec and the order in which review steps are to be performed. However, the reviewer may. find the following review order to be helpful; 3.
Ey use of Part C or the GEIS confirm that the issue is a Category 2 issue.
C-1
~
. 4 2.
Obtain the boundary conditions for the issue from this document and the GEIS reference identified in each Category 2 issue section.
3.
Compare the boun6 dry conditions for the applicant's plant to the as-
~
sur.ed boundary-conditions.
If the applicant's plar.t falls within, or matches.-the Gels boundary, the reviewer obtair.s any needed informa-tion from the Gels. If not, the issue should be reviewed as an ex.
ception using the additional guidelines of Part C of this document.
s 4.
Refer to'the GEIS discussion, analysis and conclusions for the issue to obtain the required data and information needed to understand the potential environmental impacts.
5.
' Refer to the analysis procedure and evaluation sections for each is-sue in Part C of this document to ensure that the methodology for Category 2 issues is understood and;followed.
6.
Provide input to the environmental document.. Guidance is given in Part C as to the information which should be input to the environ-mental document.
I t
e l
r u
l-p l
0 L
L C-2 l
s t-
C.3 Category 21ssues C.3.1 AQUATIC ECOLOGY RESPONSIBILITIES:
Primary: PDLR Secondary:
1.
PURPO$t AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the review of the renewal applicant's assessment of the impacts of license renewal on the aquatic environment and biota at and in the vicinity of the site.
Several of the issues surrounding aquatic resources with respect to li-cense renewal have already been considered in the GEIS and are determined to be Category 1 issues. These issues are listed in Table B.1.
The scope of this reviev is limited to the effects of thermal effluents, impingement and entrainment on squatic biota.
lepingement and entrainment are cooling system intake related effects that are considered by EPA or the state water quality permitting agencies during the development of NPDES permits and Clean Water Act 316(b) deter-minations. Plantswithapproved316(b)demonstrationsarewithinthe bounds of the Gels (Section 4.2.3.1.) for this issue and the license re.
newal application need not address entrainment or impingement. Plants without approved 316(b) dmnstrations must consider both of these issues in the application.
The potential for heat shock is also a f actor in NPDES permitting. Plants rwst co.piy with state mixing zone criteria and thermal discharge limits er, if unattainable, site specific variances. These site. specific vari.
ar.ces take the form of Clean Water Act 316(a) demonstrations. Plants having approved 316(a) demonttrations are within the defined bounds of the C.)
L
~.
~
1 t
Gels (Section4.2.3.1.)andthusneednotevaluateheatshockintheir application. Plantswithoutapproved316(a)demonstrationsmustinclude an evaluation of heat shock in the application.
- 11. REQUIRED DATA AND INFORPAT10N The kind of data and information required will be affected by site. and station specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified ac.
cording to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The fol.
lowing data or information will usually be required:
A.
A descHption of the condenser cooling system.
If the condenser cooling system uses only cooling towers for heat dissipation and
-approved 316(a)and316(b)demonstrationsarenotrequired,then items B and C may be omitted.
B.
Copiesofapproved316(a)and316(b) determinations.
If these deter-minations are'available, item C may be omitted, if both of these determinations are not ovat1stle, the evaluation must be continued for the issue lacking an approved detennination.
C.
Recent Data and Information on the Site _and Vicinity
.1.
Location and value of the comercial and sport fisheries for both finfish and shellfish.
4 i
Distribution and abundance of 'important'I species of aquatic biota and identification of critical life support areas such as spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding areas, wintering areas, and migration routes.
\\.
A
~ for the purposes of these environmental reviews a species is "important" if a specific causal link can be identified between the proposed project i
i-ar.d the species and if one or more of the following criteria applies:
~
(a) the species is comercially or recreationally valuable, (b) the spe-ties is threatened or endangered (Pub. Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 864) (c) the species affects the well.being of some important species within criteria l'
(a) or (b). or (d) the species is critical to the structure and function l
of the ecological system.
L C.4 l
~,.
.m._..,
,,._,.,,__.,..-,,._,__r...
3.
Presence of endangered or threatti,ed species and their h6Litet i
i preference.
4 Estinates of the nestitude of the impact for those important sp6cies having co mtretal or recreational value that tre 6ffect.
Lt. The estimates rc.ny be expressed in tems of do116tr. lost opportunity for ittitttior.61 putsuits, percer.t reduction in her.
vest. perc(nt loss of habitat, or other appropriate quantifiers.
111.- AN4 Y515 FROCEDUP.E The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's assessmer.t of the impacts on aquatic ecology for plants using once. hrough cu lit.g syster.s.
A.
Check the sufficiency of relevant inforration provided in the ttselicar,t's ER by comtatitor, with the list of required data and in.
Terration provided in Section 11. Any missing infomation casi tt rt:,tMd thrcugh use of requests for accitier.61 infomation from the applicant.
D.
Determine whether approved 31((a) and 31C(b) demonstrations art.
recuired for the plant.
If r.ot, this issue is not applicable, tt,o the following steps may be omitted.
C.
revie>; tte epplicant's determination as to whether the conditions at sie site are bout.c'cd by the GEIS envelope, which is as follows:
l f lar.ts for which current approved 310(a) arid 31t(b) determina.
tier.s are available are bounded by the GE15.
i F it is found that the GEIS bounds the site. specific impsets, the review e' it 's u sut is setpicte and the folicwing steps may be oM ttet.
C.b
+
lua 9:
D.
Develop an understahdios of the reasons, including any cor.tentious issuts, for the unavailability of current 316(a) and 32C(L) deterr.inations ly consultir.9 the ER and the appropriate pemitting ag ent).
E.
Review tht applicants determination of the enount and effects of ir:pingement of fish and shellfish and entrainment of fish and shell-fish in early life stages. This review should be conducted in con-sultation with the El'A or state water quality permitting agencies regartingthestatusofhPDESpermitreviewsand316(b)determina-tiont. (f particular concern art effect:, or, threatened or endangered species and en rastoration efforts for anadromous fish. Cuidance ray also be found in the sections applicable to intake system impacts resulting frcr facility operations in NUREG 0555, *Environe.cntal Standerc Review Plans for the Envircnmer.tal Review of Construction Permit Applications for fluclear Power Plants,' Hay 1979.
T.
Review the applicants determination of the effects of heat shock on aquatic biota. This review should include consultation with the EFA or state wetcr c,uality permitting agencies regarding the status of 1:FLESpermitreviewsand,ifapplicable,316(a) determinations.
Guidance may also be found in the sections applicable to thert.t1 dis-charges resulting from f acility operations in liUREG-CEt5, " Environ-nental stantert. fuieu Mans fcr the Environmental Review of Construction termit Applicaticns for 1.uclear Ency Plants,' Hay 1979.
IV. EVA1.UAT10H Facilititshavingapproved316(a)and(b)determinationsarewithinthe tounds of the GELS, and no cther evaluation is necessary.
If either one of these determinations is not available, the evaluation for the unre.
sched issut stould include tre applichble standards and guidelines from the ic1*iowing:
The Pivers and barbors /.ct The Clean Water tct C-6
6
+
1 The Fish'and Kildlife Coordination Act The !!st!r.e Sanctuaries Act The Coastal 2cne I;at.agtreetit Act L
1he tud6t.t,trid !pecies Act Lt;tt toc local laws affecting watti quality tt it.t'.'r.t r fer revelopino or Revisir.g Yatar Cuality star. darts,1973, Er.vironrntntal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
- General Site Suttability Criteria for Nuclear Fower Stations' Eemorandum of Understanding Between HRC and the Army Corps of Engl.
neers, August 25,1975 Pemorandum of-Understanding Botween !!RC and EPA, December 31,1975 Guit e11res for Dredgin; ind Dredge Spoil Disposal, 40 TR 19794, Pay i
6, 1075 40 TR 41290, September 5,1975 Pithin thett guides ar.d regulations, the reviewer may find a frarticrk of those descrittite features of squetic resources judged adequate for most situations of nuclear power station license renewal.
Evaluation of identified impacts will result in one of the following detcruinations:
A.-
The f acility and/or planned activities cut to the renewal of the piant's operatint license are bounded by the GE15 for this issue.
The etaironmental impacts arc therefore bounded by the analysis in the GE15. t c furtter analysis is required.
E.
The facility avd/or planned activitics dre to the renewal of the plent's optrating license are not beented by the GEIS, at.d one of the fcaiowing eneastics is required, as applicable:
1.
The impact is small anc mitigation is not reouired. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera-tion as proposed.
C7
2.
1be' impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified and determined to be practical 6nd to which the applicant has comitted. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified nodifications cnd teccitanded mcosures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, ard provice the list to the NRC project I;anager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to srall. When impacts of this nature are it'entified, the reviewer l
should investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical. If no alternatives can be identified, the reviewn' will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC Project fianager.
V.
INPLTT TO EfP.'lRONMENTAL DOCllMENT
- A.
1rformation to be included in the environmental document should ac-corp 11sh the following objictives: 1)Publicdisclosureofpotential impacts resulting from the facility di,e to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) presentation of the art icant's derenstration l
that it'e issue is within the bounds of the GEIS or plant specific analysis;' and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
1.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a state-rent '.o that effect accompanied by a brief rationale ar.d appro-priate references to the GE15 is sufficien'..
1.
-M tie facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's cperating license are not bounded by the GEIS, addi-
~
l
-tional discussion will be required. Where impacts are smal*, i v.t.itt e.t.t to that ef fect accompar.isd b) a brief rationale dr
- ,t,f f 'r '.t nt. Where impacts are racc'etatt, but tuitigation will l
reduce the impact to sec11, a stateraent that the applicart is comitted to tieeting applicable guides and standards and to following good practices, ar.d that under these conditions CB
impacts should be small, will be sufficient. The review..
hould er s discuss tht-applicant's comitments to meet applicable Federal, 5 tate, and local star.dards, and should describe mitigating actions tt.61 should be taker. t;y the applicant.
If there are large impacts or moderate inpacts which cannot be raitigated to sr.all, such impacts tht,tli' be discussed in detail.
- f..
11.e rtviewer vill provide inputs or ensure that it. puts will bt r.aoe in the follouirg area:
The reviewer will provide a list of adverse impacts to the aquatic ecology that could be avoided or mitigated, with a list of applicant corr.itnents and staff recomendations of practices to limit the ad-verse impacts.
'd l. FEFER!!;CES 1.
- p. P. Emerson, et al.,
Ger.eral Envire, mental Guidelines for Evaluating anc f erortirg the Effects of !!uclear Power Plant Sitt trerarstion.
Plant are 1rtest.ission Facilities Construction, Prepared by Pitte.en Associates, Inc., for the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Pashington, D.C., 1974 2.
Office of Air and Water programs Processes. Procedures and Nethods to Centec1 Follution Resulting from all Construction Activity, EPA 4 0 9 73-007, Environmental Frottttien Agency, Washir.gicn, E,.C.,
1973.
Corrittee on Water Outlity (f.iteria, lietional Acadery of Sciences and 3.
ta'ionti Academy of Engineerir.9, Ecologicti Research Series, teu r (ve'.ity Criterib. '972. EPA-R3 033, 1973.
4 Envirorrentai Proter. tion Agency, inpacts of Construction Activities ir retiands of the 11.5., EPA 000/3-76-040 April 1976.
C-9
. _ _. _ _ _ _.._ _ _ _. _.~. _ _ _ _. - _ _. _.... _. _ __ _. _ _. _
b 5.
L. L. D1msted, and D. G. Cloutman, ' Repopulation Af ter a Fish Kill in Uud Creek,' Washington County, Arkansas following Pesticide Pollu-tien,' Trans. Am. Tish. Soc., vol.102, no.1, pp. 79 B7,1974 6.
W. T. Bryson, R. T. Lockey, J. Cairns, Jr., and K. L. Dickson, 'Kt.
stocking af ter Fishkills as e fisheries Managenent Strategy,'
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., vol.104, no. 2, pp. 256 263,1975.
7.
D. L. sorenson, M. H. ficCarthy, E. J. Middlebrooks, D. B. Porcella, and J. H. C6bstatter, *$uspended and Dissolved Solids Effects on Freshwater Eiota: A Review,' Environmental Protection Iger.cy, Corvallis, Oregon, April 1977.
B.
W. H. Beck, Jr... and D. J. Klemm, " Environmental Requirements and Fo11Ltion Tolerance of Common Freshwater Chironomidae,' EPA 600/4 77 CIA, Environter.tal Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Chio, April 1977.
9.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co'mmission, Environmental Standard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Permit Applications
+
fer tJuclear tower Plants. NUREG-0555 Hay 1979.
C 10
C.3.7 1[RPISTi.1AL RESOURC[$ DURING R[fURBISHM[FT tt!T0h51D1LITIES:
Prirary: p0LR Secondary:
3.
TLtr0$t At'D SCOPE The purpose of this stctit.r. is to providt suit'arece for the resics: cf the applicarit's assessrent of the impacts of licenst renewal on the terres-trial resources, i.e., important plant and animal habitats in the vicinity of the licensed facility.
The scope of this section is limited to consideration of impacts on terres.
trib) rasa rces associated with onsite refurbishment activities. If it;-
pcrttr.1 plant and anic.:.1 iabitats do occur on a plant sitt but are avoided t'uririp the course of refurbishment activitiet, tl.e iripacts are considered insignificant, ar.d to further evaluatice, is necessary.
If effects on im-porter.t plant and ar.imt) habitats cannot be avoided, er avaluation of the l
impact must be included in the application. Assessments will be conducted in sufficient detail to allow the reviewer to check the applicant's predic-tions and evaluations of potential impacts and recemendations as to how these impacts should be considered in the license renewal decision.
If 1.ecessary, the reviewer will rtcormend considerettori of measures to miti.
1;a'.t the intensity of it. pacts.
Srveral of the issues surrounding terrestrit.1 ru,t,ut tes with respect to license renemai have already been consic'tred in the GE15 and are deter-f.nnit, it, te Category 1 issues. These issucs are listed in Table B.1.
The Catcgory ? issue to be considered is environmental impacts of refur-l L utr ent on terrestrial resources. The most significant refurbishnent t ttu"y ccrisir.'ered in the Gels (Section 3.C) is expansion of on-site folid weste it-'.lities.
C-11 1
- 11. At0DIRID DATA AtiD 1Hr0RMA110N The Lir.ts cf data and information requirer vill te affected by site. and station-specific f actors, ar.d the degree of detail will be modified ac.
cording to the anticipted ragnitude of the potential impacts. The fol.
lowir.g (;sta or information will usually bc required:
1.
Identification ci ittertant p1sht and animal habitats on site or in the vicinity.
If none, ship items B and C.
B.
Identification of any construction activities that are to be under-taken involving additional onsite land use that may affect important plant and animal hatitats. If none, skip item C.
I C.
Site, Transmission Corridors, and Vicinity 1.
A map of the site and vicinity showing the area and boundaries of major wetland comunities, special habitats (e.g., spring steps, bogs, sink holes, rare or unique habitats), and any habi-tets ustd by *irportant.2 species.
2.
List of 'important* terrestrial wetlands vertebrate species known to occur, and lists of invertet. rate wetland species of
- ccal importance or concern as disease vectors or pests.
i 1
Ponds and transmission corridors which only exist for or function to support the st.bject station, the continued use or modification of which in son way af f ects wetlands ecosystems, should be included.
2 For the purposes of these environmental reviews a species is 'important" if a specific causal link can be identified between tt'e proposed project(a) and the species and if one or more of the following criteria applies:
the species is corrercially or recreationally valuable,)(b) the species is threatened or endangered (Pub. Lew 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, (c) the species l
l aHect: the ve114eing of some important species within criteria (a) or tts), or (d) the species is critical to the structure and function of tfe I
c ccicsical systera.
l l
l C.12 i
I 3.
Estimates of the relative abundance of both corrnercially and I
recreationally iraportant wetland gane and nongame vertebrates.
4.
Estimates of the magnitude of the inpact for these important species having comercial or recreational value that are affect.
ed. The estir.etts maybe expressed in terms of dollars, lost
{
opporti.nity for recreational pursuits, percent reduction in har-vest, percent loss of habitat, or other appropriate quer.tifiers, 5.
Lists of threatened or endangered wetland species that are known to occur, their site-specific habitat, and estimates of their populations.
6.
Any proposed refurbishment activities expected to impact wetland cornunities that have been defined as rare or unique or that suppcrt threatened and endangered species.
- 11. l.I'/.l.Y515 FRDCEDLT.E Rt rcviewer will perfom the folleving steps to evaluate the applicant's esscssment of impacts on terrestrial resources.
A.
Check the sufficiency of relevant infen.ation provided in the applicant's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-forcation provided in Section 11. Any missing information can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from the applicant.
B.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the conditions at the site are bounded by the GE15 envelope, which is as follows:
f lat.ts f or which no construction activities are to be undertaken ir.volving additional cnsite land usc that may affect it:portant plant and animal habitats are bounded by the CE15.
l l
C-13 1
l l
If it is found that the GIl$ bouncs the site-specific ir@ acts, the I
review of this issue is corplete and the following steps may'be emitted.
C.
The reviewer will consider the description of those important plant and animal hatitats the applicant asserts are affected by refurbish.
ment activitieti. If the applicart adequately derr.cnstrates that a*1 such habitats will be avoided such that any adverse iripacts are pre.
vented, no further reviw is nettssary.
Tha significance of any on site loss of habitat depends on the importance cf the plant or animal comunity involved. For important species havii.g cortwrcial or recreational value, the applicant will estimate the r.agni-
-tude of the impact. This may be expressed in terms of dollars, lost op-portenity for recreational pursuits, percent reduction in harvest, percent loss of habitat, or other appropriate quantifiers.
D.
The reviewer will review the applicant's analysis of the change in populations of threatened or endangeret species it.1abitirg the site and surrounding areas.
If threatened or endangered wetlands species are known to occur in the area, ari nodificationt are predicted to add to their further endangerrent, tiet toviewer will request through I;r.C management chan.
nels a
- threshold examination' by the Department of Interior. This evaluation should.be conducted in conjunction with the review of Sec-tion D.3.1,
- Threatened and Endangered Species '
E.
The reviewer will review the applicant's analysis of the it.rpact of habitat mc.cification on atter.dt.nt plant end animal populations.
3Y.--I'.A!,UAT101, in evaluating the adtquacy of the dtrcription of terrestrial resources of tte sii,e and offitic arcas, the resiewer will typically consult tht appli-ttble stant' arcs and guidelirtt:
. _ - ~.. -
l l
Regulatory Cuide 4.7,
- Genera) Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear icwcr Stations
- Tegulator) C.Lide 4.11, ' Terrestrial Erivironmental Studies for Nuclear Power Station' Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Endangered Species Act Coastal Zone Management Act Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Ingineers, U.S. Ar.
try, and the USNRC for the Regulation of Luclear Power Plants,1975 ikrerandun of Understandir g between U5tr.C cod USEPA on Responsibili-ties Under the Clean Water Act Guidelines for Dredging and Credge Spoil Disposal, 40 FR 19794,llay C, 197!: 40 TR 41292, September 5,1975 Environmental Criteria for Electric Transr.ission Systems, Departrent of Interior and Department of Agriculture tiectric Fower Transmission and the Environment, Federal Power Corrission Flood plains t'anagement Act.
l'ithir. these guides the reviewer may find a f ramework of those descriptive features of terrestrial resources judged adeQJate for enest situations of t.Lclear power station license renewals, i
%c re. wor W'.) streen c6cb predicted inpact usi g criteria appropriate to tht irrected segnent of the ecosystem, for exar.ple, loss of eere than
> %, percent o' the htbitat avLilable in the retich fcr an *tr.portant
C-10
r sptcies could be censidered of sufficient ir.portance to requid consider-ation of mitigating action. Where such mitigation of a predicted impact t
is rat;uired, the reviewer will recorrend appropriate neasures.
The following sr.ecific factors are to be included in the reviewer's evaluatior.:
A.
Loss of habitat for endangeret er threatened wetlands species should be evaluated in the cor. text of guidelines under the Endangered Species Act of 197'> in conjunction with the review of Section D.3.1,
Endangered Specie.s.'
B.
The intrusion on or destruction of terrestrial plat.t comunities that are regarded as representative of natural, undisturbed, or ren.r. ant corrnunities or that show unusual ecological or geographical distributions.
Evaluation of identified impacts will result it, one of the following detertir.ations:
A.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the pler.t's cperatir.g license are bounded by the Gels for this issue.
The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the aralysis in the GEIS. !!o further analysis is required, t,.
1te facility ar.d/or planned activitit:s due to the rertwal of the plat.t's operating license are not bounded by the GEIS, and one of the following measures is required, as applicable:
1.
The itpact is small ar.d mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer wii ecomend opera-tion et t.rupused.
O.
The impact is modcrate but can be mitigeted by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified aiid deterr.ined to Le practical ated te which the applicant has ctrritted. The reviester shtuld prepare a list of verifite modificatiur.1 afic rt cuts.nueo I.itisurt.s at.c cut, tit.h u. *drit C I
i i
the correspohding trpact, and provide'the list to the NRC Project 114ntger.
i 3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical._ If no alterna-l tives can be. identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providir.g information to the NRC Project Manager.
F Y.
ItlpVT TO ENYlp.0tMENTAl. DOCUMEf.*T I
i A.
1rfermation to be included in the environmental doeurent should ac-corplish the following objectives: 1)Fut11cdisclosureofpotential impacts resulting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operatinglicense;?)presentationoftheapplicant'sdemonstration that the issue is within the bounds of the GEIS or plant specific aralysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
I l
1.
If the facility ar.d/or planned activities due to the renewal of the piant's operating -license are bounded by the GE15, a state.
tent to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale and appro-priate references to the gel $ is sufficient,,
i 1.
If'the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the gel $. addi.
tional discussion will be required.. Where itnpacts are small, a statement to that effect accorpented by a brief rationale is sufficient. Where impacts are moderate, but mitigatior, will reduce the impact to st.all, a statement that the applicant is comitted to reeting applicatie guides tr.( stentardt ar.( te following good practices, and that under these conditions it.. pacts should be sr.all, will be sufficient. The reviewer shoLid discuss tht applicant's comiteerts to rest applicable l
federal, State, and local standards, to be practical and to which the applicar.1 has comitted. The reviewer should prepare l.
L C 17
l e list of verified modifications and and should describe mitigating actions that should be taken by the applicant.
If there are large impacts or muderate impacts which connut be mitigated to small, such impacts should be discussed in detail.
B.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made in the following areast 1.
The reviewer will recomend inclusion of descriptive material on the terrestriel ecology of the site and vicinity needed to sJp-port the analyses.
2.
The reviewer will provide a list of applicant comitments ard staff recomendations of practices to limit adverse environren-tal-iepacts of license renewal activities.
Yl. REFERENCES 1.
Office of Air and Water Programs, Processes. Procedures and Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from all Construction Activity, EPA 430-9-72-007 USEPA, Washington, D.C., 1974, 2.
M. B. Boyd, et al., Disposal of Dredge Spoil. Problem Identification and Assessment of Research Program Development. Technical Report H 72-8, U.S. Arg Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Yicksburg, Mississippi,1972.
3.
U.S. Arn Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Measures for gstruction Projects, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seat-tie, Washington, 1971.
4 Genera *1 Environmental Guidelines for Evaluating and Reporting the Ef fects of Nuclear Power Plant Site Preparation. Plant and Transmis-l sion racilities Construction, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Washing-ton, D.C. 1974 1
C-18 L
ll C.3.3 $DE10EC0HOMIES,HOU$1NGDURINGREFURBISHMENTANDREFUELING/dAINTENANEE OUTAGES RE5r0N$1BILITl!$:
Primary:
PDLR Secondary:
1.
pVRPOSE AND $EOPE The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of license renewal' applicants' assessment of the i.npacts of license renewal on hous-I ing in the site region of the licensed facility. Potential population-driven impacts to local housing during the refurbishment period, and during periodic plant refueling and maintenance outages are discussed in sections 3.7.2 and 4.7.2 of the Gels.
The scope of this section is limited to the potential for impacts to local housing (e.g., availability, cost, quality) caused by those proposed plent refurbishment and refueling / maintenance activities associated with plant license renewal in the vicinity of those plants that do not fit within the population-related parameters discussed in sections 1.7.2 and 4.7.2 of the GEI5. Housing impacts during refurbishment and refueling / maintenance outages have been classified as a Category 2 issue. Other socioeco-nomic issues that have been classified as Category 1 issues, and therefore need not be addressed further, are listed in Table 8.1 of this document.
11.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMAT]ON The particular kinds of data and information required will be affected by site and plant-specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modi-fied according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The I
The reviewer will be guided by the definition of the site region contained in Pegulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1.
For purposes of this ESRp LR it car. be assumed that the site region includes (1) the county in which the
- lant is located, and (?) those portions of surrounding counties, including cities and urbanized areas (generally up to 50 miles f rom the station site) that could potentially experience significant housing impacts.
C-19
. - ~. -
following housing-related data or information, which may be obtained from the Ep, and supplemented as necessary from appropriate federal, State, and j
local agencies, and housing related business entities, will be examined:
A.
Population density and city site data with which the staff can deter.
j mine whether the plant is situated within the bounds of population density and proximity to urben centers as defined in Section 3.7.2.3 of the gel $.
B.
Existence of growth control which limit housing development.I If the population density and city size data are within the bounds of the GEIS section 3.7.2.3 and no growth controls limits exist, then the following items may be omitted.
C.
Number, types and locations of housing units, including year-round, seasonal, second homes, eobile homes, hotel / motels and public housing units and housing characteristics such as the vacancy rates for such units, monthly median gross rentals and costs, site of units, quali-ty, etc.
\\
D.
population change and economic development that could impact vacancy rates, rental prices and potential for inflation.
E.
Location of existing and projected housing and trailer parks; current temporary worker housing patternst location, type, and value of cur.
rent housing units; and forecasted location preferences of new personnel.
F.
potential for conversion of housing units.
1 G.
The number of workers and duration of assignment for the refurbish-ment period and for periodic refueling / maintenance outages.
Growth co$trols which limit housing development typically conf.ist of I
tem;crary moratoria on residential construction or ordinances that limit the annual number of new housing by relating residential construction to the adequacy or carrying capacity of local public services.
C-20
o 111. AIALYSIS PROCEDURE J
The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's assessment of the impacts on housing during refurbishment and refueling /
maintenance outages.
A.
Check the sufficiency of relevant information provided in the applicant's IR by comparison with the list of required data and in.
formation provided in Section 11. Any missing information can be i
resolved through use of requests for additional information from the applicant.
l
- (t B.
Review the appitcant's determination as to whether the conditions at the site are bounded by the GE15 envelope. A plant is bounded by the Gels envelope if the site ist 1.
Located within 20 miles of a city of 25,000 or more persons, or l
2.
Located within 50 miles of a city of 100,000 or more persons, or 3.
satisfies any of the following population density criteriet
}60personspersquaremile(2.59squarekm)within 20 miles (32.2 km) of the site; or
- & 190 persons per square mile (2.59 square km) within-50 miles (80.5 km) of the site; or
- 2 40 persons per square mile (2.59 square km) within 20 miles (32.2km)ofthesiteand/$0personsper square mile (2.59 square kn) within 50 miles (80.5 km).
4 And, is not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect.
C 21 m
. a.........
~._:--__,_.__._.._._....__.._..-___....___.._.._
If it is found that the Gels bounds the site specific impa:ts, the review of this issue is complete and the following steps may be omitted.
C.
The reviewer will proceed to verify the additional data submitted by the applicant. The reviewer will next conduct an initial screening of housing chsrecteristics in the region of the site to make a pre.
liminary detemination of potentially affected subregions and communities. At least the following factors should be considered forecasted location preferences of new personnel forecasted nurser of personnel and duration of assignment during plant refurbishment maintenance outages location of existing and projected housing rental markets in region transporation accessibility number and types of housing units locally enacted measures that limit housing development D.
The reviewer will next describe impacted areas of the region, if any, and the associated communities and predict the extent and magnitude of such impacts in terms of availability, inflation, changes in housing stock, accessibility to resident population, and length of impact during the post refurbishment and refueling / maintenance outages. Where the effect on housing is expected to be mi.
nor, impacts may be described in qualitative terms. Where adverse inpacts(i.e.,impactsthatshould'bemitigatedoravoided)canbe predicted, the reviewer will conduct a more detailed analysis and will, where practical, make quantitative estimates of the magnitude.
of the impacts.
C.22
^
L.
The review will identify the applicant's comitments to initigate housing impacts if any such comitments have been made.
1Y. IVALVATION Evalu n ion of identified impacts will result in one of the following determinations:
A.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the Gil5 for this issue.
The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the analysis in the Gt15. No further analysis is required.
4 B.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the GE!S, and one of the following measures is required, as applicable:
1.
The impact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera.
tion as proposed.
2.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified and determined to be practical and to which the applicant has comitted. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project Manager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the iripact that could be considered practical. If no alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing information to the NRC Project Manager.
C 23
~.
Y.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL. DOCUMENT i
i A.
Information to be included in the environmental document should ac-complish the following objectives: 1)Publicdisclosureof potential impacts resulting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operating license 2) presentation of the applicant's demonstration that the issue is within the bounds of the Gels or plant specific analysis and3)presentationofstaffanalysisand conclusions.
1.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a state.
ment to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale and appro-priate references to the GE15 is sufficient.
2.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the Gels, addi-tional discussion wil1 be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale is sufficient. Where impacts are moderate, but mitigation will reduce the igpact to small, a statement that the applicant is comitted to' meeting applicable guides and standards and to fo110 wing 4 goc ld practices, and that under these conditions impacts st wTd be small, will be sufficient. The reviewer should discNs the applicant's comitments to meet applicable Tederal, State, and local standards, and should describe mitigating actions that should be taken by the applicant. If there are large impacts or moderate impact 6 which cannot be l
mitigated to small, such impacts should be discussed in detail.
l E.
The reviewer will provide _ inputs or ensure inputs will be made in the following areas:
1 1.
The scope of coverage and the objectives of the analysis.
2.
The steps taken in the staff analysis and reference to methodo1-l ogies employed.
C-24
I l
~~
3.
The findings regarding housing impacts during the re'fGrbish.
ment, and refueling / maintenance outages periods. The level of detail provided will be related to the severity of the antici.
pated impact.
I 4
Identification and assessment of potential mitigation measures.
.l t
-V1.
REFERENCES l
.l.
Branch, Kristi. Douglas A. Pooper, James Thompson, and James Creighter.. 1984 Guide to Social Assessment: A Framework for Assessing Social Change.
Social Impact Assessment Series, No.11. Boulder, C01 Westview i
Press.
f 2.
rinsterbusch,kurt,_andC._P. Wolf (Eds.). 1981. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. Second Edition. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchin.
son Ross Publishing Co.
4
-3.
Leistritz, F. Larry, and Steve H. Murdock. 1981. The Socioeconomic 1rpact of Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Boulder, 00: Westview Press.
C.25
+
C.3.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND USE C.3.4.1 GROUNDWATER USE DURING OPERATION RESPON$1BILITIES:
i Primary: PDLR Secondary
}
1.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the l
applicant's identification and assessment of the environmental impacts of groundwater withdrawal and use during the license renewal period. The i
issues to be addressed by the applicant are identified fr the CEls for license renewal.
The scope of this section is limited to consideration of the Category 2 hydrological issue concernin; g' oundwater use conflicts during operation, r
includingoperationaldewatering(GElsSections 4.2.2.1.1, 4.2.2.1.2, and 4.2.2.1.4).
A number of hydrological issues (surface water and groundwater) are ad-dressed and resolved in the GE15 for license renewal. These issues have been determined to be Category 1 issues and are listed in Table B.1.
- 11. F.E001 RED DATA AND INFORMATION The following types of data and information will generally be required to assess the presence and magnitude of groundwater use conflicts during operation:
A.
Identification of any-operational groundwater uses or operational dewateringactivities(fromtheER).
If none, skip items B through F.
C.26
~
B.
Locations of onsite wells, depths of wells, and operational pumping capacitiesanddurations(fromtheER).
If pumping rates are less than 300 gpm an( Ranney wells are not used, skip items C through F.
C.
Descriptiens of groundwater aquifers under the site, including char.
acteristics needed to determine the size of cones of depression asso.
cistedwithonsitewells(fromtheER).
I D.
Determination of sizes of cones of depression associated with onsite wells (fromtheER).
E.
Locations of any offsite wells (existing and known future) within the cones of depression of onsite wells, and the depths, pumping capact.
ties, and water needs for such wells (from the ER). If no such off.
site wells are identified, skip item F.
I F.
Any mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to avoid or mini.
mizeanygroundwateruseimpacts(fromtheER).
The following standards and guides have been identified as applicables State water laws and water rights Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act.
111. At;AtYSIS DROCEDURE The reviewer may perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's i
essessment of groundwater use conflicts during operation, including opers.
tional dewatering.
l l
A.-
Check the sufficiency of relevant information provided in the l
applicant's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-formation provided in Section 11. Any missing information can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from the applicant.
C 21
,-,_...,..,..,..-r,
,---.py.-
-y
._w,w,,w,~.,r,+,
,.,.w,-,,,,-_m-,.,,,
..,,4
,,,~_,__,,,y.
. -~-,._ _..
m
~
,,w,.-
y-,.,---
. _ _ _ _ _ _. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
o B.
Detert it whether groundwater is used at the plant or dewatering op.
ersti,4s are conducted during plant operation.
If not, this issue is-not applicable to the plant, and the following steps may be omitted.
C.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the conditions at the site are bounded by the gel $ envelope, which is as follows:
Plants which do not use Renney wells and either do not pump 100 or more gallons per minute of ground water or do not have private wells located within the cones of depression of the plant wells are bounded by the Gels.
If it is found that the GEIS bounds the site specific impacts, the review of the issue is complete and the following steps may be omitted.
D.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether operational gro;:ttuater uts o* deutering activities will ir:t set :f' site t'ont-waterusers(currentandknownfutureusers). This determination i
should be based on the amount of water withdrawn on site, the re-charge capabilities of the aquifer, locations and elevations of off.
site wells, and water needs of other water users. If it is established that offsite groundwater users are nov substantially af.
fected, the analysis may be considered complete and the following step may be.omitted.
E.
Review mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to avoid or mit-igate anticipated impacts. Estimate the effectiveness of such mes.
sures.
If protection against anticipated impacts is determined to be insufficient or unacceptable, develop staff positions on measures which would be considered acceptable.
In conducting the review, the reviewer may also need to consult with ap.
propriate local, State, and Federal agencies to detereine currently appli-cable regulations and guides, and to assure that the applicant has made commitments to comply with applicable regulations and guides. To the f
I C*I6
extent practicable, contacts with outside agencies should be coordinated with the FDLR to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
j IV. EVALUATION Evaluation of identified impacts will result in one of the following determinations:
A.
The f acility indlar planned activities due to the renewal of the i
plant's operating license are bounded by the Gtl$ for this issue.
J The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the anslysis in the Gtl5. No further analysis is required.
t E.
The f acility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the 1
plant's operating license are not bounded by the Gtl5, and one of the following measures is required as applicable:
5
.1.
The impact $$ small ac.J t.itigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera-tion as proposed.
2.
The impact it moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural endifiestions that the applicant has identified and detemined to be practical and to which the applicant has comitted. The reviewer should prepere 4. list of verified modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project
- flanager, 3.
The impact is large or sederate and cannot be mitigated to sina l). When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer ghould investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impac' that could be considered practical. If no alterr,atives can he identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC Project Manager.
C-29
Y, 1NPUT 10 (NVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT t
Information to be included in the environmental document should accomplish the following objectives:
- 1) Public disclosure of potential impacts resul-ting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) presentation of the applicant's demonstration that the issue is within the bounds of the Gels or plant specific analysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
A.
If the fact 11ty and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a statement to that effect accompanieri by a brief rationale and appropriate re.
ferences to the GE15 is sufficient.
B.
.lf the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the
-plant's operating license are not bounded by the GE!S, additional i
discussion will be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale is sufficient.
Where impacts are moderate', but mitigation will reduce the impact to small, a statement that the applicant is comitted to meeting applicable guides and standards and to following good practices, and that under these conditions impacts should be small, will be sufficient. The reviewer should discuss the applicant's comitments to meet applicable Federal, $ tate, and local standards, and should describe mitigating actions that should be taken by the applicant.
If there are large impacts or moderate impacts which cannot be initigated to small, such impacts should be discussed in detail.
Yl. F.[FCRENCES 1.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for ticense Renewal _ (GEIS.LR)
(cate and report number TBD) l' 7
Regulatory Guide (TBD), " Environmental Report for License Renewal"
\\
l l
C.3D l
l L...
4 C.3.4.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY, DEGRADATION DURING OPERATION, COOLING FOND SITES RESPONSIBILITIES:-
Primary: FDLR Secondary:
3.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the applicant's identification and assessment of the impacts of groundwater degradation resJ1 ting from seepage of Cooling pond water. The issues to be addressed by the applicant are identified in the GE15 for licensa r sewal.
The scope of.the review directed by this plan is limited to consideration of the Category 2 hydrological issue concerning groundwater quality degra.
dation during operation at sites using closed-cycle cooling ponds (GEIS Section4.4.3). The primary concern here is the potential degradation of groundwater as a result of seepage of cooling pond water into underground aquifers.
II. REQUIRED DATA APD INFORMATION The following types of data and information will generally be required to assess the potential for groundwater s ality degradation resulting from seepage of cooling pond water during operation for sites with cooling ponds.
A.
The use of closed cycle cooling ponds. If such a pond is not used, skip itens B through H.
P.
The location of the plant. If the plant site is not located inland, sk'p items C through H.
C-31
1 I
i C.
Coolingpondcharacteristics(e.g.,useofliners,useofimpermeable materiels,impermeablenaturalsoils)thatwouldpreventinfiltration intolocalaquifers(fromtheER).
D.
Types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water, and chemistry of soils along pathweys to local aquifers (from the ER).
E.
Characteristics including quality of water of local aquifers that could be affected by infiltration of cooling pond water (from the ER).
F.
Federal, State and local groundwater quality requirements, with em-phasis en any changes to these requirements which may have occurred during the plant's operational period (from the ER and consultations with appropriate governmental agencies).
G.
Identification and characterization of all offsite groundwater users who could be ir.pacted by degradation of aquifers (from the ER).
H.
Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to avoid or mini-mize-anygroundwaterdegradationimpacts(fromtheER).
The following standards and guides have been_ identified as applicable:
State water laws and water rights River Basin Comission guidelines and regulations Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act.
Ill. AhALY515 PROCEDURE The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's assessment of groundwater quality degradation during operation for sites using closed-cycle cooling ponds.
C-32
m _.. _. __ _._ _ _,~.
A.
Check the sufficiency of relevant inforntion provided in the applicant's ER by comparison with_the list of required data and in-formation provided in Section 11. Any missing information-can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from the applicant.
B.
- Determine whether a closed-cycle cooling pond is used at the plant.
If not, this issue is not applicable, and the following steps may be omitted.
C.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the conditions at the site are bounded by the GEIS envelope, which is as follows:
Plants located at sites surrounded by salt marshes are bounded by the GEIS (from GEIS Section 4.4.3).
If it is found that the Gels bounds the site-specific impacts, the review of the issue is complete and the following steps may be omitted.
D.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether contamination of groundwater from the cooling pond (s) is feasible. This determination should be based primarily on the concentration of contaminants in the cooling pond water and characteristics of intervening soils and rock.
If contamination of groundwater is determined to be highly unlikely, the analysis may be considered complete and the following steps any be omitted.
L L
in performing this and the following assessments, give significant
!L consideration to actual experience of the station over the past 20 or more years of operation. Data based on operational experience is considered more reliable than data based on predictions.
E.
Review the applicant's assessment of the types and magnitudes of con-l' tamination introduced into the aquifer. Estimated contaminetton lev-els should be compared with Federal and State groundwater quality C-33 l
s V; q
. standards"and with water quality requirements of other potentially affected groundwater users.
If Federal and State standards arc met, and other groundwater users are not impacted,'the analysis is consi-dered complete and the following step may be omitted..
4 F.
Review mitigation measures proposed by the_ applicant to avoid or mit-igate anticipated' impacts. Estimate the effectiveness of such mee.
sures. If protection against anticipated impacts is determined to be insufficient or unacceptable, develop staff positiot.; on measures which 'would be~ considered acceptable.
-In conducting the review -the reviewer may also need to consult with ap-
-propriate local, State, and Federal agencies to deterr be currently appli-cable. regulations, and to assure that the applicant ha wude comitments to comply _with applicable regulations. To the extent practicable, con-tacts with outside agencies should be coordinated with the PD!.R to avoid-unnecessary duplication of effort.
IV. EVALUATION Evaluation of identified impacts will result in one of the following determinations:
J A.-
The' facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal-of the
. plant's operating license are bounded by the GE15 for this issue.
-The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the analysis in the Gels. No further enalysis is required.
B.-
The facility and/or planned: activities-due to the renewal.of the
_ plant's operating license _are not bounded by the GEIS, and one of the fofiowing measures is required, as applicable:
- 1..
The _ impact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera-tion as_ proposed.
C-34 1
--+
r-
t o
2.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified and determined to be practical and to which the applicant has comitted. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project ttanager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small. When impacts of triis nature are identified, the reviewer should investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical.
If no alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC project Manager.
V.
1NPUT TO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1r.forration to be included in the environmental document should accomplish the following objectives: 1)Publicdisclosureofpotentialimpactsresul-ting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) presentation of the applicant's demonstration that the issue is within the bounds of the Gels or plant specific analysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
A.
If.the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the Gels, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationa r and appropriate re-ferences to the Gels is sufficient.
B.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the l
plant's operating license are not bounded by the GEIS, additional discussion will be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale is sufficient. Where inpacts are moderate, but mitigation will reduce the impact to small.
a statement that the applicant is comitted to meeting applicable
(
guides and standards and to following good practices, and that under these conditions impacts should be small, will be sufficient. The C-35 l
l
reviewer should discuss the applicant's connitments to. meet app 11 t
cable Federal,-State, and local standards, and should describe tiiti-gating actions that should be taken by the applicant. If there are large inpacts.or ecderate-impacts which cannot be mitigated to
-small,'such impacts should be discussed in detail.
VI. REFERENCES 4
1.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS)
(date and report number TBD).
2.
Regulatory Guide (TBD), ' Environmental Report for License Renewal."
3.
NUREG-0555..' Environmental Standard Review Plans for the Environmental Review of Construction Permits Applications for fluelear Power Plants' l-i 1
i l
C-36 i
' i C.3.5 PUBLIC HEALTH C.3.5.1 PUBLIC HEALTH. THERtt0PHIL1C HICR00RGANISMS RESPONSIBILITIES:
-Primary: PDLR Secondary:
1.-
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the appli-cant's_evaluationofthepresenceofthermophilicmicroorganisms(e.g.,
Salmonella sp., Shigella sp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa Legionella sp.,
Naegleria -Acanthamoeba and thermophlic fungi), which have'the potential for deleterious impacts on public health.
The scope of this section includes those plants using a cooling pond.
3 1ake,orcanal,ordischargingtosmallrivers(averageflow<2830m/s).
l Gels.Section 4.3.6 discusses this issue.
- 11. REQUIRED DATA At(D INFORMATION Data and'information required for the evaluation of the existence, and potential for deleterious impacts, of thermophilic microorganisms include
- the-f ollowing: -
l A.
Whether the plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal, or once-through cooling systems with discharge to a small river (flow rate less than 2E30 m /s).
If not, omit items B through E.
l E.
Available information on the occurrence of these pathogens, and-l factors germane to their presence in aquatic environs, which are pctentially effected by plant operation.
C-37 L
o c
C.
Temperature regimes if aquatic environs receiving enhance hemal additions.
D.
Information on the level of concentrations of these organisms which is considered hazardous to public health. Note: 05PA or other
-legal standards for exposure to microorganisms do not exist at present.
E.
Information on potential control measures.
F.
Information on discussions with state health officials related to concerns with thermophilic microorganisms associated with the plant operation.
-III.: AKALYSIS PROCEDURE-The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's assessment of impact of thermophilic microorganism.
A.-
Check the sufficiency of relevant information provided in the applicent's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-formation provided in Section II. Any missing.information can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from the applicant.
B.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the conditions at the. site.are bounded by the Gels envelope, which is as follows:
Flants which do not use a. cooling pond, lake, or canal, or. dis-3
. charge into a small river (average flow <2830 m /s) are bounded by the Gels..
If it is founc that the GEIS bounds the site-specifi_c impacts, the review of this issue is complete and the following steps may be l
cmitted.
C-38
.o s
i C.
The reviewer should be aware of the results of analyses made for the presence of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms in the aquatic environment surrounding the plant. These include the enteric pathogens Salmonella sp. and-Shigella sp. as well as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and thermophilic fungi.
In addition, analyses for the presence of unusual-ly high concentrations of the normally present Legionella sp. (Legion.
naires'sdiseasebacteria)andthefree-livingamoebaeofthegenera Naegleria and Acantharceba should be known, r.
The reviewer should be aware of any concerns state health officials have related to thennophilic microorganisms associated with the plant operation.
1Y. EVAtut.TIch Evaluation of identified impacts will result in one of the following determinations:
A.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the Gels for this issue.
The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the analysis in the Gels. No further analysis is required.
B.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the GE!$ and one of the following measures is required, as applicable:
1.
The impact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera-tion as proposed.
2.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified and determined to be practical and to which the applicant has committed. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified L 39
o modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project Itanager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small.
k' hen impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer investigate design-or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical.
If no alterna-tives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing information to the NRC Project Manager.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A.
Information to be included in the environmental dccument should accomplish the following objectives: 1) Public disclosure of potential impacts resul-ting from the faatlity due to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) ptesentation of the applicant's demonstration that the issue is within the bounds of the Gels or plant specific analysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
1.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the piant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a state-ment-to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale and appro-priate references to the GEIS is sufficient.
2.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the Gels, addi-tional discussion will be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale is sufficient. Where impacts are moderate, but mitigation will reduce the impact to small, a staternent that the applicant is comitted to reeting applicable guides and standards and to following good practices, and that under these conditions impacts should be small, will be sufficient. The reviewer C-40
o.
t should discuss the applicant's commitments to meet applicable Federal, State,-and local standards, and should describe mitigating actions that st.culd be taken by the_ applicant.
If there are large impacts or moderate impacts which cannot be mitigated to srall,-such impacts should be discussed in detail.
Y1. REFERENCES 1.
Tyndall, R.L., Kuhl, G., and Beeltheld, J., " Chlorination as an Ef-fective Treatment for Controlling Pathogenic Naegleria in Cooling Water of an Electric Power Plant,' in Water Chlorination, Vol. 4, Book 2,1097-1103,1983.
C-41
)C.3.5.2:FUBLIC-HEALTH,ELECTRICSHOCK RESPONSIBILITIES:-
Primary: PDLR Secondary:
.I.
PURPOSE ~AND SCOPE-The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the applicant's of the environmental impacts of electric shock from voltages
-induced in objects near operating high voltage transmission lines (HVTLs).
The scope 'of this section includes only those portions of the NYTLs that conne'ct the plant with the regional' electric transmission grid. The scope also includes only acute shock effects. Other HVTL issues, including the issue of chronic health effects from HVTL electric and magnetic fields, ere treated as Category 1 issues in the GEIS in Section 4.5 (see Part B of thisdocument.)-
II. REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION L
Data and jnformation required for evaluation of the-existence of, or po-tential-for, electric shock from NYTLs include the following:
A.
A demonstration that the HVTLs meet the National Electric Safety l
Code.
If_this demonstration can-be made, the following information can be omitted.
B.
f.ational Electric Safety. Code (current edition) and applicable state standards.
C.
HvTL electrical design and operating paraneters including operating voltage, operating current, line capacity, conductor type, conductor configuration and spacing, conductor clearances, and electric and magnetic fields at the center and edge of the right of way.
C-42
~. - - -.
T.
D.
Complaints to-the applicant and to the relevant regulatory authority concerning electric shock from objects near HYTLs.
E.
Descriptions,_ including photos and maps, of large or linear metal objects near FYTLS, including buildings, fences, railroad tracks, and irrigation pipes.
.F.
_ Grounding procedures for stationary objects along the rights-of-way.
G.
Changes since initial. licensing including operating voltage changes and nearby land-use changes.
H.
Potential for electric shock from large vehicles stopped unter the HVTL.
111. ANALYSIS pKOCEDURE The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's assessment.of-the potential impact of electric shock from high voltage transmission lines.
l A.- - Check the sufficiency of relevant-information provided in the applicant's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-formation provided in Section 11. Any missing information can be L
resolved through use of requests for additier.a1 information from the
. applicant.
D.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the conditions st the site are bounded by the GEIS envelope, which is as follows:
Plants with_ high voltage transmission lines that meet the Na-
-tional Electric Safety Code recomendations concerning the prevention of electric shock from induced currents are bounded by the GE!S.
C-43 i
O If it is found thet the Gels bounds the site specific impacts, the review of this issue is complete and the following steps may be omitted.
1Y. EVAL.UATION Evaluation of identi'ied impacts will result in one of the following determinations:
A.
The f acility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the Gels for this issue.
The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the taalysis in the GEIS. tio further nalysis is required.
B.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewai ef the plant's operating license are not bounded by the Gels, and one of the following measures is required, as applicable:
1.
The impact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewar will recomend opera-tion as proposed.
2.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modificaticns that the applicant has identified and detereined to be practical and to wl.ich the opp 11 cant has comitted. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and recorrnended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project Manager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical.
If no alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC Project Manager.
C-44
m.
_-_._m
- V.
1NPUT.T0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Information to be included in the environmental document should accomplish the following objectives: 1)Publicdisclosureofpotentialimpactsresul-ting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) presentation of_the applicant's demonstration that the issue is within the bounds of the GE15 or plant specific analysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
A.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renawal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a statement to that_effect accompanied by a brief rationale and appropriate refer-entes to the GEIS is sufficient.
B.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the GEIS, additional discussion will be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a_brief rationale is sufficient.
Where impacts are moderate' but mitigation will reduce the impact to small, a statement that the applicant is comitted to meeting applicable guides and standards and to following good practices, and that under these conditions impacts should be small, will be sufficient. The reviewer should discuss the applicant's comitments to r.eet applicable Federal, State, and local standards, and should describe mitigating actions that should be taken by the applicant.
If there are large ' impacts ~or moderate impacts which cannot be mitigated to small, such impacts should be discussed in detail.
VI. -REFERENCES 1.
National Electric Safety Code, current edition.
2.
Transmission Line Reference Book 345 kV and Above, 'The Red tiook,'
Electric Research Council and Electric Power Research Institute, 1975.
C-45
'C.3.6' 50L10' WASTE MANAGEMENT
~RESPONS1BILITIES:
Primary: PDLR Secondary:
1.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the review of the applicant's assessment of solid radioactive waste management systems in order to determine the impact of storing these wastes and to determine compliance with applicable standards. The applicant's assessment should identify anticipated volumes of waste generated and describe the waste storage systems to be employed.
Tbc scope of this section includes consideration of long-term onsite stor-age of low-level radioactive waste when permanent offsite disposal is not available and how this increased storage affects the surrounding environ-ment. Several of the issues surrounding solid waste management have been considered in the Gels and are determined to be Category 1 issues. These issues are listed ia Table B.I.
The scope of the review found'in this section is limited to consideration of the Category 2. issue concerning long-term onsite storage of routine and refurbishment radioactive waste. Off-site disposal facilities are planned to handle refurbishment and normal operations waste streams from an addi-tional 20 years.past the original licensed operating period. However, if these sites are not available, plants in affected Compact regions or Un-affiliated states must plan for extended interim storage for an indefinite period of time. This review should consider the environmental impacts of
'such extended interim storage.
C-46
_. _ __ _~ _._. _...
1/
~ o l
l 11.
RECU1 RED DATA AND INFORMATION The Linds of data and information required will be affected by site and station specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified ac-cording to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The fol-lowing data or information will usually be required:
/..
A demonstration that the plant will have access to a low-level radio-active waste dispose 9 facility. If such a demonstration is provided, the following items may be omitted.
B.
Descriptionofthesystems(bothtemporaryandpermanent)tobepro-vided(constructed).
' C.
Anticipated quantity and characteristics of the wastes.
D.
Ultimate disposal of treated waste materiais.
.E.
Tederal, State and regional standards and regulations for storage of radioactive wastes T.
Applicable memoranda of understanding between State governments and NRC.
311. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
.The reviewer will perform the following steps-to evaluate the applicant's assessnent of the impacts of solid radioactive waste management.
A.
Check the sufficiency of relevant information provided in the applicant's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-formation provided in Section 11. Any missing information can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from the
]
app 19 cant.
i C-47
o B.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the ciriditions at t
the site are bounded by the Gels envelope, which is as follows:
Plants which will have access to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility are bounded by the GE15.
If it is found that the GEIS bounds the site-specific impacts, the review of this issue is complete and the following steps may be omitted.
C.
The reviewer should consider the potential for short-and long-term dam-age to terrestrial ecosystems, especially for sovement of toxic mate-rials to groundwater, and transfer into food chains. As necessary, the reviewer will review the applicant's analysis of all effluents and will assess the applicant's compliance with applicable Federal and State quality criteria.
D.
Procedures for waste handling may also be analyzed. Proposed waste systems may be compared with other standard designs to determine the adequacy of the system for protecting the environment.
IV. EVALUATION The reviewer will confirm that all potential impacts resulting from opera-tion of waste systems have been addressed in this review or by other reviewers.
Evalt ation of identified impacts will result in one of the following detereinations:
A.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the GE!! for this issue.
The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the analysis in the GEIS. 1;o further analysis is required.
L l
C-46
0.
4 B.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plan't's operating license are not bounded by the GE15, and one of the following messe es is required, as applicable:
1.
The impact is small and mitig6 tion is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera-tion as proposed.
2.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified and determined to be practical and to which the applicant has comitted. The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project Manager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should investigate des'ign or procedural modifications that would atoid the impact that could be considered practical. If ne alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC Project Manager.
l V.
1NPUT TO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION l
i A.
Information to be included in the environmental document should ac-conplish the following objectives: 1) Public disclosure of potential impacts resulting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) presentation of the applicant's demonstration that the issue is within the bounds of-the GE15 or plant specific analysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
3.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of I
the plant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a state-nent to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale and appro.
priate references to the GE15 is sufficient.
C-49
,,e,
..n
~
2.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the GEIS, addi-tional discussion will be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale is sufficient. Where impacts are moderate, but mitigation will reduce the impact to small, a statement that the applicant is comitted to meeting applicable guides and standards and to following good practices, and that under these conditions impacts should be small, will be sufficient. The reviewer should discuss the applicant's comitments to meet applicable Federal, State, and local standards, and should describe mitigating actions that should be taken by the applicant. If there are large impacts or moderate impacts which cannot be mitigated to small, such impacts should be discussed in detail.
F.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made in the following areas:
1.
The reviewer should provide a discussion of adverse impacts to ecosystems or to land use resulting from the storage of waste for an indefinite period.
2.
The reviewer should provide a list of epplicant comitments and staff recomendations of practices to limit adverse environmen-tal impacts of operational activities.
3.
The reviewer should provide a discussion of any deficiencies in operational monitoring programs that should be corrected by ad-ditional monitoring provisions.
Y1. F.EFEF EtiCES tiene.
C-50 1
0 C.3.7 SURFACE WATER QUALITY DURING RETURBISHMENT Rest 0NSIBILITIES:-
Primary: PDLR-Secondary:
1..
~ PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the review of the applicant's program to minimize impacts on surface water during refur-bishment activities.
The scope of this section is limited to plants that will be conducting construction activities, for example, to create or expand onsite storage capability for spent fuel and/or low level radioactive wastes generated during the license renewal period. The scope is further-limited to the construction activities themselves and the time period during which the construction is accomplished. This is a Category 2-issue as discussed in
.GEIS Section 3.4.1.
Internal plant refurbishment activities are not in -
cluded in the scope of this section.
II. REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The following data or information will usually be required:
A.
A determination as to whether major construction activities (e.g.,
- the construction of onsite spent fuel and low level radioactive waste storage facilities) will be needed as part of license renewal.
If not, the fol. lowing items may be omitted.
C-51
B.
A brief description of the facilities to be provided or expanded and the associated construction activities.
C.-
A description of the applicant's program to mitigate potential im-pacts associated with the proposed construction activities.
The following regulation has been identified as applicable to-this issue:
Clean Water Act III. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluite the applicant's assessment of the impact of construction activities ca surfa.e water quality.
A.-
Check the sufficiency of relevant information provided in the -
epplicant's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-formation provided in Section !!. Any missing information can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from-the applicant.
B.
Review the applicant's determination as to whether the conditions at
--the site are bounded by the GEIS envelope, which is as follows:
Plants for which no major construction activities associated with license renewal will occur are bounded by the GEIS.
If it is found that the Gels bounds the site-specific impacts, the review of this issue-1: complete and the following steps may be omitted.
C.
The reviewer should review the applicant's proposed construction ac-tivities and proposed reasures to mitigate any potential impacts on surfa:e water in the vicinity of the Tite. Generally, it would be expected that the applicant would comply with the requirements of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (these often referred to as *best C-52
's i
inanagement practices"). The Gels contains an analysis of the environ-mental impacts applicable to plants which comply with these require-ments. The reviewer should refer to Gels section 3.4.1 for this analysis.
D.
If the applicant has not comitted to best management practices, the reviewer should perform an impact assessment in accordance with the guidance set forth in NUREG-0555.
IV. IVAl.UATION Evaluation of identified impacts will result in one of the following dettriainations:
A.
The facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the Gels for this issue.
The environmental impacts are therefore bounded by the analysis in the Gels. No further analysis is required.
B.
The facility and/or pisnned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not bounded by the GE13, and one of the following measures is required, as applicable:
1.
The impact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend opera-tien as proposed.
2.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific design or procedural modifications that the applicant has identified and determined to be practical _ and to which the applicant has comitted.
The reviewer should prepare a list of verified modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact, and provide the list to the NRC Project Manager.
3.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small. When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer C-53
s-should investigate design or procedural modifications that'would avoid _the impact that could be considered practical.
If no-alternatives can be _ identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC Project Manager.-
Y._
INPLIT: TO ENVIRONMEtlTAL DOCUMENT Information to be included in the environmental document should accomplish the following objectives: 1)Publicdisclosureofpotentialimpactsresul-ting from the facility due to renewal of the plant's operating license; 2) presentation of the applicant's demonstration that the issue is withi., the bounds of the Gels or plant specific analysis; and 3) presentation of staff analysis and conclusions.
A.
If the facility and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are bounded by the GEIS, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale and appropriate refer-ences to the GE15'is sufficient.
B.
If the facility.and/or planned activities due to the renewal of the plant's operating license are not-bounded by the 6t!$ addi+%nal 2
' discussion will be required. Where impacts are small, a statement to that effect accompanied by a brief rationale-is sufficient.
Where impacts are moderate, but mitigation will reduce the impact to_
small,i a-statement' that the applicant is-comitted to meeting-applicable guides and standards and to following good practices, and that under-these conditions impacts should be amall, will be sufficient. The reviewer should discuss the-applicant's comitments to meet applica-
--_ble Federal,_ State, and local standards, and-should describe miti-gating actions that should be taken by the applicant. If there are large impacts or moderate impacts which cannot be mitigated to small, such impacts should be discussed in detail.
- 31. REFEPENCES tPJREG-0555, " Environmental Standard Review Plan" C-54
o C.3.B E0liSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES RESPONSIBILITIES:
- Primary: PDLR Secondary:
2.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the applicant's assessment of the cost impact of reasonable replacement op.
tions for retired nuclear capacity.
The scope of this section is limited to consideration of reasonable alter-natives to renewing a nuclear power plant's operating license. A cost analysis is generally required for only the most reasonable replacement alternative.
- 31. REQUIRED DATA AND ]NFORMATION The following data and infonnation are generally required.
A.
A determination as to whether a new nuclear plant, or fossil has a cost advantage over the plant license renewal. If there is not a cost advantage, the following items may be omitted.
B.
If the threshold criteria included in GEIS Appendix H cannot be met, an analysis of those alternatives that have been determined in the GEIS to be reasonable.
311. Al.ADSIS FROCEDURE The reviewer will perform the following steps to evaluate the applicant's essessnent of alternatives.
C-55 l
=
A.
Check the sufficiency of relevant information provided in the applicant's ER by comparison with the list of required data and in-i formation provided in Section 11. Any missing information can be resolved through use of requests for additional information from the applicant, B.
. Review the applicant's determination as to whether the cost of alter-natives is bounded by the GEIS envelope, which is as follows:
Flants for which the replacement of equivalent generating capa-city by either a new nuclear, or a coal or fossil plant has no cost advantage over license renewal are bounded by the GEIS.
If it is found that the GEIS bounds the alternatives cost analysis, the review of this issue is complete and the following steps may be omitted.
C.
The reviewer should review the applicant's cost analysis for the most reasonable alternative to renewal of the plant license. This review consists of three elements: identification of the most reasonable alternative, estimating the costs associated with implementing the-alternative, and comparison with pro.jected costs associated with con-tinued plant operation during the license renewal period..!f the determination in item (A), above, indicates that geothermal, hydropower, or bioanss-are available alternatives in the applicant's service area, these alternatives must be considered. Chapter 9 of the GEIS provides useful information as to the types of alternatives that are considered reasonable and those that are not.
IV. EVALUATIO!!
Evaluation of required cost analyses will result in one of the following determinations:
A.
The plant is bounded by the GEIS.
C-56 l
k L-
-B.
Thefthreshold' criteria provided in GEIS Appendix H are not met and a detailed cost analysis of the west reasonable alternative source of baseload electricity generation has shwn plant-license renewal to be the'most cest.e Mett'Ive option.
~V.
. INPUT TO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCtHEtlT information to be includ6d in the environnsntal document thovid actor.plish the following_ objectives: 1) Publir, disclosure of potential impacts resul-tingfromthefacilitydueto.'rentwk1oftheplant'soperatinglicense;t) l presentation of the applicant's demonstration that the' issue is within the bounds 'of the Gels or piant specific analysisi-and 3) presentation of
'etaff analysis-and conclusions.
A.
If the plant meets the threshold criteria from GEIS Appendix H, the reviewer should state that the plant's cost analysis is bounded by the Gels, along with a brief rationale as to h n-the criteria tre met and appropriate references to the GE!5.
B.
1f the threshold criteria are not met, the reviewtr should provide a discussion of how the-most reasonable alternative was identified,_how the presence or absence of geothermal, hydropower. and bior. ass alter-l natives was determined, and the results of the cost analyses includ.
l
.ing comparison with the costs cf extended operation of the existing
- plant for the license renewal period.
j
-VI.-
REFERENCES-l hone.
? !
l I-
~
C-57
~
v x
i
(
)
PART D.
CATEGORY 3 ISSUES S
D.1 DESCRIPTIOP OF CATEGORY 3 ISSUES
(
JThe #efinition developed for Category 3 issues is as follows:
- f A generic' conclusion on the potential impact was n61 reached in the GEIS for any affected plants.- The proposed modifications to 10 CFR Part 51
' requires that'the potential impact'must be evaluated in each individual
- license renewal application.
Two Category 3 issues have been identified in the GEIS. These issues must be 7
addressed by each applicant.-
In general the information and supporting analysis is-expected =to show that Category 3 issues have no greater potential environmental
-impacts than those for-the currently licensed and operating plant. It say also be possible to conclude that the' potential environmental impact is diminished.
The two Category 3 issues are as follows:
E-
' Threatened and endangered species Local traffic conditions during refurbishment x-D.a LGENEkAL INSTRUCTIONS T0 REVIEVERS FOR CATEGORY 3-155UIS l
l LAn applicant must gather information and'evoluate the. potential environmental L
_ impacts for each Category.3 issue. identified abcve. The staff should determine L
whether.-the applicant has reviewed cod prepared an evaluation for each of the
. Category 3; issues as part oi a sufficient applicatfor..
N D-1 1
w w** set w
r.
7 A-U n-r w w-ye-=r+ w-
.rv----
wv -
1,
+- +-- seer
%,-+--
u
.-,7,-u
- n
-er -a imw ru4-wr srt' s
- re w-s-
As part ei the NRC's responsibility under NEPA, the staff has already evaluated and reviewed the potential environmental impacts for the currently licensed plant, ar.d found them to be acceptable based on the impacts and mitigating actions com-l sotted to as part of the current operating license. The focus of the analysis for these Category 3 issues should be on refurbishment and the additional oper-sting activities due to the renewal of the plants operating license and their l
expected environmental impacts.
For each Category 3 issue the reviewer should generally follow the review method-ology outlined in Part D of this document. The reviewer should ensure that the' applicant has furnished the data, performed the analysis and evaluatet the potential environmental impacts to persit the staff to review the icsue.
r I
l l
f D2
_-,___._.___.__.._.___-_._2,_____,.._..______-_
6
~
D3 CATEGORY 3 ISSUES 2:r D. 3.1 1HREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RESPONSIBILITIES:
Primary:
PDLR Secondary:
2.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the applicant's assessment of the impact of plant refurbishment and continued operation on endangered or threatened species.
The scope of this section includes both federally listed and candidate endangered or threatened species (see GEIS Section 4.2.1.1.1).
31.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMAT!DN Data required for the evaluation of the impact of refurbishment and continued operation on endangered or threatened species include the f ollowing:
A.
Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 1534).
Endangered Species Act regulations (50 CFR 17, 23, 222, 225 227, 402, 424, 450 453).
B.
Lists of endangered, threatened, and candidate species whose range includes the area of 6he plant and the area immediately surrounding the plant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
C Copies of biological assessments prepared to meet the requirements cf the Endangered Species Act.
D.
.Reccrds of additional actions taken by the applicant to rett the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
D3
~'
1)]. ANALYSIS M0EEDURE i
The staff's review should be guided by the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The reviewer should assure that the appropriate consultations have been carried out over the operating lifetime of the plant with the appropriate agencies to identify any new endangered, threatened, or candi.
e datt s,~ les, that appropriate biological assessments have been carried out, and that appropriate additional actions under the Endangered Species Act have been or will be taken.
IV. EVALUATION Evaluation of the impact of plant refurbishment and continued operation will result in one of the following conclusions:
A.
Endangered, threatened, or candidate species are not present and there is, therefore, no impact.
B.
Endangered, threatened or candidate species are present, but there is no impact, so no mitigation actions are needed.
C.
Endangered, threatened, or candidate species are present and the applicant has taken appropriate measures, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, to mitigate the impacts.
D.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be successfully mitigated.
When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical. If no altermatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC project manager.
V.
ItJt'T TO THE ENVIROWENTAL DOCUMENT This section of the environmental document should present a list of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species present on or near the plant D-4 i
1
s
)
and any measures agreed upon with the appropriate agencies to eiitigate the impacts of plant refurbishn.ent and continued operation on endangered, threatened, or candidate species.
If endangered, threatened, or candidate species are not present at the applicant's site, this fact should be clearly stated in the environmental document. The results of recent biological assessments should be syninarized in the environmental document.
V1. REFERENCES None.
' l i
i l
l l
l l
r D-5
-,n-,.~,--ee.wnr,.
,vn e.,,-,r,,.,,r_
.m_,.,_.,.nn.~~,,-...--
-ww..r..~,
vn---
4 i
D.3.2 50010 ECON 0H1CS, TRANSPORTATION DURING REFURBl$HMENT RESPON51BIL1 TIES:
Primary:
.PDLR Secondary:
I 1.
FURPOSE AND SCOPE I
The purpose of this section is to direct the staff's review of the app 11 cant's assessment of the impacts of license renew 61 on regional and local transportation services in the site region' of the licensed facility.
Potential impacts to local transportation networks during the refurbishment period are discussed in Section 3.7.4.2 of the GE!S.
'The scope of this section includes the potential for traffic related tran-sportationimpacts(e.g.,trafficdelays,-accidentrates,roaddamageand raintenance) within the site region caused by those proposed plant refur.
bishment activities associated with plant license renewal. Transportation impacts during refurbishment have been classified as a Category 3 issue.
Other socioeconomic issues that have been classified as Category 1 issues, and therefore need not be addressed further, are listed in Table B.1.
- 11. REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The particular Linds of data and infonnation required will be affected by site. and plant-specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. The following transportation related data or information, which may be obtained from the ER and supplemented as necessary from appropriate Federal, State,
.and local agencies, will usually be requiredt 1.
-The reviewer will be guided by the definition of the site region contained in F.egulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1.
For be-assumed that-the site region includes 1) purposes of this ESRP.LR it can the county in which the plant L
is located,.and 2) those portions of. surrounding counties, including cities l
and urbanized areas (generally up to 50 miles from the station site) that could potentially experience significant transportation impacts.
D-6
~
A.
A description of the magnitude, origins, routes of workers and the duration of the proposed plant refurbishmen' outage.
B.
Significant changes which have ocurred (and are projected to occur prior to refurbishment) to regional and local highway systems, ir.-
r.luding existing infrastructure (include sap), carrying capacity, traf fic flows and constraints, commuting patterns, and condition of roads and highways, since issuance of the plant operating license.
C.
Residential and non residential development which have occurred (and areprojectedtooccurpriortorefurbishment)sinceissuanceofthe plant operating license.
D.
Type, availability, and usage of public transportation.
E.
Modifications associated with refurbishment that might affect traffic flow to and from the plant site.
211. ANALYS15 PRDCEDURE A.
The reviewer should check the sufficiency of the data and information described in Section !! as provided by the applicant.
If insufficient information has been provided, the reviewer should develop regnests for additional information of the applicant to obtain required information.
B.
The reviewer should review the applicant's assessment of potential
- transportation impacts using the data provided by the applicant.
The recommended approach is to make a best estimate of Ilkely impacts, and also make an estimate of maximum impacts, thereby bounding fore-casted future transportation impacts.
The applicant should cor. duct the analysis in several steps, as follows, which should be reviewed by the reviewer. The analysis should use data developed at the time of the operating license review and consider changes which have occurred during the plant's operational period to the present time and predict changes which may occur up to the time of the refurbishment, D7
O 1.
Characterize historical and current transportation conditions in the site region in order to establish the baseline conditions.
Use all transportation attributes reflected by data in Section 11 that may be impacted by refurbishment activities.
Provide frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and graphic representations of the data as appropriate.
2.
Basedonhistoricandprojectedtrands,coupledwithfactors other than refurbishment that may effect changes in transpor-tation,projectbaselineconditionswithoutrefurbishmentinto the future.
3.
Transportation impacts will be influenced by such " demand" factors as the number of commuting workers, number of workers per vehicle, availability and use of public transportation or contractor-provided van pobiing, and use of transportation systems by secondary workers and dependents. These demand f actors need to be compared with " supply" factors, such as the availability and condition of transportation infrastructure and roadways and transportation system management experience, personnel and equipment.
Determine transportation impacts and changes in levels of service, for example, traffic congestion, and financial andnonfinancialpressuresonlocalandstatejurisdictionto mitigate impacts.
4.
As suggested by the GEIS, the reviewer should focus on the potential for highway impacts while, at the same time, recognir-ing that impacts can occur with air, river, and rail systems as well, and transportation may involve the movement of gooos as well as people.
D8
t 5.
Transportation impacts can be expected to be exacer6M ed when the in migrant population concentrates in a few locations. For the best estimate, assume that the new in migrants will settle in the same proportion as current site workers with similar characteristics in the identified comunities, taking account also of their expressed location preferences. For the maximum impact estimate, assume that all new in-migrants will choose housing in one of the smaller comunities, thereby concentrating transportation effects.
6.
Report anticipated transportation impacts, if any, in such terms as-anticipated traffic congestion by location, declines in levels of service, infrastructure improvement requirements, increased potential for accidents, accelerated deterioration of roadway beds and surfaces, system costs, and public concerns.
5 7.
Finally, describe impacted areas and associated comunities of the region, if any, where transportation impacts have been identified and the duration of the impact. Where the effect on transportation is expected to be minor, impacts may be described in qualitative terms. Whereadverseimpacts(i.e.,impactsthat should be mitigated or avoided) can be predicted, the applicant should conduct a more detailed analysis and will, where practical, make quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the impacts and plans for their mitigation.
IV. EVALUATION Evaluation of identified transportation impacts due to refurbishment activities will result in one of the following determinations:
A.
The impact is small and mitigation is not required. When all impacts are of this nature, the reviewer will recomend operation as proposed.
D-9
e B.
The impact is moderate but can be mitigated by specific actions (e.g., staggered shitts, subsidized van pooling, trailer park development),For these cases, the reviewer will consult with local public authorities for verification that applicant's recomended actions are practical and will mitigate the impact to small. The reviewer will prepare a list of verified modifications and recomended measures and controls to limit the corresponding impact and provide the list to the project Manager.
C.
The impact is large or moderate and cannot be mitigated to small.
When impacts of this nature are identified, the reviewer should investigate design or procedural modifications that would avoid the impact that could be considered practical.
If no alternatives can be identified, the reviewer will be responsible for providing the information to the NRC Project Manager.
Y.
IfJUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Information to be included in the environmental document should accomplish the following objectives: 1) Public disclosure of impacts resulting from refurbishment of the facility following license renewal, 2) presentation of the basis for the staff analysis, and 3) presentation of staff conclu-siens, recomendations, and conditions regarding identified environmental inpacts and associated mitigation measures.
The following types of information should be provided:
A statement of the scope of coverage and the objectives of the analy sis.
A sumery of the steps taken in the staff analysis and reference to nethodologies employed.
D-10
A summary of the analysis' findings reDarding transportation isipacts due to refurbishment. The level of detail provided will be related to the severity of the anticipated impact.
Identification and assessment of potential sitigation measures.
VI.
REFERENCES Branch, Kristi Douglas A. Hooper, James Thompson, and James Creighton.
1984. Cu,ide to Social Asset:.ent: A Framework for Assessino Social Chance. Social Impact Assessment feries, No.11. Boulder, C0: Westview Press.
Finstettusch, Kurt, and C. P. Wolf (Eds.). 1981. Methodology of Social ImpactAssessme3 Second Edition.
Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.
- Leistritz, F. Larry, and Steve H. Murdock. 1981. The soefoeconomic I n act of Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Boulder, C0:
Westylew Press, i
l i
l 0 11 l
l
- tw s y w ww i
-er--++rewc.eme-grc-ewp-e-g=
3+,:-gw, e-t wng i. we--
emq,-epe,wi,ivw.,+--pg,--,-,w,~.gw,
,e-,,
e-ar,,we,ww-vmtwe.,4e w,- e enw--
a.
-t-
_.---*-_._3,r--vn.-
-i+'**wi-e+wm.w-
.wo,-
e,i
--ww-wi e s'
.