ML20175A106

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Lea County, New Mexico Public Comment Meeting Webinar June 23, 2020
ML20175A106
Person / Time
Site: HI-STORE
Issue date: 06/23/2020
From:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Caverly J
References
Download: ML20175A106 (29)
v • d • e


Text

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Lea County, New Mexico Public Comment Meeting Webinar - June 23, 2020 Webinar access: https://usnrc.webex.com Event Number: 199 800 0026 Password: HOLTEC Telephone access: 888-454-7496 Telephone passcode: 5790355 1

Spanish Language Staff and Slides Spanish language slides are available on the NRCs meeting notice a https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/view?Acces sionNumber=ML20162A121 Native Spanish speaking staff available during todays meeting 2

Opening Remarks John Tappert, Director Division of Rulemaking, Environmental and Financial Support 3

  • NRCs Review Process

- Safety Review

- Environmental Review Meeting

  • Overview of Holtecs License Application Overview
  • Public Scoping Comments
  • NRCs Environmental Review Results
  • Information Resources and Ways to Comment
  • Public Comment 4

PURPOSE OF MEETING

- To receive comments on the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5

The NRCs Review Process for a License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility 6

The NRCs Review Process

  • Evaluate the application and determine if a license can be issued
  • Not to promote Holtecs proposal or the Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) concept
  • Safety and Environmental Review of Holtecs application

- Safety Review: Determine whether Holtec can safely construct and operate the CISF at the proposed site

- Environmental Review: Evaluate the environmental impacts of building and operating a CISF at the proposed site 7

NRCs Decision Process for CISF Reviews Applicant Submits License Application NEPA - National AEA - Atomic Energy Act NRC Accepts Environmental Policy Act

  • Regulations must be met License Application
  • Disclosure of for licensing environmental impacts
  • 10 Code of Federal
  • NRC impact levels Regulations Part 72 NRC Safety NRC Review Environmental NRC Adjudicatory Review (Safety Evalution Hearings Report) (Environmental Impact Statement)

ASLB Issues Findings NRC Licensing Decision 8

8

NRCs CISF Safety Review Financial Hazards from Natural Operational controls, Qualifications Phenomena (Flood, limits, procedures; Wind, Fires,Tornados, training and qualifications High/Low temps)

Physical Security; Emergency Response Hazards from nearby industrial facilities, pipelines, transportation Geologic features, soil Facility building design; characteristics, seismic storage system design; hazards quality assurance 9

Environmental Review Scenic and Visual Public and Noise Occupational Health Air Quality Waste Management Historic and Cultural Ecology Socioeconomics Water Resources Environmental Justice (Surface and Groundwater)

Transportation Geology and Soils 10

Impact Significance Levels

  • SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
  • MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
  • LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

11

Summary of Holtec Internationals CISF License Application to the US NRC 12

Holtecs Proposed Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) for Spent Nuclear Fuel Located between Hobbs and Carlsbad, NM Includes storage facility, related buildings and rail line Licensing request is for Phase 1 of the CISF project Source: Safety Evaluation Report (Holtec, 2017) 13

Holtec HI-STORE CISF - Site Diagram Phase 1 Source: Environmental Report (Holtec, 2017)

Source: Holtec International 14

Holtec HI-STORE CISF

  • HI-STORM UMAX system
  • Dry, in-ground spent fuel storage system
  • Each module contains 1 canister
  • In-ground Canister Transfer Facility for canister transfer operations Source: Holtec International 15

Umax Canister Hi-Store Design Source: Safety Evaluation Report (Holtec, 2017) 16

Phases and Stages

  • Holtec proposed action is Phase 1 or 500 canisters
  • EIS evaluates potentially impacts of up to 20 PHASES

- Note that the safety review evaluates Phase 1 storage facility and any other facilities that are important to safety (i.e. transfer building components)

  • EIS evaluates THREE STAGES of the project

- Construction, Operation, Decommissioning/Reclamation

  • Phase 1 includes construction of rail spur and additional facilities including administrative building and transfer building 17

Public Scoping Comments 18

Scoping Process

  • Scoping Period

- March 30, 2018 - July 20, 2018

- Webinar and in-person meetings held in Carlsbad, Gallup, Roswell, Hobbs and Albuquerque, NM

  • Comments -

- 6,665 pieces of comment correspondence

- Approximately 3,900 unique comments

  • Scoping comment report

- https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1912/ML19121A296.pdf 19

Public Comments

  • Transportation

- Safety/Accidents

- Radiation dose to citizens near the rail line

  • Out of Scope - Covered in the Safety Review
  • Location and Land Use - Potential for flooding, external hazards

- Alternate location - Impacts from sink holes, stability of the subsurface

- Impacts of accidents

- Compatibility with the Umax system

  • Geology

- Design of structural elements

- Sink holes

- Integrity of the Umax canister

  • Volume of Material

- Financial assurance

- 500 or 10,000 casks?

- Accident conditions and failure of transport

  • Water Resources casks

- Contamination to playa lakes and ground water aquifer

  • Socioeconomics
  • Small number of jobs
  • External Events - fire, flood 20

Results of NRCs Environmental Review 21

Impact Evaluation License term Groundwater and Surface

  • Impacts were analyzed for a Water term of 40 years for a storage
  • No liquid stored in the Umax license canister, groundwater near the
  • A licensee would be required facility was characterized to remove the spent fuel prior
  • Impacts to playas (lakes) to decommissioning the facility evaluated for sheet flow from the site - overflow is not contaminated 22

Impact Evaluation Transportation Impacts from Transportation

  • Traffic safety and road degradation from workers Accidents and construction vehicles
  • Evaluated doses to first responders, workers and
  • Dose rates to the public and workers along the route members of the public were estimated and found to meet regulatory limits
  • Assumptions of no releases during accidents; NRC
  • Evaluated the movement for the entire 20 phases of rules require spent fuel transportation containers to material or 10,000 canister using conservative withstand severe accidents without releases estimates of representative routes Location of Facility and Land Use

- Proposed by the applicant

- Site selection methods evaluated by NRC staff

- 6 mile radius from the CISF 23

Impact Evaluation Socioeconomics Environmental Justice

  • Workers and tax reviews generated
  • Analysis of the human health and
  • Resources available to the community environmental impacts on low-income and
  • Economic growth minority populations
  • Demand on public services, schools and
  • 115 Census block groups that fall housing completely or partially within the 50-mile radius of the proposed CISF project area.
  • Primarily associated with workers who might move.
  • Evaluate if any minority or low-income population would be disproportionately and adversely affected Ecology

- Sections 4.11 and 4.12 of the draft EIS

- No threatened and endangered species

- Block Groups (BGs) are statistical divisions of census tracts, not identified. are generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people, and are used to present data and control block

- Vegetation removal and regrowth numbering.

24

Results of the Environmental Review RESOURCE IMPACT EVALUATION (construction, operation and decommission/reclamation stages)

Land Use SMALL - Proposed Action (Phase 1) IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS SMALL - Additional Phases (Phases 2-20) NUREG 1748

  • SMALL - Environmental effects are not Transportation SMALL - Proposed Action detectable or are so minor that they will SMALL - Additional Phases neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

Geology and Soils SMALL - Proposed Action

  • MODERATE - Environmental effects are SMALL - Additional Phases sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the Surface Water SMALL - Proposed Action resource.
  • LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly SMALL - Additional Phases noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

Groundwater SMALL - Proposed Action SMALL - Additional Phases Ecology SMALL to MODERATE - Proposed Action**

SMALL to MODERATE - Additional Phases**

    • until vegetation has been reestablished Air Quality SMALL - Proposed Action SMALL - Additional Phases 25

Results of the Environmental Review RESOURCE IMPACT EVALUATION (construction, operation and decommission/reclamation stages)

Noise SMALL - Proposed Action SMALL - Additional Phases See Historic and Cultural SMALL - Proposed Action EIS - Chapter 9 Summary of SMALL - Additional Phases Environmental Consequences Visual and Scenic SMALL - Proposed Action SMALL - Additional Phases Socioeconomic SMALL to MODERATE*

  • beneficial on local finances Environmental Justice There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations Public and Occupational SMALL - Proposed Action Health SMALL - Additional Phases Waste Management SMALL to MODERATE*
  • for Phases 2-20 for decommissioning and generated waste 26

Information Resources

  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement

- https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2006/ML20069G420.pdf

  • Readers guide

- https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2007/ML20073P254.pdf

- https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2012/ML20120A522.pdf (Spanish)

  • Application material and NRC project website

- https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/holtec-international.html 27

How to Comment

  • Oral comments at NRC meetings
  • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0052. Address questions about NRC docket IDs to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-9127; e-mail: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov.
  • Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

  • E-mail comments to: Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov.

NOTE : The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov and enters all comment submissions into ADAMS, the NRCs document filing system.

28

Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 29

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20175A106&oldid=3347304"