ML19227A246: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Early Site PermitApplication ReviewClinch River Nuclear SiteEnvironmental PanelAugust 14, 2019 Panelists*TamsenDozier -Environmental Project Manager*Kenneth Erwin  
{{#Wiki_filter:United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:                  TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)
-Chief of the Environmental Technical Review Branch 2
Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05200047 Exhibit #: NRC-018-MA-CM01                    Identified: 8/14/2019 Admitted: 8/14/2019                          Withdrawn:
Rejected:                                      Stricken:
Other:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY                                          Docket No. 52-047-ESP (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)
Hearing Exhibit Exhibit Number: NRC-018 Exhibit
 
==Title:==
Staff Presentation Slides - Environmental Panel (Aug. 2019).
 
Early Site Permit Application Review Clinch River Nuclear Site Environmental Panel August 14, 2019
 
Panelists
* Tamsen Dozier - Environmental Project Manager
* Kenneth Erwin - Chief of the Environmental Technical Review Branch 2
 
Proposed Federal Action
Proposed Federal Action
*Issuance of an ESP
* Issuance of an ESP
*Site suitability determination
* Site suitability determination
*Provides for early resolution of issues
* Provides for early resolution of issues
*The staff prepares an EIS to meet requirements under NEPA and other laws 3
* The staff prepares an EIS to meet requirements under NEPA and other laws 3
 
Project Description
Project Description
*No specific design referenced  
* No specific design referenced - PPE
-PPE*Cooling water source is the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir
* Cooling water source is the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir
*Project objective considered in the  
* Project objective considered in the environmental review 4


environmental review 4
Proposed Clinch River Nuclear Site
Proposed Clinch River NuclearSite*Not currently used for power generation  
* Not currently used for power generation
*Previously  
* Previously disturbed for Clinch River Breeder Reactor 5


disturbed for Clinch River Breeder Reactor 5 EnvironmentalReview
Environmental Review
*US Army Corps of Engineers was a Cooperating Agency
* US Army Corps of Engineers was a Cooperating Agency
*Environmental Review Team 6
* Environmental Review Team 6
Environmental Review Process NRC'sNEPAProcessSolicited and Reconciled Scoping CommentsConducted Technical ReviewIssuedDraftEISfor public / stakeholder commentPrepared Final EISIssued FinalEIS*Scoping period (60 days) from April to June 2017;  Scoping meetings held in Oak Ridge, TN*Draft EIS published April 2018
*Comment period on Draft EIS 


from April to July 2018 (75 days); meetings held in Kingston, TN
Environmental Review Process Solicited and
*Considered and dispositioned  
* Scoping period (60 days) from Reconciled Scoping        April to June 2017; Scoping NRCs NEPA Process Comments meetings held in Oak Ridge, TN Conducted Technical
* Draft EIS published April 2018 Review Issued Draft EIS for
* Comment period on Draft EIS public / stakeholder      from April to July 2018 (75 days);
comment              meetings held in Kingston, TN Prepared Final EIS
* Considered and dispositioned comments in preparing final EIS Issued Final EIS
* Final EIS published April 2019 7


comments in preparing final EIS
*Final EIS published April 2019 7
Alternatives
Alternatives
*Purpose and need bounds the alternatives for consideration and shapes the suite of reasonable alternativesPurpose and NeedApplicant's Proposed ProjectReasonable AlternativesNo Action AlternativeAlternative SitesAlternative Energy Sources*Alternative System Designs*The applicant chose to defer the analysis of Alternative Energy Sources (i.e., not addressed in ESP) as allowed by regulation.
* Purpose and need bounds the alternatives for consideration and shapes the suite of reasonable alternatives No Action Alternative Applicants Proposed Project  Alternative Sites Purpose and Need Reasonable      Alternative Energy Alternatives    Sources*
8 No-Action Alternative
  *The applicant chose to defer the analysis of     Alternative System Alternative Energy Sources (i.e., not addressed   Designs in ESP) as allowed by regulation.
*The purpose and need for an ESP is early resolution of issues, further informed by the applicant's purpose and need for the project *There would be no environmental impacts  
8
 
No-Action Alternative
* The purpose and need for an ESP is early resolution of issues, further informed by the applicants purpose and need for the project
* There would be no environmental impacts associated with not issuing the ESP; however, this no-action alternative would not accomplish any of the intended benefits of the ESP process 9


associated with not issuing the ESP; however, this "no
-action alternative" would not accomplish any of the intended benefits of the ESP process 9
Alternative Sites
Alternative Sites
*Process of identifying possible alternative sitesAlternative SitesRegion of Interest (e.g., service area)Candidate AreasPotential SitesCandidate SitesORR Site 2ORR Site 3 (aka CRN Site)ORR Site 8Redstone Arsenal Site 12 10 Location of Candidate Areas and Alternative SitesORR Sites 2, 3, and 8Redstone Arsenal Site 12 Comparison of Alternative Sites*Impacts at alternatives sites (i.e., Sites ORR 2, ORR 8, and Redstone Arsenal 12) were compared to CRN Site
* Process of identifying possible alternative sites Alternative Sites  Region of Interest (e.g., service area) ORR Site 2 Candidate Areas      ORR Site 3 (aka CRN Site)
*No alternative sites were environmentally  
Potential Sites      ORR Site 8 Redstone Arsenal Candidate Sites      Site 12 10
 
Location of Candidate Areas and Alternative Sites ORR Sites 2, 3, and 8 Redstone Arsenal Site 12
 
Comparison of Alternative Sites
* Impacts at alternatives sites (i.e., Sites ORR 2, ORR 8, and Redstone Arsenal 12) were compared to CRN Site
* No alternative sites were environmentally preferable to the proposed CRN Site 12
 
Environmental Review Areas Atmospheric Science Radiation Protection Socioeconomics/
Environmental Justice        Terrestrial Ecology Human Health Land Use                    Aquatic Ecology Postulated Accidents Archaeology/Cultural Resources                          Hydrology Alternative Sites /                            Fuel Cycle /
Alternative Systems                            Waste 13
 
Impacts on Resources - Small Resource Area                  Building          Operation Water-related Surface-water use and quality SMALL              SMALL Groundwater use and quality  SMALL              SMALL Ecology (Aquatic)              SMALL              SMALL Socioeconomic Demography                    SMALL              SMALL Economic impacts              SMALL (beneficial) SMALL (beneficial)
Environmental justice          NONE              NONE Air quality                    SMALL              SMALL Radiological health            SMALL              SMALL Nonradiological waste          SMALL              SMALL Postulated accidents            NA                SMALL Fuel cycle, transportation, and NA                SMALL decommissioning 14
 
Impacts on Resources -
Moderate And Large Resource Area                Building              Operation      Indiana Bats Land use              MODERATE                  SMALL Terrestrial Ecology    MODERATE                  SMALL Socioeconomic SMALL to Physical impacts    SMALL to MODERATE        MODERATE (aesthetics)      CRN Site SMALL (for all categories SMALL to Infrastructure and  except traffic) and MODERATE community services  MODERATE to LARGE (recreation)
(for traffic)
Historic and cultural MODERATE to LARGE        SMALL resources Nonradiological health SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL Forest on CRN Site 15
 
Historic and Cultural Resources
* Coordinated NHPA Section 106 consultation through the NEPA process
* Consulted with 20 American Indian Tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 16
 
Historic and Cultural Resources (Cont.)
* Combined impact from construction and preconstruction activities would be MODERATE to LARGE Impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL TVA has executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address its ongoing NHPA Section 106 responsibilities 17


preferable to the proposed CRN Site 12 Environmental Review AreasRadiationProtectionTerrestrialEcologyAtmospheric ScienceSocioeconomics/
Traffic
Environmental JusticeLand UseArchaeology/Cultural ResourcesHydrologyAquatic Ecology 13Alternative Sites /
* TVA completed a traffic study
Alternative SystemsHumanHealthPostulated AccidentsFuel Cycle /
* During Construction:
Waste Impacts on Resources -Small 14Resource AreaBuildingOperation Water-relatedSurface-water use and qualitySMALLSMALLGroundwater use and qualitySMALLSMALLEcology (Aquatic)SMALLSMALLSocioeconomicDemographySMALLSMALLEconomic impactsSMALL (beneficial)SMALL (beneficial)Environmental justice NONENONE Air qualitySMALLSMALLRadiological healthSMALLSMALLNonradiologicalwasteSMALLSMALLPostulated accidents NASMALLFuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning NASMALL Impacts on Resources -Moderate And LargeIndiana Bats CRN Site 15Resource AreaBuildingOperation Land useMODERATESMALLTerrestrial EcologyMODERATE SMALL  SocioeconomicPhysical impactsSMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE (aesthetics)Infrastructure and community servicesSMALL (for all categories except traffic) and MODERATE to LARGE (for traffic)SMALL to MODERATE (recreation)Historic and cultural resourcesMODERATE to LARGESMALLNonradiologicalhealthSMALL to MODERATESMALL Forest on CRN Site Historic and Cultural Resources*Coordinated NHPA Section 106 consultation through the NEPA process
LARGE adverse impacts on traffic for routes near the CRN Site without mitigation Reduced by planning and mitigation Mitigated impacts would still be MODERATE to LARGE 18
*Consulted with 20 American Indian Tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission , and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 16 Historic and Cultural Resources (Cont.)
*Combined impact from construction and preconstruction activities would be MODERATE to LARGE Impacts from NRC
-authorized construction would be SMALLTVA has executed a Programmatic


Agreement (PA) to address its ongoing NHPA Section 106 responsibilities 17 Traffic*TVA completed a traffic study
Cumulative Impacts
*During Construction:LARGE adverse impacts on traffic for routes near the CRN Site without mitigation Reduced by planning and mitigationMitigated impacts would still be
* Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions
* No change to most impact areas from cumulative analysis
* Some resource impacts increased due to past activities 19


MODERATE to LARGE 18 Cumulative Impacts
Future NEPA Analyses
*Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions*No change to most impact areas from  
* If a future application references the ESP, the supplemental EIS for that future application would address:
Issues deferred from or not resolved in the ESP New and significant information 20


cumulative analysis
Conclusions
*Some resource impacts increased due to
* Environmental impacts for most resource areas would be small
* None of the reasonable alternatives were environmentally preferable 21


past activities 19 Future NEPA Analyses
Recommendation The staffs assessments documented in the final EIS support a recommendation to the Commission to issue the early site permit.
*If a future application references the ESP, the supplemental EIS for that future application would address:Issues deferred from or not resolved in the ESPNew and significant information 20 Conclusions
*Environmental impacts for most resource areas would besmall
*None of the reasonable alternative s
w ere environmentally preferable 21 RecommendationThe staff's assessments documented in the final EIS support a recommendation to the Commission to issue theearly site permit.
22}}
22}}

Latest revision as of 23:05, 29 November 2019

Official Exhibit - NRC-018-MA-CM01 - Staff Presentation Slides - Environmental Panel (Aug. 2019)
ML19227A246
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 08/07/2019
From:
NRC/OGC
To:
NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
52-047-ESP, ASLBP 17-954-01-ESP-BD02, RAS 55148
Download: ML19227A246 (23)
v • d • e


Text

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

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

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

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

Hearing Exhibit Exhibit Number: NRC-018 Exhibit

Title:

Staff Presentation Slides - Environmental Panel (Aug. 2019).

Early Site Permit Application Review Clinch River Nuclear Site Environmental Panel August 14, 2019

Panelists

  • Tamsen Dozier - Environmental Project Manager
  • Kenneth Erwin - Chief of the Environmental Technical Review Branch 2

Proposed Federal Action

  • Issuance of an ESP
  • Site suitability determination
  • Provides for early resolution of issues
  • The staff prepares an EIS to meet requirements under NEPA and other laws 3

Project Description

  • No specific design referenced - PPE
  • Cooling water source is the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir
  • Project objective considered in the environmental review 4

Proposed Clinch River Nuclear Site

  • Not currently used for power generation
  • Previously disturbed for Clinch River Breeder Reactor 5

Environmental Review

  • US Army Corps of Engineers was a Cooperating Agency
  • Environmental Review Team 6

Environmental Review Process Solicited and

  • Scoping period (60 days) from Reconciled Scoping April to June 2017; Scoping NRCs NEPA Process Comments meetings held in Oak Ridge, TN Conducted Technical
  • Draft EIS published April 2018 Review Issued Draft EIS for
  • Comment period on Draft EIS public / stakeholder from April to July 2018 (75 days);

comment meetings held in Kingston, TN Prepared Final EIS

  • Considered and dispositioned comments in preparing final EIS Issued Final EIS
  • Final EIS published April 2019 7

Alternatives

  • Purpose and need bounds the alternatives for consideration and shapes the suite of reasonable alternatives No Action Alternative Applicants Proposed Project Alternative Sites Purpose and Need Reasonable Alternative Energy Alternatives Sources*
  • The applicant chose to defer the analysis of Alternative System Alternative Energy Sources (i.e., not addressed Designs in ESP) as allowed by regulation.

8

No-Action Alternative

  • The purpose and need for an ESP is early resolution of issues, further informed by the applicants purpose and need for the project
  • There would be no environmental impacts associated with not issuing the ESP; however, this no-action alternative would not accomplish any of the intended benefits of the ESP process 9

Alternative Sites

  • Process of identifying possible alternative sites Alternative Sites Region of Interest (e.g., service area) ORR Site 2 Candidate Areas ORR Site 3 (aka CRN Site)

Potential Sites ORR Site 8 Redstone Arsenal Candidate Sites Site 12 10

Location of Candidate Areas and Alternative Sites ORR Sites 2, 3, and 8 Redstone Arsenal Site 12

Comparison of Alternative Sites

  • Impacts at alternatives sites (i.e., Sites ORR 2, ORR 8, and Redstone Arsenal 12) were compared to CRN Site
  • No alternative sites were environmentally preferable to the proposed CRN Site 12

Environmental Review Areas Atmospheric Science Radiation Protection Socioeconomics/

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

Alternative Systems Waste 13

Impacts on Resources - Small Resource Area Building Operation Water-related Surface-water use and quality SMALL SMALL Groundwater use and quality SMALL SMALL Ecology (Aquatic) SMALL SMALL Socioeconomic Demography SMALL SMALL Economic impacts SMALL (beneficial) SMALL (beneficial)

Environmental justice NONE NONE Air quality SMALL SMALL Radiological health SMALL SMALL Nonradiological waste SMALL SMALL Postulated accidents NA SMALL Fuel cycle, transportation, and NA SMALL decommissioning 14

Impacts on Resources -

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

(for traffic)

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

Historic and Cultural Resources

  • Coordinated NHPA Section 106 consultation through the NEPA process
  • Consulted with 20 American Indian Tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 16

Historic and Cultural Resources (Cont.)

  • Combined impact from construction and preconstruction activities would be MODERATE to LARGE Impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL TVA has executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address its ongoing NHPA Section 106 responsibilities 17

Traffic

  • TVA completed a traffic study
  • During Construction:

LARGE adverse impacts on traffic for routes near the CRN Site without mitigation Reduced by planning and mitigation Mitigated impacts would still be MODERATE to LARGE 18

Cumulative Impacts

  • Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions
  • No change to most impact areas from cumulative analysis
  • Some resource impacts increased due to past activities 19

Future NEPA Analyses

  • If a future application references the ESP, the supplemental EIS for that future application would address:

Issues deferred from or not resolved in the ESP New and significant information 20

Conclusions

  • Environmental impacts for most resource areas would be small
  • None of the reasonable alternatives were environmentally preferable 21

Recommendation The staffs assessments documented in the final EIS support a recommendation to the Commission to issue the early site permit.

22

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19227A246&oldid=2213206"