|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[NUREG-1437, Supplement 61, Dfc, Generic Environment Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 61 Regarding License Renewal of Perry Nuclear Power Plant]] |
| | number = ML24033A298
| |
| | issue date = 02/29/2024
| |
| | title = NUREG-1437 Dfc, Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3
| |
| | author name = Rakovan L
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000269, 05000270, 05000287
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = NUREG-1437 DFC
| |
| | document type = NUREG
| |
| | page count = 1
| |
| | project =
| |
| | stage = Other
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:NUREG-1437 Supplement 2 Second Renewal
| |
| | |
| Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
| |
| | |
| Supplement 2, Second Renewal
| |
| | |
| Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3
| |
| | |
| Draft Report for Comment
| |
| | |
| Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS
| |
| | |
| NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material
| |
| | |
| As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at the libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRCs Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.
| |
| publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.
| |
| information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their Copies of industry codes and standards used in a attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, The NRC Technical Library and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Federal Regulations Two White Flint North may also be purchased from one of these two sources: 11545 Rockville Pike
| |
| : 1. The Superintendent of DocumentsRockville, MD 20852-2738
| |
| | |
| U.S. Government Publishing Office These standards are available in the library for reference Washington, DC 20402-0001 use by the public. Codes and standards are usually Internet: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/ copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating Telephone: (202) 512-1800 organization or, if they are American National Standards, Fax: (202) 512-2104 from
| |
| : 2. The National Technical Information ServiceAmerican National Standards Institute 5301 Shawnee Road 11 West 42nd Street Alexandria, VA 22312-0002 New York, NY 10036-8002 Internet: https://www.ntis.gov/ Internet: www.ansi.org 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000 (212) 642-4900
| |
| | |
| Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications.
| |
| available free, to the extent of supply, upon written The views expressed in contractor prepared publications in request as follows: this series are not necessarily those of the NRC.
| |
| | |
| The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission administrative reports and books prepared by the staff Office of Administration (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX),
| |
| Digital Communications and Administrative (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX),
| |
| Services Branch (3) reports resulting from international agreements Washington, DC 20555-0001 (NUREG/IA-XXXX),(4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and E-mail: Reproduction.R esource@nrc.gov (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Facsimile: (301) 415-2289 Commission and the Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors decisions under Section 2.206 of the NRCs regulations (NUREG-0750), (6) Knowledge Management Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted prepared by NRC staff or agency contractors (NUREG/KM-at the NRCs Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ XXXX).
| |
| doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work differ from the last printed version. Although references to sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the material found on a Web site bear the date the material U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, was accessed, the material available on the date cited makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any may subsequently be removed from the site. legal liability or responsibility for any third partys use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
| |
| NUREG-1437 Supplement 2 Second Renewal
| |
| | |
| Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
| |
| | |
| Supplement 2, Second Renewal
| |
| | |
| Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3
| |
| | |
| Draft Report for Comment
| |
| | |
| Manuscript Completed: February 2024 Date Published: February 2024
| |
| | |
| Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 1 Proposed Action Issuance of renewed facility operating licenses DPR-38, DPR-47, and 2 DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, in Seneca, South 3 Carolina
| |
| | |
| 4 Type of Statement Draft Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement
| |
| | |
| 5 Agency Contact Lance Rakovan 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear Material 7 Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop T-4B72 8 Washington, DC 20555-0001 9 Email: Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov
| |
| | |
| 10 Comments:
| |
| | |
| 11 Any interested party may submit comments on this draft site-specific environmental impact 12 statement (EIS). Please specify NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal, draft, in the 13 subject or title line for your comments. Comments on this draft EIS should be filed no later than 14 45 days after the date on which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notice, stating 15 that this draft EIS has been filed with the EPA, is published in the Federal Register. Comments 16 received after the expiration of the comment period will be considered if it is practical to do so, 17 but assurance of consideration of late comments cannot be given. You may submit comments 18 electronically by searching for Docket ID NRC-2021-0146 at the website:
| |
| 19 http://www.regulations.gov.
| |
| | |
| 20 The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to 21 be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions 22 into the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The NRC 23 does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.
| |
| | |
| 1 COVER SHEET
| |
| | |
| 2 Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 3 and Safeguards.
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for Subsequent License Renewal of 5 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Second Renewal, Draft Report for Comment.
| |
| | |
| 6 For additional information or copies of this document contact:
| |
| | |
| 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 9 Mail Stop T-4B72 10 11555 Rockville Pike 11 Rockville, MD 20852 12 Email: lance.rakovan@nrc.gov
| |
| | |
| 13 14 ABSTRACT
| |
| | |
| 15 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff prepared this site-specific environmental 16 impact statement (EIS) as part of its environmental review of the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 17 (Duke Energy) request to renew the operating licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, 18 and 3 (Oconee Station) for an additional 20 years. This EIS includes the site-specific evaluation 19 of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, Oconee Station subsequent license 20 renewal (SLR), and alternatives to SLR. As alternatives, the NRC considered: (1) new nuclear 21 (advanced light-water reactor facility located at Duke Energys W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site 22 combined with a small modular reactor located at the Oconee Station site); (2) a natural gas-23 fired power plant (natural gas-fired combined-cycle facility located at the Oconee Station site);
| |
| 24 (3) a combination of solar photovoltaic, offshore wind, small modular reactors, and demand-side 25 management, and (4) no action.
| |
| | |
| 26 This EIS considers information contained in Duke Energys November 7, 2022, submittal 27 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML21158A193; 28 Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), which supplements its June 7, 2021, SLR application (Duke 29 Energy 2021-TN8897). Previously, in August 2021, the NRC conducted a scoping period and 30 published a scoping summary report (NRC 2022-TN8905). In February 2022, the Commission 31 issued two memoranda and orders, Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-02 and CLI-22-03 32 (NRC 2022-TN8182 and NRC 2022-TN8272), concerning SLR environmental reviews. In CLI-33 22-02, the Commission found that the License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact 34 Statement (LR GEIS) did not cover the SLR period and that 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) (TN250) does 35 not apply to SLR applicants and, therefore, the NRC staff may not exclusively rely on the 2013 36 LR GEIS and Table B-1 for the evaluation of Category 1 issues. In CLI-22-03, notably, the 37 Commission determined that the NRC staff must address these impacts on a site-specific basis 38 in site-specific EISs.
| |
| | |
| iii 1 The NRC staff prepared this site-specific EIS in accordance with CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-2 TN8272), that references CLI-22-02 (NRC 2022-TN8182). This EIS considers the impacts of all 3 SLR issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR on a site-specific basis.
| |
| | |
| 4 Based on the evaluation of environmental impacts in this EIS, the NRC staffs preliminary 5 recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Oconee Station are not 6 so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be 7 unreasonable. The NRC staff based its preliminary recommendation on the following:
| |
| 8
| |
| * Duke Energys environmental report, as supplemented 9
| |
| * consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental agencies 10
| |
| * the NRC staffs independent environmental review 11
| |
| * the consideration of public comments received during the scoping processes 12
| |
| | |
| iv 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
| |
| | |
| 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
| |
| | |
| 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. v
| |
| | |
| 4 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xvii
| |
| | |
| 5 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xix
| |
| | |
| 6 EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| ............................................................................................. xxi
| |
| | |
| 7 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................... xxix
| |
| | |
| 8 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................... 1-1 9 1.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................... 1-2 10 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action ............................................. 1-2 11 1.3 Major Environmental Review Milestones .............................................................. 1-3 12 1.4 Environmental Issues Evaluated in This EIS ......................................................... 1-4 13 1.5 Structure of This EIS ............................................................................................. 1-6 14 1.6 Decision to Be Supported by the EIS .................................................................... 1-6 15 1.7 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................... 1-7 16 1.8 Consultations ........................................................................................................ 1-7 17 1.9 Correspondence .................................................................................................... 1-7 18 1.10 Status of Compliance ............................................................................................ 1-7 19 1.11 Related State and Federal Activities ..................................................................... 1-7
| |
| | |
| 20 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 2-1 21 2.1 Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facility and Operation ................................... 2-1 22 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting ........................................................... 2-1 23 2.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Systems ....................................................................... 2-4 24 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems .................................................... 2-4 25 2.1.3.1 Cooling Water Intake and Discharge ................................... 2-5 26 2.1.3.2 Well Water Supply System .................................................. 2-6 27 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems ............................................. 2-6 28 2.1.4.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste Management .............................. 2-7 29 2.1.4.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste Management ......................... 2-9 30 2.1.4.3 Radioactive Solid Waste Management ............................. 2-11 31 2.1.4.4 Radioactive Waste Storage ............................................... 2-11 32 2.1.4.5 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program .............. 2-12 33 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems ...................................... 2-13 34 2.1.6 Utility and Transportation Infrastructure ............................................... 2-13 35 2.1.6.1 Electricity ........................................................................... 2-14
| |
| | |
| v 1 2.1.6.2 Fuel ................................................................................... 2-14 2 2.1.6.3 Water ................................................................................. 2-14 3 2.1.6.4 Transportation Systems .................................................... 2-14 4 2.1.6.5 Power Transmission Systems ........................................... 2-14 5 2.1.7 Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance.............................. 2-14 6 2.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 2-15 7 2.2.1 Nuclear Power Plant Operations during the Subsequent License 8 Renewal Term ...................................................................................... 2-15 9 2.2.2 Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License 10 Renewal ............................................................................................... 2-15 11 2.2.3 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and 12 Decommissioning after the License Renewal Term ............................. 2-16 13 2.3 Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-16 14 2.3.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 2-16 15 2.3.2 Replacement Power Alternatives ......................................................... 2-17 16 2.3.2.1 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and a 17 Small Modular Reactor) ..................................................... 2-22 18 2.3.2.2 Natural Gas-fired Combined-Cycle ................................... 2-23 19 2.3.2.3 Combined Small Modular Reactor, Solar Photovoltaic, 20 Offshore Wind, and Demand-Side Management 21 (Combination Alternative) .................................................. 2-24 22 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .............................................................. 2-27 23 2.4.1 Solar Power .......................................................................................... 2-27 24 2.4.2 Wind Power .......................................................................................... 2-28 25 2.4.3 Biomass Power .................................................................................... 2-28 26 2.4.4 Demand-Side Management ................................................................. 2-29 27 2.4.5 Hydroelectric Power ............................................................................. 2-30 28 2.4.6 Geothermal Power ............................................................................... 2-30 29 2.4.7 Wave and Ocean Energy ..................................................................... 2-30 30 2.4.8 Municipal Solid Waste-Fired Power...................................................... 2-31 31 2.4.9 Petroleum-Fired Power ........................................................................ 2-31 32 2.4.10 Coal-Fired Power ................................................................................. 2-31 33 2.4.11 Fuel Cells ............................................................................................. 2-32 34 2.4.12 Purchased Power ................................................................................. 2-32 35 2.4.13 Delayed Retirement of Other Generating Facilities .............................. 2-33 36 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................. 2-33
| |
| | |
| 37 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND 38 MITIGATING ACTIONS ...................................................................................... 3-1 39 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3-1 40 3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources ........................................................................... 3-5 41 3.2.1 Land Use ................................................................................................ 3-5 42 3.2.1.1 Onsite Land Use .................................................................. 3-5
| |
| | |
| vi 1 3.2.1.2 Coastal Zone ....................................................................... 3-7 2 3.2.1.3 Offsite Land Use .................................................................. 3-7 3 3.2.2 Visual Resources ................................................................................... 3-8 4 3.2.3 Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 3-9 5 3.2.3.1 Onsite Land Use .................................................................. 3-9 6 3.2.3.2 Offsite Land Use .................................................................. 3-9 7 3.2.3.3 Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways ........ 3-9 8 3.2.3.4 Aesthetic Impacts ................................................................ 3-9 9 3.2.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................ 3-10 10 3.2.4.1 Land Use ........................................................................... 3-10 11 3.2.4.2 Visual Resources .............................................................. 3-10 12 3.2.5 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ........................... 3-10 13 3.2.5.1 Land Use ........................................................................... 3-10 14 3.2.5.2 Visual Resources .............................................................. 3-10 15 3.2.6 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 16 Reactor) Alternative .............................................................................. 3-11 17 3.2.6.1 Land Use ........................................................................... 3-11 18 3.2.6.2 Visual Resources .............................................................. 3-12 19 3.2.7 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ............................................. 3-12 20 3.2.7.1 Land Use ........................................................................... 3-12 21 3.2.7.2 Visual Resources .............................................................. 3-13 22 3.2.8 Combination Alternative (Solar Photovoltaic, Offshore Wind, Small 23 Modular Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ............................. 3-13 24 3.2.8.1 Land Use ........................................................................... 3-13 25 3.2.8.2 Visual Resources .............................................................. 3-15 26 3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise .................................................................... 3-15 27 3.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology ............................................................... 3-15 28 3.3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 3-17 29 3.3.3 Noise .................................................................................................... 3-17 30 3.3.4 Proposed Action ................................................................................... 3-18 31 3.3.4.1 Air Quality Impacts (All Nuclear Power Plants) ................. 3-18 32 3.3.4.2 Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines .......................... 3-19 33 3.3.4.3 Noise Impacts .................................................................... 3-20 34 3.3.5 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................ 3-20 35 3.3.5.1 Air Quality .......................................................................... 3-20 36 3.3.5.2 Noise ................................................................................. 3-20 37 3.3.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ........................... 3-21 38 3.3.6.1 Air Quality .......................................................................... 3-21 39 3.3.6.2 Noise ................................................................................. 3-21 40 3.3.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 41 Reactor) Alternative .............................................................................. 3-22 42 3.3.7.1 Air Quality .......................................................................... 3-22
| |
| | |
| vii 1 3.3.7.2 Noise ................................................................................. 3-23 2 3.3.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ............................................. 3-24 3 3.3.8.1 Air Quality .......................................................................... 3-24 4 3.3.8.2 Noise ................................................................................. 3-24 5 3.3.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 6 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ........................................... 3-25 7 3.3.9.1 Air Quality .......................................................................... 3-25 8 3.3.9.2 Noise ................................................................................. 3-26 9 3.4 Geologic Environment ......................................................................................... 3-28 10 3.4.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................. 3-28 11 3.4.2 Geologic Resources ............................................................................. 3-28 12 3.4.3 Soils ...................................................................................................... 3-28 13 3.4.4 Seismic Setting ..................................................................................... 3-29 14 3.4.5 Proposed Action ................................................................................... 3-30 15 3.4.6 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................ 3-31 16 3.4.7 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ........................... 3-31 17 3.4.8 New Nuclear Alternative (ALWR and SMR) ......................................... 3-32 18 3.4.9 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ............................................. 3-32 19 3.4.10 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 20 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ........................................... 3-33 21 3.5 Water Resources................................................................................................. 3-33 22 3.5.1 Surface Water Resources .................................................................... 3-33 23 3.5.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology .................................................. 3-33 24 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Use ............................................................ 3-36 25 3.5.1.3 Surface Water Quality and Effluents ................................. 3-37 26 3.5.2 Groundwater Resources ...................................................................... 3-42 27 3.5.2.1 Local and Regional Groundwater Resources .................... 3-42 28 3.5.2.2 Local and Regional Water Consumption ........................... 3-44 29 3.5.2.3 Groundwater Quality ......................................................... 3-45 30 3.5.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................... 3-48 31 3.5.3.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................. 3-48 32 3.5.3.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................... 3-54 33 3.5.4 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................ 3-56 34 3.5.4.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................. 3-56 35 3.5.4.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................... 3-56 36 3.5.5 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ........................... 3-56 37 3.5.5.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................. 3-56 38 3.5.5.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................... 3-58 39 3.5.6 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 40 Reactor) Alternative .............................................................................. 3-59 41 3.5.6.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................. 3-59 42 3.5.6.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................... 3-60
| |
| | |
| viii 1 3.5.7 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ............................................. 3-60 2 3.5.7.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................. 3-60 3 3.5.7.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................... 3-61 4 3.5.8 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 5 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ........................................... 3-61 6 3.5.8.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................. 3-61 7 3.5.8.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................... 3-62 8 3.6 Terrestrial Resources .......................................................................................... 3-63 9 3.6.1 Ecoregion ............................................................................................. 3-63 10 3.6.2 Oconee Station Site ............................................................................. 3-64 11 3.6.3 Important Species and Habitats ........................................................... 3-66 12 3.6.3.1 Federally Listed Species ................................................... 3-66 13 3.6.3.2 State-Listed Species ......................................................... 3-66 14 3.6.3.3 Species Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 15 Protection Act .................................................................... 3-67 16 3.6.3.4 Species Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .... 3-67 17 3.6.3.5 Invasive Species ............................................................... 3-68 18 3.6.3.6 Important Habitats ............................................................. 3-68 19 3.6.4 Proposed Action ................................................................................... 3-68 20 3.6.4.1 Effects on Terrestrial Resources (Non-cooling System 21 Impacts) ............................................................................. 3-69 22 3.6.4.2 Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides ........ 3-70 23 3.6.4.3 Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 24 (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or 25 Cooling Ponds) .................................................................. 3-72 26 3.6.4.4 Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission 27 Lines .................................................................................. 3-73 28 3.6.4.5 Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management 29 Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 3-74 30 3.6.4.6 Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna (Plants, 31 Agricultural Crops, Honeybees, Wildlife, Livestock) .......... 3-75 32 3.6.5 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................ 3-76 33 3.6.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ........................... 3-77 34 3.6.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 35 Reactor) Alternative .............................................................................. 3-77 36 3.6.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ............................................. 3-79 37 3.6.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 38 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ........................................... 3-80 39 3.7 Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................. 3-82 40 3.7.1 Lake Keowee ........................................................................................ 3-83 41 3.7.1.1 Biological Communities of Lake Keowee .......................... 3-83 42 3.7.1.2 Important Species and Habitats of Lake Keowee ............. 3-86 43 3.7.1.3 Invasive and Nuisance Species of Lake Keowee .............. 3-87
| |
| | |
| ix 1 3.7.2 Lake Jocassee ..................................................................................... 3-88 2 3.7.3 Keowee Dam Tailwaters ...................................................................... 3-89 3 3.7.4 Proposed Action ................................................................................... 3-89 4 3.7.4.1 Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms 5 (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or 6 Cooling Ponds) .................................................................. 3-89 7 3.7.4.2 Entrainment of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton (All 8 Plants) ............................................................................. 3-104 9 3.7.4.3 Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with 10 Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) ....... 3-105 11 3.7.4.4 Infrequently Reported Thermal Impacts (All Plants) ........ 3-109 12 3.7.4.5 Effects of Cooling Water Discharge on Dissolved 13 Oxygen, Gas Supersaturation, and Eutrophication ......... 3-110 14 3.7.4.6 Effects of Nonradiological Contaminants on Aquatic 15 Organisms ....................................................................... 3-113 16 3.7.4.7 Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides .......... 3-114 17 3.7.4.8 Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Organisms ..................... 3-116 18 3.7.4.9 Effects on Aquatic Resources (Non-cooling System 19 Impacts) ........................................................................... 3-117 20 3.7.4.10 Impacts of Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) 21 Management on Aquatic Resources ............................... 3-118 22 3.7.4.11 Losses from Predation, Parasitism, and Disease 23 Among Organisms Exposed to Sublethal Stresses ......... 3-119 24 3.7.5 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-120 25 3.7.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-120 26 3.7.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 27 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-121 28 3.7.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-122 29 3.7.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 30 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-122 31 3.8 Special Status Species and Habitats ................................................................ 3-124 32 3.8.1 Endangered Species Act .................................................................... 3-124 33 3.8.1.1 Endangered Species Act: Action Area ............................ 3-124 34 3.8.1.2 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species 35 and Critical Habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife 36 Service Jurisdiction ......................................................... 3-125 37 3.8.1.3 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species 38 and Critical Habitats under National Marine Fisheries 39 Service Jurisdiction ......................................................... 3-129 40 3.8.2 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat ................................. 3-130 41 3.8.3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources .................... 3-130 42 3.8.4 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-130
| |
| | |
| x 1 3.8.4.1 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species 2 and Critical Habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife 3 Jurisdiction ...................................................................... 3-130 4 3.8.4.2 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species 5 and Critical Habitats under National Marine Fisheries 6 Service Jurisdiction ......................................................... 3-138 7 3.8.4.3 Endangered Species Act: Cumulative Effects ................. 3-138 8 3.8.4.4 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat .............. 3-138 9 3.8.4.5 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary 10 Resources ....................................................................... 3-138 11 3.8.5 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-138 12 3.8.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-139 13 3.8.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 14 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-139 15 3.8.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-139 16 3.8.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 17 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-140 18 3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 3-140 19 3.9.1 Cultural Background ........................................................................... 3-140 20 3.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at Oconee Station ........................... 3-141 21 3.9.3 Procedures and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan ... 3-141 22 3.9.4 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-142 23 3.9.4.1 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................... 3-142 24 3.9.4.2 Consultation .................................................................... 3-142 25 3.9.4.3 Findings ........................................................................... 3-143 26 3.9.5 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-144 27 3.9.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-144 28 3.9.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 29 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-145 30 3.9.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-145 31 3.9.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 32 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-145 33 3.10 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................ 3-146 34 3.10.1 Nuclear Power Plant Employment ...................................................... 3-146 35 3.10.2 Regional Economic Characteristics .................................................... 3-147 36 3.10.3 Demographic Characteristics ............................................................. 3-147 37 3.10.3.1 Transient Population ....................................................... 3-149 38 3.10.3.2 Migrant Farm Workers ..................................................... 3-149 39 3.10.4 Housing and Community Services ..................................................... 3-150 40 3.10.4.1 Housing ........................................................................... 3-150 41 3.10.4.2 Education ........................................................................ 3-150 42 3.10.4.3 Public Water Supply ........................................................ 3-151 43 3.10.5 Tax Revenue ...................................................................................... 3-152
| |
| | |
| xi 1 3.10.6 Local Transportation ........................................................................... 3-153 2 3.10.7 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-154 3 3.10.7.1 Employment and Income, Recreation, and Tourism ....... 3-154 4 3.10.7.2 Tax Revenues ................................................................. 3-155 5 3.10.7.3 Community Services and Education ............................... 3-156 6 3.10.7.4 Population and Housing .................................................. 3-156 7 3.10.7.5 Transportation ................................................................. 3-157 8 3.10.8 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-158 9 3.10.8.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................. 3-158 10 3.10.8.2 Transportation ................................................................. 3-159 11 3.10.9 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-159 12 3.10.9.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................. 3-159 13 3.10.9.2 Transportation ................................................................. 3-160 14 3.10.10 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 15 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-160 16 3.10.10.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................. 3-160 17 3.10.10.2 Transportation ................................................................. 3-162 18 3.10.11 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-163 19 3.10.11.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................. 3-163 20 3.10.11.2 Transportation ................................................................. 3-163 21 3.10.12 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 22 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-164 23 3.10.12.1 Socioeconomics .............................................................. 3-164 24 3.10.12.2 Transportation ................................................................. 3-166 25 3.11 Human Health ................................................................................................... 3-167 26 3.11.1 Radiological Exposure and Risk ......................................................... 3-167 27 3.11.2 Chemical Hazards .............................................................................. 3-168 28 3.11.3 Microbiological Hazards ..................................................................... 3-169 29 3.11.4 Electromagnetic Fields ....................................................................... 3-171 30 3.11.5 Other Hazards .................................................................................... 3-172 31 3.11.6 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-173 32 3.11.6.1 Radiation Exposures to The Public ................................. 3-173 33 3.11.6.2 Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers ............................ 3-174 34 3.11.6.3 Human Health Impact from Chemicals ............................ 3-174 35 3.11.6.4 Microbiological Hazards to the Public (Plants with 36 Cooling Ponds or Canals or Cooling Towers That 37 Discharge to a River) ....................................................... 3-175 38 3.11.6.5 Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers ....................... 3-176 39 3.11.6.6 Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) ....................... 3-176 40 3.11.6.7 Physical Occupational Hazards ....................................... 3-176 41 3.11.6.8 Electric Shock Hazards ................................................... 3-177 42 3.11.6.9 Postulated Accidents ....................................................... 3-177
| |
| | |
| xii 1 3.11.7 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-178 2 3.11.8 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-178 3 3.11.9 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 4 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-179 5 3.11.10 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-179 6 3.11.11 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 7 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-179 8 3.12 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................... 3-181 9 3.12.1 Background ........................................................................................ 3-181 10 3.12.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-184 11 3.12.3 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-187 12 3.12.4 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-188 13 3.12.5 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 14 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-188 15 3.12.6 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-190 16 3.12.7 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 17 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-190 18 3.13 Waste Management .......................................................................................... 3-192 19 3.13.1 Radioactive Waste ............................................................................. 3-192 20 3.13.2 Nonradioactive Waste ........................................................................ 3-192 21 3.13.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-193 22 3.13.3.1 Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal ......................... 3-193 23 3.13.3.2 Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ............................. 3-194 24 3.13.3.3 Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel 25 and High-Level Waste Disposal ...................................... 3-194 26 3.13.3.4 Mixed-Waste Storage and Disposal ................................ 3-194 27 3.13.3.5 Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal .................. 3-195 28 3.13.4 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................... 3-195 29 3.13.5 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts ......................... 3-196 30 3.13.6 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular 31 Reactor) Alternative ............................................................................ 3-196 32 3.13.7 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative ........................................... 3-196 33 3.13.8 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 34 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management) ......................................... 3-196 35 3.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................. 3-197 36 3.14.1 Fuel Cycle .......................................................................................... 3-197 37 3.14.1.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle ......................................................... 3-198 38 3.14.1.2 Replacement Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Cycles .............. 3-200 39 3.14.2 Termination of Plant Operations and Decommissioning .................... 3-201 40 3.14.2.1 Existing Nuclear Power Plant .......................................... 3-201 41 3.14.2.2 Replacement Power Plants ............................................. 3-201 42 3.14.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................. 3-202
| |
| | |
| xiii 1 3.14.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed 2 Project and Alternatives .................................................. 3-202 3 3.14.3.2 Climate Change ............................................................... 3-205 4 3.15 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ....................................................... 3-209 5 3.15.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 3-210 6 3.15.2 Water Resources ................................................................................ 3-211 7 3.15.2.1 Surface Water Resources ............................................... 3-211 8 3.15.2.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................. 3-213 9 3.15.3 Socioeconomics ................................................................................. 3-213 10 3.15.4 Human Health .................................................................................... 3-214 11 3.15.5 Environmental Justice ........................................................................ 3-214 12 3.15.6 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ................................... 3-215 13 3.16 Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action ........................ 3-216 14 3.16.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts .................................... 3-216 15 3.16.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and 16 Long-Term Productivity ...................................................................... 3-217 17 3.16.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................... 3-217
| |
| | |
| 18 4 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 4-1 19 4.1 Environmental Impacts of License Renewal ......................................................... 4-1 20 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................... 4-1 21 4.3 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 4-1
| |
| | |
| 22 5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 5-1
| |
| | |
| 23 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 6-1
| |
| | |
| 24 7 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM THE 25 NRC SENDS COPIES OF THIS EIS ................................................................... 7-1
| |
| | |
| 26 APPENDIX A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER 27 STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ........... A-1
| |
| | |
| 28 APPENDIX B APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER 29 REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. B-1
| |
| | |
| 30 APPENDIX C CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE .......................................... C-1
| |
| | |
| 31 APPENDIX D CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 32 CORRESPONDENCE ....................................................................... D-1
| |
| | |
| 33 APPENDIX E PROJECTS AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE 34 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................ E-1
| |
| | |
| 35 APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ...... F-1
| |
| | |
| xiv 1 APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND IMPACT FINDINGS 2 CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED RULE, 10 CFR PART 51, 3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 4 DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY 5 FUNCTIONS .................................................................................... G-1
| |
| | |
| 6
| |
| | |
| xv
| |
| | |
| 1 LIST OF FIGURES
| |
| | |
| 2 Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 1-4 3 Figure 2-1 Oconee Station 50-mi Radius Map..................................................................... 2-2 4 Figure 2-2 Oconee Station Layout and Surrounding Features ............................................ 2-3 5 Figure 2-3 Once-through Cooling Water System with Lake Water Source .......................... 2-4 6 Figure 3-1 Regional Surface Water Features Associated with the Oconee Station Site. .. 3-35 7 Figure 3-2 Oconee Station NPDES Permitted Outfalls ...................................................... 3-39 8 Figure 3-3 Conceptual Components of the Piedmont and Mountains 9 Groundwater System ........................................................................................ 3-43 10 Figure 3-4 Oconee Station Groundwater Potentiometric Surface of Shallow and 11 Deep Zone ........................................................................................................ 3-44 12 Figure 3-5 Oconee Station Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Wells .................................... 3-46 13 Figure 3-6 National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands on the Oconee Station Site ................. 3-65 14 Figure 3-7 Trophic Structure of Lake Keowee ................................................................... 3-84 15 Figure 3-8 Minority Block Groups within a 50 mi Radius of Oconee Station, South 16 Carolina .......................................................................................................... 3-183 17 Figure 3-9 Low-Income Block Groups within a 50 mi Radius of Oconee Station, South 18 Carolina .......................................................................................................... 3-185
| |
| | |
| 19 20
| |
| | |
| xvii
| |
| | |
| 1 LIST OF TABLES
| |
| | |
| 2 Table 2-1 Overview of Replacement Energy Alternatives ................................................ 2-20 3 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and 4 Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-34 5 Table 3-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Station 6 Subsequent License Renewal ............................................................................ 3-2 7 Table 3-2 Reported Air Pollutant Emissions from Oconee Station, South Carolina ......... 3-18 8 Table 3-3 Annual Air Emissions for Oconee and Pickens Counties in South Carolina .... 3-19 9 Table 3-4 Surface Water Withdrawals, Oconee Station ................................................... 3-36 10 Table 3-5 Wetlands and Surface Water Features on the Oconee Station Site ................ 3-64 11 Table 3-6 State-Listed Species for Oconee or Pickens Counties, South Carolina, 12 Potentially Occurring in the Oconee Station Vicinity ........................................ 3-66 13 Table 3-7 Fish Species Reported from Lake Keowee, South Carolina ............................ 3-86 14 Table 3-8 Species Collected During Impingement Sampling at Oconee Station, South 15 Carolina, 2006-2007 ........................................................................................ 3-96 16 Table 3-9 Composition and Relative Abundance of Taxa Collected in Entrainment 17 Samples at Oconee Station, South Carolina, 2016-2017 .............................. 3-101 18 Table 3-10 Total Number of Ichthyoplankton Collected by Life Stage in Entrainment 19 Samples at Oconee Station, South Carolina, 2016-2017 .............................. 3-101 20 Table 3-11 Lake Keowee Surface Water Temperature Characteristics by Location, 21 2006-2011 ..................................................................................................... 3-106 22 Table 3-12 Thermal Effluent Limitations at Oconee Station, South Carolina ................... 3-108 23 Table 3-13 Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jurisdiction 24 Evaluated for Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal ........................ 3-125 25 Table 3-14 Occurrences of Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife 26 Service Jurisdiction in the Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal 27 Action Area ..................................................................................................... 3-129 28 Table 3-15 Effect Determinations for Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and 29 Wildlife Service Jurisdiction for Oconee Station Subsequent License 30 Renewal ......................................................................................................... 3-131 31 Table 3-16 Estimated Income Information for the Oconee Station Socioeconomic 32 Region of Influence ........................................................................................ 3-147 33 Table 3-17 Population and Percent Growth in Oconee Station Socioeconomic Region 34 of Influence Counties 1990-2020 and 2030-2060 ......................................... 3-148 35 Table 3-18 Demographic Profile of the Population in the Oconee Region of Influence in 36 2020 ............................................................................................................... 3-148 37 Table 3-19 Migrant Farm Workers and Temporary Farm Labor in Oconee County and 38 Pickens County .............................................................................................. 3-149 39 Table 3-20 Housing in the Oconee Station Region of Influence ....................................... 3-150 40 Table 3-21 Oconee County Water Treatment Plant Characteristics ................................. 3-151 41 Table 3-22 Duke Energy Tax Payments, 2018-2022 ....................................................... 3-152 42 Table 3-23 South Carolina State Routes in the Vicinity of Oconee Station: Annual 43 Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates ........................................................ 3-153 44 Table 3-24 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Operation at Oconee Station 45 Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 ..................................................................... 3-203 46 Table 3-25 Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Facility Operations Under the 47 Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................. 3-205 48 Table 6-1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 6-1
| |
| | |
| xix
| |
| | |
| 1 EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| 2 Background
| |
| | |
| 3 By {{letter dated|date=June 7, 2021|text=letter dated June 7, 2021}} (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 4 Energy), submitted an application requesting subsequent license renewal (SLR) for the Oconee 5 Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station) operating licenses to the U.S. Nuclear 6 Regulatory Commission (NRC). Duke Energy subsequently supplemented its application on 7 November 11, 2021 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898). The Oconee Station Unit 1 renewed facility 8 operating license (DPR-38) expires at midnight on February 6, 2033; the renewed facility 9 operating license for Unit 2 (DPR-47) expires at midnight on October 6, 2033; and the renewed 10 facility operating license for Unit 3 (DPR-55) expires at midnight on July 19, 2034. In its 11 application, Duke Energy requested renewed facility operating licenses for a period of 20 years 12 beyond these expiration dates (i.e., to February 6, 2053, for Oconee Station Unit 1, to 13 October 6, 2053, for Oconee Station Unit 2, and to July 19, 2054, for Oconee Station Unit 3).
| |
| | |
| 14 The NRCs environmental protection regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 15 (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 16 Regulatory Functions, (TN250) implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 17 amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; TN661). This Act is commonly referred to as National 18 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 require the NRC to 19 prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before deciding whether to issue an operating 20 license or a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant. Pursuant to these regulations, 21 NRC staff began to perform an environmental review of Duke Energys SLR application and 22 published a scoping summary report in January 2022 (NRC 2022-TN8905).
| |
| | |
| 23 On February 24, 2022, the Commission issued three memoranda and orders that addressed 24 SLR proceedings for five operating nuclear power plants. Two of these orders, Commission 25 Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-02 (NRC 2022-TN8182) and CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8272), are 26 relevant to the Oconee Station SLR environmental review. In the orders, the Commission 27 concluded that the License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement (LR GEIS),
| |
| 28 which the NRC staff relies on, in part, to meet its obligations under 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and 29 NEPA, did not consider the impacts from operation during the SLR period.
| |
| | |
| 30 As discussed in CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8272), the Commission directed the NRC staff to 31 review and update the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 32 Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Final Report (NUREG-1437; NRC 2013-TN2654; LR GEIS) so that 33 it covers nuclear power plant operation during the SLR period. The Commission stated that the 34 most efficient way to proceed would be for the NRC staff to review and update the LR GEIS and 35 then take appropriate action with respect to pending SLR applications to ensure that the 36 environmental impacts for the period of SLR are considered. Alternatively, the Commission 37 allowed that SLR applicants could submit a revised environmental report providing information 38 on environmental impacts during the SLR period. In such a submittal, SLR applicants must 39 evaluate the impacts of those environmental issues dispositioned in the LR GEIS and Table B-1 40 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) as generic (Category 1) issues. The 41 NRC staff would then address the impacts of these issues during the SLR period in site-specific 42 EISs.
| |
| | |
| 43 Consistent with CLI-22-03, on November 7, 2022, Duke Energy submitted a supplemental 44 environmental report of the impacts of continued operations of Oconee Station during the SLR
| |
| | |
| xxi 1 period (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). That report, which supplemented the environmental report 2 included in Duke Energys original SLR application, addressed, on a site-specific basis, each 3 environmental issue previously dispositioned as a Category 1 issue in the environmental report.
| |
| 4 Duke Energy also performed a review to identify any new, materially significant information 5 relevant to the applicable Category 2 issues addressed in its June 7, 2021, application, and 6 determined that there was no new and significant information identified since the SLR 7 application was submitted. The NRC staff then resumed its environmental review of Duke 8 Energys SLR supplemented application, conducted a second environmental scoping period, 9 and published a second scoping summary report in February 2024 (NRC 2024-TN9478).
| |
| | |
| 10 The NRC staff prepared this site-specific EIS in accordance with CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-11 TN8272), that references CLI-22-02 (NRC 2022-TN8182). This EIS considers the impacts of 12 subsequent license renewal issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR on a site-specific basis.
| |
| 13 This EIS considers information in Duke Energys environmental report, as supplemented; 14 consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental agencies; the NRC staffs 15 independent environmental review; and the consideration of public comments received during 16 the scoping processes.
| |
| | |
| 17 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 18 Duke Energy initiated the proposed Federal action (whether to renew the Oconee Station 19 operating licenses) by submitting an SLR application. The current Oconee Station operating 20 licenses are set to expire at midnight on February 6, 2033, for Unit 1 (DPR-38); on October 6, 21 2033, for Unit 2 (DPR-47); and on July 19, 2034, for Unit 3 (DPR-55). The NRCs Federal action 22 is to determine whether to renew the Oconee Station operating licenses for an additional 23 20 years. If the NRC renews the operating licenses, Duke Energy would be authorized to 24 operate Oconee Station Unit 1 until February 6, 2053, Unit 2 until October 6, 2053, and Unit 3 25 until July 19, 2054.
| |
| | |
| 26 Purpose and Need for Proposed Federal Action
| |
| | |
| 27 The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (renewal of the Oconee Station 28 operating licenses) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 29 term of the current renewed nuclear power plant operating licenses to meet future system 30 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by energy-planning decisionmakers, such 31 as State regulators, utility owners, and Federal agencies (other than the NRC). This definition of 32 purpose and need reflects the NRCs recognition that, absent findings in the safety review 33 required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or in the NEPA environmental analysis 34 that would lead the NRC to reject an SLR application, the NRC has no role in the energy-35 planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.
| |
| | |
| 36 Environmental Impacts of Subsequent License Renewal
| |
| | |
| 37 This site-specific EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and 38 reasonable alternatives to that action. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and 39 reasonable alternatives are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, which represent 40 three established significance levels for potential impacts, presented in a footnote of Table B-1 41 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), and defined as follows:
| |
| | |
| xxii 1 SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 2 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| | |
| 3 MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 4 important attributes of the resource.
| |
| | |
| 5 LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 6 attributes of the resource.
| |
| | |
| 7 In this EIS, the NRC staff evaluates environmental issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR.
| |
| 8 Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and the LR GEIS disposition 9 these issues as generic or Category 1 issues. However, as explained under Background, 10 the Commission determined that the staff may not rely on the LR GEIS for SLR reviews.
| |
| 11 Therefore, in this site-specific EIS, the NRC addresses each of these 54 environmental issues 12 on a site-specific basis.
| |
| | |
| 13 In this site-specific EIS, additional environmental issues were evaluated on a site-specific basis.
| |
| 14 Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and the LR GEIS disposition 15 these issues as site-specific or Category 2 issues. In this site-specific EIS, the NRC staff 16 performed site-specific analyses and made site-specific findings of SMALL, MODERATE, or 17 LARGE for each of these issues.
| |
| | |
| 18 Table ES-1 lists the environmental issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR and the findings 19 related to these issues. Footnotes denote those issues that were formerly addressed in the 20 2013 LR GEIS as Category 1 issues.
| |
| | |
| 21 Table ES-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Nuclear Station 22 Subsequent License Renewal
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Land Use Onsite land use(a) SMALL Land Use Offsite land use(a) SMALL Land Use Offsite land use in transmission line right-of- SMALL ways (ROWs)(a)
| |
| Visual Resources Aesthetic impacts(a) SMALL Air Quality Air quality impacts (all plants)(a) SMALL Air Quality Air quality effects of transmission lines(a) SMALL Noise Noise impacts(a) SMALL Geologic Environment Geology and soils(a) SMALL Surface Water Surface water use and quality (non-cooling SMALL Resources system impacts) (a)
| |
| Surface Water Altered current patterns at intake and discharge SMALL Resources structures(a)
| |
| Surface Water Altered thermal stratification of lakes(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Scouring caused by discharged cooling water(a) SMALL Resources
| |
| | |
| xxiii Table ES-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Surface Water Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and SMALL Resources minor chemical spills(a)
| |
| Surface Water Surface water use conflicts (plants with once- SMALL Resources through cooling systems)(a)
| |
| Surface Water Effects of dredging on surface water quality(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Temperature effects on sediment transport SMALL Resources capacity(a)
| |
| Groundwater Groundwater contamination and use (non- SMALL Resources cooling system impacts)(a)
| |
| Groundwater Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw SMALL Resources less than 100 gallons per minute [gpm])(a)
| |
| Groundwater Radionuclides released to groundwater SMALL Resources Terrestrial Resources Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling SMALL system impacts)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Exposure of terrestrial organisms to SMALL radionuclides(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources SMALL (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Bird collisions with plant structures and SMALL transmission lines(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) SMALL management impacts on terrestrial resources(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna SMALL (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Impingement and entrainment of aquatic SMALL organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton SMALL (all plants)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants SMALL with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all SMALL plants)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved SMALL oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Effects of non-radiological contaminants on SMALL aquatic organisms(a)
| |
| | |
| xxiv Table ES-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Aquatic Resources Exposure of aquatic organisms to SMALL radionuclides(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms(a) SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling SMALL system impacts)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Impacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW) SMALL management on aquatic resources(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease SMALL among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses(a)
| |
| Special Status Species Threatened, endangered, and protected species May affect but is not likely to and Habitats and essential fish habitat adversely affect the tricolored bat or monarch butterfly; no effect on essential fish habitat Historic and Cultural Historic and cultural resources Would not adversely affect Resources known historic properties Socioeconomics Employment and income, recreation, and SMALL tourism(a)
| |
| Socioeconomics Tax revenues(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Community services and education(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Population and housing(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Transportation(a) SMALL Human Health Radiation exposures to the public(a) SMALL Human Health Radiation exposures to plant workers(a) SMALL Human Health Human health impact from chemicals(a) SMALL Human Health Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with SMALL cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river)
| |
| Human Health Microbiological hazards to plant workers(a) SMALL Human Health Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields Uncertain impact (EMFs)(b)
| |
| Human Health Physical occupational hazards(a) SMALL Human Health Electric shock hazards SMALL Postulated Accidents Design-basis accidents(a) SMALL Postulated Accidents Severe accidents See EIS Appendix F Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations Waste Management Low-level waste storage and disposal(a) SMALL Waste Management Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel(a) SMALL Waste Management Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel (c) and high-level waste disposal(a)
| |
| | |
| xxv Table ES-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Waste Management Mixed-waste storage and disposal(a) SMALL Waste Management Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal(a) SMALL Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts See EIS Section 3.15 Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impactsindividual impacts SMALL from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste(a)
| |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impactscollective impacts (d) from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste(a)
| |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel SMALL cycle(a)
| |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle Transportation(a) SMALL Termination of Nuclear Termination of plant operations and SMALL Power Plant decommissioning(a)
| |
| Operations and Decommissioning EIS = environmental impact statement; EMF = electromagnetic fields; gps = gallons per minute; ROW = right-of-way.
| |
| (a) Dispositioned as generic (Category 1) for initial license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of Title 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250).
| |
| (b) This issue was not designated as Category 1 or 2 and is discussed in Section 3.11.6.6 (c) The ultimate disposal of spent fuel in a potential future geologic repository is a separate and independent licensing action that is outside the regulatory scope of this site-specific review. Per 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) Subpart A the Commission concludes that the impacts presented in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014-TN4117) would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered generic to all nuclear power plants and does not warrant a site-specific analysis.
| |
| (d) There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. As stated in the 2013 LR GEIS, The Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated. (10 CFR Part 54; TN4878) (Section 3.13.3.3 of this EIS)
| |
| | |
| 1 Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 2 As part of its environmental review, the NRC is required to consider alternatives to SLR and 3 evaluate the environmental impacts associated with each alternative. These alternatives can 4 include other methods of power generation (replacement energy alternatives), as well as not 5 renewing the Oconee Station operating licenses (no-action alternative).
| |
| | |
| 6 The NRC considered 16 alternatives to the proposed action and eliminated 13 from detailed 7 study due to technical viability, resource availability, or commercial limitations that are likely to 8 exist when the Oconee Station operating licenses expire. Three replacement energy 9 alternatives were determined to be commercially viable, and include:
| |
| 10
| |
| * new nuclear (advanced light-water reactor facility located at Duke Energys W.S. Lee 11 Nuclear Station site combined with a small modular reactor located at the Oconee Station 12 site)
| |
| | |
| xxvi 1
| |
| * new natural gas-fired power plant (natural gas-fired combined-cycle facility located at the 2 Oconee Station site) 3
| |
| * a combination of solar photovoltaic, offshore wind, small modular reactor, and demand-side 4 management.
| |
| | |
| 5 These alternatives, along with the no-action alternative, were evaluated in detail in this EIS. In 6 addition, NRC staff also evaluated new and significant information that could alter the 7 conclusions of the severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis previously performed for the 8 Oconee Station initial license renewal in 2000, which authorized continued reactor operation for 9 an additional 20 years beyond the original 40-year operating license term.
| |
| | |
| 10 Preliminary Recommendation
| |
| | |
| 11 The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of 12 Oconee Station SLR are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning 13 decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC staff based its preliminary recommendation 14 on the following:
| |
| 15
| |
| * Duke Energys environmental report, as supplemented 16
| |
| * consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental agencies 17
| |
| * the NRC staffs independent environmental review 18
| |
| * the consideration of public comments received during the scoping processes 19 20
| |
| | |
| xxvii
| |
| | |
| 1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
| |
| | |
| 2 $ $ dollar(s) (U.S.)
| |
| 3 § Section 4 °C degree(s) Celsius 5 °F degree(s) Fahrenheit 6
| |
| 7 AADT average annual daily traffic 8 ac acre(s) 9 AD Anno Domini 10 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 11 AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) 12 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 13 ALWR advanced light-water reactor 14 AOI area of influence 15 ASA ASA Analysis & Communication Inc.
| |
| 16 17 BC Before Christ 18 BEIR Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation 19 BMP best management practice(s) 20 BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 21 BTA best technology available 22 23 CAA Clean Air Act, as amended through 1990 24 CDF core damage frequency 25 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 26 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 27 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 28 CLB current licensing basis/bases 29 cm centimeter(s) 30 CO carbon monoxide 31 CO2 carbon dioxide 32 CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent 33 CTP chemical treatment pond 34 CWA Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 35 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
| |
| | |
| xxix 1 dB decibel(s) 2 DBA Design-basis accidents 3 dBA A-weighted decibels 4 DMR discharge monitoring reports 5 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 6 DSM demand-side management 7 Duke Energy Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 8
| |
| 9 EAB Exclusion area boundary 10 EFH essential fish habitat 11 EI exposure index 12 EIA Energy Information Administration 13 EIS environmental impact statement 14 ELF extremely low frequency 15 EMF electromagnetic field 16 EO Executive Order 17 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 18 EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 19 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 20 ER environmental report 21 ESA Endangered Species Act 22 23 FCDF Fire core damage frequency 24 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 25 fps feet per second 26 FR Federal Register 27 ft feet 28 ft/min feet per minute 29 ft2 feet squared 30 ft3 cubic feet 31 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 32 33 g gram(s) 34 g Ceq/kWh grams carbon equivalent per kilowatt-hour 35 gal gallons 36 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 37 GHG greenhouse gas
| |
| | |
| xxx 1 GI Generic Issue 2 gpd gallons per day 3 gpm gallons per minute 4 gpy gallons per year 5 GT gigatons 6 GWd/MTU gigawatt days per metric ton 7 GWP global warming potential 8 GWPI Groundwater Protection Initiative 9
| |
| 10 ha hectare(s) 11 HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 12 HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.
| |
| 13 14 IM impingement mortality 15 in. inch(es) 16 in. of Hg inch(es) of mercury 17 18 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 19 IPE individual plant examination 20 IPEEE individual plant examination of external events 21 ISFSI Independent spent fuel storage installation 22 23 km kilometer(s) 24 kV kilovolt 25 kW kilowatt(s) 26 kWh/m2/day kilowatt-hour per square meter per day 27 28 L liter(s) 29 lb pound(s) 30 LERF large early release frequency 31 LLRW low-level radioactive waste 32 LR GEIS NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 33 Renewal of Nuclear Plants 34 LR license renewal 35 36 m meters 37 m/s meter(s) per second
| |
| | |
| xxxi 1 m3 cubic meter(s) 2 m3/min cubic meters per minute 3 MACCS MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 4 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 5 mgd million gallons per day 6 mgy million gallons of water per year 7 mi mile(s) 8 mL milliliter(s) 9 mLd million liters per day 10 mm millimeter(s) 11 mm of Hg millimeter(s) of mercury 12 mph miles per hour 13 mrad milliradiation absorbed dose 14 mrem millirem 15 MSL mean sea level 16 mSv millisievert 17 MT metric ton 18 MW megawatt(s) 19 Mw moment magnitude 20 MWd/MTU megawatt days per metric ton uranium 21 MWe megawatts electric 22 MWt megawatts thermal 23 24 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 25 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 26 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 27 NGCC Natural gas combined cycle 28 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 29 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 30 NLAA may affect but is not likely to adversely affect 31 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 32 NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act 33 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 34 NOV notices of violation 35 NOx nitrogen oxide 36 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 37 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
| |
| | |
| xxxii 1 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 2 NTTF Near-Term Task Force 3 NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical report designation 4 NW northwest 5
| |
| 6 O3 ozone 7 Oconee Station Oconee Nuclear Station 8 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 9 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 10 oz ounce(s) 11 12 PAM primary amebic meningoencephalitis 13 Pb lead 14 pCi/L picoCuries per liter 15 PDR population dose risk 16 PM particulate matter 17 PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 18 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 19 PV photovoltaic 20 PWR pressurized-water reactor 21 22 RCI Request for Confirmation of Information 23 RCP representative concentration pathway 24 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 25 rem roentgen equivalent(s) man 26 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 27 RG Regulatory Guide 28 ROI region(s) of influence 29 ROW right-of-way 30 RW recovery well 31 32 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 33 SAR safety analysis report 34 SC South Carolina 35 SCDF Seismic core damage frequency 36 SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 37 SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
| |
| | |
| xxxiii 1 SCDoT South Carolina Department of Transportation 2 SCR South Carolina Regulation 3 SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 4 sec second 5 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 6 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 7 SLRA subsequent license renewal application 8 SLR subsequent license renewal 9 SMR small modular reactor 10 SNM square nautical mile 11 SO2 sulfur dioxide 12 SOARCA State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis 13 SPCC spill prevention, control and countermeasure 14 SPEO Subsequent Period of Extended Operation 15 SPID Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details 16 SPRA Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment 17 SQG small-quantity hazardous waste generator 18 SSC structures, systems, and components 19 SSF Safe Shutdown Facility 20 Sv sievert(s) 21 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 22 23 TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 24 25 U.S. United States 26 U.S.C. United States Code 27 UCB Upper-Confidence Bound 28 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 29 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 30 USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 31 32 WTG wind turbine generator 33 34 yr year 35 36 m micrometer
| |
| | |
| xxxiv 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DISCUSSION
| |
| | |
| 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) environmental protection regulations 3 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 (TN250), Environmental 4 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, implement 5 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;
| |
| 6 TN661). In part, the regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 require the NRC to prepare an environmental 7 impact statement (EIS) before the issuance or renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power 8 plant.
| |
| | |
| 9 The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.; TN663), specifies 10 that licenses for commercial power reactors can be granted for up to 40 years. The initial 11 40-year licensing period was based on economic and antitrust considerations rather than on 12 technical limitations of the nuclear facility. NRC regulations permit these licenses to be renewed 13 beyond the initial 40-year term for additional time, limited to 20-year increments per renewal.
| |
| 14 Renewal is based on the results of (1) the environmental review and (2) the NRC staffs safety 15 review (10 CFR 54.29, Standards for Issuance of a Renewed License; TN4878). Neither the 16 AEA nor NRC regulations restrict the number of times a license may be renewed. The decision 17 to seek a renewed license rests entirely with nuclear power plant owners and typically is based 18 on the power plants economic viability and the investment necessary to continue to meet all 19 safety and environmental requirements. The NRC makes the decision to grant or deny license 20 renewal based on whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable assurance that it can 21 meet the environmental and safety requirements in the agencys regulations during the period of 22 extended operation.
| |
| | |
| 23 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), the NRC conducted an environmental review of Duke 24 Energy Carolinas, LLCs (Duke Energys), June 7, 2021, request for subsequent license renewal 25 (SLR) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), as supplemented on November 11, 2021, (Duke Energy 26 2021-TN8898), and November 7, 2022 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). Duke Energy requested 27 renewed facility operating licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee 28 Station) for a period of 20 years beyond the dates when the initial renewed facility operating 29 licenses would expire.
| |
| | |
| 30 On February 24, 2022, the NRC Commission issued three memoranda and orders that 31 addressed SLR proceedings for five operating nuclear power plants. Two of these orders, 32 Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8272), which references CLI-22-02 33 (NRC 2022-TN8182), are relevant to the Oconee Station SLR environmental review. In the 34 orders, the Commission concluded that the License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact 35 Statement (LR GEIS), which the NRC staff relies on in part to meet its obligations under 10 CFR 36 Part 51 (TN250) and NEPA, did not consider the impacts from operations during the SLR 37 period.
| |
| | |
| 38 In CLI-22-03, the Commission directed the NRC staff to review and update the LR GEIS so 39 that it covers nuclear power plant operation during the SLR period (NRC 2022-TN8272). The 40 Commission stated that it believed the most efficient way to proceed would be for the NRC staff 41 to review and update the LR GEIS and then take appropriate action with respect to pending 42 SLR applications to ensure that the environmental impacts for the period of SLR are considered.
| |
| 43 However, the Commission allowed that SLR applicants may submit a revised environmental 44 report (ER) providing information on environmental impacts during the SLR period. In such a 45 submittal, SLR applicants must evaluate the impacts of those environmental issues
| |
| | |
| 1-1 1 dispositioned in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and the LR 2 GEIS as generic (Category 1) issues. The NRC staff would then address the impacts of these 3 issues during the SLR period in site-specific EISs.
| |
| | |
| 4 On November 7, 2022, Duke Energy submitted a site-specific environmental review of the 5 impacts of continued operations of Oconee Station during the SLR period (Duke Energy 2022-6 TN8899). That review, which supplemented the ER included in Duke Energys SLR application, 7 addressed, on a site-specific basis, each environmental issue previously dispositioned as a 8 Category 1 issue in the environmental report. Duke Energy also performed a review to identify 9 any new, materially significant information relevant to the applicable Category 2 issues 10 addressed in its June 7, 2021, application, and determined that there was no new and 11 significant information identified since the SLR application was submitted.
| |
| | |
| 12 The NRC staff prepared this site-specific EIS in accordance with CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-13 TN8272), that references CLI-22-02 (NRC 2022-TN8182), and requirements in 10 CFR 51.70 14 (TN250), Draft Environmental Impact StatementsGeneral Requirements. This EIS considers 15 the impacts of all license renewal issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR on a site-specific 16 basis. This EIS considers information in Duke Energys SLR application, as supplemented; 17 Duke Energys November 7, 2022, submittal; the staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, 18 and local government agencies; and other new information, as appropriate.
| |
| | |
| 19 In this site-specific EIS, the NRC evaluates environmental issues applicable to Oconee Station 20 SLR. Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and the LR GEIS 21 disposition of these issues as generic (Category 1) issues. However, as explained under 22 Background, the Commission determined that the staff may not rely on the LR GEIS for SLR 23 reviews pending updates to the LR GEIS and 10 CFR Part 51. Therefore, in this EIS, each of 24 these environmental issues are addressed on a site-specific basis.
| |
| | |
| 25 In this site-specific draft EIS, additional environmental issues were evaluated on a site-specific 26 basis. Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and the LR GEIS 27 disposition these issues as site-specific (Category 2) issues. The NRC staff performed site-28 specific analyses and made site-specific findings of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE for each of 29 these issues.
| |
| | |
| 30 1.1 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 31 Duke Energy initiated the proposed Federal action (whether to renew the Oconee Station 32 operating licenses) by requesting the SLR of Oconee Stations operating licenses to the NRC.
| |
| 33 The initial renewed facility operating licenses are set to expire at midnight on February 6, 2033, 34 for Unit 1 (DPR-38); October 6, 2033, for Unit 2 (DPR-47); and July 19, 2034, for Unit 3 35 (DPR-55). The NRCs Federal action is to decide whether to renew the Oconee Station 36 operating licenses for an additional 20 years of operation. If the NRC issues subsequent 37 renewed licenses, Oconee Station would be authorized to operate until February 6, 2053 38 (Unit 1), October 6, 2053 (Unit 2), and July 19, 2054 (Unit 3).
| |
| | |
| 39 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action
| |
| | |
| 40 The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (renewal of the Oconee Station 41 operating licenses) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 42 term of the current nuclear power plant operating licenses to meet future system generating 43 needs, as such needs may be determined by energy-planning decisionmakers, such as State
| |
| | |
| 1-2 1 regulators, utility owners, and, where authorized, Federal agencies other than the NRC. This 2 definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that, unless there are 3 findings in the safety review required by the AEA, as amended, or in the NEPA environmental 4 analysis that would lead the NRC to reject the SLR application, the NRC does not have a role in 5 energy-planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to 6 operate.
| |
| | |
| 7 1.3 Major Environmental Review Milestones
| |
| | |
| 8 Duke Energy submitted an ER as an appendix to its SLR application on June 7, 2021 (Duke 9 Energy 2021-TN8897). The NRC published a notice of the receipt of the application in the 10 Federal Register (FR) on June 25, 2021 (Volume 86 of the FR, p. 33784 [86 FR 33784-11 TN8900]). After reviewing the SLR application and ER, as supplemented, the NRC staff 12 accepted the application for a detailed technical review on July 22, 2021. The staff published a 13 Federal Register notice of acceptability for docketing and opportunity for hearing on July 28, 14 2021 (86 FR 40662-TN8901). On August 10, 2021, the NRC published a notice in the Federal 15 Register (86 FR 43684-TN8902) informing the public of the staffs intent to conduct an 16 environmental scoping process, which began a 30-day scoping comment period. The NRC staff 17 held a virtual public scoping meeting on August 25, 2021. In January 2022, the NRC issued a 18 scoping summary report for Oconee Station SLR (NRC 2022-TN8905), which included the 19 comments received during the 2021 scoping process (Appendix A.1 of this EIS).
| |
| | |
| 20 The NRC staff conducted a virtual environmental and severe accident mitigation alternatives 21 (SAMAs) audit of Oconee Station during the week of October 11, 2021, to independently verify 22 information in Duke Energys ER. During the audit, the NRC staff held meetings with nuclear 23 power plant personnel and reviewed site-specific documentation and photos. The staff 24 summarized the audit in a {{letter dated|date=November 23, 2021|text=letter dated November 23, 2021}} (NRC 2021-TN8910).
| |
| | |
| 25 As explained previously, in February of 2022, the Commission issued memoranda and orders 26 that, among other things, determined that the NEPA review for Oconee Station SLR may not 27 rely upon the LR GEIS. Accordingly, the NRC staff performed a site-specific review of the 28 Oconee Station SLR application for those environmental issues dispositioned in the LR GEIS 29 and Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) as generic (Category 1) 30 issues. As part of this review, the NRC staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and to 31 conduct a limited second period of EIS scoping in the Federal Register (87 FR 77643-TN8903) 32 on December 19, 2022. An additional Federal Register notice extending the limited scoping 33 period to February 2, 2023 (88 FR 2645-TN9125), was published on January 17, 2023. In 34 February 2024, the NRC issued a scoping summary report (NRC 2024-TN9478), which included 35 comments received during the 2022-2023 limited second scoping period. The NRC staff 36 conducted a supplemental virtual environmental audit of Oconee Station the week of April 24, 37 2023, to independently verify information in Duke Energys ER Supplement 2 (NRC 2023-38 TN8911, NRC 2023-TN8934).
| |
| | |
| 39 Figure 1-1 shows the major milestones of the environmental review portion of the NRCs SLR 40 application review process for the Oconee Station SLR application. The EIS public comment 41 process provides an opportunity for the incorporation of public comments and updating.
| |
| | |
| 42 The NRC has established a process that NRC staff and license renewal applicants can 43 complete in a reasonable period of time and that includes clear requirements to assure safe 44 nuclear power plant operation for up to an additional 20 years of nuclear power plant life, 45 pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878), Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for
| |
| | |
| 1-3 1 Nuclear Power Plants. This process consists of separate safety and environmental reviews, 2 which the NRC staff conducts simultaneously and documents in two reports: (1) the safety 3 evaluation report documents the safety review and (2) the EIS documents the environmental 4 review. Both reports factor into the NRCs decision to issue or deny a renewed license.
| |
| | |
| 5 6 Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
| |
| | |
| 7 1.4 Environmental Issues Evaluated in This EIS
| |
| | |
| 8 In 1996, as supplemented in 1999 and revised in 2013, the NRC generically assessed the 9 environmental impacts of license renewal of nuclear power plants in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission (NUREG)-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 11 Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1996-TN288, NRC 1999-TN289, NRC 2013-TN2654). The NRC 12 undertook this generic review to establish a systematic approach to evaluating environmental 13 consequences of renewing individual nuclear power plant operating licenses for up to a 20-year 14 period.
| |
| | |
| 1-4 1 The 2013 revision of the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) establishes 78 environmental impact 2 issues for license renewal. For each of these issues, the NRC determines whether the analysis 3 of the environmental issue in the LR GEIS could be applied to all nuclear power plants seeking 4 license renewal and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Based on this 5 determination, the NRC designates each environmental issue as Category 1 (generic to all or a 6 distinct subset of nuclear power plants) or Category 2 (site-specific to certain nuclear power 7 plants only). For license renewal applications, a site-specific supplement to the LR GEIS is 8 developed that considers the applicable Category 1 and Category 2 issues for the site under 9 review. For generic issues (Category 1), the staff can adopt the LR GEISs analysis and 10 conclusions unless new and significant information that invalidates the conclusion summary in 11 the LR GEIS is identified during a site-specific review. For Category 2 issues, the staff must 12 perform a site-specific environmental review for each license renewal application. The NRC 13 codified the conclusions in the LR GEIS in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250),
| |
| 14 Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant.
| |
| | |
| 15 The NRC staff prepared this site-specific EIS in accordance with CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-16 TN8272), that references CLI-22-02 (NRC 2022-TN8182), and requirements in 10 CFR Part 17 51.70 (TN250), Draft Environmental Impact StatementsGeneral Requirements. The impacts 18 of all license renewal issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR were considered on a site-19 specific basis. This EIS considers information in Duke Energys SLR application, as 20 supplemented, including Duke Energys November 7, 2022 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899),
| |
| 21 supplement; the staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies; 22 and other new information, as appropriate.
| |
| | |
| 23 In this EIS, the NRC evaluates the environmental issues applicable to Oconee Station SLR and 24 considered whether any additional environmental issues exist beyond the issues that would 25 apply to the SLR period. The NRC staff identified no such issues during its review of Duke 26 Energys ER or as a result of the environmental scoping process, the environmental site audit, 27 or consultations with Federal agencies, State, and local agencies and American Indian Tribes.
| |
| 28 Generally, Oconee Station would continue current operating conditions rather than introduce 29 new environmental impacts that did not exist during the original license or the initial license 30 renewal period. Therefore, in this EIS, the NRC structures its analysis using the environmental 31 issues established in the LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 32 The NRCs standard of significance for impacts uses the Council on Environmental Quality 33 (CEQ) terminology for Determine the appropriate level of NEPA review (40 CFR 1501.3(b)-
| |
| 34 TN4876). In considering whether the effects of the proposed action are significant, the NRC 35 analyzes the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the proposed action 36 (license renewal). The potentially affected environment consists of the affected area and its 37 resources, such as listed species and designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species 38 Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.-TN1010). For site-specific issues, 39 significance would depend on the effects in the local area, including (1) both short- and long-40 term effects; (2) both beneficial and adverse effects; (3) effects on public health and safety; and 41 (4) effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the environment.
| |
| | |
| 42 The NRC characterizes potential impacts according to three levels of significance for potential 43 impactsSMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE.
| |
| | |
| 1-5 1 SMALL: Indicates that the environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 2 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
| |
| | |
| 3 MODERATE: Indicates that the environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 4 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
| |
| | |
| 5 LARGE: Indicates that the environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 6 destabilize important attributes of the resource.
| |
| | |
| 7 1.5 Structure of This EIS
| |
| | |
| 8 This site-specific EIS presents the analysis of the environmental effects of the continued 9 operation of Oconee Station through the SLR term, reasonable alternatives to SLR, and 10 mitigation measures for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Chapter 3, Affected 11 Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigating Actions, contains an analysis and 12 comparison of the potential environmental impacts from SLR and alternatives to SLR.
| |
| 13 Chapter 4, Conclusion, presents the NRC staffs preliminary recommendation on whether the 14 environmental impacts of SLR are so great that preserving the option of SLR would be 15 unreasonable. The NRC will consider public comments that it receives on this draft site-specific 16 EIS and will then issue its final site-specific EIS. The NRC will make its final determination on 17 Oconee Stations SLR in a record of decision to be issued following issuance of the final site-18 specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 19 In preparing this draft site-specific EIS, the NRC staff carried out the following activities:
| |
| 20
| |
| * reviewed Duke Energys ER, as supplemented 21
| |
| * consulted with Federal agencies, State and local agencies, and American Indian Tribes 22
| |
| * conducted site-specific analysis of each environmental issue relevant to Oconee Station 23 SLR 24
| |
| * performed environmental and SAMA site audits 25
| |
| * considered public comments received during the scoping comment periods
| |
| | |
| 26 New information can come from many sources, including the applicant, the NRC, 27 other agencies, and public comments. If new information reveals an issue of which the NRC 28 was unaware, the staff will first analyze the newly identified issue to determine if it is within the 29 scope of the license renewal environmental review. If the NRC determines that the issue is 30 relevant to the proposed action or its impacts, the staff then will determine the significance of 31 the issue for the plant and address the issue in the EIS, as appropriate.
| |
| | |
| 32 1.6 Decision to Be Supported by the EIS
| |
| | |
| 33 This site-specific EIS provides information and analyses to support the NRCs decision on 34 whether to renew the Oconee Station operating licenses for an additional 20 years. The 35 regulation at 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5) (TN250) specifies the NRCs decision standard as follows:
| |
| 36 In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to 37 [10 CFR] Part 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether 38 or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great 39 that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning 40 decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
| |
| | |
| 1-6 1 There are many factors that the NRC considers when deciding whether to renew the operating 2 license of a nuclear power plant. The analysis of environmental impacts in this EIS will provide 3 the NRCs decisionmakers (i.e., the Commission) with important environmental information for 4 consideration in deciding whether to renew the Oconee Station operating licenses.
| |
| | |
| 5 1.7 Cooperating Agencies
| |
| | |
| 6 During the scoping process, the NRC staff did not identify any Federal, State, or local agencies 7 as cooperating agencies for this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 8 1.8 Consultations
| |
| | |
| 9 The ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.-TN1010); the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 10 Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1996 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.-TN4482); and the 11 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.-
| |
| 12 TN4157), require Federal agencies to consult with applicable State and Federal agencies and 13 organizations before taking an action that may affect endangered species, fisheries, or historic 14 and archaeological resources, respectively. See Appendix C for a list of the agencies and 15 groups with which the NRC staff consulted.
| |
| | |
| 16 1.9 Correspondence
| |
| | |
| 17 During the review, the NRC staff contacted the Federal, State, regional, local, and Tribal 18 agencies listed in Appendix C. Appendix C chronologically lists all correspondence the 19 NRC staff sent and received associated with the ESA, the MSA, and the NHPA. Appendix D 20 chronologically lists all other correspondence.
| |
| | |
| 21 1.10 Status of Compliance
| |
| | |
| 22 Duke Energy is responsible for complying with all NRC regulations and other applicable 23 Federal, State, and local requirements. Appendix F, Laws, Regulations, and Other 24 Requirements, of the LR GEIS, Revision 1, describes some of the major applicable Federal 25 statutes. Numerous permits and licenses are issued by Federal, State, and local authorities for 26 activities at Oconee Station. Appendix B of this EIS contains further information from the 27 Oconee Station application about Duke Energys status of compliance.
| |
| | |
| 28 1.11 Related State and Federal Activities
| |
| | |
| 29 The NRC staff reviewed the possibility that activities (projects) of other Federal agencies might 30 impact the renewal of the operating licenses for Oconee Station. Any such activities could result 31 in cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a 32 cooperating agency for preparing this EIS. The NRC staff has determined that there are no 33 Federal projects that would make it necessary for another Federal agency to become a 34 cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2); TN250). Table E-1 in 35 Appendix E includes the Federal facilities in the vicinity of Oconee Station. In addition, 36 Table E-1 identifies the activities (projects) including State activities that were considered during 37 the cumulative environmental impacts review.
| |
| | |
| 38 Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4332-TN4880) requires the NRC to consult with and 39 obtain comments from any Federal agency or designated authority that has jurisdiction by law 40 or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in the subject matter of
| |
| | |
| 1-7 1 the EIS. For example, during the preparation of this site-specific EIS, the NRC consulted with 2 the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, among others. Appendix C provides a 3 complete list of consultation correspondence.
| |
| | |
| 4 The NRC staff reviewed the Oconee Station status of compliance in Chapter 3 and Appendix B 5 and notes that some State or Federal permitting and certification activities could affect NRC 6 license renewal. In appropriate circumstances (not present here), construction of water intake 7 structures, access roads, or rail spurs may be required for the NRC to issue a renewed license.
| |
| 8 In such instances, some nuclear power plant construction activities may require a license 9 amendment and an environmental review by the NRC. However, no such activities have been 10 identified for Oconee Station SLR.
| |
| | |
| 1-8 1 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
| |
| | |
| 2 The NRCs decision-making authority in license renewal is limited to deciding whether to 3 renew a nuclear power plants operating license; the agencys implementation of NEPA 4 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; TN661), requires consideration of the environmental impacts of 5 potential alternatives to renewing a nuclear power plants operating license. Although the 6 ultimate decision on which alternative (or the proposed action) to carry out falls to the nuclear 7 plant owner, State, or other non-NRC Federal officials, comparing the environmental impacts 8 of renewing the operating license to the environmental impacts of alternatives allows the NRC 9 to determine whether the environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that it would 10 be unreasonable for the agency to preserve the option of license renewal for energy planning 11 decisionmakers (10 CFR Part 51.71(d) footnote 3; TN250).
| |
| | |
| 12 Ultimately, energy planning decisionmakers and utility owners decide whether the nuclear 13 power plant will continue to operate, and economic and environmental considerations play 14 important roles in this decision. In general, the NRCs responsibility is to ensure the safe 15 operation of nuclear power facilities, not to formulate energy policy or promote nuclear power, or 16 encourage or discourage the development of alternative power generation. The NRC does not 17 engage in energy planning decisions, and it makes no judgment as to which replacement 18 energy alternatives would be the most likely alternative selected in any given case.
| |
| | |
| 19 This chapter describes: (1) the Oconee Station nuclear power plant site and its operation, 20 (2) the proposed action (subsequent renewal of the Oconee Station operating licenses),
| |
| 21 (3) reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (including the no-action alternative), and 22 (4) alternatives eliminated from detailed study.
| |
| | |
| 23 2.1 Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facility and Operation
| |
| | |
| 24 The physical presence of Oconee Station buildings and facilities, as well as the nuclear power 25 plants operations, are integral to creating the environment that currently exists at and around 26 the site. This section describes certain nuclear power plant operating systems and certain 27 nuclear power plant infrastructure, operations, and maintenance.
| |
| | |
| 28 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting
| |
| | |
| 29 Oconee Station is in Oconee County in northwestern South Carolina, approximately 8 mi 30 (13 km) northeast of Seneca, South Carolina, at latitude 34°-47-38.2 North and longitude 31 82° 55.4 West. As shown in Figure 2-1, Oconee Station is situated on the shore of Lake 32 Keowee. Lake Keowee was formed by impounding the waters of the Little River and the 33 Keowee River. Duke Energys Lake Keowee occupies the area immediately north and west of 34 the site. The United States Army Corps of Engineers Hartwell Reservoir is south of the site.
| |
| 35 Duke Energys Lake Jocassee lies approximately 11 mi (17.7 km) to the north (Duke Energy 36 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 37 As shown in Figure 2-2, the principal Oconee Station structures are the reactor containment 38 buildings for Units 1, 2, and 3; auxiliary building; turbine building; independent spent fuel storage 39 installation (ISFSI), meteorology towers, and service building, as well as 525-kV and 230-kV 40 switchyards (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 2-1 1
| |
| 2 Figure 2-1 Oconee Station 50-mi (80-km) Radius Map. Source: Duke Energy 2021-3 TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 4 The land surrounding Oconee Station is mostly forested with some cropland and pasture.
| |
| 5 The open waters of Lake Keowee are the predominant geographic feature and shoreline is 6 developed with private residences and recreation (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 2-2 1
| |
| 2 Figure 2-2 Oconee Station Layout and Surrounding Features. Source: Duke Energy 3 2021-TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 2-3 1 2.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Systems
| |
| | |
| 2 Oconee Station units are Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactors with dry containments 3 (steel lined and reinforced concrete). The NRC issued the original Oconee Station Unit 1 4 operating license on February 6, 1973, the Unit 2 operating license on October 6, 1973, and the 5 Unit 3 operating license on July 19, 1974. All three units received their first renewed licenses on 6 May 23, 2000. The nuclear reactors produce a nominal core power rating of 2,568 megawatts 7 thermal (MWt) for each unit (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 8 Oconee Station uses low-enriched uranium dioxide (limited to 5 percent by weight uranium-235) 9 fuel sealed in zirconium alloy of M5 clad fuel rods. Refueling occurs about every 24 months 10 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 11 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems
| |
| | |
| 12 Section 2.2.3 of Duke Energys ER provides a detailed description of Oconee Stations cooling 13 and auxiliary water systems, including the condenser circulating water system, emergency core 14 cooling system, component cooling system, high- and low-pressure service water systems, 15 recirculated cooling water system, protected service water system, and associated subsystems.
| |
| 16 Section 2.2.3 also describes the nuclear power plants thermal effluent discharge to surface 17 waters (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, Section 2.2.3, pp. 2-5-2-10). The NRC staff 18 incorporates this information here by reference. Except as otherwise cited for clarity, the staff 19 summarizes below the information incorporated here by reference and considers any new and 20 potentially significant information since the NRC staff issued NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 (NRC 21 1999-TN8942).
| |
| | |
| 22 Pressurized-water reactors, such as Oconee Station, heat water to a high temperature under 23 pressure inside the reactor. This type of steam and power conversion system uses three heat 24 transfer (exchange) loops. Section 3.1.2 of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact 25 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (known as the LR GEIS), describes 26 this process (NRC 2013-TN2654). Oconee Station uses a once-through cooling loop (circulating 27 water system) to dissipate heat from the turbine condensers. Figure 2-3 provides a basic 28 schematic diagram of this system.
| |
| | |
| 29 30 Figure 2-3 Once-through Cooling Water System with Lake Water Source. Adapted 31 from NRC 2013-TN2654, Fig. 3.1-4.
| |
| | |
| 2-4 1 2.1.3.1 Cooling Water Intake and Discharge
| |
| | |
| 2 The nuclear power plants condenser circulating water system is the principal, direct interface 3 with the hydrologic environment during normal operating conditions. This system also normally 4 supplies water to various other nuclear power plant cooling systems. The principal components 5 of this water intake system include a skimmer wall, intake canal, submerged dam, and intake 6 structure and associated equipment.
| |
| | |
| 7 Oconee Station withdraws cooling water from the Little River arm of Lake Keowee from 8 underneath the skimmer wall, which extends across the entrance to Oconee Stations intake 9 canal. This entrance was a natural cove that was deepened and extended during nuclear power 10 plant construction to form the mouth of the intake canal. The intake canal has a total length of 11 approximately 1 mi (1.6 km). The skimmer wall extends from just above the surface of the water 12 (i.e., 800 ft [244 m] mean sea level [MSL]) at the lakes full pond elevation) to a depth of 65 ft 13 (20 m) below the water surface, so that only cooler water from near the bottom of the lake 14 enters the intake canal. In addition, a submerged dam (weir) structure is located approximately 15 850 ft (259 m) downstream of the skimmer wall to retain water in the intake canal, in the interval 16 between the weir and Oconee Stations intake structure. This emergency pond of water would 17 serve as a source of cooling water if the water supply from Lake Keowee (i.e., the ultimate heat 18 sink) were to be lost. This impounded water can be recirculated through the condensers and 19 back to the intake canal for decay heat removal so long as water remains in the intake canal.
| |
| | |
| 20 Water flows down the length of the intake canal toward the intake structure. A trash boom 21 extends across the canal at a point 900 ft (270 m) upstream of the intake structure. The boom 22 is angled to direct large floating debris to the shoreline and away from the intake structure and 23 its 24 intake bays.
| |
| | |
| 24 In the intake structure, water entering the intake bays first passes through trash racks where the 25 bars are spaced 5.5 in. (14 cm) apart. After the trash racks, the intake water passes through a 26 set of two fixed screens. These screens have in. (0.95 cm) mesh openings. The screens are 27 equipped with a differential pressure alarm to warn of debris buildup. As necessary, Duke 28 Energy personnel manually lift the screens and clean them with a high-pressure wash.
| |
| | |
| 29 The 12 condenser circulating water intake pumps (four pumps serving each unit) that are 30 housed in the intake structure supply water through conduits to a common condenser intake 31 header. Each of Oconee Stations 12 circulating water pumps are rated at 177,000 gallons per 32 minute (gpm) (670,000 liters per minute [Lpm]). The number of pumps in operation is seasonally 33 dependent, ranging from four pumps per unit in the summer to two pumps per unit in the winter.
| |
| | |
| 34 In the event of a power loss and loss of the circulating water pumps, the nuclear power plants 35 emergency condenser circulating water system is automatically initiated and operates as an 36 unassisted siphon system, supplying sufficient water to the condenser for decay heat removal 37 and emergency cooling requirements. Upon activation, an emergency discharge pipeline is 38 opened that redirects water from each of the three nuclear power plant condensers to the 39 Keowee Hydro Stations tailrace (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 40 In addition to the circulating water pumps housed in the intake structure, Oconee Station also 41 maintains a dedicated emergency pump (i.e., the B5B pump). This pump is used to satisfy the 42 requirements imposed by NRC Order EA-02-026, which was codified in the NRCs regulations 43 at 10 CFR 50.54(hh); 50.155(b) (TN249). The B5B pumps rated capacity is 1,500 gpm 44 (5,700 Lpm).
| |
| | |
| 2-5 1 In total, Oconee Stations peak (design) surface water withdrawal rate is 2,125,500 gpm 2 (8.04 million Lpm). This rate is equivalent to approximately 3,060 million gallons per day (mgd) 3 (11,600 million liters per day [mLd]). Section 3.5.1.2 of this site-specific EIS summarizes Oconee 4 Stations actual (measured) surface water withdrawals over the last 5 years and permit limits.
| |
| | |
| 5 The heated circulating water from the nuclear power plants main condensers and other sources 6 of non-contact cooling water are discharged back to Lake Keowee through the nuclear power 7 plants discharge structure (see Figure 2-2). This discharge point is designated as Outfall 001 8 under Duke Energys National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for 9 Oconee Station, as further discussed in Section 3.5.1.3 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 10 2.1.3.2 Well Water Supply System
| |
| | |
| 11 No onsite groundwater is withdrawn for domestic (potable) or other uses at Oconee Station.
| |
| 12 Potable water is supplied by the city of Seneca public system. Its source is Lake Keowee.
| |
| 13 Historically, onsite wells were used to supply various, non-potable needs across the Oconee 14 Station site. Duke Energy reports that these wells have not been used within the last 10 years 15 and all have either been abandoned or are being assessed for abandonment. However, Duke 16 Energy does periodically operate three groundwater drawdown wells and one groundwater 17 recovery well. Section 3.5.2.2 of this site-specific EIS further discusses these wells and 18 associated groundwater withdrawals.
| |
| | |
| 19 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems
| |
| | |
| 20 Section 2.2.6 of Duke Energys ER, submitted as part of its SLR application, provides an 21 expanded description of Oconee Stations radioactive waste management systems (Duke 22 Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, Section 2.2.6, pp. 2-13 to 2-30). The NRC staff incorporates 23 this information here by reference. Except as otherwise cited for clarity, the staff summarizes 24 the information incorporated here by reference below.
| |
| | |
| 25 The NRC licenses nuclear power plants with the expectation that they will release radioactive 26 material to both the air and water during normal operations. However, NRC regulations require 27 that gaseous and liquid radioactive releases from nuclear power plants meet radiation dose-28 based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283), Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 29 and the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) criteria in 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249),
| |
| 30 Appendix I, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to 31 Meet the Criterion As Low as is Reasonably Achievable for Radioactive Material in Light-32 Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents. In other words, the NRC places regulatory 33 limits on the radiation dose that members of the public can receive from radioactive effluents of 34 a nuclear power plant. For this reason, all nuclear power plants use radioactive waste 35 management systems to control and monitor radioactive wastes.
| |
| | |
| 36 Oconee Station uses the liquid, gaseous, and solid waste management systems to collect and 37 process radioactive materials and waste produced as a byproduct of nuclear power plant 38 operations. Liquid waste disposal systems are used to collect, hold, treat, monitor, dispose, and 39 record the liquid effluent. The gaseous wastes disposal systems are used to collect, hold (if 40 necessary), filter, monitor, and record the gaseous effluent. Duke Energy built an interim 41 radioactive waste facility to accommodate the greater gaseous and liquid waste volume than 42 was originally anticipated. The four holdup tanks are the only equipment being used in the 43 interim radioactive waste facility. The holdup tanks are used for the decay of gaseous waste.
| |
| 44 Oconee Station built a separate radioactive waste facility to handle the increased liquid wastes.
| |
| 45 Solid wastes are stored, packaged, and shipped offsite. Solid waste is comprised of reactor
| |
| | |
| 2-6 1 components, equipment, and tools that have been removed from service, contaminated 2 protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash generated from nuclear power plant design, 3 operations modifications, routine maintenance activities, and non-fuel solid waste. Non-fuel 4 solid waste consists of the treatment and separation of radionuclides from gases and liquids, 5 in addition to contaminated materials from various reactor areas (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897:
| |
| 6 Appendix E, p. 2-15).
| |
| | |
| 7 The waste disposal system outside containment is common to all three units. The waste 8 disposal systems can process the waste produced by continuous operation of the systems, 9 assuming that the fission products escape to the reactor coolant by diffusion through defects in 10 the cladding of 1 percent of the fuel rods. These radioactive waste management systems assure 11 that the dose to members of the public from radioactive effluents is reduced to ALARA levels in 12 accordance with NRC regulations (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 13 Duke Energy maintains a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) to assess the 14 radiological impact, if any, to the public and the environment from radioactive effluents released 15 during operations at Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The REMP is discussed in 16 Section 2.1.4.5 of this EIS.
| |
| 17 Duke Energy has an Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) that contains the methods and 18 parameters for calculating offsite doses resulting from liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents.
| |
| 19 These methods ensure that radioactive material discharges from Oconee Station meet NRC 20 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory dose standards. The ODCM also 21 contains the requirements for the REMP (Duke Energy 2023-TN8947).
| |
| 22 2.1.4.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste Management
| |
| | |
| 23 Duke Energy uses waste management systems to collect, analyze, and process radioactive 24 liquids produced at Oconee Station. These systems reduce radioactive liquids before they are 25 released to the environment. The Oconee Station liquid waste disposal system meets the 26 design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249), Appendix I, and controls the processing, disposal, 27 and release of radioactive liquid wastes.
| |
| 28 Radioactive liquid wastes are collected in storage tanks in the Auxiliary Building according to the 29 liquid waste source and process train. The waste is then transferred to the Radwaste Facility for 30 processing by filtration, demineralization, or both, to separate impurities for final disposal. The 31 redesigned Auxiliary Building coolant treatment header aids the processing of liquid wastes from 32 high-activity waste tanks, low-activity waste tanks, and the miscellaneous waste holdup tanks in 33 the Radwaste Facility. Based on analysis, wastewater is continuously monitored and controlled 34 and is either reprocessed or released (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, 35 Section 2.2.6.1).
| |
| | |
| 36 The liquid waste disposal system was designed to receive, process, and discharge potentially 37 radioactive liquid waste. Holdup capacity is provided for retention of liquid effluents, particularly 38 where unfavorable environmental conditions can be expected to require operational limitations 39 upon the release of radioactive effluents to the environment. Radioactive fluids entering the 40 waste disposal system are processed or collected in tanks until a determination of subsequent 41 treatment can be made. The waste is sampled and analyzed to determine the quantity of 42 radioactivity. Liquid wastes are processed as required and then released under controlled 43 conditions. In summary, the liquid waste effluent is diluted as necessary to permissible 44 concentration limits. Waste released from the three units is integrated and controlled by process 45 radiation monitors, interlocks, and by the operator, to ensure that it does not exceed the station 46 release limits.
| |
| | |
| 2-7 1 All liquid wastes are monitored prior to release to ensure that they will not exceed the limits of 2 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283). The radiation monitoring system monitors the effluent, closing the 3 discharge valve if the amount of radioactive material in the effluent exceeds preset values.
| |
| 4 Duke Energy performs offsite dose calculations based on effluent samples obtained at this 5 release point to ensure that the limits of 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249), Appendix I are not exceeded.
| |
| 6 The ODCM prescribes the alarm/trip setpoints for the liquid effluent radiation monitors. Duke 7 Energys use of these radiological waste systems and the procedural requirements in the 8 ODCM provides assurance that the dose from radiological liquid effluents at Oconee Station 9 complies with NRC and EPA regulatory dose standards. Duke Energy calculates dose 10 estimates for members of the public using radiological liquid effluent release data.
| |
| | |
| 11 Duke Energys annual radioactive effluent release reports contain a detailed presentation of 12 liquid effluents released from Oconee Station and the resultant calculated doses (Duke Energy 13 2021-TN8897). These reports are publicly available on the NRCs website 14 (https://www.nrc.gov/).
| |
| | |
| 15 The NRC staff reviewed 5 years of radioactive effluent release data from 2018 through 2022 16 (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-TN8945, Duke 17 Energy 2022-TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-TN8947). A 5-year period provides a dataset that 18 covers a broad range of activities that occur at a nuclear power plant, such as refueling outages, 19 routine operation, and maintenance, which can affect the generation of radioactive effluents into 20 the environment. The NRC staff compared the data against NRC dose limits and looked for 21 indications of adverse trends (i.e., increasing dose levels or increasing radioactivity levels).
| |
| | |
| 22 As discussed below, effluent release data for the 5-year period analyzed by the NRC staff were 23 found to be well below regulatory standards. For example, the calculated doses from radioactive 24 liquid effluents released from Oconee Station during 2022 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8947) are 25 summarized below:
| |
| 26 Oconee Station Unit 1 in 2022 27
| |
| * The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from Oconee Station Unit 1 28 radioactive effluents was 6.93 x 102 millirem (mrem) (6.93 x 104 millisievert [mSv)]),
| |
| 29 which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 30 (TN249).
| |
| 31
| |
| * The maximum organ dose (gastrointestinal tract) to an offsite member of the public from 32 Oconee Station Unit 1 radioactive effluents was 6.93 x 102 mrem (6.93 x 104 mSv),
| |
| 33 which is well below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 34 Oconee Station Unit 2 in 2022 35
| |
| * The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from Oconee Station Unit 2 36 radioactive effluents was 6.93 x 102 mrem (6.93 x 104 mSv), which is well below the 37 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 38
| |
| * The maximum organ dose (gastrointestinal tract) to an offsite member of the public from 39 Oconee Station Unit 2 radioactive effluents was 6.93 x 102 mrem (6.93 x 104 mSv),
| |
| 40 which is well below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 41 Oconee Station Unit 3 in 2022 42
| |
| * The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from Oconee Station Unit 3 43 radioactive effluents was 6.93 x 102 mrem (6.93 x 104 mSv), which is well below the 44 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| | |
| 2-8 1
| |
| * The maximum organ dose (gastrointestinal tract) to an offsite member of the public from 2 Oconee Station Unit 3 radioactive effluents was 6.93 x 102 mrem (6.93 x 104 mSv),
| |
| 3 which is well below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| | |
| 4 In the values cited above, the NRC staff divided Duke Energys reported total-body and 5 maximum organ liquid effluent doses for the entire facility evenly among Units 1, 2, and 3. This 6 was done to attribute the approximate dose contribution to each of the licensed nuclear units.
| |
| 7 The NRC staffs review of Duke Energys radioactive liquid effluent control program shows that 8 radiation doses to members of the public were maintained within NRC and EPA radiation 9 protection standards, as contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249), 10 CFR Part 20 10 (TN283), and Title 40, Protection of Environment, of the 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739),
| |
| 11 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. The NRC staff 12 observed no adverse trends in the dose levels.
| |
| | |
| 13 During the SLR term, Duke Energy will continue to perform routine nuclear power plant refueling 14 and maintenance activities. Based on Duke Energys past performance in operating a 15 radioactive waste system at Oconee Station that maintains ALARA doses from radioactive liquid 16 effluents, the NRC staff expects that Duke Energy will maintain similar performance during the 17 SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 18 2.1.4.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste Management
| |
| | |
| 19 Radioactive gaseous wastes develop from gases in liquid contained in tanks and piping at 20 Oconee Station. The gaseous wastes are monitored and released at an acceptable rate 21 designated by the ODCM. The ODCM determines the effluent release rate to ensure that 22 releases are within predetermined limits, which ensures compliance with dose limitations of 23 licensee commitments. Oconee Station Units 1 and 2 share a Gaseous Waste Disposal System.
| |
| 24 Oconee Station Unit 3 has a separate system that can be interconnected with the Unit 1 and 25 Unit 2 systems. The Gaseous Disposal Systems maintain a non-oxidizing cover gas of nitrogen 26 in tanks and equipment that may contain radioactive gas. These systems also provide for 27 holdup gas decay, and they release the gases under controlled conditions.
| |
| | |
| 28 Duke Energy calculates dose estimates for members of the public based on radioactive 29 gaseous effluent release data and atmospheric transport models. Duke Energys annual 30 radioactive effluent release reports present in detail the radiological gaseous effluents released 31 from Oconee Station and the resultant calculated doses. As described above in Section 2.1.4.1, 32 the NRC staff reviewed 5 years of radioactive effluent release data from the 2018 through 2022 33 reports (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-TN8945, 34 Duke Energy 2022-TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-TN8947). The NRC staff compared the data 35 against NRC dose limits and looked for indications of adverse trends (i.e., increasing dose 36 levels) over the period.
| |
| | |
| 37 As discussed below, effluent release data for the 5-year period analyzed by the NRC staff were 38 found to be well below regulatory standards. For example, the calculated doses from radioactive 39 gaseous effluents released from Oconee Station during 2022 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8947) are 40 summarized below:
| |
| 41 Oconee Station Unit 1 in 2022 42
| |
| * The air dose due to noble gases with resulting gamma radiation in gaseous effluents was 43 1.24 x 104 millirad (mrad) (1.24 x 106 milligray), which is well below the 10 mrad 44 (0.1 milligray) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249).
| |
| | |
| 2-9 1
| |
| * The air dose from beta radiation in gaseous effluents was 1.01 x 104 mrad (1.01 x 106 2 milligray), which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 milligray) dose criterion in Appendix I to 3 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 4
| |
| * The critical organ dose to an offsite member of the public from radiation in gaseous effluents 5 as a result of iodine-131, iodine-133, hydrogen-3, and particulates with greater than 8-day 6 half-lives was 1.02 x 101 mrem (1.02 x 103 mSv), which is below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) 7 dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 8 Oconee Station Unit 2 in 2022 9
| |
| * The air dose due to noble gases with resulting gamma radiation in gaseous effluents was 10 1.24 x 104 mrad (1.24 x 106 milligray), which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 milligray) dose 11 criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 12
| |
| * The air dose from beta radiation in gaseous effluents was 1.01 x 104 mrad (1.01 x 106 13 milligray), which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 milligray) dose criterion in Appendix I to 14 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 15
| |
| * The critical organ dose to an offsite member of the public from radiation in gaseous effluents 16 as a result of iodine-131, iodine-133, hydrogen-3, and particulates with greater than 8-day 17 half-lives was 1.02 x 101 mrem (1.02 x 103 mSv), which is below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) 18 dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 19 Oconee Station Unit 3 in 2022 20
| |
| * The air dose due to noble gases with resulting gamma radiation in gaseous effluents was 21 1.24 x 104 mrad (1.24 x 106 milligray), which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 milligray) dose 22 criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 23
| |
| * The air dose from beta radiation in gaseous effluents was 1.01 x 104 mrad 24 (1.01 x 106 milligray), which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 milligray) dose criterion in 25 Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 26
| |
| * The critical organ dose to an offsite member of the public from radiation in gaseous effluents 27 as a result of iodine-131, iodine-133, hydrogen-3, and particulates with greater than 8-day 28 half-lives was 1.02 x 101 mrem (1.02 x 103 mSv), which is below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) 29 dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| | |
| 30 In the values cited above, Duke Energys reported air dose due to noble gases, air dose from 31 beta radiation, and critical organ dose for the entire facility were divided evenly among Units 1, 32 2, and 3. This was done by the NRC staff to attribute the approximate dose contribution to each 33 of the licensed nuclear units. The NRC staffs review of Oconee Stations radioactive gaseous 34 effluent control program showed radiation doses to members of the public that were well below 35 NRC and EPA radiation protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 36 (TN249), 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283), and 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739). The NRC staff observed no 37 adverse trends in the dose levels over the 5 years reviewed.
| |
| | |
| 38 During the SLR term, Duke Energy will continue to perform routine nuclear power plant refueling 39 and maintenance activities. Based on Duke Energys past performance in operating a 40 radioactive waste system at Oconee Station that maintains ALARA doses from radioactive 41 gaseous effluents, the NRC expects that Oconee Station will maintain similar performance 42 during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 2-10 1 2.1.4.3 Radioactive Solid Waste Management
| |
| | |
| 2 Oconee Stations solid waste disposal system provides for packaging and/or solidification of 3 radioactive waste that will subsequently be shipped offsite to an approved burial facility. These 4 activities reduce the amount of waste shipped for offsite disposal. Solid radioactive wastes are 5 logged, processed, packaged, and stored for subsequent shipment and offsite burial. Solid 6 radioactive wastes and potentially radioactive wastes include reactor components, equipment 7 and tools removed from service, chemical laboratory samples, spent resins, used filter 8 cartridges, and radioactively contaminated hardware, as well as compacted wastes such as 9 contaminated protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash generated from nuclear power 10 plant design modifications and operations, and routine maintenance activities. In addition, 11 nonfuel solid wastes result from treating and separating radionuclides from gases and liquids, 12 and from removing containment material from various reactor areas.
| |
| | |
| 13 2.1.4.4 Radioactive Waste Storage
| |
| | |
| 14 At Oconee Station, low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) is stored temporarily onsite at a low-15 level waste storage facility before being shipped offsite for processing or disposal at licensed 16 LLRW treatment and disposal facilities. Energy Solutions is the processing and disposal facility 17 Oconee Station uses. The LLRW is classified as Class A, Class B, or Class C (minor volumes 18 are classified as greater than Class C). Class A includes both dry active waste and processed 19 waste (e.g., dewatered resins). Classes B and C normally include a low percentage of the 20 LLRW generated. Radioactive waste that is greater than Class C waste is the responsibility of 21 the Federal Government. Low-level mixed waste is managed and transported to an Energy 22 Solutions licensed vendor under the green is clean program. As indicated in Duke Energys 23 ER and discussed with NRC staff at the virtual audit, Oconee Station has sufficient existing 24 capability to store all generated LLRW onsite. No additional construction of onsite storage 25 facilities is necessary for LLRW storage during the subsequent period of extended operation.
| |
| | |
| 26 Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 each store spent fuel in a spent fuel pool and in two onsite 27 ISFSIs. The ISFSIs safely store spent fuel onsite in licensed and approved dry cask storage 28 containers. The original ISFSI is operated under a site-specific ISFSI license (No. SNM-2503) 29 per 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart B, and the second ISFSI is operated under the Oconee Station 30 license per 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K. The possible need to expand the size of the ISFSI 31 would depend on the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) future performance of its obligation to 32 accept spent nuclear fuel, or the availability of other interim storage options. Per the Oconee 33 Station ER, the ISFSI may need to be expanded during the SLR period of extended operation.
| |
| 34 If the ISFSI expansion were needed, Duke Energy expects that there is enough land area 35 available for expansion within the site boundary of the existing facility (Duke Energy 2021-36 TN8897, Section 3.1.4). During the audit, the licensee stated that expanding the ISFSI would 37 cause no significant environmental impact. Currently, Oconee Station has not proposed the 38 installation of additional spent fuel storage pads to the current ISFSI area to support SLR. If 39 future changed circumstances require the installation of additional spent fuel storage pads, then 40 this would be subject to a separate NEPA review. Therefore, the staff does not consider 41 expansion of the ISFSI in this EIS. The NRC staff notes, however, that the impacts of onsite 42 storage of spent nuclear fuel during the period of extended operation have been determined to 43 be SMALL, as stated in 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), Appendix B, Table B-1; see also NUREG-44 2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 45 (NRC 2014-TN4117).
| |
| | |
| 2-11 1 2.1.4.5 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2 Duke Energy maintains a REMP to assess the radiological impact, if any, to the public and the 3 environment from Oconee Station operations.
| |
| | |
| 4 The REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environment for ambient 5 radiation and radioactivity. Monitoring is conducted for the following: direct radiation, air, 6 precipitation, well water, river water, surface water, milk, food products and vegetation 7 (such as edible broad leaf vegetation), fish, silt, and shoreline sediment. The REMP also 8 measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring 9 radioactive material, including radon).
| |
| | |
| 10 In addition to the REMP, Duke Energy established an Oconee Station onsite groundwater 11 protection initiative program in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-07, Industry 12 Groundwater Protection Initiative (NEI 2007-TN1913). This program monitors the onsite 13 nuclear power plant environment to detect leaks from nuclear power plant systems and pipes 14 containing radioactive liquid. Section 3.5.2.3, Groundwater Quality, of this site-specific EIS 15 contains information on Oconee Stations groundwater protection initiative program. Since 16 implementing the groundwater protection initiative program, the groundwater monitoring network 17 at Oconee Station has expanded and, at the time of the ER publication, consists of 63 onsite 18 monitoring wells (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). As part of the REMP program, Duke Energy 19 conducts analyses of selected wells for the presence of gamma emitters, tritium, and difficult-to-20 detect radionuclides in groundwater on a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis.
| |
| | |
| 21 Section 3.5.2.3 describes the results from groundwater sampling. During the 2020 sampling 22 period, tritium was detected in groundwater at concentrations well below the EPA-established 23 safe drinking water maximum contaminant level of 20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (Duke 24 Energy 2023-TN8947). In addition, no gamma or difficult-to-detect radionuclides were detected 25 in the groundwater between 2014 and October 2020 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 26 Section 3.5.2.3 of this site-specific EIS also contains a more complete description of the 27 groundwater protection program and a historical description of tritium and other radionuclides 28 monitoring in groundwater at the site.
| |
| | |
| 29 Based on its review of the information on groundwater quality presented in Section 3.6.4.2 of 30 the ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E), as summarized in Section 3.5 of this EIS, the 31 staff determined that over the period of extended operation, potential groundwater 32 contamination would likely remain onsite and no offsite wells should be affected. Oconee 33 Station has implemented a groundwater protection program to identify and monitor leaks 34 through the installed monitoring well network. With a robust sampling strategy, potential future 35 releases of tritium into the groundwater would be readily detected.
| |
| | |
| 36 The NRC staff reviewed 5 years of annual radiological environmental monitoring data from 2018 37 through 2022 (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-38 TN8945, Duke Energy 2022-TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-TN8947). A 5-year period provides a 39 dataset that covers a broad range of activities that occur at a nuclear power plant, such as 40 refueling outages, routine operation, and maintenance that can affect the generation and 41 release of radioactive effluents into the environment. The NRC staff looked for indications of 42 adverse trends (i.e., increasing radioactivity levels) over the period of 2018 through 2022.
| |
| | |
| 43 Based on its review of the REMP and inadvertent release data, the NRC staff finds no apparent 44 increasing trend in concentration or pattern indicating either a new inadvertent release or 45 persistently high tritium or other radionuclide concentration that might indicate an ongoing
| |
| | |
| 2-12 1 inadvertent release from Oconee Station. The groundwater monitoring program data at Oconee 2 Station show that Duke Energy monitors, characterizes, and actively remediates spills, and that 3 there were no significant radiological impacts to the environment from operations at Oconee 4 Station.
| |
| | |
| 5 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems
| |
| | |
| 6 Section 2.2.7 of Duke Energys ER provides an expanded description of Oconee Stations 7 nonradioactive waste management systems (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, 8 Section 2.2.7, 2 2-27). The NRC staff incorporates this information here by reference.
| |
| 9 Except as otherwise cited for clarity, the staff summarizes below the information incorporated 10 here by reference and considers any new and potentially significant information since the NRC 11 staff issued NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 (NRC 1999-TN8942).
| |
| | |
| 12 As any other industrial facility, nuclear power plants generate wastes that are not contaminated 13 with either radionuclides or hazardous chemicals. Oconee Station generates nonradioactive 14 waste as a result of nuclear power plant maintenance, cleaning, and operational processes.
| |
| 15 Oconee Station manages nonradioactive wastes in accordance with applicable Federal and 16 State regulations, as implemented through its corporate procedures. Oconee Station generates 17 and manages the following types of nonradioactive wastes:
| |
| | |
| 18 Hazardous Wastes: Oconee Station is classified by the EPA and the South Carolina 19 Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) as a small-quantity hazardous 20 waste generator. The amounts of hazardous wastes generated are only a small percentage of 21 the total wastes generated. These generally consist of paint wastes, spent and off-specification 22 (e.g., shelf-life expired) chemicals, gun cleaning rags with lead residue, and occasional project-23 specific wastes. Table 2.2-2 in the ER provides a list of the amounts of hazardous waste (Duke 24 Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E).
| |
| | |
| 25 Nonhazardous Wastes: These generally include asbestos insulation and other asbestos-26 containing materials, lead material, nonhazardous used paint and solvents, batteries, expired 27 shelf-life chemicals, grout and/or concrete, construction demolition debris, sand blasting and 28 metal blasting materials, lamps, paper and office debris, water treatment room products such 29 as used resin and used carbon, laboratory waste material, used oil and grease, cafeteria waste, 30 antifreeze liquids, used refrigerants, scrap metal, scrap wood, used tires and nonradioactive 31 liquid waste. Nonradioactive liquid waste typically comes from the secondary nuclear power 32 plant systems in the turbine building, the water treatment room backwash, and other 33 miscellaneous liquid waste streams. Municipal waste is disposed of at the local permitted solid 34 waste management facility. Table 2.2-2 in the ER provides a list of the amounts of 35 nonhazardous waste (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E).
| |
| | |
| 36 Universal Wastes: These typically consist of lamps and batteries (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 37 Duke Energy maintains a list of waste vendors that it has approved for use across the entire 38 company to remove and dispose of the identified wastes offsite (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 39 2.1.6 Utility and Transportation Infrastructure
| |
| | |
| 40 The utility and transportation infrastructure at nuclear power plants typically interfaces with 41 public infrastructure systems available in the region. Such infrastructure includes utilities, such 42 as suppliers of electricity, fuel, and water, as well as roads and railroads that provide access to 43 the site. The following sections briefly describe the existing utility and transportation
| |
| | |
| 2-13 1 infrastructure at Oconee Station. Site-specific information in this section is derived from Duke 2 Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), unless otherwise cited.
| |
| | |
| 3 2.1.6.1 Electricity
| |
| | |
| 4 Nuclear power plants generate electricity for other users; however, they also use electricity to 5 operate. Offsite power sources provide power to engineered safety features and emergency 6 equipment in the event of a malfunction or interruption of power generation at the nuclear power 7 plant. Planned independent backup power sources provide power in the event that power is 8 interrupted from both the nuclear power plant itself and offsite power sources.
| |
| | |
| 9 2.1.6.2 Fuel
| |
| | |
| 10 Oconee Station operates with low-enriched uranium dioxide fuel. With the NRC approval of 11 Zircaloy-4 and M5 cladding fuel usage, Duke Energy operates the reactor cores to yield an 12 equilibrium cycle (normal cycle) burnup of approximately 20,854 megawatt-days per metric ton 13 uranium (MWd/MTU) for 24 months and maximum burnup rate of 62,000 MWd/MTU. Refueling 14 outages occur on a 58month cycle for all three units on a staggered schedule, with one fall 15 outage scheduled during odd-numbered years, and spring and fall outages scheduled for even-16 numbered years. This equates to an effective 24-month refueling schedule for each unit. Duke 17 Energy stores spent fuel in the spent fuel pool in the auxiliary building next to the containment 18 building or in dry cask storage containers at the onsite ISFSI (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 19 2.1.6.3 Water 20 In addition to cooling and auxiliary water from Lake Keowee, Oconee Station uses potable water 21 supplied by the city of Seneca public water system and Oconee Joint Regional Sewer Authority 22 for sanitary wastewater. In this EIS, Section 2.1.3, Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems, 23 describes the Oconee Station cooling and industrial water systems.
| |
| | |
| 24 2.1.6.4 Transportation Systems
| |
| | |
| 25 Nuclear power plants are served by controlled access roads that are connected to 26 U.S. highways and Interstate highways. In addition to roads, many nuclear power plants also 27 have railroad connections for moving heavy equipment and other materials. Nuclear power 28 plants located on navigable waters may have facilities to receive and ship loads on barges.
| |
| 29 Section 3.10.6, Local Transportation, describes the Oconee Station transportation systems.
| |
| | |
| 30 2.1.6.5 Power Transmission Systems
| |
| | |
| 31 For license renewal and subsequent license renewal, the NRC evaluates, as part of the 32 proposed action, the continued operation of those Oconee Station power transmission lines that 33 connect to the substation where it feeds electricity into the regional power distribution system.
| |
| 34 The transmission lines that are in scope for the Oconee Station SLR environmental review are 35 onsite and are not accessible to the general public (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The NRC also 36 considers the continued operation of the transmission lines that supply outside power to the 37 nuclear plant from the grid. Section 3.11.4, Electromagnetic Fields, describes these 38 transmission lines.
| |
| | |
| 39 2.1.7 Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance 40 Maintenance activities conducted at Oconee Station include inspection, testing, and surveillance 41 to maintain the current licensing basis of the facility and to ensure compliance with 42 environmental and safety requirements (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). These activities include
| |
| | |
| 2-14 1 in-service inspections of safety-related structures, systems, and components; quality assurance 2 and fire protection programs; and radioactive and nonradioactive water chemistry monitoring.
| |
| | |
| 3 Additional programs include those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance 4 requirements and those implemented in response to NRC generic communications. Such 5 additional programs include various periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures 6 necessary to manage the effects of aging on structures and components. Certain program 7 activities are performed during the operation of the units, whereas others are performed during 8 scheduled refueling outages (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 9 2.2 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 10 As stated in Section 1.1 of this EIS, the NRCs proposed action is to decide whether to 11 renew Oconee Station operating licenses for an additional 20 years. Section 2.2.1 provides 12 a description of normal nuclear power plant operations during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 13 2.2.1 Nuclear Power Plant Operations during the Subsequent License Renewal Term
| |
| | |
| 14 Nuclear power plant operation activities during the SLR term would be the same as, or similar 15 to, those occurring during the current license term.
| |
| | |
| 16 Section 2.1, Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facility and Operation, describes the following 17 general types of activities carried out during nuclear power plant operations:
| |
| 18
| |
| * reactor operation 19
| |
| * waste management 20
| |
| * security 21
| |
| * office and clerical work; possible laboratory analysis 22
| |
| * surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance 23
| |
| * refueling and other outages 24 As part of its SLR application, Duke Energy submitted an environmental report. Duke Energys 25 ER states that Oconee Station will continue to operate during the license renewal term in the 26 same manner as it would during the current license term except for additional aging 27 management programs, as necessary (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Such programs would 28 address structure and component aging in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878),
| |
| 29 Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.
| |
| 30 2.2.2 Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License Renewal
| |
| | |
| 31 Refurbishment activities include replacement and repair of major structures, systems, and 32 components. Most major refurbishment activities are actions that would typically take place only 33 once in the life of a nuclear power plant, if at all. For example, replacement of pressurized water 34 reactor steam generator systems is a refurbishment activity. Refurbishment activities may have 35 an impact on the environment beyond those that occur during normal operations and may 36 require evaluation, depending on the type of action and the nuclear power plant-specific design.
| |
| | |
| 37 In preparation for its subsequent license renewal application, Duke Energy evaluated major 38 structures, systems, and components in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.21 (TN4878),
| |
| 39 Contents of ApplicationTechnical Information, to identify major refurbishment activities 40 necessary for the continued operation of Oconee Station during the proposed 20-year period of 41 extended operation (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 2-15 1 Duke Energy did not identify any major refurbishment activities necessary for the continued 2 operation of Oconee Station beyond the end of the existing renewed operating licenses (Duke 3 Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 4 2.2.3 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning after the 5 License Renewal Term
| |
| | |
| 6 NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement 7 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power 8 Reactors (the decommissioning GEIS) (NRC 2002-TN665), describes the environmental 9 impacts of decommissioning. The majority of nuclear power plant operations activities would 10 cease with reactor shutdown. Some activities (e.g., security and oversight of spent nuclear fuel) 11 would remain unchanged, whereas others (e.g., waste management, administrative work, 12 laboratory analysis, surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue at reduced or 13 altered levels. Systems dedicated to reactor operations would cease. However, if these systems 14 are not removed from the site after reactor shutdown, their physical presence may continue to 15 impact the environment. Impacts associated with dedicated systems that remain in place, or 16 with shared systems that continue to operate at normal capacities, could remain unchanged.
| |
| | |
| 17 Decommissioning could occur whether Oconee Station is shut down at the end of its current 18 renewed operating license or at the end of subsequent license renewal periods of extended 19 operation, 20 years later. The environmental impacts of decommissioning would be similar in 20 either event.
| |
| | |
| 21 2.3 Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 22 As stated above, NEPA requires the NRC to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed 23 action, renewing Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 operating licenses. For a replacement energy 24 alternative to be reasonable, it must be either (1) commercially viable on a utility scale and 25 operational before the reactors operating license expires or (2) expected to become 26 commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the reactors operating license 27 expires.
| |
| | |
| 28 The first alternative to the proposed action, renewing the Oconee Station operating licenses, is 29 for the NRC to not renew the licenses. This is called the no-action alternative and is described 30 in Section 2.3.1 of this EIS. In addition to the no-action alternative, this section discusses three 31 reasonable replacement energy alternatives. As described in Section 2.3.2, these alternatives 32 seek to replace Oconee Stations generating capacity by meeting the regions energy needs 33 through other means or sources.
| |
| | |
| 34 2.3.1 No Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 35 At some point, all operating nuclear power plants will permanently cease operations and 36 undergo decommissioning. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC does not renew the 37 Oconee Station operating licenses and the reactor units would shut down at or before the 38 expiration of the current renewed licenses on February 6, 2033 (Unit No. 1), October 6, 2033 39 (Unit No. 2), and July 19, 2034 (Unit No. 3). The NRC expects the impacts to be relatively 40 similar, whether they occur at the end of the current renewed license term (i.e., after 60 years 41 of operation) or at the end of a subsequent renewed license term (i.e., after 80 or more years 42 of operation).
| |
| | |
| 2-16 1 After permanent reactor shutdown, nuclear power plant operators will initiate decommissioning 2 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82, Termination of License (TN249). The decommissioning 3 GEIS (NUREG-0586) (NRC 2002-TN665) describes the environmental impacts from 4 decommissioning a nuclear power plant and related activities. The analysis in the 5 decommissioning GEIS bounds the environmental impacts of decommissioning when Duke 6 Energy terminates reactor operations at Oconee Station. A licensee in decommissioning must 7 assess in its post-shutdown decommissioning activities report submitted to the NRC, whether 8 there are planned decommissioning activities with reasonably foreseeable environmental 9 impacts that are not bounded in previous EISs. Section 3.14.2, Termination of Plant Operations 10 and Decommissioning, describes the incremental environmental impacts of SLR on 11 decommissioning activities.
| |
| | |
| 12 Termination of reactor operations would result in the total cessation of electrical power 13 production by Oconee Station. Unlike the replacement energy alternatives described in 14 Section 2.3.2 of this EIS, the no-action alternative does not expressly meet the purpose and 15 need of the proposed action, as described in Section 1.2, because the no-action alternative 16 does not provide a means of delivering baseload power to meet future electric system needs.
| |
| 17 Assuming that a need currently exists for the electrical power generated by Oconee Station, 18 the no-action alternative would likely create a need for replacement energy.
| |
| | |
| 19 2.3.2 Replacement Power Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 20 The following sections describe replacement energy alternatives. The potential environmental 21 impacts of these alternatives are described in Chapter 3. Although NRCs authority only extends 22 to deciding whether to renew Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 operating licenses, the 23 replacement energy alternatives represent possible options for energy-planning decisionmakers 24 may need to consider if the operating licenses are not renewed.
| |
| | |
| 25 In evaluating replacement energy alternatives, the NRC considered energy technologies in 26 commercial operation, as well as technologies likely to be commercially available by the time 27 the current renewed operating licenses expire. Because energy technologies continually evolve 28 in capability and cost, and because regulatory structures change to either promote or impede 29 the development of certain technologies, the staffs evaluation determined which replacement 30 energy alternatives would be available and commercially viable when the renewed operating 31 licenses expire. The Duke Energys ER describes possible replacement energy alternatives. In 32 addition, the alternatives considered information from the following sources:
| |
| 33
| |
| * DOE, Energy Information Administration (EIA) 34
| |
| * other offices within DOE 35
| |
| * EPA 36
| |
| * industry sources and publications
| |
| | |
| 37 In total, the NRC staff considered 16 replacement power alternatives to the proposed agency 38 action and eliminated 13 of them from the detailed study, leaving three replacement energy 39 alternatives. The three replacement energy alternatives and 13 eliminated alternatives include 40 the following:
| |
| 41
| |
| * alternatives to the proposed action:
| |
| 42 - new nuclear (advanced light-water reactor and a small modular reactor) 43 - natural gas combined-cycle
| |
| | |
| 2-17 1 - combination (solar photovoltaic, offshore wind, small modular reactor, and demand-side 2 management) 3
| |
| * alternatives eliminated from detailed study:
| |
| 4 - solar power alone 5 - wind power alone 6 - biomass power 7 - demand-side management 8 - hydroelectric power 9 - geothermal power 10 - wave and ocean energy 11 - municipal solid waste-fired power 12 - petroleum-fired power 13 - coal-fired power 14 - fuel cells 15 - purchased power 16 - delayed retirement of other power generating facilities
| |
| | |
| 17 Sections 2.3.2.1 through 2.3.2.3 describe the three replacement energy alternatives.
| |
| 18 Alternatives that could not provide the equivalent of Oconee Stations current generating 19 capacity and alternatives whose costs or benefits could not justify inclusion in the range of 20 reasonable alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. Alternatives not likely to be 21 constructed and operational by the time the Oconee Station operating licenses expire in 2033 22 (Units 1 and 2) and 2034 (Unit 3) were also eliminated from detailed study.
| |
| | |
| 23 To ensure that the replacement energy alternatives are consistent with State or regional energy 24 policies, the NRC reviewed energy-related statutes, regulations, and policies within the Oconee 25 Station region. Accordingly, alternatives that would conflict with these requirements were 26 eliminated from further consideration. Section 2.4 briefly describes the 13 alternatives 27 eliminated from detailed study and provides the basis for each elimination.
| |
| | |
| 28 As described in Chapter 1, the NRC assigns a significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, or 29 LARGE for most site-specific issues. For ecological resources subject to the Endangered 30 Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.-TN1010) (ESA) and the Magnuson-31 Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 32 seq.-TN7841); and historic and cultural resources subject to the National Historic Preservation 33 Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.-TN4157), the impact significance determination language is 34 specific to the authorizing legislation. The order in which this EIS presents the different 35 alternatives does not imply increasing or decreasing level of impact; nor does the order imply 36 that an energy-planning decisionmaker would be more (or less) likely to select any given 37 alternative.
| |
| | |
| 38 Region of Influence
| |
| | |
| 39 Oconee Station is located on the shore of Lake Keowee in eastern Oconee County, South 40 Carolina, approximately 8 mi (13 km) northeast of the city of Seneca, South Carolina. A small 41 portion of the site extends into neighboring Pickens County. The power station is owned and 42 operated by Duke Energy. Duke Energy is a regulated public utility whose service area covers 43 approximately 24,000 mi2 (62,000 km2) across portions of North Carolina and South Carolina 44 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). This area constitutes the region-of-influence (ROI) for the 45 analysis of Oconee Station replacement energy alternatives.
| |
| | |
| 2-18 1 In 2020, electric generators in the ROI had a net summer generating capacity of approximately 2 59,000 megawatts (MW). This capacity included units fueled by natural gas (31 percent), coal 3 (25 percent), nuclear power (20 percent), hydroelectric power (10 percent), and solar pholtaic 4 power (10 percent). Biomass, petroleum, and wind sources comprised the balance of 5 generating capacity in the ROI (EIA 2021-TN8378).The electric industry in the ROI generated 6 approximately 223,000 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2020. This electrical production was 7 dominated by nuclear (44 percent), natural gas (29 percent), and coal power (15 percent).
| |
| 8 Hydroelectric, solar pholtaic, biomass, wind, and petroleum energy sources collectively fueled 9 the remaining 12 percent of this electricity (EIA 2021-TN8353). In the United States, natural 10 gas-fired generation rose from 16 percent of the total electricity generated in 2000 to 37 percent 11 in 2019 (DOE/EIA 2020-TN7376).
| |
| | |
| 12 Given known technological and demographic trends, the EIA of the DOE predicts that natural 13 gas fired generation in the United States will remain relatively constant through 2050, whereas 14 electricity generated from renewable energy is expected to double from 21 percent of total 15 generation to 42 percent over that period (EIA 2021-TN8354). However, fossil fuel and 16 renewable energy levels within the Oconee Station ROI may not follow nationwide forecasts, 17 and uncertainties in U.S. energy policies and the energy market could affect forecasts. In 18 particular, the implementation of policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions could 19 have a direct effect on fossil fuel-based generation technologies (Patel 2018-TN8416). In 2007, 20 North Carolina became the first state in the Southeast to adopt a renewable portfolio standard, 21 which requires investor-owned electric utilities to derive 12.5 percent of their electricity retail 22 sales from renewable energy sources. In 2021, North Carolina passed additional clean energy 23 legislation that requires the State to reduce electricity-related carbon emissions from electric 24 generating facilities 70 percent by 2030, and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Although South 25 Carolina does not have a mandatory renewable energy portfolio standard, in 2019 the State 26 passed the South Carolina Energy Freedom Act, which requires utilities to file voluntary 27 renewable energy programs (EIA 2022-TN8955; SCORS 2023-TN9100).The remainder of this 28 section describes three replacement energy alternatives to the proposed action:
| |
| 29
| |
| * new nuclear alternative (Section 2.3.2.1) 30
| |
| * natural gas combined-cycle alternative (Section 2.3.2.2) 31
| |
| * combination alternative of new nuclear (small modular reactor (SMR)) power, solar 32 photovoltaic, offshore wind power, and demand-side management (Section 2.3.2.3)
| |
| | |
| 33 Table 2-1 summarizes key characteristics of the replacement energy alternatives.
| |
| | |
| 2-19 1 Table 2-1 Overview of Replacement Energy Alternatives
| |
| | |
| Natural Gas Combination (Small Modular Reactor, Solar, Alternative New Nuclear Combined-Cycle Offshore Wind, and Demand-Side Management)
| |
| Summary Two ALWR units and one SMR Six units for a total 1,200 MWe from SMR generation, 600 MWe from solar unit for a total of approximately of approximately 2,600 MWe pholtaic, 600 MWe from offshore wind, and 200 MWe 2,600 MWe from demand-side management Location ALWR: On land associated with On available land within the The SMR component would be located on available land Duke Energys W.S. Lee Nuclear Oconee Station site. Would use within the Oconee Station site. The solar component Station in Cherokee County, Oconee Stations existing would be located at multiple sites distributed across the South Carolina. Would use transmission lines and some ROI, offsite of the Oconee Station site. The wind available existing infrastructure, existing infrastructure (Duke component would be located off the North as appropriate (Duke Energy Energy 2021-TN8897) Carolina/South Carolina coasts in Federal waters 2021-TN8897) designated for offshore wind development. Assumes demand-side management energy savings from within SMR: On available land within the Duke Energys service territory.
| |
| Oconee Station site. Would use existing transmission lines and infrastructure as appropriate (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897)
| |
| Cooling Closed cycle with mechanical Closed cycle with mechanical The SMR units would use closed cycle cooling systems System draft cooling towers draft cooling towers. with mechanical draft cooling towers.
| |
| Cooling water withdrawal ALWR: Cooling water 18 mgd Cooling water withdrawal13.3 mgd (per SMR unit) withdrawal50 mgd Consumptive water use14 mgd Consumptive water use9.2 mgd (per SMR unit) (NRC Consumptive water use35 mgd (NETL 2019-TN7484) 2019-TN6136)
| |
| (NRC 2013-TN6435)
| |
| No cooling system would be required for the solar SMR: Cooling water withdrawal pholtaic and wind facilities, or demand-side 13.3 mgd management.
| |
| Consumptive water use9.2 mgd (NRC 2019-TN6136) 2
| |
| | |
| 1 Table 2-1 Overview of Replacement Energy Alternatives (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Natural Gas Combination (Small Modular Reactor, Solar, Alternative New Nuclear Combined-Cycle Offshore Wind, and Demand-Side Management)
| |
| Land Required ALWR: Approximately 3,000 ac Approximately 130 ac (53 ha) for SMR facilities would require approximately 110 ac (1,200 ha) for nuclear power plant nuclear power plant facilities, with (45 ha) (NuScale 2022-TN7327).
| |
| facilities, 1,100 ac (450 ha) for an additional 191 ac (77 ha) for cooling water make-up pond, and rights-of-way to access existing Solar photovoltaic facilities would collectively require 990 ac (400 ha) for transmission gas pipelines. No new gas wells approximately 9,600 ac (3,900 ha) (a). Offshore wind corridors (NRC 2013-TN6435, would be needed to support the facilities would be sited within an approximately 66 Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). facility (Duke Energy 2021- square-nautical mile (57,000 ac) area (BOEM 2020-TN8897). TN7494).
| |
| SMR: Approximately 36 ac (14 ha) for nuclear power plant Demand-side management would require no land.
| |
| facilities (NuScale 2022-TN7327).
| |
| Workforce ALWR: Peak construction - 4,600 1,000 workers during peak The SMR, solar photovoltaic, and offshore wind facilities workers construction and 190 workers would collectively require approximately 3,500 workers Operations. - 950 workers during operations (Duke Energy during peak construction and 950 workers during (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, 2021-TN8897, NRC 2013- operations (BLM 2019-TN8386; NRC 2019-TN6136; NRC 2019-TN6136) TN6435) DOE 2011-TN8387; AWEA 2020-TN8355).
| |
| | |
| SMR: Peak construction- 550 workers Operations - 250 workers (NRC 2019-TN6136) ac = acre(s); ALWR = advanced light-water reactor; ha = hectare(s); SMR = small modular reactor; mgd = million gallons per day; MWe = megawatts electric; ROI = region of influence.
| |
| | |
| 1 2.3.2.1 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and a Small Modular Reactor)
| |
| | |
| 2 The NRC staff considers construction of a new nuclear power plant to be a reasonable 3 replacement energy alternative to Oconee Stations SLR. Nuclear power generation currently 4 accounts for approximately 44 percent of the electricity produced in the ROI (EIA 2021-5 TN8353). In addition to Oconee Station, six other nuclear power plants operate within the ROI, 6 with the nearest being the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, located approximately 96 mi 7 (155 km) to the southeast of Oconee Station (NRC 2023-TN9126).
| |
| | |
| 8 In its SLR ER, Duke Energy proposed a new nuclear power plant alternative consisting of an 9 advanced light-water reactor (ALWR) nuclear power plant (constructing and operating the 10 proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, in Cherokee County, South Carolina),
| |
| 11 combined with installing a SMR plant at the Oconee Station site (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 12 In 2016, as part of a separate licensing action, the NRC issued combined licenses to Duke 13 Energy for the construction and operation of two AP1000 nuclear reactor units (W.S. Lee 14 Nuclear Station). These new units would have a combined net electrical output of approximately 15 2,234 MWe. For the purpose of analysis, the ALWR portion of the new nuclear replacement 16 power alternative would be based on the design and output of the two-unit Westinghouse 17 AP1000 nuclear power plant previously analyzed in the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station Combined 18 License EIS (NUREG-2111) (NRC 2013-TN6435). Accordingly, the ALWR nuclear power plant 19 would utilize closed cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers and require the 20 construction of new intake and discharge structures. Cooling water withdrawal would be 21 approximately 50 mgd (190,000 m3/d) and consumptive water use would be approximately 22 35 mgd (130,000 m3/d) (NRC 2013-TN6435). The ALWR would also require the construction of 23 a cooling water reservoir and a 31 mi (50 km) transmission line corridor. Total land requirements 24 for the ALWR nuclear power plant would be over 3,000 ac (1,200 ha), including approximately 25 950 ac (380 ha) for power generation; 1,100 ac (450 ha) for the cooling water make-up pond; 26 and 990 ac (400 ha) for transmission line corridors (NRC 2013-TN6435, Duke Energy 2021-27 TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 28 Because the proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station ALWR units would not fully replace the 29 electrical power generation of Oconee Station, the new nuclear alternative would include the 30 installation of a single SMR nuclear power plant with a total net generating capacity of 31 approximately 400 MWe at the Oconee Station site. In general, SMRs are light water reactors 32 that use water for cooling and enriched uranium for fuel in a similar manner as conventional, 33 large light water reactors currently operating in the United States. SMR modules typically 34 generate 300 MWe or less, compared to the larger designs and outputs generally associated 35 with ALWRs (typically 1,000 MWe or more per reactor unit) (IAEA 2023-TN8956). However, 36 their smaller size means that several SMRs can be bundled together in a single containment.
| |
| 37 Their smaller size also means greater siting flexibility, because they can fit in locations not large 38 enough to accommodate a conventional nuclear reactor (DOE 2022-TN7250, NRC 2023-39 TN9126). The design features of an SMR can include below-grade containment and inherent 40 safe shutdown features, longer station blackout coping time without external intervention, 41 and core and spent fuel pool cooling without the need for active heat removal. SMR power 42 generating facilities can be also designed to be deployed in an incremental fashion to meet 43 the power generation needs of a service area, in which generating capacity can be added in 44 increments to match load growth projections (NRC 2019-TN6136).
| |
| | |
| 45 As indicated in Duke Energys ER, the SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative would be 46 located within an approximately 135 ac (54.6 ha) area south and east of the of the Oconee
| |
| | |
| 2-22 1 Station 525-kV switchyard, as well as a parcel of land located to the south across South 2 Carolina Highway 183 (SC-183), adjacent to, but outside of, the current Oconee Station site 3 boundary (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2021-TN8898, Duke Energy 2022-4 TN8948). The SMR is estimated to require approximately 36 ac (15 ha) of land (NuScale 2022-5 TN7327) and a closed-cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers. This cooling 6 system would withdraw approximately 13.3 mgd (50 mL/d) of water and consume approximately 7 9.2 mgd (35 mL/d) of water. Visible structures would include the cooling towers and power block 8 (NRC 2019-TN6136). Infrastructure upgrades may be required, however, existing transmission 9 lines at Oconee Station would be sufficient to support the SMR.
| |
| | |
| 10 2.3.2.2 Natural Gas-fired Combined-Cycle
| |
| | |
| 11 Natural gas represents approximately 31 percent of the installed generating capacity and 12 29 percent of the electrical power generated in the ROI (EIA 2021-TN8378, EIA 2021-TN8353).
| |
| 13 The NRC staff considers the construction of a natural gas combined cycle power plant to be a 14 reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR because natural gas is a commercially available 15 option for providing baseload electrical generating capacity beyond the expiration of Oconee 16 Stations renewed licenses.
| |
| | |
| 17 Baseload natural gas combined cycle power plants have proven their reliability and can have 18 capacity factors as high as 87 percent (DOE/EIA 2015-TN7717). In a natural gas combined 19 cycle system, electricity is generated using a gas turbine that burns natural gas. A steam turbine 20 uses the heat from gas turbine exhaust through a heat recovery steam generator to produce 21 additional electricity. This two-cycle process has a high rate of efficiency because the natural 22 gas combined cycle system captures the exhaust heat that otherwise would be lost and reuses 23 it. Similar to other fossil fuel burning plants, natural gas power plants are a source of 24 greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2) (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 25 For the purposes of analysis, six 500 MWe natural gas units with an 87 percent capacity factor 26 would be used to replace Oconee Stations 2,600 MWe generating capacity. Each unit would 27 consist of two combustion turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators, and one 28 steam turbine generator with mechanical draft cooling towers for heat rejection. The natural gas-29 fired power plant would incorporate a catalytic reduction system to minimize nitrogen oxide 30 emissions. Natural gas would be extracted from the ground through wells, treated to remove 31 impurities, and then blended to meet gas pipeline standards before being piped to Oconee 32 Station. The natural gas combined cycle alternative would also generate waste material, 33 primarily in the form of spent catalysts used for control of nitrogen oxide emissions.
| |
| | |
| 34 Duke Energy indicated that the gas-fired power plant would be located within a 135 ac (54.6 ha) 35 area in the same location as the SMR in the new nuclear alternative south and east of the of the 36 Oconee Station 525-kV switchyard, as well as a third Duke Energy-owned parcel located 37 immediately south across SC-183 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897; Duke Energy 2021-TN8898, 38 Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Approximately 130 ac (53 ha) of land would be needed to 39 construct and operate the natural gas-fired power plant and an additional 191 ac (77 ha) of land 40 for a right-of-way to connect to an existing natural gas supply line 21 mi (34 km) southeast in 41 Centerville, South Carolina. No new gas wells would be needed to support the facility.
| |
| 42 Infrastructure upgrades may be required, however, existing transmission line infrastructure 43 would be adequate to support this alternative (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 44 The natural gas combined cycle power plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system with 45 mechanical draft cooling towers, withdrawing 18 mgd (69,000 m3/d) of water and consume
| |
| | |
| 2-23 1 14 mgd (53,000 m3/d) of water (NETL 2019-TN7484). Visible structures would include cooling 2 towers, exhaust stacks, intake and discharge structures, transmission lines, natural gas 3 pipelines, and an electrical switchyard.
| |
| | |
| 4 2.3.2.3 Combined Small Modular Reactor, Solar Photovoltaic, Offshore Wind, and 5 Demand-Side Management (Combination Alternative)
| |
| | |
| 6 The NRC staff considers a combination of carbon-free replacement power generation 7 technologies with demand-side management to also be a reasonable alternative to Oconee 8 Stations SLR. The amount of energy derived from each type of power generation in this 9 combination could vary. For the purposes of analysis, SMRs would supply 1,200 MWe, solar 10 photovoltaic power installations would supply 600 MWe, offshore wind facilities would supply 11 600 MWe, and energy efficiency initiatives (i.e., demand-side management) would provide 12 200 MWe of energy savings.
| |
| | |
| 13 Small Modular Reactors
| |
| | |
| 14 A three unit, 1,200 MWe SMR power plant would be installed at Oconee Station. The nuclear 15 power plant would be similar in function and appearance to the SMR portion of the new nuclear 16 alternative power plant described in Section 2.3.2.1. Infrastructure upgrades may be required; 17 however, existing transmission line infrastructure would be adequate to support the SMRs. The 18 SMRs would be located within a 135 ac (54.6 ha) parcel of land located south and east of the of 19 the Oconee Station 525 kV switchyard, as well as a third Duke Energy-owned parcel located 20 immediately south across SC-183 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 21 The three-unit SMR nuclear power plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system with 22 mechanical draft cooling towers, withdrawing approximately 40 mgd (150,000 m3/d) of water 23 and consume 28 mgd (105,000 m3/d) of that amount. Visible structures would include cooling 24 towers and power block (NRC 2019-TN6136).
| |
| | |
| 25 Solar Photovoltaic
| |
| | |
| 26 Solar photovoltaic power generation uses solar panels to convert solar radiation into usable 27 electricity. Solar cells are formed into solar panels that can then be linked into photovoltaic 28 arrays to generate electricity. The electricity generated can be stored, used directly, fed into a 29 large electricity grid, or combined with other electricity generators as a hybrid plant. Solar 30 photovoltaic cells can generate electricity when there is sunlight, regardless of whether the sun 31 is directly or indirectly shining on the solar panels. Therefore, solar photovoltaic technologies do 32 not need to directly face and track the sun. This capability has allowed solar photovoltaic 33 systems to have broader geographical use than concentrating solar power (which relies on 34 direct sun) (Ardani and Margolis 2011-TN2522).
| |
| | |
| 35 The feasibility of solar energy serving as alternative baseload power depends on the location, 36 value, accessibility, and constancy of solar radiation. Representative solar photovoltaic 37 resources range from 4.5 to 5.0 kilowatt hours per square meter per day (kWh/m2/day) (NREL 38 2023-TN8959). Nationwide, growth in utility scale solar photovoltaic facilities (greater than 39 1 MW) has resulted in an increase from 145 MW in 2009, to over 35,000 MW of installed 40 capacity in 2019 (DOE/EIA 2022-TN8958).
| |
| | |
| 41 Twelve 125-MWe, utility-scale solar facilities would be used to provide replacement energy.
| |
| 42 Each of the solar facilities would be paired with a 125-MW/500-MWh battery energy storage
| |
| | |
| 2-24 1 system at locations within the ROI. Combining a 25 percent solar photovoltaic capacity factor 2 (DOE/EIA 2023-TN8957) with the energy dispatch capabilities of the associated battery 3 systems, the solar units would collectively have a net generating capacity of approximately 4 600 MWe.
| |
| | |
| 5 Solar photovoltaic facilities require land for the solar panels, up to 6.2 ac (2.5 ha) per megawatt 6 (NRC 2013-TN2654). Therefore, based on this estimate, approximately 9,600 ac (3,900 ha) of 7 land would be required to operate the 12 solar power and storage facilities. Solar photovoltaic 8 power and storage systems do not require water for cooling.
| |
| | |
| 9 In its 2020 Integrated Resource Plan, Duke Energy identified plans to increase solar power 10 capacity and generation over the next 15 years (Duke Energy 2021-TN8962). Because solar 11 photovoltaic technology is commercially available in the region, solar photovoltaic power 12 generation would be reasonable when combined with other sources of power generation.
| |
| | |
| 13 Offshore Wind
| |
| | |
| 14 Wind generated replacement power under this combination alternative would come from 15 offshore wind farms located along North and South Carolinas Atlantic coasts. The offshore wind 16 generated power would be paired with three, approximately 300-MW/1,200-MWh battery energy 17 storage systems. Offshore wind power would require an installed capacity of 924 MWe.
| |
| 18 Combining a 50 percent offshore wind capacity factor (NREL 2020-TN8425) with energy 19 dispatch capabilities of the battery systems, offshore wind farms would have a net generating 20 capacity of approximately 600 MWe.
| |
| | |
| 21 North Carolina and South Carolina have large areas off their Atlantic coasts with wind energy 22 potential (DOE/EIA 2022-TN8955, DOE/EIA 2021-TN9101). Based on planned expansion of 23 offshore wind capabilities, an additional installed capacity of 924 MWe could be reasonably 24 attained by the time the renewed Oconee Station operating licenses expire in 2033 and 2034.
| |
| | |
| 25 In 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) identified more than 26 300,000 ac (121,000 ha) in Federal waters 10 to 24 nautical miles off the North Carolina and 27 South Carolina coasts as potentially suitable for wind energy development (BOEM 2015-28 TN9066; BOEM 2021-TN7704). In 2017, the BOEM auctioned 122,000 ac (49,000 ha) off of 29 Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, and in 2021 a construction and operations plan was submitted for 30 developing approximately 40 percent of this tract (BOEM 2023-TN9102). In August 2021, 31 BOEM announced the proposed lease sale of the Wilmington East wind energy area, consisting 32 of 128,000 ac (51,800 ha) in the Carolina Long Bay Area offshore of North Carolina. The Kitty 33 Hawk and Wilmington East wind energy areas are estimated to have the potential to generate 34 approximately 1,500 MWe of offshore wind energy (BOEM 2020-TN8961).
| |
| | |
| 35 Offshore wind turbine generators (turbines) are substantially larger than those operated on land.
| |
| 36 From 2000 to 2020, offshore wind turbine sizes have grown from an installed average of 2 MW 37 per turbine to recent designs capable of generating 14 MW per turbine (BOEM 2020-TN7494).
| |
| 38 For the purposes of analysis, a 14 MW turbine model with a rotor diameter of 722 feet 39 (222 meters) and height of approximately 800 ft (245 meters) would be used. Similar models 40 have been selected for deployment along the Mid-Atlantic Coast (Virginia Business 2020; 41 Siemens Gamesa Undated). Accordingly, 66 turbines would be used to attain an installed 42 capacity of 924 MWe.
| |
| | |
| 2-25 1 Although offshore wind turbines can either be affixed to the seabed or free-floating, water 2 depths associated with the offshore wind energy areas located along the Carolina coasts are 3 more suitable to fixed models, of which there are various foundation designs. The 66 turbines 4 would be constructed in a grid pattern approximately 1 nautical mile (1.9 km) apart using an 5 affixed monopile design driven into the seafloor to depths of approximately 260 ft (80 m) (BOEM 6 2020-TN7494), and each turbine would be located in the center of each square nautical mile 7 (SNM) block, to better isolate each turbine from passing vessels. Offshore construction impacts 8 are projected to occur within a 95 ac (38.5 ha) temporary work area proximate to each turbine 9 location (BOEM 2015-TN9066). The seabed surrounding each turbine foundation would be 10 protected from ocean current erosion by placement of a permanent 3-6 ft (1-1.5 m) scour 11 protection rock bed covering approximately 1 ac (0.4 ha) (BOEM 2018-TN8428). Accordingly, 12 the construction of the turbines supporting the offshore wind component would result in 13 approximately 6,300 ac (2,500 ha) of temporary disturbance and 66 ac (26 ha) of permanent 14 disturbance.
| |
| | |
| 15 Additional disturbance would result from trenching activities associated with interconnecting the 16 wind turbine generators and exporting the power to onshore facilities. Available offshore and 17 onshore infrastructure would be used (e.g., offshore electrical service platforms and cable 18 trenches extending to onshore interfaces) associated with current and planned development 19 along the Carolina coasts. The battery storage systems supporting the offshore wind portion 20 would also result in an additional 60 ac (24 ha) of permanent disturbance.
| |
| | |
| 21 Because offshore wind turbines require ample spacing between one another to avoid inter-22 turbine air turbulence and allow for navigation by ocean vessels, the total area requirement of 23 utility-scale wind farms is significantly larger than the amount of marine environment that would 24 be directly disturbed. Under this alternative, approximately 66 square nautical miles would be 25 required for an installed capacity of 924 MWe (BOEM 2020-TN7494).
| |
| | |
| 26 In its 2020 Integrated Resource Plan, Duke Energy identified future planning scenarios that 27 would add over 2,400 MWe of offshore wind energy over the next 15 years (Duke Energy 2021-28 TN8962). In its September 2021 update to the Integrated Resource Plan, Duke Energy 29 acknowledged North Carolinas goal for developing 2,800 MW of offshore wind energy 30 resources by 2030 and 8,000 MW by 2040, but it noted that the extent and timing by which the 31 utility incorporates wind resources will depend on deliverability, policy, and market factors (Duke 32 Energy 2021-TN8962, Duke Energy 2021-TN8962). As discussed in Section 2.4.2, although it is 33 unlikely that offshore wind power could fully replace Oconee Stations generation capacity, the 34 Carolina offshore environment does offer considerable wind power potential, and offshore wind 35 technologies are poised to become a commercially available option for providing electrical 36 generating capacity in the region of interest by the time the renewed Oconee Station operating 37 licenses expire. Accordingly, the installation of offshore wind turbine generators would be a 38 reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR when combined with other sources of power 39 generation.
| |
| | |
| 40 Demand-Side Management
| |
| | |
| 41 Energy conservation and efficiency programs are more broadly referred to as demand-side 42 management. Demand-side management programs can include reducing energy demand 43 through consumer behavioral changes or through altering the electricity load so as to not require 44 the addition of new generating capacity. These programs can be initiated by utilities, power 45 transmission operators, States, or other load serving entities.
| |
| | |
| 2-26 1 Although North Carolina and South Carolina have differing energy efficiency resource 2 standards, demand-side management programs represent a key focus of Duke Energys 2020 3 Integrated Resource Plan (Duke Energy 2021-TN8962). Therefore, for this analysis it is 4 assumed that Duke Energy would implement these programs.
| |
| | |
| 5 Under the combination alternative, demand-side management would be used to replace 6 approximately 200 MWe of the electrical generation that Oconee Station currently provides.
| |
| 7 Duke Energy projects that by 2035, its demand-side management programs could potentially 8 reduce electrical demand across its service area (Duke Energy 2020-TN9696). Because 9 estimates of reduced electrical demand involve considerable uncertainty, replacement of 10 200 MWe through demand-side management programs would be a reasonable assumption for 11 the combination alternative.
| |
| | |
| 12 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated
| |
| | |
| 13 The NRC eliminated 13 alternatives from detailed study due to resource availability and 14 commercial or regulatory limitations. Many of these limitations will likely still exist when the 15 current renewed Oconee Station operating licenses expire in 2033 (Units 1 and 2) and 2034 16 (Unit 3). This section briefly describes the 13 alternatives as well as the reasons why they were 17 eliminated from detailed study.
| |
| | |
| 18 2.4.1 Solar Power
| |
| | |
| 19 Solar power, including photovoltaic and concentrating solar power technologies, generates 20 power from sunlight. Solar photovoltaic components convert sunlight directly into electricity 21 using solar cells made from silicon or cadmium telluride. Concentrating solar power uses heat 22 from the sun to boil water and produce steam. Steam drives a turbine connected to a generator 23 to produce electricity (NREL Undated-TN7710).
| |
| | |
| 24 Solar generators are considered an intermittent electrical power resource because their 25 availability depends on exposure to the sun, also known as solar insolation. Insolation rates of 26 solar photovoltaic resources range from 4.5 to 5.0 kWh/m2/day (NREL 2018-TN8350). North 27 Carolina ranks third in the nation in installed solar capacity, and all of South Carolinas new 28 utility-scale generating capacity in 2020 and 2021 was powered by solar energy (EIA 2022-29 TN8955, DOE/EIA 2022-TN8955). With more than 6,000 MWe of utility-scale capacity installed 30 in 2021, solar photovoltaic power represents a small but increasing contribution to these states 31 electrical power generation (EIA 2021-TN8378, EIA 2021-TN8353).
| |
| | |
| 32 To be viable, a utility-scale solar alternative must replace the amount of electrical power that 33 Oconee Station currently provides. Assuming a capacity factor of 25 percent (DOE/EIA 2023-34 TN8821), approximately 6,500 to 10,400 MWe of additional solar energy capacity would need to 35 be installed to replace the electricity generated by Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 36 Accordingly, key design characteristics associated with the solar portion of the combination 37 alternative presented in Table 2-1 and Section 2.3.2.3 of this EIS could be scaled to suggest the 38 relative impacts of using solar as a stand-alone technology to replace the Oconee Station 39 generating capacity. Utility-scale solar facilities require large areas of land for the solar panels.
| |
| 40 A utility-scale solar alternative would require approximately 40,000 to 64,000 ac (16,000 to 41 26,000 ha) of land. Based on this information, a utility-scale solar energy alternative would not 42 be reasonable to Oconee Stations SLR. However, a limited amount of solar power generation, 43 in combination with other energy generating technologies, would be a reasonable alternative to 44 Oconee Stations SLR, as explained in Section 2.3.2.3.
| |
| | |
| 2-27 1 2.4.2 Wind Power
| |
| | |
| 2 As is the case with other renewable energy sources, the feasibility of wind energy providing 3 baseload power depends on the location (relative to electricity users), value, accessibility, and 4 constancy of the resource. Wind energy must be converted to electricity at or near the point 5 where it is used, and there are limited energy storage opportunities available to overcome the 6 intermittency and variability of wind resources.
| |
| | |
| 7 The American Clean Power Association reports a total of more than 122,000 MW of installed 8 wind energy capacity nationwide as of December 31, 2020. Approximately 200 MW of this wind 9 energy capacity is installed within the ROI (DOE Undated-TN8431). To be considered a 10 reasonable replacement energy alternative to Oconee Stations SLR, a wind power alternative 11 must replace the amount of electrical power that Oconee Station provides. Assuming a capacity 12 factor of 40 percent (NREL 2020-TN8425), land-based wind energy facilities would need to 13 generate 4,700 to 6,500 MW of electricity to replace Oconee Stations generating capacity.
| |
| 14 However, North Carolina currently has only one utility-scale wind energy facility, and South 15 Carolina has none, with both states having only limited onshore wind potential (EIA 2022-16 TN8955, DOE/EIA 2022-TN8955).
| |
| | |
| 17 Increasing attention has been focused on developing offshore wind resources along the Atlantic 18 coast. In 2016, a 30 MW project off the coast of Rhode Island become the first operating 19 offshore wind farm in the United States (Orsted Undated-TN7705). This was followed in 2020 20 with the construction and operation of the Mid-Atlantics first offshore wind demonstration project 21 in Federal waters, a 12 MWe demonstration project supporting the planned operation of a 22 2,600 MWe utility-scale wind farm off the coast of Virginia (BOEM 2021-TN7704). As discussed 23 in Section 2.3.2.3, Duke Energy has identified offshore wind planning scenarios that could add 24 over 2,400 MWe of offshore wind energy over the next 15 years, subject to deliverability, policy, 25 and market factors (Duke Energy 2020, Duke Energy 2021-TN8962).
| |
| | |
| 26 Assuming a capacity factor of 50 percent for offshore wind farms (NREL 2020-TN8425), these 27 power generating facilities would need an installed capacity of 4,000 to 5,200 MW of electricity 28 to fully replace Oconee Stations generating capacity of 2,600 MWe. A utility-scale offshore wind 29 alternative of this size would therefore require between 286 and 372 wind turbines, between 286 30 and 372 square nautical miles (242,000 to 315,000 ac, 98,000 to 127,000 ha) exceeding the 31 area of the Federal waters off the Carolina coasts designated for wind energy leasing. Because 32 Duke Energy is already considering potential offshore wind energy strategies to offset current 33 and forecasted fossil-fueled capacity reductions, the NRC staff expects that acquiring additional 34 leases to support this level of offshore wind development would be difficult.
| |
| | |
| 35 Given the amount of wind capacity necessary to replace Oconee Station, the intermittency of 36 the resource, the limited amount of offshore Federal waters currently designated for wind 37 energy leasing, and the status of wind development, a wind-only alternativeeither land based, 38 offshore, or some combination of the twowould be an unreasonable alternative to Oconee 39 Stations SLR. However, a limited amount of offshore wind power generation, in combination 40 with other power generating technologies, would be a reasonable alternative to Oconee 41 Stations SLR, as explained in Section 2.3.2.3.
| |
| | |
| 42 2.4.3 Biomass Power
| |
| | |
| 43 Biomass resources used for biomass fuel-fired power generation include agricultural residues, 44 animal manure, wood wastes from forestry and industry, residues from food and paper
| |
| | |
| 2-28 1 industries, municipal green wastes, dedicated energy crop, and methane from landfills (IEA 2 2007-TN8436). Using biomass fuel-fired generation for baseload power depends on the 3 geographic distribution, available quantities, constancy of supply, and energy content of 4 biomass resources. For this analysis, biomass fuel would be combusted for power generation in 5 the electricity sector.
| |
| | |
| 6 In 2020, biomass fuel-fired power generation in the region had a total installed capacity of 7 approximately 1,160 MW, and approximately 2 percent of the total power in the ROI (EIA 2021-8 TN8378, EIA 2021-TN8353).
| |
| | |
| 9 For utility scale biomass fuel-fired electricity generation, technologies used for biomass energy 10 conversion would be similar to the technology used in other fossil fuel-fired power plants, 11 including the direct combustion of biomass fuel in a boiler to produce steam. Accordingly, 12 biomass generation is generally considered a carbon emitting technology.
| |
| | |
| 13 One of the largest new biomass fuel-fired power plants in the United States, the 103 MW 14 Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, opened in Florida in 2013 (DOE/EIA 2016-TN8963).
| |
| 15 Replacing the Oconee Station generating capacity using only biomass fuel would require the 16 construction of more than 25 new power plants of this size. However, most biomass fuel-fired 17 power plants generally only reach capacities of 50 MW, which means replacing Oconee 18 Stations generating capacity, using only biomass fuel, would require twice as many new power 19 plants.
| |
| | |
| 20 Increasing biomass fuel-fired generation capacity by expanding existing or constructing new 21 units by the time Oconee Stations operating licenses expire in 2033 and 2034, respectively, is 22 unlikely. For these reasons, biomass fuel-fired generation would not be a reasonable alternative 23 to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 24 2.4.4 Demand-Side Management
| |
| | |
| 25 Demand-side management refers to energy conservation and efficiency programs that do not 26 require the addition of new generating capacity. Demand-side management programs can 27 include reducing energy demand through consumer behavioral changes or through altering the 28 characteristics of the electrical load. These programs can be initiated by a utility, transmission 29 operators, the State, or other load serving entities. In general, residential electricity consumers 30 have been responsible for the majority of peak load reductions, and participation in most 31 demand-side management programs is voluntary.
| |
| | |
| 32 Therefore, the existence of a demand-side management program does not guarantee that 33 reductions in electricity demand will occur. Although the energy conservation or energy 34 efficiency potential in the United States is substantial, there have been no cases in which an 35 energy efficiency or conservation program alone has been implemented expressly to replace or 36 offset a large baseload generation station.
| |
| | |
| 37 Although Duke Energy has considered demand-side management measures as part of its 38 resource planning efforts, it is unlikely that additional demand-side management measures 39 alone would be sufficient to offset the electrical energy lost by the Oconee Station shutdown 40 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Therefore, demand-side management programs alone would not 41 be a reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR. However, in combination with other power 42 generating technologies, demand side management would be a reasonable alternative to 43 Oconee Stations SLR, as explained in Section 2.3.2.3.
| |
| | |
| 2-29 1 2.4.5 Hydroelectric Power
| |
| | |
| 2 There are about 2,000 operating hydroelectric power facilities in the United States. Hydropower 3 technologies capture flowing water and directs it to turbines and generators to produce 4 electricity. There are three variants of hydroelectric power generation: (1) run of the river 5 (diversion) facilities that direct the natural flow of a river, stream, or canal through a 6 hydroelectric power facility, (2) store and release facilities that block the flow of the river by 7 using dams that cause water to accumulate in an upstream reservoir, and (3) pumped storage 8 facilities that use electricity from other power sources to pump water to higher elevations during 9 off peak hours to be released during peak load periods to generate electricity (EIA 2020-10 TN8352, EIA 2021-TN8353).
| |
| | |
| 11 Duke Energy currently has approximately 2,140 MWe of pumped storage hydropower capacity 12 and 1,080 MWe of conventional hydropower generation capacity in the region (Duke Energy 13 2021-TN8897). Although the EIA projects that hydropower will remain a leading source of 14 renewable power generation in the United States through 2040, there is little expected growth in 15 large-scale hydropower capacity (DOE/EIA 2013-TN2590). The potential construction of large 16 new hydropower facilities has diminished because of public concern over flooding, habitat 17 alteration and loss, and the impact on natural rivers.
| |
| | |
| 18 Given the projected lack of growth in hydroelectric power, the competing demands for water 19 resources, and public opposition to the environmental impacts from the construction of large 20 hydroelectric power facilities, the use of hydroelectric power would not be a reasonable 21 alternative to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 22 2.4.6 Geothermal Power
| |
| | |
| 23 Geothermal technologies extract heat from geologic formations to produce steam to drive 24 steam turbine generators. Electricity production from geothermal energy have demonstrated 25 95 percent or greater capacity factors, making geothermal energy a potential source of 26 baseload electric power. However, the feasibility of geothermal power generation to provide 27 baseload power depends on the regional quality and accessibility of geothermal resources.
| |
| 28 Utility-scale power generation requires geothermal reservoirs with a temperature above 200°F 29 (93°C). Utility-scale geothermal resources are concentrated in the western United States, 30 specifically Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 31 Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming and most assessments of geothermal power 32 generation resources have been conducted in these states (DOE Undated-TN7698; USGS 33 2008-TN7697). There is currently no utility-scale geothermal power production in the ROI 34 (NREL 2016-TN8469). Given its low potential, geothermal power generation would not be a 35 reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 36 2.4.7 Wave and Ocean Energy
| |
| | |
| 37 Ocean waves, currents, and tides are generally predictable and reliable, making them attractive 38 candidates for potential renewable energy generation. Four major technologies can be used to 39 harness wave energy: (1) terminator devices that range from 500 kilowatts to 2 MW, 40 (2) attenuators, (3) point absorbers, and (4) overtopping devices (BOEM Undated-TN7696).
| |
| 41 Point absorbers and attenuators use floating buoys to convert wave motion into mechanical 42 energy, driving generators to produce electricity. Overtopping devices trap a portion of a wave 43 at a higher elevation than the sea surface; waves enter a tube and compress air that is then 44 used to drive a generator producing electricity. Some of these technologies are undergoing
| |
| | |
| 2-30 1 demonstration testing at commercial scales, but none of the technologies are currently used to 2 provide baseload power (BOEM Undated-TN7696). In the United States, there are currently 3 several projects licensed or seeking permits, the largest of which is 20 MW (Duke Energy 2021-4 TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 5 The Mid-Atlantic coast is characterized by substantial amounts of ocean wave energy (EPRI 6 2011-TN8442). However, wave and ocean energy generation technologies are still in their 7 infancy and currently lack commercial application. For these reasons, wave and ocean energy 8 power generation would not be a reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 9 2.4.8 Municipal Solid Waste-Fired Power
| |
| | |
| 10 Energy recovery from municipal solid waste converts nonrecyclable waste materials into usable 11 heat, electricity, or fuel through combustion. Three types of municipal solid waste combustion 12 technologies include mass burning, modular systems, and refuse derived fuel systems. Mass 13 burning is the method used most frequently in the United States. The heat released from 14 combustion is used to convert water to steam, which is then used to drive turbine generators to 15 produce electricity. Ash is collected and taken to a landfill, and particulates are captured through 16 a filtering system (EPA 2023-TN8443).
| |
| | |
| 17 Currently, 75 waste-to-energy power plants are in operation in 21 states, processing 18 approximately 29 million tons of waste per year. These waste-to-energy power plants have an 19 aggregate capacity of 2,725 MWe (Michaels and Krishnan 2019-TN7700). Although some 20 power plants have expanded to handle additional waste and to produce more energy, only one 21 new municipal solid waste combustion power plant has been built in the United States since 22 1995 (Maize 2019-TN7699). Because the average waste-to-energy power plant produces about 23 50 MWe, 52 waste-to-energy power plants would be necessary to provide the same level of 24 electrical output as Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 25 The decision to burn municipal solid waste to generate electricity is usually driven by the need 26 for a waste disposal alternative to landfills rather than a need to generate energy. Stable 27 supplies of municipal solid waste would be needed to support 52 new waste-to-energy power 28 plants in the region. Based on this information, municipal solid waste-to-energy power plants 29 would not be a reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 30 2.4.9 Petroleum-Fired Power
| |
| | |
| 31 Petroleum-fired electricity generation accounted for less than 1 percent of the ROIs total 32 electricity generation in 2020 (EIA 2021-TN8353). The variable costs and environmental 33 impacts of petroleum-fired electrical power generation tend to be greater than those of natural 34 gas-fired generation. The historically higher cost of oil has also resulted in a steady decline in its 35 use for electricity generation, and the EIA forecasts no growth in capacity using petroleum-fired 36 power plants through 2040 (DOE/EIA 2013-TN2590, DOE/EIA 2015-TN4585). Therefore, based 37 on this information, petroleum-fired electricity generation would not be a reasonable alternative 38 to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 39 2.4.10 Coal-Fired Power
| |
| | |
| 40 Although coal has historically been the largest source of electricity in the United States, both 41 natural gas generation and nuclear energy generation surpassed coal generation at the national 42 level in 2020. Coal-fired electricity generation in the United States has continued to decrease as 43 coal-fired units have been retired or converted to use other fuels and as the remaining units
| |
| | |
| 2-31 1 have been used less often (DOE/EIA 2021-TN7718). The region mirrors this trend, with coal-2 fired power plants providing 15 percent of North and South Carolinas electricity generation in 3 2020, down from 53 percent in 2000 (EIA 2021-TN8353).
| |
| | |
| 4 Baseload coal-fired power units have proven their reliability and can routinely sustain capacity 5 factors as high as 85 percent. Among the available technologies, pulverized-coal boilers 6 producing supercritical steam (supercritical pulverized-coal boilers) have become increasingly 7 common, given their generally high thermal efficiencies and overall reliability.
| |
| | |
| 8 Supercritical pulverized-coal facilities are more expensive to build than subcritical coal-fired 9 power plants but consume less fuel per unit output. Integrated gasification combined cycle 10 combines modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine power 11 generation. The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized-coal plants because some 12 of the major pollutants are removed before combustion. Although several smaller, integrated 13 gasification combined-cycle power plants have been in operation since the mid-1990s, 14 large-scale projects have experienced setbacks, and public opposition has hindered it from 15 being fully integrated into the energy market.
| |
| | |
| 16 Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 56 coal-fired power units, representing a combined 17 capacity of approximately 7,500 MW. In February 2022, the utility announced its plan to 18 fully remove coal-fired power generation from its fleet by 2035 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8951).
| |
| 19 Based on these considerations, coal-fired power plants would not be a reasonable alternative 20 to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 21 2.4.11 Fuel Cells
| |
| | |
| 22 Fuel cells oxidize fuels without combustion and, therefore, without the environmental side 23 effects of combustion. Fuel cells use a fuel (e.g., hydrogen) and oxygen to create electricity 24 through an electrochemical process. The only byproducts are heat, water, and carbon dioxide 25 (depending on the hydrogen fuel type) (DOE Undated-TN7695). Hydrogen fuel can come from a 26 variety of hydrocarbon resources, including natural gas. As of October 2020, the United States 27 had only 250 MW of fuel cell power generation capacity (EIA 2022-TN8955).
| |
| | |
| 28 Currently, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other electricity 29 generating alternatives. The EIA estimates that fuel cells may cost $6,639 per installed kilowatt 30 (total overnight capital costs in 2021 dollars), which is high compared to other replacement 31 energy alternatives (DOE/EIA 2022-TN7694). In June 2021, DOE launched an initiative to 32 reduce the cost of hydrogen production to spur fuel cell and energy storage development over 33 the next decade (DOE 2021-TN7693). However, it is unclear whether, or to what degree, this 34 initiative will lead to increased future development and deployment of fuel cell technologies.
| |
| | |
| 35 More importantly, fuel cell units used for power production are likely to be small (approximately 36 10 MW). The worlds largest industrial hydrogen fuel cell power plant is a 50 MWe plant in 37 South Korea (Larson 2020-TN8401). Using fuel cells to replace the power that Oconee Station 38 provides would require the construction of approximately 260 units. Given the limited 39 deployment and high cost of fuel cell technology, fuel cells would not be a reasonable 40 alternative to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 41 2.4.12 Purchased Power
| |
| | |
| 42 Power may be purchased and imported from outside the region. Although purchased power 43 would likely have little or no measurable impact, environmental impacts could occur where the 44 power is being generated, depending on the technologies used to generate the power. As
| |
| | |
| 2-32 1 discussed in its ER, Duke Energy purchased 2,146 MWe from non-utility generation and 2 wholesale power suppliers in 2018, and this commitment would need to double in order to 3 replace Oconee Stations electrical power generation (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 4 Purchased power is generally economically adverse because, historically, the cost of generating 5 power has been less than the cost of purchasing the same amount of power from a third-party 6 supplier. Purchased power agreements also carry the inherent risk that the supplier may not be 7 able to deliver all of the contracted power. Based on these considerations, purchased power 8 would not provide a reasonable alternative to Oconee Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 9 2.4.13 Delayed Retirement of Other Generating Facilities
| |
| | |
| 10 Delaying the retirement of a power plant enables it to continue supplying electricity. Because 11 some power generators are required to adhere to regulations requiring significant reductions in 12 power plant emissions, some owners may opt to retire older, less efficient units rather than incur 13 the cost for compliance. Retirements may also be driven by low competing commodity prices 14 (such as low natural gas prices), slow growth in electricity demand, and EPAs Mercury and Air 15 Toxics Standards for fossil-fueled power plants (DOE/EIA 2015-TN4585; EPA 2020-TN8379).
| |
| | |
| 16 Duke Energys 2020 Integrated Resource Plan considered retirement of all coal-fired units to 17 meet its carbon dioxide reduction goals and align with state energy policies and legislation. As 18 discussed in Section 2.4.10 of this EIS, Duke Energy has retired 56 coal-fired units since 2010, 19 representing a combined capacity of approximately 7,500 MWe. Delaying the retirement of fossil 20 fueled power generating units would result in higher pollutant air emissions and not meet the 21 goals identified in the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan. Because of these conditions, delayed 22 retirement of older power generating units would not provide a reasonable alternative to Oconee 23 Stations SLR.
| |
| | |
| 24 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 25 This chapter presents the no-action alternative and the following three alternatives to the 26 proposed action (Oconee Stations SLR): (1) new nuclear generation (two-unit advanced light-27 water reactors with a single-unit small modular reactor), (2) a new natural gas-fired combined-28 cycle power generating facility, and (3) a combination of a small modular reactor, solar 29 photovoltaic generation with battery storage, offshore wind generation with battery storage, and 30 demand-side management. Chapter 3 describes the environmental impacts of the proposed 31 action and the alternatives. Table 2-2 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed 32 action (Oconee Stations SLR) and the alternatives to SLR considered in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 33 The environmental impacts of the proposed action (renewing the Oconee Station operating 34 licenses) would be SMALL for all impact categories. In comparison, each of the three 35 replacement power alternatives has environmental impacts in at least five resource areas that 36 are greater than the environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal action. In addition, 37 the replacement energy alternatives also would also result in construction impacts. If the NRC 38 does not renew the Oconee Station operating licenses (no-action alternative), energy-planning 39 decisionmakers would have to choose a replacement power alternative similar to the ones 40 evaluated in this EIS. Based on the review of the replacement energy alternatives, the 41 no-action alternative, and the proposed action, the environmentally preferred alternative is the 42 proposed SLR action. Therefore, the NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is to renew the 43 Oconee Station operating licenses.
| |
| | |
| 2-33 1 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Combination Alternative Oconee Station New Nuclear (Small Modular License Alternative (Advanced Reactor, Solar, Renewal Light-Water Reactor, Offshore Wind, Impact Area (Proposed No-Action Small Modular Natural Gas Combined- Demand-Side (Resource) Action) Alternative Reactor) Cycle Alternative Management)
| |
| Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Geologic Environment SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Surface Water SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Resources Groundwater SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Resources Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Aquatic Resources SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL MODERATE to LARGE Special Status SEE NOTE(a) SEE NOTE(b) SEE NOTE(c) SEE NOTE(c) SEE NOTE(c)
| |
| Species and Habitats Historic and Cultural SEE NOTE(d) SEE NOTE(e) SEE NOTE(f) SEE NOTE(f) SEE NOTE(f)
| |
| Resources Socioeconomics SMALL MODERATE to LARGE LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE Transportation SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE Human Health SMALL(g) SMALL(g) SMALL SMALL(g) SMALL(g)
| |
| Environmental Justice SEE NOTE(h) SEE NOTE(i) SEE NOTE(j) SEE NOTE(j) SEE NOTE(j)
| |
| Waste Management SMALL(k) SMALL(k) SMALL SMALL SMALL and Pollution Prevention (a) May affect but is not likely to adversely affect tricolored bat and monarch butterfly. No essential fish habitat (EFH) or National Marine Sanctuaries occur in the affected area.
| |
| (b) Overall, the effects on federally listed species and critical habitats and EFH would likely be smaller under the no-action alternative than the effects under continued operation, but would depend on the specific shutdown activities as well as the listed species, critical habitats, and designated EFH present when the no-action alternative is implemented.
| |
| | |
| Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (Continued)
| |
| Combination Alternative Oconee Station New Nuclear (Small Modular License Alternative Reactor, Solar, Renewal (Advanced Light- Offshore Wind, Impact Area (Proposed No-Action Water Reactor, Small Natural Gas Combined- Demand-Side (Resource) Action) Alternative Modular Reactor) Cycle Alternative Management)
| |
| (c) The effects on federally listed species and critical habitats and EFH would depend on the proposed alternative site, nuclear power plant design and operation, as well as listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot forecast a level of impact for this alternative.
| |
| (d) Given (1) the location of known historic properties within and near the area of potential effect, (2) no new ground disturbance or modifications are anticipated during the subsequent license renewal (SLR) period, and (3) Duke Energy has procedures in place to manage and protect cultural resources, the NRC staff concludes that SLR for Oconee Station would not adversely affect any known historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
| |
| (e) As a result of facility shutdown, land-disturbing activities or dismantlement are not anticipated as these would be conducted during decommissioning.
| |
| However, effects on historic properties or historic and cultural resources would depend on the specific shutdown activities when the no-action alternative is implemented.
| |
| (f) The impact determination of this alternative would depend on the specific location of the new facility(ies).
| |
| (g) The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields on human health associated with operating nuclear power and other electricity generating plants are uncertain.
| |
| (h) Disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects to minority and low-income populations are not expected.
| |
| (i) Not renewing the operating licenses and terminating reactor operations could have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic conditions in communities near Oconee Station, and a reduction in tax revenue resulting from nuclear power plant shutdown could decrease the availability of public services. Minority and low-income populations dependent on these services could be disproportionately affected.
| |
| (j) The NRC staff identified common impacts from the construction and operation of replacement power facilities that could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Construction and operations of replacement power alternatives would not likely have disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. However, this determination would depend on site location, nuclear power plant design, operational characteristics of the new facility, unique consumption practices and interactions with the environment of nearby populations, and the location of predominantly minority and low-income populations.
| |
| (k) NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, (NRC 2014-TN4117) discusses the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the time frame beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
| |
| | |
| 1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 2 AND MITIGATING ACTIONS
| |
| | |
| 3 3.1 Introduction
| |
| | |
| 4 In conducting its review of the environmental effects of renewing the Oconee Station operating 5 licenses SLR application by Duke Energy, as supplemented, the NRC describes the 6 environment that could be affected by the proposed action (renewal of the operating licenses 7 authorizing an additional 20 years of reactor operation). The NRC also evaluates the 8 environmental consequences of the proposed action as well as reasonable alternatives to the 9 proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 10 Chapter 2 of this EIS describes the Oconee Station facility and its operation, as well as the 11 scope of the agencys proposed action and the no-action alternative. Chapter 2, Section 2.3, 12 further describes the range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including the 13 replacement power alternatives selected for detailed study and the supporting assumptions and 14 data relied upon. As noted in Chapter 2, Table 2-1, the site location for the replacement power 15 alternatives would be within the Oconee Station site or within Duke Energys service area.
| |
| 16 Chapter 2, Table 2-2, compares the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 17 alternatives to the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 18 In this chapter, the affected environment is the environment that currently exists at and around 19 the Oconee Station site. Because existing conditions are at least partially the result of past 20 construction and nuclear power plant operations, this chapter considers the nature and impacts 21 of past and ongoing actions and evaluates how, together, these actions have shaped the 22 current environment. This chapter also describes reasonably foreseeable environmental trends.
| |
| 23 The effects of ongoing reactor operations at the site have become well established as 24 environmental conditions have adjusted to the presence of the nuclear facility.1 Sections 3.2 25 through 3.13 describe the affected environment for each resource area, followed by an 26 evaluation of the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives to the 27 proposed action. The environmental impacts of SLR are compared with those of the 28 no-action alternative and replacement energy alternatives to determine whether the adverse 29 environmental impacts are so great that it would be unreasonable to preserve the option of 30 license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers.
| |
| | |
| 31 The evaluation of environmental consequences includes the following:
| |
| 32
| |
| * impacts associated with the proposed action - continued operations similar to those that 33 have occurred during the current license term 34
| |
| * impacts of various alternatives to the proposed action, including a no-action alternative (not 35 renewing the operating licenses) and replacement energy alternatives (new nuclear, natural 36 gas combined-cycle), and a combination alternative (new nuclear SMR, solar photovoltaic 37 [PV], offshore wind, and demand-side management) 38
| |
| * impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning after 39 the license renewal term
| |
| | |
| 1 Where appropriate, the NRC staff has summarized referenced information or incorporated information by reference into this EIS. This allows the staff to focus on new and potentially significant information identified since initial license renewal of Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3.
| |
| | |
| 3-1 1
| |
| * impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 2
| |
| * impacts of postulated accidents (design-basis accidents and severe accidents) 3
| |
| * cumulative effects of the proposed action 4
| |
| * resource commitments associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse 5 impacts, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible 6 and irretrievable commitment of resources 7
| |
| * new and potentially significant information about environmental issues related to the impacts 8 of operation during the renewal term
| |
| | |
| 9 As stated in Section 1.4 of this EIS, the NRC evaluated environmental issues applicable to 10 Oconee Stations SLR. Table 3-1 lists the Oconee Station SLR environmental issues and the 11 impact findings related to these issues. This EIS considers the environmental impacts of each 12 license renewal issue on a site-specific basis. Section 1.4 provides the definitions of SMALL, 13 MODERATE, and LARGE impact significance.
| |
| | |
| 14 Table 3-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Station 15 Subsequent License Renewal Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Land Use Onsite land use(a) SMALL Land Use Offsite land use(a) SMALL Land Use Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways SMALL (ROWs)(a)
| |
| Visual Resources Aesthetic impacts(a) SMALL Air Quality Air quality impacts (all plants)(a) SMALL Air Quality Air quality effects of transmission lines(a) SMALL Noise Noise impacts(a) SMALL Geologic Environment Geology and soils(a) SMALL Surface Water Surface water use and quality (non-cooling system SMALL Resources impacts)(a)
| |
| Surface Water Altered current patterns at intake and discharge SMALL Resources structures(a)
| |
| Surface Water Altered thermal stratification of lakes(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Scouring caused by discharged cooling water(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor SMALL Resources chemical spills(a)
| |
| Surface Water Surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through SMALL Resources cooling systems)(a)
| |
| Surface Water Effects of dredging on surface water quality(a) SMALL Resources Surface Water Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity(a) SMALL Resources 16
| |
| | |
| 3-2 Table 3-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Groundwater Resources Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling SMALL system impacts)(a)
| |
| Groundwater Resources Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less SMALL than 100 gallons per minute [gpm])(a)
| |
| Groundwater Resources Radionuclides released to groundwater SMALL Terrestrial Resources Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system SMALL impacts)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides(a) SMALL Terrestrial Resources Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources SMALL (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Bird collisions with plant structures and transmission SMALL lines(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management SMALL impacts on terrestrial resources(a)
| |
| Terrestrial Resources Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, SMALL agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms SMALL (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all SMALL plants)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with SMALL once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants)(a) SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved SMALL oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Effects of non-radiological contaminants on aquatic SMALL organisms(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides(a) SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms(a) SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system SMALL impacts)(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Impacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW) SMALL management on aquatic resources(a)
| |
| Aquatic Resources Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease SMALL among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses(a)
| |
| Special Status Species Threatened, endangered, and protected species and May affect but is not and Habitats essential fish habitat likely to adversely affect the tricolored bat or monarch butterfly; no effect on essential fish habitat Historic and Cultural Historic and cultural resources Would not adversely Resources affect known historic properties
| |
| | |
| 3-3 Table 3-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Socioeconomics Employment and income, recreation, and tourism(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Tax revenues(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Community services and education(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Population and housing(a) SMALL Socioeconomics Transportation(a) SMALL Human Health Radiation exposures to the public(a) SMALL Human Health Radiation exposures to plant workers(a) SMALL Human Health Human health impact from chemicals(a) SMALL Human Health Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with SMALL cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river)
| |
| Human Health Microbiological hazards to plant workers(a) SMALL Human Health Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)(b) Uncertain impact Human Health Physical occupational hazards(a) SMALL Human Health Electric shock hazards SMALL Postulated Accidents Design-basis accidents(a) SMALL Postulated Accidents Severe accidents See EIS Appendix F Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations Waste Management Low-level waste storage and disposal(a) SMALL Waste Management Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel(a) SMALL Waste Management Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and (c) high-level waste disposal(a)
| |
| Waste Management Mixed-waste storage and disposal(a) SMALL Waste Management Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal(a) SMALL Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts See EIS Section 3.15 Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impactsindividual impacts from SMALL other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste(a)
| |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impactscollective impacts from (d) other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste(a)
| |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle(a) SMALL Uranium Fuel Cycle Transportation(a) SMALL Termination of Nuclear Termination of plant operations and SMALL Power Plant Operations decommissioning(a) and Decommissioning EIS = environmental impact statement; EMF = electromagnetic fields; gpm = gallons per minute; gps = gallons per minute.
| |
| (a) Dispositioned as generic (Category 1) for initial license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of Title 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250).
| |
| | |
| 3-4 Table 3-1 Summary of Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts (b) This issue was not designated as Category 1 or 2 and is discussed in Section 3.11.6.6.
| |
| (c) The ultimate disposal of spent fuel in a potential future geologic repository is a separate and independent licensing action that is outside the regulatory scope of this site-specific review. Per 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250)
| |
| Subpart A the Commission concludes that the impacts presented in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014-TN4117) would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered generic to all nuclear power plants and does not warrant a site-specific analysis.
| |
| (d) There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. As stated in the 2013 GEIS, The Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated. (10 CFR Part 54; TN4878) (Section 3.13.3.3 of this EIS)
| |
| | |
| 1 3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 2 This section describes land use and visual resources in the vicinity of the Oconee Station site 3 and the potential impacts from the proposed action SLR and replacement energy alternatives.
| |
| 4 Section 3.2 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E) describes current 5 onsite and offsite land use conditions as well as visual resources.
| |
| | |
| 6 3.2.1 Land Use
| |
| | |
| 7 The Oconee Station site lies on the shores of Lake Keowee in a rural area of northwestern 8 South Carolina within 25 miles (mi) (40 kilometers [km]) of the North Carolina and Georgia state 9 lines. The nuclear power plant also lies 25 mi (40 km) northwest of Anderson, South Carolina, 10 which is the closest population center in the region (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Appendix E, 11 Section 3.1). The nearest towns are Newry, South Carolina, approximately 5 mi (8 km) south 12 and Six Mile, South Carolina, approximately 5 mi (8 km) east (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). See 13 Figure 3.1 3 in Duke Energys ER (TN8897: Appendix E, pp. 3-8), which is incorporated here by 14 reference. The sections below describe onsite and offsite land use within a 6 mi (10 km) radius 15 and also describes the South Carolina coastal zone, with an emphasis on the statutory and 16 regulatory provisions that govern its use.
| |
| | |
| 17 3.2.1.1 Onsite Land Use
| |
| | |
| 18 According to Duke Energy (TN8897), Oconee Station is located predominantly in eastern 19 Oconee County, South Carolina, with a small portion of the site falling in Pickens County, South 20 Carolina. Lake Keowee, which was built to provide cooling water for the nuclear power plant and 21 generate hydroelectric power, occupies the area to the north and west of the site.
| |
| | |
| 22 The Oconee Station site consists of 510 ac (210 hectares [ha]) of rolling hills with surface 23 elevations of 700-900 ft (210-270 m). The Oconee Station site is further surrounded by an 24 exclusion area boundary (EAB) formed by a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius as measured from the Oconee 25 Nuclear Station center. All property within this 1 mi (1.6 km) radius EAB is owned in fee, 26 including mineral rights, by Duke Energy with the exception of the Old Pickens Presbyterian 27 Church and cemetery plot, right-of-ways (ROWs) for existing highways, and a 9.8 ac (4 ha) 28 U.S. Government property associated with Lake Hartwell (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The
| |
| | |
| 3-5 1 Old Pickens Presbyterian Church is the last remaining building from the Pickens town site (NRC 2 1999-TN8942), and though it is open to the public on certain days, no regular religious services 3 occur there (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Through agreements with the Old Pickens 4 Presbyterian Church property owners and the U.S. Government, Duke Energy has the authority 5 to control activities within the EAB. Commercial enterprises within the EAB include Keowee 6 Hydro Station, Oconee Station, and individual properties managed in partnership by 7 Duke Energys real estate and water strategy organization (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Also 8 within the EAB is Duke Energys World of Energy visitor center that features a public picnic area 9 and shoreline access, and had more than 22,0000 visitors in 2018 (Duke Energy 2021-10 TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 11 Although the Oconee Station site lies in an unincorporated portion of Oconee County with no 12 zoning or land use restrictions (NRC 1999-TN8942), it is located within the Keowee/Jocassee 13 Overlay District, which Duke Energy manages with special density, land use restrictions, and 14 buffer requirements (Oconee County-TN9127). Overlay districts are special areas that have 15 additional standards that overlay existing zoning districts without being separate zoning districts.
| |
| 16 The Lake Keowee/Jocassee Overlay District is measured as 750 ft (230 m) from the full pond 17 contours of Lake Keowee and Lake Jocassee and is intended to protect water quality, maintain 18 natural beauty, and limit the negative impacts of development around the lakes (Oconee 19 County-TN9127). Duke Energy controls development around Lake Keowee through a property 20 use permit process required for residential docks, private facility construction, modification and 21 maintenance of existing structures, and modification or maintenance of existing shoreline 22 stabilization (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 23 Oconee Station was constructed as part of Duke Energys integrated energy-producing area, 24 the Keowee-Toxaway Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] Project 2503).
| |
| 25 Constructed from 1968-1974, the project included the construction of Lake Keowee, Lake 26 Jocassee, the Keowee Hydroelectric Station, and the Jocassee Hydroelectric Station. The 27 FERC issued a 50-year license for the Keowee-Toxaway Project in 1966 that expired in 2016.
| |
| 28 In 2014, Duke Energy applied for a new license. FERC issued a new 30-year operating license 29 for the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project in 2016 (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 30 A number of recent projects have resulted in onsite land use changes at Oconee Station.
| |
| 31 From 2016 to 2019, Duke Energy expanded one of Oconees onsite ISFSI configurations to 32 host additional storage units. Oconee maintains two ISFSIsthe original installation under a 33 site-specific license SNM-2503 and the second under the general license authorized under 34 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K, General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites 35 (TN4884) The ISFSI expansion took place at the general license ISFSI. Duke Energy cleared a 36 total of 6.6 ac (2.7 ha) for construction and operation of the 4.2 ac (1.7 ha) ISFSI expansion 37 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). No wetlands were affected by the construction or operation of the 38 ISFSI expansion. Before it was cleared, the area was forested, and the land use is now 39 developed.
| |
| | |
| 40 Duke Energy also cleared forested land as part of an expansion of the Operations Training 41 Center. The planned 5 ac (2 ha) expansion required clearing of pine and mixed hardwood forest 42 in the northwest corner of the site (Duke Energy 2018-TN8965).
| |
| | |
| 43 From June 2020 to December 2020, Duke Energy completed a security tower project that 44 consisted of two main parts: (1) construction of five, new onsite security observation towers 45 ranging from 30-50 ft (9-15 m) in height and (2) vegetation clearance to provide line-of-sight for 46 the towers. The construction of each tower required a 25 by 25 ft (7.6 by 7.6 m) base on
| |
| | |
| 3-6 1 previously developed land that was either paved or covered in gravel. In total, 3,125 ft2 (290 m2),
| |
| 2 or 0.07 ac (0.028 ha) of already developed (paved or gravel-covered) land was required for the 3 five towers. Because the land was already cleared and developed, the tower bases did not 4 change onsite land use. For the second part of the project, Duke Energy cleared a total of 5 5.95 ac (2.4 ha) of trees and vegetation to create lines-of-sight for the towers. The land use in 6 the cleared areas previously consisted of a mix of forested areas and is now classified as open 7 space. The trees were chipped into mulch that was spread as ground cover. Rip rap and 8 sediment blankets also were used to control erosion.
| |
| | |
| 9 Also in 2020, Duke Energy installed a new watercraft barrier below the Keowee Hydro Dam.
| |
| 10 Construction of the watercraft barrier required land on which to install two concrete anchor 11 blocksa west anchor block and an east anchor block. The west anchor block appears to lie in 12 developed land while the east anchor block lies in what was formerly pasture/hay. For the 13 construction of the barrier, two 30 by 30 ft (9 by 9 m) squares of land were disturbed or a total of 14 1,800 ft2 (81 m2). Operation of the dam required the installation of two 20 by 20 ft (6 by 6 m) 15 aggregate bases, each of which supports a concrete anchor block. A total of 800 ft2 (74 m2) of 16 land, half of which was already developed, was permanently converted to a developed 17 impervious area.
| |
| | |
| 18 3.2.1.2 Coastal Zone
| |
| | |
| 19 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C.
| |
| 20 1456(c)(3)(A)) (TN1243) requires that applicants for Federal licenses who conduct activities in a 21 coastal zone provide a certification to the licensing agency (in this case the NRC) that the 22 proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the States coastal zone program.
| |
| 23 The Federal regulations that implement the Coastal Zone Management Act indicate that this 24 requirement is applicable to renewal of Federal licenses for actions not previously reviewed by 25 the State (15 CFR 930.51(b)(1)) (TN4475).
| |
| | |
| 26 South Carolina Code of Laws Title 48, Environmental Protection and Conservation, 27 Chapter 39, Section 10, Definitions (SC Code 48-39-TN8966) states that, Coastal zone 28 means all coastal waters and submerged lands seaward to the states jurisdictional limits and all 29 lands and waters in the counties of the State which contain any one or more of the critical areas.
| |
| 30 These counties are Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, and 31 Georgetown. South Carolinas Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 32 implements the States Coastal Management Program, which includes indirect certification 33 authority of Federal actions within the eight coastal counties listed above. Neither Oconee 34 County nor Pickens County is among the eight coastal counties. As stated in Duke Energys ER 35 Section 9.5.10, ONS [Oconee Nuclear Station], located in Oconee County, is not within the 36 South Carolina coastal zone. Therefore, the Coastal Zone Management Act does not apply to 37 this SLR application.
| |
| | |
| 38 3.2.1.3 Offsite Land Use
| |
| | |
| 39 The 6 mi (10 km) radius of the Oconee Station site boundary includes portions of Oconee 40 County and Pickens County. Lake Keowee is the predominant natural feature. As stated in 41 Section 3.2.2 of Duke Energys environmental report (TN8897), the largest land cover 42 categories within the 6 mi (10 km) radius are forest (52.7 percent), open water (18.3 percent),
| |
| 43 developed land (14.3 percent), and pasture/hay (9.9 percent). The remaining 4.8 percent of land 44 cover categories are grassland/herbaceous, shrub/scrub, barren land, and woody wetlands.
| |
| | |
| 3-7 1 Oconee County traditionally relied on agriculture and textiles but has increased in 2 industrialization and commercialization, especially with the introduction of the Keowee-Toxaway 3 Major Lake and Energy Project in the 1960s. The county occupies 400,850 ac (162,220 ha) with 4 the largest land use being private forest land (approximately 29 percent) followed by a nearly 5 even split between State and Federal forest lands (23.72 percent) and agriculture 6 (23.71 percent). The primary crops in Oconee County are corn, wheat, soybeans, and forage.
| |
| 7 Livestock is also an important agricultural product. Like Oconee County, Pickens County was 8 also agricultural and rural, but by the end of World War II it had transitioned into manufacturing.
| |
| 9 The largest land use in Pickens County is residential, followed by agricultural. Its primary crops 10 are corn, soybeans, and forage. Falling in both Oconee and Pickens Counties, Lake Keowee, 11 which was created to provide cooling water to Oconee Station and to generate hydroelectric 12 power, has become a popular residential and recreation destination, thereby greatly influencing 13 offsite land use in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant. There are 4,500 permanent and 14 vacation shoreline residences around Lake Keowee, as well as campgrounds, residential boat 15 slips, commercial marinas, and retail establishments; and the area continues to experience a 16 high volume of growth (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 17 The South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (SC Code 6 18 TN9129) requires local planning commissions to, in part, review comprehensive plans not less 19 than every 5 years and fully update comprehensive plans not less than once every 10 years. In 20 2020, Oconee County adopted its Oconee County, South Carolina Comprehensive Plan 2020 21 (Oconee County 2023-TN9130). In 2022, Pickens County adopted an updated comprehensive 22 plan (Pickens County 2022-TN9041). In addition, in 2014, Duke Energy created a consolidated 23 Keowee-Toxaway Project Shoreline Management Plan as part of its FERC relicensing 24 application (Duke Energy 2014-TN9131). The plan is a comprehensive tool for managing 25 requests for shoreline activities and considers public recreation, public access, protection of 26 environmental resources, shoreline control, and commercial development among other 27 resources.
| |
| | |
| 28 There are nine public use lands within 6 mi (10 km) of Oconee Station including the Old Pickens 29 Presbyterian Church and the Clemson University Forest, both approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) away 30 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 31 3.2.2 Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 32 The Oconee Station site lies in a forested valley in eastern Oconee County, South Carolina, on 33 the shores of Lake Keowee. The tallest structures are the three reactor containment buildings, 34 at approximately 191 ft (58 m). Other prominent structures include the water tower, turbine 35 building, and the transmission lines (NRC 1999-TN8964, Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Nuclear 36 power plant structures are visible from adjacent highways in only a few locations (NRC 1999-37 TN8942). Lake Keowee is a popular recreation destination with boating, fishing, swimming, and 38 sunbathing FERC 2016-TN8967). Recreational boaters on Lake Keowee have a partial view of 39 the nuclear power plant, which is set back from the lake.
| |
| | |
| 40 In 2020, Duke Energy (TN8897) installed five new security towers at Oconee Stationtwo 30 ft 41 (9 m) towers, one 40 ft (12 m) tower, and two 50 ft (15 m) towers (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| 42 Although these towers are visible from publicly accessible areas, they are not predominant 43 features and are part of the Oconee Station industrial setting. A new watercraft barrier 44 completed in 2020 is visible from the Keowee River, though it is also not a predominant visual 45 feature and is in character with the industrial appearance.
| |
| | |
| 3-8 1 3.2.3 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 2 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 3 SLR on the environmental issues related to land use and visual resources in accordance with 4 Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.2.3.1 Onsite Land Use
| |
| | |
| 6 Operational activities during the SLR term would be similar to those already occurring at 7 Oconee Station. The industrial nature of onsite land use would continue unchanged. Duke 8 Energy states that it may need to expand the current ISFSI during the SLR term, and that there 9 is sufficient onsite land for the expansion (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Based on this 10 information, the NRC staff concludes that the impact of continued nuclear power plant 11 operations on onsite land use during the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL. In 12 addition, the NRC staff did not identify any new onsite land use information that would alter this 13 conclusion.
| |
| | |
| 14 3.2.3.2 Offsite Land Use
| |
| | |
| 15 License renewal activities have had little to no effect on population or tax revenue in 16 communities near nuclear power plants. Employment levels at Oconee Station have remained 17 the same or have slightly decreased with no increased demand for housing, infrastructure 18 improvements, or services. Operational activities during the SLR term would be similar to those 19 already occurring at Oconee Station and would not affect offsite land use beyond what has 20 already been affected.
| |
| | |
| 21 Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the impact of continued nuclear power 22 plant operations on offsite land use during the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL. In 23 addition, the NRC staff did not identify any new offsite land use information that would alter this 24 conclusion.
| |
| | |
| 25 3.2.3.3 Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways
| |
| | |
| 26 Maintenance activities in transmission line ROWs during the license renewal term would be the 27 same as or similar to those already occurring and would not affect offsite land use beyond what 28 has already been affected. Transmission line ROWs do not preclude the use of the land for 29 other purposes, such as agriculture and recreation. However, land use is limited to activities that 30 do not endanger power line operation.
| |
| | |
| 31 Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the impact of continued nuclear power 32 plant operations during the Oconee Station SLR term on offsite land use in transmission line 33 ROWs would be SMALL. In addition, the NRC staff did not identify any new land use information 34 that would alter this conclusion.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.2.3.4 Aesthetic Impacts
| |
| | |
| 36 The visual appearance of Oconee Station and associated transmission lines has become well 37 established during the current licensing term and is not likely to change appreciably over time.
| |
| 38 The NRC staff concludes that the visual impact of continued nuclear power plant operations at 39 Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL, because the visual appearance of the 40 nuclear power plant and transmission lines would not change. In addition, the NRC staff did not 41 identify any new information that would alter this conclusion.
| |
| | |
| 3-9 1 3.2.4 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 2 3.2.4.1 Land Use
| |
| | |
| 3 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not renew the Oconee Station operating 4 licenses, and reactor operations would cease on or before the expiration of the current renewed 5 licenses in 2033 (Units 1 and 2) and 2034 (Unit 3). Under this alternative, land uses would 6 remain similar to those that would occur under the proposed SLR. Shutdown of Oconee Station 7 would not affect onsite land use. Plant structures and other facilities would remain in place until 8 decommissioning. Most transmission lines would remain in service after the cessation of reactor 9 operations.
| |
| | |
| 10 Maintenance of most existing infrastructure would continue. Based on this information, the NRC 11 staff concludes that land use impacts under the no-action alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.2.4.2 Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 13 Termination of reactor operations because of not renewing the operating licenses under the no-14 action alternative would not change the visual appearance of the Oconee Station site. The most 15 visible structures are the reactor containment buildings, and they would likely remain in place for 16 some time during decommissioning until they are eventually dismantled. Overall, the NRC staff 17 concludes that visual impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 18 3.2.5 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 19 3.2.5.1 Land Use
| |
| | |
| 20 Land use impacts are determined by the change in use and the amount of land affected by the 21 construction and operation of a replacement power generating facility, infrastructure, and other 22 installations.
| |
| | |
| 23 Construction
| |
| | |
| 24 Construction of a replacement power facility would require the permanent commitment of land 25 designated for industrial use. Existing transmission lines and infrastructure would adequately 26 support each of the replacement energy alternatives, thereby reducing the need for additional 27 land commitments.
| |
| | |
| 28 Operations
| |
| | |
| 29 Operation of new power generating facilities would have no land use impacts beyond land 30 committed for the permanent use of the replacement power plant. Additional land may be 31 required to support power plant operations, including land for the mining, extraction, and waste 32 disposal activities associated with each alternative.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.2.5.2 Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 34 Visual impacts are determined by the degree of contrast between the replacement power 35 generating facility and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the new power plant.
| |
| | |
| 3-10 1 Construction
| |
| | |
| 2 Land for any replacement power generating facility would require clearing, excavation, and the 3 use of construction equipment. Temporary visual impacts may occur during construction 4 because of the use of cranes and other construction equipment.
| |
| | |
| 5 Operations
| |
| | |
| 6 Visual impacts during power plant operations of any of the replacement energy alternatives 7 would be similar in type and magnitude. New cooling towers (if built) and their associated vapor 8 plumes would be the most obvious visual impact and would likely be visible farther from the site 9 than other buildings and infrastructure. New power plant stacks or towers may require aircraft 10 warning lights, which would be visible at night.
| |
| | |
| 11 3.2.6 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 12 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 13 3.2.6.1 Land Use
| |
| | |
| 14 Construction
| |
| | |
| 15 Approximately 3,000 ac (1,200 ha) of land would be temporarily and permanently affected 16 by the construction and operation of the two-unit ALWRs at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station.
| |
| 17 This would include 950 ac (650 ac permanently) for power generation, 1,100 ac (1,047 ac 18 permanently) for a cooling water make-up pond, and 990 ac (400 ha) permanently for 19 transmission line corridors (NRC 2013-TN6435; Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Additional land 20 may also be needed temporarily for construction laydown areas. The 1,928 ac (780 ha) W.S.
| |
| 21 Lee Nuclear Station industrial site is located at the abandoned Cherokee Nuclear Station site on 22 land already zoned for industrial use. The two-unit ALWR nuclear power plant would require 23 less than half the site acreage for construction. Constructing the make-up pond would inundate 24 1,050 ac (425 ha) of land. The NRC concluded in the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station Combined 25 License final EIS that land use impacts from the construction of the two-unit ALWR nuclear 26 power plant would be MODERATE (NRC 2013-TN6435).
| |
| | |
| 27 Approximately 36 ac (15 ha) of land on the Oconee Station site would be required to construct 28 the SMR on land already zoned for industrial use. Additional land would also be required for 29 construction laydown areas. In Table 8.0-2 of its environmental report, Duke Energy (TN8897) 30 identified an area slightly less than 110 ac (44.5 ha) on the Oconee Station site for siting the 31 SMR. Two parcels of land include 72 ac (29 ha) south of the 525 kilovolt (kV) switchyard and 32 35 ac (14 ha) east of the switchyard. The SMR would use existing Oconee Station infrastructure 33 and transmission lines. Based on this information, land use impacts from the construction of an 34 SMR on the Oconee Station site would be SMALL because the land is already used for energy 35 generation.
| |
| | |
| 36 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that land use impacts during construction of the replacement 37 power plants under the new nuclear alternative would range from SMALL to MODERATE 38 primarily because of the land use impacts at the proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site.
| |
| | |
| 39 Operations
| |
| | |
| 40 Land would be needed for uranium mining and fuel fabrication to support up to 40 years of 41 nuclear power plant operations. Land use impacts would be similar to those experienced during 42 Oconee Station operations. Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that land use
| |
| | |
| 3-11 1 impacts from operating a new two-unit ALWR nuclear power plant and a single SMR nuclear 2 power plant could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on how much additional land 3 may be needed for uranium mining and fuel fabrication.
| |
| | |
| 4 3.2.6.2 Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 5 Construction and Operations
| |
| | |
| 6 Visual impacts from a new nuclear alternative would be similar to the common impacts of all 7 replacement power alternatives described in Section 3.2.5.2, Visual Resources. The tallest 8 structures during construction of the two-unit ALWR nuclear power plant at the W.S. Lee 9 Nuclear Station site would be the meteorology tower and cranes. The most visible structures 10 would be the shield buildings229.4 ft (69.9 m) in height. The short and compact mechanical 11 draft cooling towers would have minimal effect on local viewsheds. However, the new reactor 12 containment domes would be visible from local State parks. Nuclear power plant activities would 13 also be visible from the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir. Clearing forested land 14 near SC 329 for the cooling water make-up pond would also have a noticeable visual impact.
| |
| 15 The NRC concluded in the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station Combined License final EIS that visual 16 impacts during construction and operation would be MODERATE (NRC 2013-TN6435).
| |
| | |
| 17 Visual impacts from the construction and operation of a single SMR would also be similar to the 18 common impacts of all replacement power alternatives described in Section 3.2.5.2, Visual 19 Resources. During operations, the visual appearance of the SMR power block (i.e., reactor 20 containments, auxiliary building, fuel building, and turbine building, which includes the main 21 control room) would be similar to the industrial appearance of the Oconee Station power blocks.
| |
| 22 The tallest structure would be approximately 160 ft (50 m) in height, which is 31 ft (9.4 m) 23 shorter than the tallest structures at Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Mechanical 24 draft cooling towers (approximately 65 ft [20 m] in height) could increase the visual impact by 25 producing water vapor plumes that could be visible from great distances. Based on this 26 information, the NRC staff concludes that visual impacts from the construction and operation of 27 the SMR at the Oconee Station site would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 28 Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that visual impacts during the construction 29 and operation of the two-unit ALWR nuclear power plant at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site 30 and the SMR power plant at the Oconee Station site, including cooling tower plumes that could 31 be visible from great distances, could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on 32 seasonal weather conditions.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.2.7 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 34 3.2.7.1 Land Use
| |
| | |
| 35 Construction
| |
| | |
| 36 The natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC or natural gas) replacement power alternative would be 37 constructed on approximately 130 ac (53 ha) of land at the Oconee Station site on land already 38 zoned for industrial use. In addition, the natural gas plant would require 191 ac (77 ha) of land 39 offsite for a new natural gas pipeline ROW. The pipeline would connect with an existing natural 40 gas supply line approximately 21 mi (34 km) southeast in Centerville, South Carolina (Duke 41 Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 42 Acquisition of land to establish a new natural gas pipeline ROW to Centerville, South Carolina, 43 would require permanently clearing a corridor of land and converting it to industrial use.
| |
| | |
| 3-12 1 Depending on the route chosen, land use in the ROW corridor may change from agricultural, 2 forest, wetland, or grassland to industrial use.
| |
| | |
| 3 Given the current industrial nature of the Oconee Station site, land use impacts during 4 construction would be SMALL to MODERATE largely because of the amount of land needed to 5 be cleared and converted to industrial use for a new natural gas pipeline ROW.
| |
| | |
| 6 Operations
| |
| | |
| 7 Operation of a natural gas facility would be consistent with the existing industrial land use on the 8 Oconee Station site. No new gas wells would be needed to support the natural gas power plant 9 because of the current abundant supply of natural gas in the United States (Duke Energy 2021-10 TN8897). Elimination of land used for uranium mining to supply fuel to Oconee Station would 11 partially offset any land use impacts of the natural gas alternative (see Section 3.14.1, Fuel 12 Cycle, for a description of land use impacts caused by uranium mining and natural gas 13 extraction and collection). Operations would require management of the new natural gas 14 pipeline ROW to keep the area free of woody vegetation (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Based 15 on this information, the NRC staff concludes that land use impacts from operating a new natural 16 gas combined-cycle power plant would be SMALL.
| |
| 17 3.2.7.2 Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 18 Construction and Operations 19 Visual impacts would be similar to the common impacts described in Section 3.2.5.2, Visual 20 Resources. However, construction and operation of the natural gas power plant would have 21 little to no additional visual impact and would be consistent with the industrial nature of the 22 developed portions of the Oconee Station site. The tallest structures would be plant exhaust 23 stacks that are approximately 150 ft (46 m) tall, which is 41 ft (12.5 m) shorter than the tallest 24 structures currently at Oconee Station. This lower height profile would result in a lesser visual 25 impact.
| |
| | |
| 26 New mechanical draft cooling towers (approximately 70 ft [21 m] in height) would increase the 27 visual impact by producing water vapor plumes that could be visible from great distances.
| |
| 28 Constructing a new natural gas pipeline corridor would result in temporary visual impacts. The 29 gas pipeline corridor ROW would require regular clearing and maintenance. However, Duke 30 Energy indicated they would avoid scenic areas, wildlife habitats, and cultural sites to reduce 31 the visual impact (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 32 Visual impacts during natural gas power plant operations would be similar to those experienced 33 during Oconee Station operation. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that visual impacts during 34 construction and operation of the natural gas alternative at the Oconee Station site, including 35 steam plumes, could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on seasonal weather 36 conditions.
| |
| 37 3.2.8 Combination Alternative (Solar Photovoltaic, Offshore Wind, Small Modular 38 Reactor, and Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 39 3.2.8.1 Land Use 40 Construction and Operation
| |
| | |
| 41 The solar portion of the combination alternative would require 12 utility-scale solar photovoltaic 42 power plants with battery energy storage systems occupying a total area of approximately
| |
| | |
| 3-13 1 9,600 ac (3,900 ha) of land, with additional land required for construction staging and laydown.
| |
| 2 Each solar photovoltaic power plant would be located within the ROI with access to Duke 3 Energy transmission systems. Land use impacts would depend largely on the nature of the land 4 acquired for the solar PV power plant. For example, installing the solar PV plant on land already 5 designated for industrial use would have less of an impact. If land had to be changed from other 6 uses (e.g., converting residential or prime farmland to industrial use) or if the land was located 7 near residential or recreational land use areas, the impacts would be greater. Adding to the land 8 use impact is the fact that standalone solar PV facilities cannot be co-located with other land 9 uses (e.g., grazing and crop-producing agriculture). Based on this information, the NRC staff 10 concludes that land use impacts during construction and operation of the solar PV plants could 11 range from MODERATE to LARGE, depending on the type and location of land chosen for the 12 12 installations.
| |
| | |
| 13 For the offshore wind component, one or more offshore wind energy facilities would be 14 constructed along the North Carolina or South Carolina Atlantic coasts. Although most 15 construction and operation activities for the wind farms would occur offshore, onshore land use 16 would also be affected. Construction of wind facilities requires onshore land for staging and 17 laydown and can disturb beaches, dunes, coastal wetlands, and bays during the installation of 18 onshore components, such as interconnection cables, fiber-optic cables, switch cabinets, and 19 interconnection stations (BOEM 2015-TN8399). During operations, onshore land is required for 20 support facilities as well as a large battery storage system. The NRC staff assumes the offshore 21 wind farm would connect to an onshore battery storage system requiring 60 ac (24 ha) of land.
| |
| 22 Land use impacts would depend largely on the nature of the land disturbed. If the lands chosen 23 for the battery storage system were previously cleared and used for industrial activity, the 24 impacts would be less significant than if the lands had to be converted from another use.
| |
| 25 Coastal area economies are also often dependent on tourism and recreation, which could make 26 land use impacts more significant. However, land disturbed during construction and for laying 27 underground cables could be revegetated. In addition, regulations in the Coastal Zone 28 Management programs of South Carolina and North Carolina would mitigate land use impacts 29 by prohibiting locating onshore facilities near sensitive coastal resources. Based on this 30 information, the NRC staff concludes that land use impacts from the construction and operation 31 of an offshore wind facility would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 32 Land use impacts for the SMR portion of the combination alternative would be similar to but 33 greater than the impacts described in Section 3.2.6.1, Land Use, for the SMR portion of the 34 new nuclear alternative. Under the combination alternative, three 400 megawatt electrical 35 (MWe) SMR units would be installed, requiring 110 ac (45 ha) of land at Oconee Station, as 36 opposed to 36 ac (15 ha) of land for the single SMR of the new nuclear alternative. Land use 37 impacts associated with uranium mining and fuel fabrication needed to support the three SMRs 38 would be less than the amount of land needed to support Oconee Station operations. Based on 39 this information, the NRC staff concludes that land use impacts from the construction and 40 operation of three SMRs at Oconee Station would be SMALL, because the land is already 41 zoned for industrial use.
| |
| | |
| 42 Land use impacts associated with demand-side management would be limited to the 43 manufacture of energy-efficient equipment and insulating materials and land used for the 44 disposal of inefficient appliances and material at existing recycling and disposal facilities. The 45 NRC staff concludes that overall land use impacts from the construction and operation of the 46 combination alternative range from SMALL to LARGE, because of the large amount of land and 47 land uses affected by the solar PV installations.
| |
| | |
| 3-14 1 3.2.8.2 Visual Resources
| |
| | |
| 2 Construction and Operations
| |
| | |
| 3 Utility-scale solar PV installations require large land areas, and solar PV panels could be 4 visible to the public from offsite locations, depending on the buffer areas or screening. Solar 5 PV installations would be sited to comply with land use zoning and any required buffers or 6 screening. Based on the topography, size, and location of the land chosen, the NRC staff 7 concludes that the construction and operation of 12 solar PV power plants would have a 8 MODERATE to LARGE impact on visual resources.
| |
| | |
| 9 Offshore wind turbines would be visible from all directions and could have a large impact on the 10 viewshed, depending on the location of the wind farm site. Avoiding impacts on the most scenic 11 viewsheds would reduce the most significant visual impacts, allowing the impact to be 12 noticeable but not destabilizing. Depending on viewing conditions, small to moderately sized 13 turbines placed up to 26 mi (42 km) from the coast can be visible from the shore (Sullivan et al.
| |
| 14 2013-TN8444). When visible, offshore wind turbines can have a negative impact on tourism and 15 shoreline property values. For these reasons, wind energy area boundaries were moved farther 16 offshore and away from important recreation and tourism areas, such as the Cape Hatteras 17 National Seashore and the Outer Banks. The wind energy areas were designed to minimize 18 effects on the viewshed of such areas (BOEM 2015-TN9066). Because of larger size utility-19 scale commercial wind turbines, the number of turbines, the variability of distance from the 20 shore of important coastal areas, and the scenic importance of the coastal areas, the NRC staff 21 concludes that the construction and operation of offshore wind farms could have a MODERATE 22 visual impact.
| |
| | |
| 23 Visual impacts from constructing and operating three SMRs would be similar and greater than 24 the impacts described in Section 3.2.6.2, Visual Resources, for the SMR portion of the new 25 nuclear alternative. The addition of mechanical draft cooling towers (approximately 65 ft [20 m]
| |
| 26 in height) would increase the visual impact by producing water vapor plumes that could be 27 visible from great distances. Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that visual 28 impacts during the construction and operation of the three SMRs at Oconee Station, including 29 cooling tower plumes that could be visible from great distances, could range from SMALL to 30 MODERATE, depending on seasonal weather conditions.
| |
| | |
| 31 Demand-side management is not likely to have any visual impact. Overall, the NRC staff 32 concludes that the visual impacts from the construction and operation of the combination 33 alternative could range from SMALL to LARGE. This range is primarily due to the potential 34 visual impacts from the solar and wind components of this alternative.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise
| |
| | |
| 36 This section describes the meteorology, air quality, and noise environment in the vicinity of the 37 Oconee Station site. The description of the resources is followed by the staffs analysis of the 38 potential air quality and noise impacts from the proposed action (SLR) and alternatives to the 39 proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 40 3.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology
| |
| | |
| 41 South Carolinas climate is humid and subtropical, characterized by hot and humid summers 42 and mild winters. The Appalachian Mountains to the north shield the state from cold air masses
| |
| | |
| 3-15 1 and the semi-permanent high-pressure system in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bermuda High) 2 provides a flow of warm, moist air (NOAA 2022-TN9132). The annual average temperature 3 varies across the state from mid-50° F in the mountains to mid-60°F along the coast. Similarly, 4 precipitation varies across the state from 80 in. (203 cm) near the mountains to less than 39 in.
| |
| 5 (99 cm) in the middle of the state (NOAA 2022-TN9132).
| |
| | |
| 6 Duke Energy maintains a meteorological monitoring system comprising two meteorological 7 towers. Meteorological Tower Number 1 is located northwest of the units and measures the 8 wind speed and direction, temperature, and vertical temperature gradient. Meteorological Tower 9 Number 2 is located east of the units and measures the wind speed and direction, vertical 10 temperature gradient, and precipitation. In Section 3.3.2 of the ER, Duke Energy provided 11 meteorological observations from Oconee Stations onsite meteorological monitoring system for 12 the 1989-2018 period. The NRC staff obtained climatological data from the Greer, South 13 Carolina, weather station. This station is approximately 48 mi (77 km) northwest of the Oconee 14 Station site and is used to characterize the regions climate because of its location and long 15 period of record. The staff evaluated these data in context with the climatological record from 16 Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 17 The mean annual temperature from Oconee Stations onsite meteorological towers is 61°F 18 (16.1°C) for the 1989-2018 period, with a mean monthly temperature ranging from a low of 19 43°F (6.1°C) in January to a high of 78°F (25.5°C) in July (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The 20 mean annual temperature for the 60-year period of record (1963-2022) at the Greer weather 21 station is 60.7°F (15.9°C), with a mean monthly temperature ranging from a low of 41.4°F 22 (5.2°C) in January to a high of 79.1°F (26.1°C) in July (National Climatic Data Center 23 [NCDC] NOAA 2023-TN9477).
| |
| | |
| 24 The mean annual total precipitation from Oconee Stations onsite meteorological towers is 25 53.6 in. (1.35 m) for the 1989-2018 period, with a mean monthly precipitation ranging from a 26 low of 3.8 in. (9.7 cm) in October to a high of 5.1 in. (12.9 cm) in December and March (Duke 27 Energy 2021-TN8897). The mean annual total precipitation for the 60-year period of record 28 (1963-2022) at the Greer weather station is 50.1 in. (1.3 m), with a mean month precipitation 29 ranging from a low of 3.75 in. (9.5 cm) in November to a high of 4.95 in. (12.6 cm) in March 30 (NOAA 2023-TN9477).
| |
| | |
| 31 The mean annual wind speed from Oconee Stations onsite meteorological towers is 4.5 miles 32 per hour (mph) (7.2 kilometers/hour [km/hr]), with a prevailing wind direction from west-33 southwest during the months of November through July and from the northeast during the 34 months of August through October (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The mean annual wind speed 35 from the Greer weather station for the 39-year period of record (1984-2022) is 6.5 mph 36 (10.5 km/hr), with a prevailing wind direction from the north-northeast (NOAA 2023-TN9477).
| |
| | |
| 37 South Carolina is subject to occasional extreme weather events, including tornadoes and 38 flooding. The following number of severe weather events have been reported in Oconee County 39 and Pickens County from January 1950 through March 2023 (NOAA NCEI 2023-TN9148):
| |
| 40
| |
| * flooding: 27 events 41
| |
| * tornadoes: 63 events 42
| |
| * thunderstorms: 602 events 43
| |
| * hail: 352 events
| |
| | |
| 3-16 1 3.3.2 Air Quality
| |
| | |
| 2 Under the Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.-TN1141, the EPA 3 has set primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs; 4 40 CFR Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards) for six 5 common criteria pollutants to protect sensitive populations and the environment (TN1089). The 6 NAAQS criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
| |
| 7 ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). The PM is further categorized by 8 sizePM10 (diameter of 10 micrometers or less) and PM2.5 (diameter of 2.5 micrometers or 9 less).
| |
| | |
| 10 The EPA designates areas of attainment and nonattainment with respect to meeting NAAQSs.
| |
| 11 Areas for which there are insufficient data to determine attainment or nonattainment are 12 designated as unclassifiable. Areas that were once in nonattainment, but are now in attainment, 13 are called maintenance areas; these areas are under a 10-year monitoring plan to maintain the 14 attainment designation status. States have the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance 15 with the NAAQSs. Under CAA Section 110 (42 U.S.C. 7410-TN4851) and related provisions, 16 States are to submit State Implementation Plans that provide for the timely attainment and 17 maintenance of the NAAQSs for EPA approval.
| |
| | |
| 18 In South Carolina, air quality designations are made at the county level. For the purpose of 19 planning and maintaining ambient air quality with respect to the NAAQSs, the EPA has 20 developed air quality control regions. Air quality control regions are intrastate or interstate areas 21 that share a common airshed. Oconee Station is located primarily in Oconee County, South 22 Carolina, with a portion of the site extending into neighboring Pickens County, South Carolina.
| |
| 23 Oconee County and Pickens County are within the Greenville-Spartanburg Intrastate Air Quality 24 Control Region (40 CFR 81.106-TN7226). With regard to NAAQSs, the EPA designates Oconee 25 County and Pickens County as being in attainment with respect to all air criteria pollutants (EPA 26 2023-TN8954).
| |
| | |
| 27 3.3.3 Noise
| |
| | |
| 28 Noise is unwanted sound and can be generated by many sources. Sound intensity is measured 29 in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). A dB is the ratio of the measured sound pressure level 30 to a reference level equal to a normal persons threshold of hearing. Most people barely notice a 31 difference of 3 dB or less. Another characteristic of sound is frequency or pitch. Noise may be 32 composed of many frequencies, but the human ear does not hear very low or very high 33 frequencies. To represent, as closely as possible, the noise levels people experience, sounds 34 are measured using a frequency-weighting scheme known as the A-scale. Sound levels 35 measured on this A-scale are given in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Levels can become 36 annoying at 80 dBA and very annoying at 90 dBA. To the human ear, each increase of 10 dBA 37 sounds twice as loud (EPA 1981-TN7412).
| |
| | |
| 38 Several different terms are commonly used to describe sounds that vary in intensity over time.
| |
| 39 The equivalent sound intensity level (Leq) represents the average sound intensity level over a 40 specified interval, often 1 hour. The day-night sound intensity level is a single value calculated 41 from hourly Leq during a 24-hour period, with the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels from 42 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This addition accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime 43 noise. Statistical sound level (Ln) is the sound level that is exceeded n percent of the time 44 during a given period. For example, L90, is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of time and is 45 considered the background level.
| |
| | |
| 3-17 1 Primary offsite noises in the vicinity of the Oconee Station site include vehicular traffic and 2 recreational activities associated with boating and fishing in Lake Keowee (Duke Energy 2021-3 TN8897). The nearest resident is located approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) from Oconee Station.
| |
| 4 Primary noise sources at Oconee Station include turbine generators, loudspeakers, firing range, 5 transformers, and main steam safety valves. Between 2014-2022, Duke Energy has not 6 received any noise complaints as a result of operation of Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2021-7 TN8897, Duke Energy 2021-TN8898, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 8 3.3.4 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 9 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 10 SLR on the environmental issues related to meteorology, air quality, and noise in accordance 11 with Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.3.4.1 Air Quality Impacts (All Plants)
| |
| | |
| 13 The ambient air quality in the vicinity of Oconee Station is described in Section 3.3.2 of this EIS.
| |
| 14 Impacts on air quality during normal plant operations can result from the operation of fossil fuel-15 fired equipment needed for various plant functions. The SCDHEC regulates air emissions at the 16 Oconee Station site under a conditional major operating permit (Air Permit No. CM-1820-0041).
| |
| 17 Oconee Stations conditional major operating permit expires on December 31, 2027 (SCDHEC 18 2023-TN8970). Oconee Stations permitted air emission sources include an auxiliary boiler.
| |
| 19 In addition to the auxiliary boiler, some air emission sources and activities at Oconee Station are 20 exempt from air quality permitting, including generators and compressors, paint mixing 21 operations, the cement silo, and coating and blasting (SCDHEC 2023-TN8970). These exempt 22 sources, however, must be accounted for in the facility-wide emissions reports submitted to the 23 SCDHEC (SCDHEC 2023-TN8970, SCDHEC 2023-TN8971). Duke Energy submits annual 24 emission reports to the SCDHEC in accordance with Oconee Stations major operating permit.
| |
| 25 Table 3-2 presents Oconee Stations annual air emissions from 2015-2022. Table 3-3 presents 26 annual air emissions for Oconee and Pickens Counties (EPA 2020-TN8975). The contribution of 27 air emissions from sources at Oconee Station constitutes less than 1 percent of the annual 28 emissions from either Oconee or Pickens County.
| |
| | |
| 29 Table 3-2 Reported Air Pollutant Emissions from Oconee Station, South Carolina 30 (tons/year(a))
| |
| | |
| Year Nitrogen Oxides(b) Carbon Monoxide Hazardous Air Pollutants 2015 8.44 1.86 0.27 2016 5.74 1.27 0.25 2017 10.27 2.41 0.21 2018 7.09 N/A(b) N/A 2019 9.75 N/A N/A 2020 11.68 N/A N/A 2021 4.73 N/A N/A 2022 5.45 N/A N/A N/A = not available (a) To convert tons per year to metric tons per year, multiply by 0.90718.
| |
| (b) In accordance with Permit CM-1820-0041, effective 1/1/2018, only nitrogen oxide emissions are quantified and submitted annually (SCDHEC 2023-TN8970; Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| Sources for Air Emissions: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8948.
| |
| | |
| 3-18 1 Duke Energy reports that it has not received any notices of violation or noncompliance 2 associated with Oconee Stations major operating permit between 2014 and 2021 (Duke Energy 3 2022-TN8948). The NRC staffs review of EPAs Enforcement and Compliance History Online 4 system 3-year compliance history (between April 2019 through March 2023) revealed no notices 5 of violation (EPA 2023-TN8953). However, in 2022, Duke Energy reported two self-identified 6 noncompliance events to SCDHEC (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). The noncompliance events 7 consisted of preventive maintenance of two generators not being performed within the 8 manufacturers recommended time frame. The events were entered in Oconee Stations 9 corrective action program to prevent their reoccurrence (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 10 Table 3-3 Annual Air Emissions for Oconee and Pickens Counties in South Carolina 11 (tons/yeara)
| |
| | |
| Nitrogen Carbon Sulfur County Oxides Monoxide Dioxide Particulate Matter less than 10 microns Oconee 1,617 17,876 98 4,825 Pickens 1,659 14,566 45 3,574 (a) To convert tons per year to metric tons per year, multiply by 0.90718.
| |
| Source: EPA 2020-TN8975.
| |
| | |
| 12 The EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule to improve and protect visibility in national parks 13 and wilderness areas from haze, which is caused by numerous, diverse air pollutant sources 14 located across a broad region (40 CFR 51.308-309: TN1090). Specifically, 40 CFR 81 15 Subpart D, Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where Visibility Is an Important 16 Value, lists mandatory Federal areas where visibility is an important value. The Regional Haze 17 Rule requires States to develop State Implementation Plans to reduce visibility impairment at 18 Class I Federal Areas. The nearest Class 1 Federal Area is the Shining Rock Wilderness Area 19 in North Carolina, approximately 48 mi (77 km) from the Oconee Station site.
| |
| | |
| 20 Federal land management agencies that administer Federal Class I areas consider an air 21 pollutant source that is located more than 31 mi (50 km) from a Class I area to have negligible 22 impacts with respect to Class I areas if the total SO2, NOx, PM10, and sulfuric acid annual 23 emissions from the source are less than 500 tons (T) (450 metric tons (MT)) per year (70 FR 24 39104-TN8374; NPS 2010-TN7925). Given the distance of the Oconee Station site from a 25 Class 1 area and the air emissions presented in Table 3-2, there is little likelihood that ongoing 26 activities at the Oconee Station site adversely affect air quality in the Shining Rock Wilderness 27 Area.
| |
| | |
| 28 Duke Energy does not anticipate future upgrades or replacement of air emission sources during 29 the SLR term to support plant operations (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). SLR would continue 30 current operating conditions and, therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR would be 31 similar. Given Oconee Stations limited air emission as presented in Table 3-2, there is little 32 likelihood that ongoing activities at Oconee Station during the SLR term would adversely affect 33 air quality. Based on these considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impacts 34 of continued nuclear plant operations at Oconee Station would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.3.4.2 Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines
| |
| | |
| 36 Small amounts of ozone and substantially smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced 37 during corona, a phenomenon that occurs when air ionizes near isolated irregularities on the 38 conductor surface of transmission lines. Duke Energy has not conducted field tests of ozone
| |
| | |
| 3-19 1 and nitrogen oxide emissions generated by Oconee Stations 230 kV and 525 kV in-scope 2 transmission lines (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). Several studies have quantified the amount of 3 ozone generated and concluded that the amount produced by even the largest lines in operation 4 (765 kV) is insignificant (SNYPSC 1978-TN7478; Scott-Walton et al. 1979-TN7480; Janes 5 1978-TN7479; Varfalvy et al. 1985-TN7364). Monitoring by Bonneville Power Administration 6 of ozone levels for 2 years near a 1,200 kV prototype line revealed no increase in ambient 7 ozone levels caused by the line (Lee et al. 1989-TN7481). Similarly, field tests conducted over 8 a 19-month period concerning ozone levels adjacent to Sequoyah Nuclear Plant transmission 9 lines concluded that high-voltage lines up to 765 kV do not generate ozone above ambient 10 measurements made at locations remote from transmission lines (TVA 2013-TN7899; NRC 11 2015-TN5842). The ozone concentrations generated by transmission lines are therefore too low 12 to cause any significant effects. The minute amounts of oxides of nitrogen produced are 13 similarly insignificant. SLR would continue current operating conditions. On the basis of these 14 considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impacts of transmission lines during 15 the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 16 3.3.4.3 Noise Impacts
| |
| | |
| 17 The ambient noise conditions in the vicinity of the Oconee Station site are described in 18 Section 3.3.3 of this EIS. Duke Energy does not anticipate refurbishment activities during the 19 proposed SLR term and nuclear power plant operations would not change appreciably with 20 time. Therefore, there would be no noise generated by construction-related activities and 21 equipment typically associated during refurbishment. The primary noise sources and levels 22 currently present at Oconee Station, as discussed in Section 3.3.3, would be the same during 23 the SLR term. Noise from many of the sources at Oconee Station (e.g., loudspeakers, firing 24 range, transformers, and main steam safety valves) are intermittent. Noise from the turbine 25 generator is continuous, but accounting for building walls as a noise barrier and dissipation 26 given the distance to nearby residents (approximately 1 mi [1.6 km]), noise levels are not 27 expected to be distinguishable from other noise in the vicinity of Oconee Station. Duke Energy 28 does not anticipate any subsequent license-related refurbishment; and therefore, noise levels 29 are anticipated to remain the same during the SLR term (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Based 30 on these considerations, the NRC staff concludes that noise impacts from continued operation 31 of Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.3.5 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 33 3.3.5.1 Air Quality
| |
| | |
| 34 Under the no-action alternative, the permanent cessation of Oconee Station operations would 35 reduce overall air emissions (e.g., from boiler and vehicle traffic). Therefore, the NRC staff 36 concludes that if emissions decrease, the impact on air quality from the shutdown of Oconee 37 Station would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 38 3.3.5.2 Noise
| |
| | |
| 39 The permanent cessation of Oconee Station operations would result in a reduction in noise from 40 the turbine generators, transformers, firing range, main steam safety values, and from vehicle 41 traffic (e.g., workers, deliveries). As site activities are reduced, the NRC staff expects the impact 42 on ambient noise levels to be less than current nuclear power plant operations; therefore, the 43 NRC staff concludes that impacts on noise levels from the no-action alternative would be 44 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-20 1 3.3.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 2 3.3.6.1 Air Quality
| |
| | |
| 3 Construction
| |
| | |
| 4 Construction of a replacement power alternative would result in temporary impacts on local air 5 quality. Air emissions include criteria air pollutants (PM, nitrogen oxides, CO, and SO2), volatile 6 organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Air emissions 7 would be intermittent and would vary based on the level and duration of specific activities 8 throughout the construction phase. During the construction phase, the primary sources of air 9 emissions would consist of engine exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Engine exhaust 10 emissions would be from heavy construction equipment and commuter, delivery, and support 11 vehicular traffic traveling to and from the facility as well as within the site. Fugitive dust 12 emissions would be from soil disturbances by heavy construction equipment (e.g., earthmoving, 13 excavating, and bulldozing), vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces, concrete batch plant 14 operations, and wind erosion to a lesser extent.
| |
| | |
| 15 Various mitigation techniques and best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., watering disturbed 16 areas, reducing equipment idle times, and using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel) could be used to 17 minimize air emissions and reduce fugitive dust.
| |
| | |
| 18 Operations
| |
| | |
| 19 The impacts on air quality as a result of operation of a facility for a replacement power 20 alternative would depend on the energy technology (e.g., nuclear or renewable). Worker 21 vehicles and auxiliary power equipment would result in additional air emissions. Mechanical 22 draft cooling towers would also result in air emissions for the new nuclear, natural gas 23 alternative, and combination alternative.
| |
| | |
| 24 3.3.6.2 Noise
| |
| | |
| 25 Construction
| |
| | |
| 26 Construction of a replacement power facility would be similar to the construction of any 27 industrial facility in that they all involve many noise-generating activities. In general, noise 28 emissions would vary during each phase of construction, depending on the level of activity, 29 types of equipment and machinery used, and site-specific conditions. Typical construction 30 equipment, such as dump trucks, loaders, bulldozers, graders, scrapers, air compressors, 31 generators, and mobile cranes, would be used; and pile-driving and blasting activities could 32 take place. Other noise sources include construction worker vehicle and truck delivery traffic.
| |
| 33 However, noise from vehicular traffic would be intermittent.
| |
| | |
| 34 Operations
| |
| | |
| 35 Noise generated during operations could include noise from transformers, turbines, equipment, 36 and speakers, as well as offsite sources, such as employees and delivery vehicular traffic.
| |
| 37 Noise from vehicles would be intermittent. Mechanical draft cooling towers also would contribute 38 to noise levels.
| |
| | |
| 3-21 1 3.3.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 2 Alternative 3 3.3.7.1 Air Quality 4 Construction 5 Air emissions and sources associated with construction of the new nuclear alternative 6 would include those identified as being common to all replacement power alternatives in 7 Section 3.3.6.1 of this EIS. Air emissions from construction of the SMR portion would be limited, 8 local, and temporary. Additionally, while some infrastructure construction upgrades would be 9 required for the SMR portion at the Oconee Station site, the use of the existing infrastructure 10 (e.g., transmission lines, intake and discharge structures) would be maximized. Furthermore, 11 given the relatively small land requirement, this would result in less fugitive dust emissions.
| |
| 12 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the associated air quality impacts from construction of 13 the SMR portion at the Oconee Station site would be SMALL. The NRC staff evaluated the air 14 quality impacts of constructing two 2,234 MWe ALWRs at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site in 15 Section 4.7 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435, pp. 4-112 through 4-115). In that analysis, 16 the staff considered the impacts on air quality from earthmoving, concrete batch operations, 17 construction equipment emissions, and vehicular emissions. The staff concluded in 18 NUREG-2111 that the impacts from constructing two 2,234 MWe ALWRs on air quality would 19 be SMALL. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Section 4.7 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 4-112 20 through 4-115) here by reference. Therefore, the air quality impacts from construction of the 21 ALWR portion at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site would be SMALL. Overall, the NRC staff 22 concludes that the air quality impacts from construction of the new nuclear alternative would be 23 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 24 Operations 25 Air emissions and sources associated with operation of the new nuclear alternative would 26 include those identified as being common to all replacement power alternatives in 27 Section 3.3.6.1 of this EIS. Sources of air emissions from operation of a new nuclear alternative 28 would include stationary combustion sources (e.g., diesel generators, auxiliary boilers, and gas 29 turbines) and mobile sources (e.g., worker vehicles, truck deliveries) (NRC 2019-TN6136).
| |
| 30 Given the similar air emission sources and uses, operation of an SMR would result in air 31 emissions similar in magnitude to air emissions from operation of Oconee Station. Additional air 32 emissions would result from the use of mechanical draft cooling towers and could contribute to 33 the impacts associated with the formation of visible plumes, fogging, and subsequent icing 34 downwind of the towers. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of operation of a SMR at the 35 Oconee Station site would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 36 The ALWR portion of this alternative would comprise of two ALWR units providing a net total 37 generation capacity of 2,234 MWe. The NRC staff evaluated the air quality impacts from 38 operation of two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the 39 W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site in Sections 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435, 40 pp. 5-65 through 5-67). In that analysis, the staff considered the impacts on air quality from 41 the operation of diesel generators and pump emissions, transmission lines, and vehicular 42 emissions. The staff determined in NUREG-2111 that the air quality impacts from operation of 43 two ALWR units on air quality would be minimal. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in 44 Sections 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 5-63 through 5-67) here by reference. Therefore, 45 the air quality impacts from operation of the ALWR portion at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site 46 would be SMALL. Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impacts from operation of 47 the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-22 1 3.3.7.2 Noise 2 Construction
| |
| | |
| 3 Noise sources during construction of a new nuclear alternative would include those discussed 4 for all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.3.6.2 of this EIS. Noise impacts during 5 construction of the SMR portion would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the Oconee Station 6 site. Based on the temporary nature of construction activities, the distance of noise sensitive 7 receptors from the Oconee Station site (approximately 1 mi [1.6 km] away), and consideration 8 of noise attenuation from the construction site, the NRC staff concludes that the potential noise 9 impacts from construction activities from the SMR portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 10 The ALWR portion of this alternative would comprise of two ALWR units providing a net total 11 generation capacity of 2,234 MWe. In Section 4.8.2 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 4-117 through 4-118),
| |
| 12 the NRC staff evaluated the noise impacts from construction of two ALWR units with a total net 13 electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site. The NRC staff 14 concluded in NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435) that noise impacts from construction of two 15 ALWR units would be minimal. The staff incorporates the analysis in Section 4.8.2 of 16 NUREG-2111 (pp. 4-117 through 4-118) here by reference. Therefore, the noise impacts from 17 construction of the ALWR portion at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site would be SMALL.
| |
| 18 Overall, the noise impacts associated with construction of the new nuclear alternative would be 19 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 Operations
| |
| | |
| 21 Noise sources during operation of the new nuclear alternative would include those discussed 22 for all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.3.6.2. Noise impacts from operation of the 23 SMR portion would be similar to noise levels generated by the operation of Oconee Station.
| |
| 24 Operation of a mechanical draft cooling tower would result in additional noise. However, given 25 the distance of nearby sensitive receptors (approximately 1 mi [1.6 km] away) from Oconee 26 Station and consideration of noise attenuation, the NRC staff does not expect offsite noise 27 levels from mechanical towers to nearby receptors to be greater than current levels. Therefore, 28 the noise impacts from operation of the of the SMR portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 The ALWR portion of this alternative would comprise two ALWR units providing 2,234 MWe of 30 generating capacity. The NRC staff evaluated the noise impacts from operations of two ALWR 31 units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station 32 site in Section 5.8.2 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 5-69 through 5-70). In that analysis, the staff 33 considered noise levels from draft cooling towers, pumps, loudspeakers, and transformers. The 34 staff concluded in NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435) that noise impacts from operation of two 35 ALWR units would be minor. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Section 5.8.2 of 36 NUREG-2111 (pp. 5-69 through 5-70) here by reference. Therefore, the noise impacts from 37 operation of the ALWR portion at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site would be SMALL. Overall, 38 the NRC staff concludes that the noise impacts associated with operations of the new nuclear 39 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-23 1 3.3.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 2 3.3.8.1 Air Quality
| |
| | |
| 3 Construction
| |
| | |
| 4 Air emissions and sources for construction of the natural gas alternative would include 5 those identified as being common to all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.3.6.1 6 of this EIS. Air emissions would result from some infrastructure construction upgrades at the 7 Oconee Station site and construction of a 21 mi (34 km) natural gas pipeline. However, the 8 use of the existing infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, intake and discharge structures, 9 roads) would be maximized, thereby minimizing fugitive dust and engine exhaust air emissions.
| |
| 10 Air emissions would be localized and intermittent and adherence to well-developed and 11 well-understood construction best management practices would mitigate air quality impacts.
| |
| 12 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that construction-related impacts on air quality from a 13 natural gas alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 14 Operations
| |
| | |
| 15 Operation of a natural gas plant would result in emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs 16 released through the heat-recovery steam generator stacks. The NRC staff estimated air 17 emissions for the natural gas alternative using emission factors developed by the 18 U.S. Department of Energys National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL 2019-TN7484).
| |
| 19 Assuming a total gross capacity of 3,009 MWe and a capacity factor of 0.85, the NRC staff 20 estimates the following air emissions would result from operation of a natural gas alternative:
| |
| 21
| |
| * carbon monoxide - 160 tons (145 MT) per year 22
| |
| * nitrogen oxides - 260 tons (235 MT) per year 23
| |
| * sulfur dioxide - 80 tons (70 MT) per year 24
| |
| * particulate matter - 160 tons (145 MT) per year 25
| |
| * carbon dioxide - 9.8 million tons (8.9 million MT) per year
| |
| | |
| 26 Operation of mechanical draft cooling towers and up to 190 worker vehicles would result in 27 additional air emissions. A permit from the SCDHEC for air pollutants associated with the 28 operation of the new natural gas alternative would need to be secured. A new natural gas plant 29 would qualify as a major emitting industrial facility. As such, the new natural gas plant would be 30 subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V air-permitting requirement under 31 the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.-TN5268) to ensure that air emissions are minimized and that 32 the local air quality is not degraded substantially.
| |
| | |
| 33 Based on the NRC staffs air emission estimates, nitrogen oxide and CO2 emissions from a 34 natural gas plant would be noticeable and significant. The NRC staff concludes that the overall 35 air quality impacts associated with operation of a natural gas alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.3.8.2 Noise
| |
| | |
| 37 Construction
| |
| | |
| 38 In addition to the onsite and offsite sources of noise discussed in Section 3.3.5.2 of this EIS, 39 construction of a natural gas pipeline to support the operation of a natural gas alternative would 40 result in additional offsite noise. Given the distance to noise-sensitive receptors (approximately
| |
| | |
| 3-24 1 1.0 mi [1.6 km] away), noise generated as a result of the construction of a natural gas 2 alternative at the Oconee Station site would not be noticeable. However, noise generated during 3 construction of a natural gas pipeline may be noticeable, depending on the location of and 4 distance to nearby noise-sensitive receptors relative to the natural gas pipeline corridor.
| |
| 5 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential noise impacts of construction activities 6 from a natural gas alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 7 Operations
| |
| | |
| 8 During operations, sources of noise from a natural gas alternative would include those 9 discussed in Section 3.3.6.2, as well as offsite mechanical noise from compressor stations 10 and pipeline blowdowns. The majority of noise-producing equipment (e.g., turbines, pumps, 11 mechanical draft cooling towers) would be located inside the power block, and the NRC staff 12 does not anticipate noise levels for noise-sensitive receptors to be significantly greater than 13 noise levels from operation of Oconee Station. The FERC requires that any new compressor 14 station or any modification, upgrade, or update of an existing station must not exceed a 15 day-night sound intensity level of 55 dBA at the closest noise sensitive area (18 CFR 157.206-16 TN7483). A day-night sound intensity level of 55 dBA was designated by the EPA as a noise 17 level that is adequate to protect against outdoor activities (EPA 1974-TN3941). Therefore, the 18 NRC staff concludes that the noise impacts from operation of a natural gas alternative would be 19 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 3.3.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 21 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 22 3.3.9.1 Air Quality
| |
| | |
| 23 Construction
| |
| | |
| 24 Air emissions associated with the construction of the new nuclear portion of the combination 25 alternative would be similar, but greater than, those associated with the SMR portion discussed 26 in Section 3.3.6.1, because it would consist of three SMRs located at the Oconee Station site.
| |
| 27 Some infrastructure construction upgrades would be required for the SMR portion at the 28 Oconee Station site, and the use of the existing infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, intake, 29 and discharge structures) would be maximized. Engine exhaust emissions would be from heavy 30 construction equipment and commuter traffic and would be temporary and intermittent.
| |
| 31 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality impacts associated with construction of 32 the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would be SMALL. No direct air emissions 33 would result from demand-side management initiatives.
| |
| | |
| 34 The solar PV portion of the combination alternative would not have a power block. Accordingly, 35 the amount of heavy equipment and size of the workforce, level of activities, and construction 36 duration would be substantially lower than those for other alternatives and consequently would 37 have fewer air emissions. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the overall air quality impacts 38 associated with construction of the solar PV portion of the combination alternative would be 39 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 40 Air emissions sources related to the construction of the offshore wind portion would include 41 the engine exhaust of heavy equipment and vessel traffic associated with installation of the 42 meteorological data collection facilities (i.e., meteorological towers or meteorological buoys) 43 and wind turbines. However, given the distance to shore (10 to 24 nautical mi, the NRC staff
| |
| | |
| 3-25 1 does not anticipate engine exhaust emissions to affect onshore air quality. Because vessel 2 traffic traveling to and from offshore sites would be intermittent, and activity onshore would be 3 of short duration, air emissions would be negligible; and the NRC staff does not anticipate 4 vessel traffic to affect onshore air quality. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the air quality 5 impacts associated with construction of the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative 6 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 7 The NRC staff concludes that the overall air quality impacts associated with construction of the 8 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 9 Operations
| |
| | |
| 10 No direct air emissions would result from the demand-side management initiatives. Air 11 emissions associated with the operation of the new nuclear portion would be similar to, but 12 slightly greater than, those associated with the SMR portion discussed in Section 3.3.7.1, 13 because this new nuclear portion would consist of three SMRs and a greater number of 14 workers. Operation of onsite combustion sources would be intermittent, and would occur 15 primarily during testing. Worker and delivery emissions would be similarly intermittent.
| |
| 16 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts from operations of the new nuclear 17 portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 18 Direct air emissions associated with operation of the solar PV portion of the combination 19 alternative would be negligible because no fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity.
| |
| 20 Emissions from solar fields would include fugitive dust and engine exhaust from worker vehicles 21 and heavy equipment associated with site inspections and maintenance activities, and wind 22 erosion from cleared lands and access roads. Emissions would be localized and intermittent.
| |
| 23 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts from operation of the solar PV 24 portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 25 Air emissions associated with operation of the offshore wind portion would be derived from the 26 use of diesel generators supporting meteorological data collection facilities (meteorological 27 towers or meteorological buoys) and the engine exhaust of vessel traffic traveling to and from 28 offshore sites for operation and maintenance activities (BOEM 2018-TN8428). However, given 29 the distance to shore (10 to 24 nautical mi [18.5 to 44.4 km]), the use of diesel generators is not 30 anticipated to affect onshore air quality. Vessel traffic traveling to and from offshore sites would 31 be intermittent and activity onshore would be of short duration. Therefore, the NRC staff 32 concludes that the air quality impacts associated with operation of the offshore wind portion of 33 the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 34 The NRC staff concludes that the overall air quality impacts associated with operation of the 35 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.3.9.2 Noise
| |
| | |
| 37 Construction
| |
| | |
| 38 Noise impacts would not result from demand-side management initiatives. Construction-related 39 noise sources for the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would be similar to 40 those of the SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative discussed in Section 3.3.6.2 of this EIS, 41 because it would consist of three SMRs located at the Oconee Station site. Noise impacts 42 during construction of the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would be limited to 43 the immediate vicinity of the Oconee Station site. Based on the temporary nature of construction 44 activities, the distance of noise-sensitive receptors from the Oconee Station site (approximately
| |
| | |
| 3-26 1 1 mi [1.6 km] away), and consideration of noise attenuation from the construction site, the NRC 2 staff concludes that the potential noise impacts of construction activities from the new nuclear 3 portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 4 No power block buildings would have to be constructed for the solar PV portion of the 5 combination alternative. The amount of heavy equipment and size of the workforce, level of 6 activities, and construction duration would be lower than those for the other alternatives.
| |
| 7 However, noise levels generated by construction activities associated with a solar PV facility 8 can range from 70 to 80 dBA at 50 ft (15 m) (BLM 2019-TN8386). For the solar PV portion of 9 the combination alternative, noise levels for nearby sensitive receptors would depend on the 10 distance from the sites to the nearby receptors and may be noticeable. Therefore, noise impacts 11 associated with construction of the solar PV portion of the combination alternative would be 12 SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 13 Construction-related noise sources associated with the offshore wind portion would include 14 boring, drilling, dredging, pile driving, and heavy equipment and vessel traffic. Given the 15 distance from shore (10-24 nautical miles [18.5-44.4 km]) where the construction activities 16 would occur, noise generated during these activities would not be audible onshore.
| |
| 17 Vessel-traffic-related noise would be intermittent and decrease as the distance from shore 18 increases. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that noise impacts associated with construction 19 of the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 The NRC staff concludes that the overall noise impacts associated with construction of the 21 combination alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 22 Operations
| |
| | |
| 23 Noise sources associated with the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would be 24 similar to those described for the SMR portion of new nuclear alternative in Section 3.3.7.2 of 25 this EIS, because it would consist of three SMRs located at the Oconee Station site. Given the 26 distance of nearby sensitive receptors (approximately 1 mi [1.6 km] away) from the Oconee 27 Station site and consideration of noise attenuation, the NRC staff does not expect offsite noise 28 levels from transformers, turbines, cooling towers, or speakers for nearby receptors to be 29 greater than current levels experienced from operation of the Oconee Station site. Therefore, 30 the NRC staff concludes that operation-related noise impacts from the new nuclear portion of 31 the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 32 Because the solar PV portion of the combination alternative would have no power block or 33 cooling towers, a minimal number of noise sources, such as transformers and vehicular traffic, 34 would be associated with maintenance and inspection activities. Therefore, the NRC staff 35 concludes that operations-related noise impacts from the solar PV portion of the combination 36 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 37 Given the distance from shore (10-24 nautical miles), noise from wind turbines would not be 38 audible onshore. Vessel-traffic-related noise would be intermittent and decrease as the distance 39 from shore increases. Navigation of vessels in the vicinity of the turbines would be short term 40 and intermittent, resulting in minor noise impacts on noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, the 41 NRC staff concludes that operations-related noise impacts from the offshore wind portion of the 42 combination alternative would be SMALL. Noise impacts would not result from demand-side 43 management initiatives. The NRC staff concludes that the overall noise impacts associated with 44 operation of the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-27 1 3.4 Geologic Environment
| |
| | |
| 2 This section describes the geologic environment of the Oconee Station site and vicinity, 3 including landforms, geology, soils, and seismic conditions. The description of the resources is 4 followed by the NRC staffs analysis of the potential impacts on geologic and soil resources from 5 the proposed action (SLR) and alternatives to the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 6 3.4.1 Physiography and Geology
| |
| | |
| 7 Section 3.5 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) describes the physiographic and 8 geologic environment, including the landforms, site geology, soils, and seismicity of the Oconee 9 Station site and vicinity. Except as otherwise cited for clarity, the staff summarizes this 10 information in the following sections. The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant 11 information regarding the geologic environment during the site audit, the scoping process, or as 12 the result of its review of available information as cited in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 13 Oconee Station is located within the Piedmont physiographic province and along the Piedmonts 14 northwestern boundary with the Blue Ridge province. The region was subject to extensive uplift, 15 deformation, and compression associated with mountain building. Large-scale deformation 16 across the southeastern United States ended approximately 225 million years ago. Today, the 17 regions topography is characterized by rolling, well-rounded hills, low ridges, and river-cut 18 valleys. The base (grade) elevation of the Oconee Station site, including the power block, lies at 19 796 ft (243 m) above MSL.
| |
| | |
| 20 Surficial deposits across the Oconee Station site consist predominantly of saprolite (chemically 21 weathered bedrock) and residual soils, topsoil and engineered fill, and some weathered 22 bedrock. Geologic cross sections show that this sequence of materials ranges from less than 23 10 ft (3 m) to more than 100 ft (30 m) thick beneath the nuclear power plant. The underlying 24 weathered and competent bedrock is metamorphic in origin and predominantly consists of 25 gneissic rocks (i.e., granite gneiss, hornblende gneiss, and quartz pegmatite intrusions).
| |
| 26 These fractured, folded, and faulted rocks generally strike in a northeast-southwest direction.
| |
| | |
| 27 3.4.2 Geologic Resources
| |
| | |
| 28 Geologic resources, encompassing rock and mineral resources, in the Oconee Station region 29 include crushed stone and industrial mineral deposits. The primary commodity produced in 30 Oconee and Pickens Counties is crushed stone produced from granitic and gneissic rocks 31 (USGS 2019-TN9149). However, there are no mapped mines or quarries (historic or active) 32 within 5 mi (8 km) of the Oconee Station site boundary (USGS 2023-TN8986).
| |
| | |
| 33 3.4.3 Soils
| |
| | |
| 34 Natural soils and weathered rock deposits across the Oconee Station site were graded and 35 disturbed during nuclear power plant construction. Soil unit mapping by the Natural Resources 36 Conservation Service (USDA 2023-TN9204) identifies the natural soils, where present and 37 undisturbed, in the central portion of the Oconee Station site, including the power block area, as 38 consisting predominantly of Hayesville and Cecil fine sandy loams and Hayesville and Cecil 39 loams (eroded). These sandy loam, clay loam, and clayey soils extend to the east and north 40 toward the shoreline of Lake Keowee. Before nuclear power plant construction, the soils formed 41 on slopes ranging from 6 to 45 percent from parent material consisting of clayey residuum 42 weathered from granite and gneiss. Aside from areas of severe slopes, the Natural Resources
| |
| | |
| 3-28 1 Conservation Service rates the natural Hayesville and Cecil soils as somewhat limited to very 2 limited for site development involving shallow excavations because of the high clay content and 3 unstable excavation walls. The natural soils generally have a slight to moderate erosion 4 potential. Only a few, relatively small zones of undeveloped areas on the nuclear power plant 5 site are mapped as prime farmland soils or farmland of statewide importance. The largest 6 contiguous area of soils mapped as farmland of statewide importance is now occupied by the 7 power block and 525 kv switchyard. Nevertheless, as reflected in Duke Energys ER, the main 8 nuclear power plant site was excavated to level grade during facility construction. Backfill was 9 then placed in many locations, including around facility foundations.
| |
| | |
| 10 Stabilization measures have been in place since Oconee Station became operational to prevent 11 erosion and sedimentation impacts. Additionally, as required by its State-issued NPDES general 12 permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity (No. SCR000074) for 13 Oconee Station, Duke Energy has also developed and implemented a stormwater pollution 14 prevention plan (SWPPP). This plan identifies BMPs, including nonstructural preventive 15 measures and source controls, as well as structural (engineering) controls to prevent erosion, 16 and to prevent or reduce pollutants, including total suspended solids, in stormwater discharges 17 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 18 3.4.4 Seismic Setting
| |
| | |
| 19 Northwestern South Carolina has relatively lower seismicity (fewer earthquakes) and fewer 20 seismic hazards than other parts of the state. Hence, seismic activity in the Oconee Station 21 region is more typical of most locations across the Central and Eastern United States where 22 areas can go for years without experiencing an earthquake strong enough for people to feel.
| |
| 23 Areas to the northwest centered in eastern Tennessee and to the southwest centered in 24 Charleston, South Carolina, are more active and have a relatively higher risk of experiencing 25 damaging earthquakes (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897; Petersen et al. 2020-TN7281). Between 26 1970 and June 2023, a total of 20 earthquakes with a magnitude equal to, or greater than, 2.5 27 have been recorded within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site (USGS 2023-28 TN8988). One of the largest and closest to the site earthquakes occurred on July 13, 1971, and 29 was centered approximately 5 mi (9 km) southwest of Oconee Station between the towns of 30 Union and Seneca. This earthquake had a magnitude of 3.7 (USGS 2023-TN8988). It was 31 preceded by a smaller felt earthquake and later by a felt aftershock (Duke Energy 2021-32 TN8897). While the main earthquake reportedly produced light to moderate shaking, it produced 33 little damage near its epicenter (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943).
| |
| | |
| 34 The NRC evaluates the potential effects of natural hazards, including seismic events, on nuclear 35 power plants on an ongoing basis that is separate from the license renewal process. All nuclear 36 power plants in the United States are designed and built to withstand strong earthquakes based 37 on their location and nearby earthquake activity. Over time, the NRCs understanding of the 38 seismic hazard for a given nuclear power plant may change as methods of assessing seismic 39 hazards evolve and the scientific understanding of earthquake hazards improves (NRC 2014-40 TN8997, NRC 2018-TN8998). In 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey published updated seismic 41 hazard maps that included the region encompassing the Oconee Station site (Petersen et al.
| |
| 42 2020-TN7281). Based on the 2018 seismic hazard maps, and as measured in terms of 43 predicted earthquake-produced peak horizontal ground accelerations with a 2 percent 44 probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., corresponding to a return time of about 2,500 years),
| |
| 45 the Oconee Station site is in an area with a predicted peak horizontal acceleration between 0.1 46 and 0.2 g (10 and 20 percent of standard gravity). Previous peak horizontal acceleration 47 estimates for the site were 0.2-0.28 g (USGS 2014-TN6177).
| |
| | |
| 3-29 1 After the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the NRC established the Near-Term 3 Task Force to review regulatory insights from the Fukushima Daiichi accident as directed by the 4 Commission on March 21, 2011 in COMGBJ-11-0002 (NRC 2011-TN7448). The Near-Term 5 Task Force assessment resulted in the NRC issuing order EA-12-049 (NRC 2012-TN7947) on 6 March 12, 2012 to nuclear power plant licensees requiring them to mitigate beyond-design-7 basis external events, and issuing 10 CFR 50.54(f) (TN249) letters directing licensees to 8 conduct seismic and flooding reevaluations (NRC 2012-TN2198). In November 2020, the NRC 9 staff issued its determination that Duke Energy had implemented NRC-mandated safety 10 enhancements at Oconee Nuclear Power Station in response to the NRC order and that it had 11 also completed its response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter (NRC 2020-TN8995).
| |
| | |
| 12 The impacts of natural phenomena, including seismic hazards, on nuclear power plant systems, 13 structures, and components are outside the scope of the NRCs license renewal environmental 14 review. Oconee Station was originally sited, designed, and licensed in consideration of 15 applicable geological and seismic criteria, and seismic issues are assessed as part of the 16 nuclear power plant safety review. Further, the NRC requires all licensees to take seismic 17 activity into account in order to maintain safe operating conditions at all nuclear power plants.
| |
| 18 When new seismic hazard information becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new 19 information to determine whether any changes are needed at existing nuclear power plants.
| |
| 20 This reactor oversight process, which considers seismic safety, is separate from the NRC staffs 21 license renewal environmental review.
| |
| | |
| 22 3.4.5 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 23 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 24 SLR on the environmental issues related to the geologic environment in accordance with 25 Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 26 The impacts on geology and soils were not considered in the 1996 Generic Environmental 27 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 1996-TN288), and, therefore, 28 were not considered in the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (SEIS) (NRC 1999-29 TN8942). In this section, the NRC staff analyzes these impacts at the Oconee Station site for 30 the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 31 Although no license renewal-related construction activities are planned (Duke Energy 2021-32 TN8897), the impact of continued operation and any refurbishment associated with SLR at the 33 Oconee Station site on geologic and soil resources would consist of soil disturbance and 34 excavations for projects, such as replacing or adding buildings, roads, parking lots, and 35 belowground and aboveground utility structures. For such projects, the licensee also may need 36 to obtain geologic resources (e.g., soil or sand borrow or backfill material, aggregate for road 37 building or concrete production) from locations on the nuclear power plant site or from offsite 38 borrow areas or quarries. However, it is more likely that these materials would be obtained from 39 commercial vendors. Regardless, stabilization measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation 40 impacts on the Oconee Station site and surrounding area have been in place since construction 41 began in the early 1970. In addition, the site maintains a SWPPP (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) 42 that identifies BMPs for preventing or reducing soil erosion and its subsequent impacts on 43 surface water quality. These practices include nonstructural preventive measures and structural 44 controls to prevent erosion or treat stormwater affected by potential pollutants caused by 45 erosion. Any construction activities at the Oconee Station site would be subject to and managed
| |
| | |
| 3-30 1 by the current SWPPP and any ground disturbance of one or more acres would require 2 acquisition of a construction stormwater permit from the SCDHEC (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3 In addition to erosion prevention measures, the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 4 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.-TN708) requires Federal agencies to take into account agency actions 5 affecting the preservation of farmland, including prime and other important farmland soils, as 6 described in Section 3.4.3. However, the site is not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy 7 Act of 1981 because the Act does not apply to Federal permitting or licensing for activities on 8 private or nonfederal lands.
| |
| | |
| 9 Based on this nuclear power plant-specific environmental review conducted by the NRC, to 10 date, no significant impact issues related to continued operations and refurbishment activities on 11 geology and soils have been identified.
| |
| | |
| 12 Geologic and soil conditions at Oconee Station and associated transmission lines have been 13 well established during the current licensing term. These conditions are expected to remain 14 unchanged during the 20-year SLR term. SLR would continue current operating conditions and 15 environmental stressors rather than introduce entirely new impacts. For these reasons, the 16 effects of continued operations on geologic and soil resources would be minor and would 17 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of this resource during the SLR 18 term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of SLR on geology and soils during the Oconee 19 Station SLR term would be SMALL. There are no site-specific (Category 2) geologic 20 environment issues, as shown in Table 3-2.
| |
| | |
| 21 3.4.6 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 22 Under the no-action alternative there would be few or no incremental impacts on site geology 23 and soils associated with the shutdown of Oconee Station because, before beginning 24 decommissioning activities, little or no new ground disturbance would occur at the nuclear 25 power plant site while operational activities are reduced and eventually cease. As a result, the 26 NRC staff concludes that the impact of the no-action alternative on geology and soils would be 27 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 28 3.4.7 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 29 Construction
| |
| | |
| 30 During facility construction for the replacement power alternatives and associated components, 31 aggregate material (such as crushed stone, riprap, sand, and gravel) would be required to 32 construct buildings, foundations, roads, parking lots, pad sites, transmission lines, and other 33 supporting infrastructure, as applicable. The NRC staff presumes that these resources would be 34 obtained from commercial suppliers using local or regional sources. Land clearing, grading, and 35 excavation work would expose soils to erosion and alter surface drainage. The NRC staff also 36 presumes that BMPs would be implemented in accordance with applicable State and local 37 permitting requirements to reduce soil erosion and associated offsite impacts. These practices 38 would include measures such as the use of sediment fencing, staked hay bales, check dams, 39 sediment ponds, riprap aprons at construction and laydown yard entrances, mulching and 40 geotextile matting of disturbed areas, and rapid reseeding of temporarily disturbed areas, where 41 applicable. Standard construction practice dictates that topsoil removed during construction and 42 any suitable excavated materials would be stored onsite for redistribution, such as for backfill at 43 the end of construction.
| |
| | |
| 3-31 1 Operations
| |
| | |
| 2 Replacement power facilities would be built in accordance with applicable State and local 3 building codes and would consider such siting and design factors to mitigate potential impacts 4 from natural phenomena. Once facility construction is completed, areas disturbed during 5 construction, whether on land or offshore, would be within the footprint of the completed 6 facilities, overlain by other impervious surfaces (such as roadways and parking lots), or 7 revegetated or stabilized as appropriate, so there would be no additional land disturbance and 8 no direct operational impacts on geology and soils. Consumption of aggregate materials or 9 topsoil for maintenance purposes during operations would be negligible.
| |
| | |
| 10 3.4.8 New Nuclear Alternative (ALWR and SMR)
| |
| | |
| 11 The impacts on geologic and soil resources from construction and operations associated with 12 the new nuclear alternative would likely be similar to, but substantially greater than, those 13 described and assumed to be common to all alternatives in Section 3.4.7 of this EIS. The NRC 14 staff evaluated the impacts of the ALWR portion of this alternative in its 2013 final EIS for the 15 proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-2111) (NRC 2013-TN6435). As 16 described in NUREG-2111, preconstruction and NRC-authorized construction for a new ALWR 17 would disturb more than 2,000 ac (800 ha). Excavation depths for the nuclear island of each unit 18 would extend approximately 40 ft (12 m). In addition, construction of the nuclear units and 19 support facilities would require a substantial volume of geologic material (e.g., aggregate and 20 soil backfill).
| |
| | |
| 21 Implementation of the SMR component would use existing infrastructure at Oconee Station to 22 the maximum extent possible, which would reduce construction impacts and related impacts 23 on site geology and soils, as well as consumption of geologic resources for new facility 24 construction. Disturbance of geologic strata and soil erosion and loss under this alternative 25 would generally be localized to the construction sites, and offsite soil erosion impacts would be 26 mitigated by using BMPs. However, excavation work for the nuclear power block associated 27 with the SMR modules may extend to a depth of approximately 140 ft (43 m) below grade (NRC 28 2019-TN6136). This would likely require excavation in weathered and sound rock and the 29 application of methods (e.g., grouting and dewatering) to stabilize the deep excavation during 30 construction. Because this alternative would require multiple excavations, including a deep 31 excavation for the SMR, and substantial soil disturbance, the NRC staff concludes that the 32 overall impacts on geology and soil resources from the new nuclear alternative would be 33 SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.4.9 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 35 The impacts on geologic and soil resources from construction and operations associated with 36 the natural gas alternative would likely be similar to, but of lesser intensity, than those described 37 and assumed to be common to all alternatives in Section 3.4.7. Impacts would be less than 38 those associated with the new nuclear alternative. However, the potential construction impacts 39 of this alternative on soil resources at the Oconee Station site could be somewhat greater than 40 those associated with the SMR component of the new nuclear alternative, because a larger 41 area of land would be disturbed and converted to industrial use to extend a natural gas pipeline 42 to the Oconee Station site. However, the intensity of excavation work for the power block would 43 be less under this alternative. In sum, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on geology and 44 soil resources from the natural gas combined-cycle alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-32 1 3.4.10 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 2 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 3 Under this combination alternative, the impacts on geologic and soil resources would likely be 4 similar to, but greater in overall magnitude, than those described and assumed to be common to 5 all alternatives in Section 3.4.7 of this EIS, and greater than those under either the new nuclear 6 or natural gas alternatives. This greater potential for impacts is primarily driven by the 7 substantial land area that would be disturbed, along with additional seafloor areas, at multiple 8 offsite locations, in addition to impacts on and adjacent to the Oconee Station site associated 9 with the SMR component of this alternative. Overall impacts would be driven by the potential for 10 soil erosion and loss of natural soils and sediments due to the conversion of land to industrial 11 uses for the build-out of the solar PV and wind components of the alternative. Based on these 12 considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts on geology and soil 13 resources from the combination alternative could range from SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 14 3.5 Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 15 This section describes surface water and groundwater resources at and around the Oconee 16 Station site. The description of the resources is followed by the NRC staffs analysis of the 17 potential impacts on surface water and groundwater resources from the proposed action (SLR) 18 and alternatives to the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 19 3.5.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 20 Surface water encompasses all water bodies that occur above the ground surface, including 21 rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and manmade reservoirs or impoundments.
| |
| | |
| 22 3.5.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology
| |
| | |
| 23 The NRC staff previously considered the interaction of Oconee Stations cooling and auxiliary 24 water systems with the hydrologic environment in Sections 2.1.3, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 of 25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 2 for initial license renewal of the nuclear power plant (NRC 1999-26 TN8942) (see also Section 2.1.3 of this EIS). In Section 3.6.1 of its ER (Duke Energy 2021-27 TN8897), Duke Energy provides a detailed description of the surface water environment of the 28 Oconee Station site, including the Lake Keowee and Lake Jocassee reservoir systems and 29 their watersheds, reservoir hydroelectric station operations, flooding potential, and related 30 operational interactions between Oconee Station and surface water resources. Except as cited 31 for clarity, the staff summarizes this information here and in the following sections. The NRC 32 staff did not identify any new and significant information regarding the surface water affected 33 environment during the site audit, the scoping process, or as the result of its review of available 34 information as cited in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 35 Local and Regional Hydrology
| |
| | |
| 36 The central surface water feature of the Oconee Station site is Lake Keowee. Lake Keowee 37 (reservoir) was formed in 1971 with the construction of the Keowee Dam on the Keowee River 38 and the Little River Dam on the Little River. The Keowee River and Little River watersheds are 39 connected by the human-made canal adjoining the Oconee Station site. Other major surface 40 waters near the Oconee Station site include the portion of Keowee River downstream of the 41 Keowee Dam that runs along the eastern and southern boundary of the nuclear power plant 42 site.
| |
| | |
| 3-33 1 Lake Keowee occupies 18,357 ac (7,430 ha) and includes 388 mi (624 km) of shoreline at full 2 pond elevation (i.e., 800 ft [240 m] above MSL). This impoundment principally exists to provide 3 cooling water for Oconee Station and to operate Keowee Hydro Station.
| |
| | |
| 4 Lake Jocassee is located upstream of Oconee Station and primarily supports hydroelectric 5 power generation. It also is owned by Duke Energy. At full pond elevation (1,110 ft (338 m) 6 MSL), Lake Jocassee has a surface area of 7,565 ac (3,060 ha), and a shoreline of 7 approximately 75 mi (121 km). The spillway of the lake flows into the Keowee River and Lake 8 Keowee. Lake Hartwell is downstream from Oconee Station. This publicly accessible, multiuse 9 reservoir is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Figure 3-1 depicts the 10 surface water features of the region in relationship to the Oconee Station site.
| |
| | |
| 11 In addition, three small ponds for treating facility wastewater and other flows are located on the 12 Oconee Station site. These ponds are designated chemical treatment ponds (CTP) -1, -2, and 13 -3 (see Figure 2-2 for locations). Section 3.5.1.3 of this EIS provides additional information 14 about these ponds.
| |
| | |
| 15 Drainage from the plant complex is managed by a system of roof drains, yard drains, and 16 ditches that collect and direct runoff away from Oconee Station plant structures. As a result, 17 surface water generally drains to the south and east across the plant complex as the plant 18 drainage system collects and directs stormwater runoff toward natural drainage channels, 19 principally to the Keowee River. Groundwater collected by the sites groundwater drawdown 20 system is pumped to the yard drainage system. This system discharges to CTP-3.
| |
| | |
| 21 As previously discussed in Section 2.1.3.1 of this EIS, Oconee Station withdraws water from the 22 lake through an intake structure and associated intake canal located in the southwest portion of 23 the plant complex. Heated cooling water is discharged back to the lake through the discharge 24 structure located on the north side of the plant complex (see Figure 2-2). Cooling water 25 discharges and plant effluents are further discussed in Section 3.5.1.3 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 26 Flooding
| |
| | |
| 27 The Federal Emergency Management Agency has delineated the flood hazard areas in the 28 vicinity of the Oconee Station site. It has mapped the majority of the nuclear power plant site, 29 including the entire main nuclear power plant complex encompassing the nuclear island as 30 Zone X, representing areas of minimal flood hazard and lying outside the 0.2 percent annual 31 chance flood (500-year flood level). Small strips of land bordering the intake canal, shoreline of 32 Lake Keowee, areas bordering the Keowee Hydro Station tailrace, and the areas along the Lake 33 Keowee spillway and Keowee River to the east of the Oconee Station site are mapped as 34 Zone AE (i.e., within the base floodplain, 1 percent annual chance flood) (Duke Energy 2021-35 TN8897; FEMA 2017-TN8999).
| |
| | |
| 36 As further described in the ER and Section 2.4-2 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, 37 Revision 28, the spillways for Lake Keowee and Lake Jocassee are designed to accommodate 38 the design flood with no increase (surcharge) on the full pond elevation of the lakes (Duke 39 Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2020-TN9103). Oconee Stations safety-related structures 40 are protected from flooding because the probable maximum flood would be contained within the 41 Keowee Lake reservoir. This protection is because all engineered dikes and dams composing 42 the reservoir, including Oconee Stations intake canal (channel) dike, are constructed to an 43 elevation of 815 ft (248 m) above MSL, higher than the maximum reservoir elevation of 808 ft 44 (246 m) above MSL from the effects of maximum precipitation-induced flooding (Duke Energy 45 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3-34 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-1 Regional Surface Water Features Associated with the Oconee Station Site.
| |
| 3 Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 4 In accordance with the NRCs general design criteria (Appendix A, General Design Criteria for 5 Nuclear Power Plants, in 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249), Domestic Licensing of Production and 6 Utilization Facilities), nuclear power plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 7 important to safety are designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as 8 flooding, without loss of capability to perform safety functions.
| |
| | |
| 9 Additionally, the NRC staff evaluates nuclear power plant operating conditions and physical 10 infrastructure to ensure ongoing safe operations through its reactor oversight process, which is
| |
| | |
| 3-35 1 separate from the NRCs license renewal review process. If new information about changing 2 environmental conditions becomes available, the NRC will evaluate the new information to 3 determine if any safety-related changes are needed. The NRC also evaluates new information 4 important to flood projections and independently confirms that a licensees actions appropriately 5 consider potential changes in flooding hazards at the site.
| |
| | |
| 6 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Use
| |
| | |
| 7 Lake Keowee is a multipurpose impoundment, and its waters support a variety of commercial-8 industrial, public, and recreational uses. These uses include hydroelectric and thermoelectric 9 power production, pumped-storage operation, water-based recreation, and public water supply.
| |
| | |
| 10 Oconee Station withdraws water through its intake canal and intake structure on Lake Keowee 11 for use in the circulating water cooling and auxiliary water systems and returns the noncontact 12 cooling water and permitted effluents to the lake through the plants discharge structure (see 13 Section 2.1.3.1 and Figure 2-3).
| |
| | |
| 14 Oconee Stations current peak (nominal) surface water withdrawal rate is 2,125,500 gallons per 15 minute (gpm) (8.04 million liters per minute [Lpm]), or approximately 3,060 million gallons per 16 day (mgd) (11,586 million liters per day [mLd]) (see Section 2.1.3.1). The average daily 17 withdrawal rate between 2017-2021 has been 2,648 mgd (10,024 mLd), as reported in Duke 18 Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Table 3-4 summarizes Oconee Stations actual 19 surface water withdrawals from 2017 to 2021.
| |
| | |
| 20 Table 3-4 Surface Water Withdrawals, Oconee Station (2017-2021)
| |
| Year Yearly Withdrawals (mgy) (mLy) Daily Withdrawals (mgd) (mLd)(a) 2017 990,860 (3,750,811) 2,715 (10,277) 2018 944,330 (3,574,676) 2,587 (9,792) 2019 956,314 (3,620,041) 2,620 (9,917) 2020 978,229 (3,702,998) 2,673 (10,118) 2021 956,476 (3,620,654) 2,645 (10,012)
| |
| Average 965,242 (3,653,836) 2,648 (10,024) mgd = million gallons per day; mgy = million gallons per year; mLy = million liters per year.
| |
| (a) All values are rounded. To convert million gallons per year (mgy) to million cubic meters (m3) divide by 264.2. To convert million gallons per day (mgd), to million liters per day (mLd), multiply by 3.7854.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8948.
| |
| | |
| 21 Duke Energy monitors Oconee Stations surface water withdrawals from Lake Keowee and 22 submits annual reports (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) to the SCDHEC in accordance with the 23 terms under the States surface water withdrawal regulations (SC Code 61-119-TN9007).
| |
| | |
| 24 Oconee Stations operations also are subject to the terms and conditions of its State-issued 25 Surface Water Withdrawal Permit (Permit No. 37PN001) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898). The 26 permit was issued to Duke Energy in 2013 and expires in October 2043. Duke Energys permit 27 limits Oconee Stations surface water withdrawals to a monthly maximum of 94,817 million 28 gallons (mg) (358,920 million liters [ML]) of condenser circulating water at the intake structure 29 and an additional 68 mg (257 ML) through the B5B intake for a combined yearly maximum of 30 1,138,620 mg (4,309,676 ML). The associated withdrawal volumes are based on the maximum 31 monthly (31-day) production capacity of the pumps assuming continuous operation.
| |
| | |
| 3-36 1 Once-through heat-dissipation systems inherently return all but a very small fraction of the total 2 water withdrawn to the water source, compared to closed-cycle systems. Oconee Stations 3 withdrawal permit includes an assumption that 99 percent of the water withdrawn is returned to 4 the lake (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 5 3.5.1.3 Surface Water Quality and Effluents
| |
| | |
| 6 Water Quality Assessment and Regulation
| |
| | |
| 7 In accordance with Section 303(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e., Clean Water 8 Act of 1972, as amended (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387-TN662), States have the primary 9 responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and revising water quality standards for the Nations 10 navigable waters. Such standards include the designated uses of a water body or water body 11 segment, the water quality criteria necessary to protect those designated uses, and an 12 antidegradation policy with respect to ambient water quality. As established under CWA 13 Section 101(a), water quality standards are intended to restore and maintain the chemical, 14 physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters and to attain a level of water quality that 15 provides for designated uses. The EPA reviews each States water quality standards to ensure 16 they meet the goals of the CWA and Federal regulations that set water quality standards 17 (40 CFR Part 131, Water Quality Standards [TN4814]). The SCDHEC promulgates surface 18 water quality standards in the State in accordance with its regulations codified at South Carolina 19 Regulation (SCR) 61-68 and SCR 61-69 (SCDHEC 2014-TN6986, SCDHEC 2012-TN6987).
| |
| | |
| 20 CWA Section 303(d) requires States to identify all impaired waters for which effluent limitations 21 and pollution control activities are not sufficient to attain water quality standards in such waters.
| |
| 22 Similarly, CWA Section 305(b) requires States to assess and report on the overall quality of 23 waters in their state. States also prepare a CWA Section 303(d) list that identifies the water 24 quality limited water bodies that require the development of total maximum daily loads to assure 25 future compliance with water quality standards. The list also identifies the pollutant or stressor 26 causing the impairment, if known, and establishes a priority for developing a control plan to 27 address the impairment. The total maximum daily loads specify the maximum amount of a 28 pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Once established, 29 total maximum daily loads are often implemented through watershed-based programs 30 administered by the State, primarily through permits issued under the NPDES permit program, 31 under CWA Section 402, and associated point and nonpoint source water quality improvement 32 plans and associated BMPs. States must update and resubmit their impaired waters list every 33 2 years, which ensures that impaired waters continue to be monitored and assessed by the 34 State until applicable water quality standards are met.
| |
| | |
| 35 South Carolina has designated the open waters of Lake Keowee as desirable for the uses of 36 primary and secondary contact recreation, as a source for drinking water supply after 37 conventional treatment, for fishing and the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous 38 aquatic community of fauna and flora, and for industrial and agricultural uses (SCR 61-68; 39 TN6986, SCR 61-69; TN6987). Overall, the waters of Lake Keowee support their designated 40 uses. However, Lake Keowee, several lake tributaries, and Lake Jocassee are impaired for 41 some designated uses, as listed in South Carolinas 2018 final 303(d) list of impaired waters.
| |
| 42 The EPA approved the States list on December 23, 2020 (EPA 2020-TN9008). Specifically, 43 Lake Keowee, including the segment at Oconee Stations dam, is listed as impaired for fish 44 consumption because of mercury in fish tissue (EPA 2020-TN9008, SCDHEC 2022-TN9009).
| |
| | |
| 3-37 1 In addition, the SCDHEC has issued fish consumption advisories for Lake Keowee and Lake 2 Jocassee, which recommend only one meal a week involving consumption of largemouth and 3 spotted bass SCDHEC 2022-TN9009).
| |
| | |
| 4 National Pollutant Discharge Eliminating System Permitting Status and Nuclear Power Plant 5 Effluents
| |
| | |
| 6 To operate a nuclear power plant, NRC licensees must comply with the CWA, including 7 associated requirements imposed by EPA or the State, as part of the NPDES permitting system 8 under CWA Section 402. The Federal NPDES permit program addresses water pollution by 9 regulating point sources (e.g., pipes, ditches) that discharge pollutants to waters of the United 10 States. The NRC licensees must also meet State water quality certification requirements under 11 CWA Section 401. The EPA or the States, not the NRC, set the limits for effluents and 12 operational parameters in nuclear power plant-specific NPDES permits. Nuclear power plants 13 require a valid NPDES permit and a current Section 401 Water Quality Certification to operate.
| |
| | |
| 14 The EPA authorized the State of South Carolina to assume NPDES program responsibility.
| |
| 15 The States regulations for administering the NPDES program are contained in the SCRs at SC 16 Code 61-9.122-TN9010. NPDES permits are normally issued on a 5-year cycle.
| |
| | |
| 17 Oconee Station is authorized to discharge return cooling water and various wastewater effluents 18 under NPDES Permit Number SC0000515. This permit has an effective date of May 1, 2010, 19 and it expired on September 30, 2013 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Duke Energy submitted a 20 timely permit renewal application to the SCDHEC in March 2013 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898),
| |
| 21 in accordance with the States regulations at SCR 61-9.122.21. Therefore, Duke Energys 22 2010 permit remains valid and in force. The NRC staff reviewed Duke Energys NPDES renewal 23 application. Based on its review of the application and current permit, the staff finds that Duke 24 Energy has not proposed any substantial changes in Oconee Stations effluent discharges that 25 would have any consequences for the proposed SLR term. The changes proposed by Duke 26 Energy include desired modifications to monitoring requirements for selected analytical 27 parameters, including removal of requirements deemed obsolete or no longer necessary.
| |
| | |
| 28 Duke Energys current NPDES permit for Oconee Station authorizes monitored discharge 29 from six outfalls in total, including four external outfalls (Outfalls 001, 002, 004, and 007) and 30 two internal outfalls (Outfalls 005 and 006). External outfalls discharge directly to a surface 31 water body or to a feature that connects directly to a water body, while internal outfalls 32 contribute flow to other waste stream(s) before collectively discharging into an external outfall.
| |
| | |
| 33 Duke Energys NPDES permit (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) specifies the pollutant-specific 34 discharge limitations and monitoring requirements for effluents discharged through each outfall 35 to ensure that Oconee Stations discharges comply with applicable water quality standards.
| |
| 36 Depending on the outfall, Duke Energy is required to monitor flow rate, pH, total suspended 37 solids, oil and grease, total residual chlorine, heat rejection, average and maximum discharge 38 temperature, intake temperature, effluent toxicity, and other specified parameters. In addition, 39 under its NPDES permit, Duke Energy must notify and seek approval from the SCDHEC before 40 using any new water maintenance chemicals (e.g., biocides or chemical additives) or to 41 increase quantities used, because such changes could alter Oconee Stations permitted effluent 42 quality. Duke Energy does not use biocides or other chemicals in Oconee Stations condenser 43 circulating water system. Instead, Duke Energy uses a mechanical cleaning system (Duke 44 Energy 2021-TN8898, Duke Energy 2021 -TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3-38 1 Table 3.6-2 in Duke Energys ER summarizes applicable effluent (water quality) monitoring 2 requirements under Oconee Stations NPDES permit, including a description of the main 3 processes that contribute flow to each outfall. The NRC staff incorporates the information in ER 4 Table 3.6-2 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), here by reference. Oconee Stations significant 5 outfalls are further discussed below.
| |
| | |
| 6 Discharges from Outfall 001 consist of heated condenser cooling water and miscellaneous 7 service water return flows from Oconee Station nuclear units through the nuclear power plants 8 discharge structure to Lake Keowee (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898; Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) 9 (see Figure 2-2 and Figure 3-2).
| |
| | |
| 10 11 Figure 3-2 Oconee Station NPDES Permitted Outfalls. Source: Duke Energy 2021-12 TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 3-39 1 The current NPDES permit sets limits on both a daily maximum2 discharge temperature of 2 100°F (37.8°C) and on the allowable daily maximum temperature difference between the intake 3 and discharge of 22°F (12.2°C), when the intake temperature is greater than 68°F (20°C).
| |
| 4 However, if critical hydrological, meteorological, and electric customer demand conditions apply, 5 then the nuclear power plants discharge temperature cannot exceed a daily maximum of 103°F 6 (39.4°C) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 7 In its NPDES permit renewal application, Duke Energy has requested that Oconee Stations 8 daily maximum discharge temperature be changed to a 7-day average not to exceed 100°F 9 (37.8°C). Duke Energy states that this change would align with the State water quality standard 10 and would not result in any adverse operational impact on the lakes biological community 11 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898). Duke Energys NPDES permit renewal application is not yet 12 approved by SCDHEC; therefore, Duke Energys proposed discharge temperature limits are not 13 currently followed. The conditions listed in the current NPDES permit remain in effect (Duke 14 Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 15 Outfall 002 receives process wastewater and other flows either processed through or entering 16 Oconee Stations conventional wastewater treatment system. This system consists of CTP-1, 17 CTP-2, and CTP-3, as discussed in Section 3.5.1.1 of this EIS. CTP-1 and CTP-2 are parallel 18 ponds with one pond receiving wastewater and the other pond providing treatment or 19 discharging. Pumps are provided for recirculation or controlled discharge by way of the west 20 yard drain system to CTP-3. CTP-3 is equipped with a boom and skimmer wall to contain oil 21 spills. The system receives nuclear power plant wastewater from sumps and air-handling units, 22 treated chemical metal cleaning wastes, water treatment system wastewater, landfill leachate 23 (by way of internal Outfall 006), intake dam underdrain water, yard drainage, and groundwater 24 inflow (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898, Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The outfall ultimately 25 discharges to the Keowee River and the headwaters of Lake Hartwell (see Figure 3-2).
| |
| | |
| 26 Outfall 004 is an external outfall that receives low-level radiological wastewater from Oconee 27 Stations liquid radioactive waste treatment system (see Section 2.1.4.1 of this EIS).
| |
| 28 Wastewater sources include equipment drainage, equipment cooling water, leaks, floor wash, 29 laboratory drains, and metal cleaning wastes, as well as other sources from throughout the 30 nuclear power plant (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898, Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). As described in 31 Section 2.1.4.1 of this EIS, the liquids are handled and treated to meet the NRC release limits 32 before being discharged to the Keowee Hydro Station tailrace and ultimately to the Keowee 33 River.
| |
| | |
| 34 Outfall 007 primarily receives non-contact cooling water and dewatering and sump water from 35 the Keowee Hydro Station. The outfall discharges to the stations tailrace that flows to the 36 Keowee River.
| |
| | |
| 37 For all monitored effluent parameters, Duke Energy submits discharge monitoring reports 38 (DMRs) to the SCDHEC in accordance with the reporting schedule specified in the Oconee 39 Station NPDES permit. Duke Energy reports that it has not received any notices of violation 40 (NOVs) from regulatory agencies related to wastewater discharges during the last 5 years 41 (2017-2021), with two exceptions, one in 2017 and another in 2020. SCDHEC later rescinded 42 the 2017 violation, finding that the exceedance event did not result from a release by NPDES 43 Outfall 007. Duke Energy reported an oil and grease exceedance on December 31, 2020, at
| |
| | |
| 2 The current NPDES Permit (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) defines the daily maximum as the highest average value recorded of samples collected on any single day during the calendar month.
| |
| | |
| 3-40 1 Outfall 002 where the concentration, 10.9 mg/L, exceeded the daily maximum limit of 4.09 mg/L.
| |
| 2 This exceedance was reported in Oconee Stations December 2020 DMR. In a letter dated 3 February 23, 2021, Duke Energy received an NOV for this exceedance from the SCDHEC. Four 4 additional follow-up samples in December 2020 were all below detectable limits. The SCDHEC 5 stated in the letter that no further response was required by Duke Energy (Duke Energy 2021-6 TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). The December 2020 exceedance, Duke Energys report 7 to the SCDHEC, and the subsequent SCDHEC actions were confirmed by Duke Energy in its 8 letter to the NRC (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 9 More recently, Duke Energy self-reported two wastewater-related events to the SCDHEC. In its 10 October 2021 DMR, it reported an exceedance of the daily maximum limit for total suspended 11 solids at Outfall 002, which Duke Energy attributed to heavy rainfall. On November 3, 2021, 12 Duke Energy notified the SCDHEC of a wastewater spill that occurred on November 1, 2021.
| |
| 13 The spill consisted of 3-5 gal (11-19 L) of untreated clear water from a sewage air ejector 14 cracked polyvinyl chloride pipe into the Units 1 and 2 turbine building sump. The spill was 15 diluted and was pumped to CTP-3 and Outfall 002. Neither of these events has resulted in 16 issuance of an NOV to Duke Energy (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 17 Other Surface Water Resources Permits and Approvals
| |
| | |
| 18 An applicant (in this case, Duke Energy) for a Federal license to conduct activities that may 19 cause a discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters of the United States is required 20 by CWA Section 401 to provide the Federal licensing agency (in this case, the NRC) with water 21 quality certification from the certifying authority (in this case, the State of South Carolina). This 22 certification denotes that discharges from the project or facility to be licensed will comply with 23 CWA requirements and will not cause or contribute to a violation of State water quality 24 standards. If the applicant has not received Section 401 certification, the NRC cannot issue a 25 renewed license, unless the State has otherwise waived the requirement.
| |
| | |
| 26 In July 2020, the EPA published a final rule revising the procedural requirements for CWA 27 Section 401 certifications at 40 CFR Part 121-TN6718 (85 FR 42210-TN6394). The final rule 28 became effective on September 11, 2020. In September 2023, 40 CFR Part 121 was revised 29 again (88 FR 66558-TN9620).3 The revised regulations at 40 CFR 121.6(b) state that the 30 Federal licensing agency and the certifying authority may jointly establish a reasonable 31 period of time not exceeding 1 year from the date of receipt of the certification request, for the 32 certifying authority to act on the request. Under the revised regulations, under no circumstances 33 can the certifying authority take more than 1 year to issue the requested certification, deny 34 certification, or waive its right to certify. The certifying authoritys failure or refusal to act on a 35 certification request within the reasonable period of time is considered a waiver.
| |
| | |
| 36 The NRC recognizes that some NPDES-delegated states explicitly integrate their CWA 37 Section 401 certification process with NPDES permit issuance. South Carolinas CWA 38 Section 401 certification regulations are codified at SC Code 61-101-TN9011.
| |
| | |
| 39 In its ER, Duke Energy provided copies of both the {{letter dated|date=August 19, 2020|text=August 19, 2020, letter}} it sent requesting 40 confirmation that Oconee Stations existing CWA Section 401 certification (dated
| |
| | |
| 3 In 2021, the EPA initiated a process to reconsider and revise the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification Rule (86 FR 29541-TN7623). The proposed rule was issued on June 9, 2022 (87 FR 35318-TN8543).
| |
| The public comment period for the proposed rule ended August 8, 2022. In September 2023, 40 CFR Part 121 was revised with the publication of the final rule (88 FR 66558-TN9620).
| |
| | |
| 3-41 1 August 2,1976) remains valid for a second (subsequent) license renewal and the letter (dated 2 September 29, 2020) that it received from the SCDHEC in reply. In its reply, the SCDHEC 3 states in part that:
| |
| | |
| 4 unless there is a new federal permit or license associated with the ONS [Oconee]
| |
| 5 second renewal that may result in a discharge to navigable waters, our position is that 6 the most recent certification remains valid and no additional 401 Water Quality 7 Certification will be required. (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897)
| |
| | |
| 8 Based on its review of the information referenced above, the NRC staff concludes that the 9 SCDHECs September 29, 2020, reply to Duke Energy provides the necessary documentation 10 that Oconee Stations CWA Section 401 certification remains valid for continued operations 11 during the proposed SLR term, in satisfaction of Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA. CWA 12 Section 404 governs the discharge of dredge and fill materials to navigable waters, including 13 wetlands, primarily through permits issued by the USACE and applicable State-level permitting 14 programs. Duke Energy states in its ER that no dredging has occurred at Oconee Station since 15 1998, and no dredging activity is planned during the proposed SLR term (Duke Energy 2021-16 TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 17 3.5.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 18 This section describes the groundwater flow systems (aquifers) and water quality in and around 19 the Oconee Station site. Aquifers are a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a 20 formation that contain sufficient saturated, permeable material to yield significant quantities of 21 water to wells and springs.
| |
| | |
| 22 3.5.2.1 Local and Regional Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 23 Sections 3.5.2 and 3.6.2 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) describe the 24 geology and groundwater resources, respectively, in the Oconee Station site vicinity. A 25 summary of this information is provided in the following sections. The staff also evaluated 26 information related to the groundwater resources during the site audit, the scoping process, and 27 during its review of other available information as cited in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 28 In the Piedmont physiographic province of South Carolina where the Oconee Station site is 29 located, groundwater occurs within the fractured bedrock and in the overlying regolith, which 30 generally consists of surface soils; earthy, well-weathered rock referred to as saprolite; and 31 stream deposits (alluvium) found mainly in the valleys (USGS 1990-TN6648). The saprolite 32 develops by the in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock and composes the majority of 33 the regolith. A transition zone of partially weathered bedrock is often present near the top of 34 the bedrock, as shown in Figure 3-3 (LeGrand 2004-TN9017; Harned and Daniel 1992-35 TN9019). The regolith and fractured bedrock together form the aquifer, with the higher porosity 36 regolith providing most of the water storage and also serving to transmit water to the underlying 37 fractures in the low-porosity bedrock.
| |
| | |
| 38 The principal source of groundwater recharge to the aquifer is precipitation. Groundwater flow in 39 the Piedmont region occurs as small catchments, generally from topographically high areas to 40 the valleys, where groundwater is discharged to streams, lakes, and springs. Groundwater is 41 generally unconfined, and the water table (the upper surface of saturation) is typically a 42 subdued representation of the ground surface topography.
| |
| | |
| 3-42 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-3 Conceptual Components of the Piedmont and Mountains 3 Groundwater System. Source: Harned and Daniel 1992-TN9019.
| |
| | |
| 4 The EPA has not designated any sole source aquifers in the State of South Carolina or 5 adjoining the Oconee Station site (EPA 2019-TN9022).
| |
| | |
| 6 In the vicinity of the Oconee Station site, the regolith is observed to exhibit significant spatial 7 variation, ranging from about 10-100 ft (3-30 m) thick (see Section 3.4.1). Depth to the water 8 table varies from approximately 5-40 ft (1.5-12 m) below the land surface, with an average 9 seasonal fluctuation of approximately 3-5 ft (0.9-1.5 m) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Based on 10 maps of groundwater elevations measured in wells (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), the NRC staff 11 estimates that the horizontal hydraulic gradient at the site is about 0.035. Groundwater flow 12 velocity at the site is estimated to be 150-250 ft/yr (46-76 m/yr) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 13 At the Oconee Station site, groundwater generally flows from northwest toward the southeast 14 with several localized deviations from this general groundwater flow, as shown in the 15 potentiometric surface maps in Figure 3-4. Groundwater flows from the Lake Keowee intake 16 canal toward CPT-3 and the wastewater conveyance. In addition, groundwater flow is 17 influenced by the dewatering and groundwater contaminant plume control withdrawals. Field 18 hydraulic tests conducted at the site indicate that the permeability of the shallow saprolite is 19 lower than the permeability of deeper soil layers, potentially reducing vertical infiltration of water 20 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3-43 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-4 Oconee Station Groundwater Potentiometric Surface of Shallow (Left) and 3 Deep Zone (Right). Source: Duke Energy (TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 4 3.5.2.2 Local and Regional Water Consumption
| |
| | |
| 5 Compared to the coastal plain aquifers of South Carolina, limited quantities of groundwater can 6 be obtained in the Piedmont region. Well yield is dependent upon the type of rock in which the 7 well is completed (USGS 1990-TN6648). Water yields generally vary between 5 gpm to 20 gpm, 8 but can reach up to 600 gpm locally (Wachob et al. 2009-TN9029). Higher yielding wells are 9 typically completed in fractured zones of the bedrock (USGS 1990-TN6648). In Pickens and 10 Oconee Counties, groundwater is predominantly withdawn for domestic use, followed by public 11 water supply (Dieter et al. 2018-TN6681). No groundwater use for power generation was 12 recorded in either county according to the most recent national water use report (Dieter et al.
| |
| 13 2018-TN6681).
| |
| | |
| 14 Two domestic water supply wells were identified in 2021 within a 2 mi (3.2 km) radius of the 15 Oconee Station plant (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The water wells were described as being 16 associated with a recreational vehicle park across Lake Keowee from Oconee Station, 17 approximately 1.3 mi (2.1 km) west of the site. In 2021, no detailed information was reported in 18 the SCDHEC Public Water Supply Wells database, including water use and well construction 19 data (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). As of June 2023, the two wells are no longer listed in the 20 database (SCDHEC 2021-TN9030), and no further public information is available (SCDHEC 21 2021-TN9030; USGS 2023-TN9032). The nearest publicly listed water supply well is 22 approximately 4.1 mi (6.7 km) northwest of the site and is associated with Keowee Camp 23 (SCDHEC 2023-TN8970).
| |
| | |
| 24 Onsite, the Oconee Station plant operates a groundwater drawdown system around the standby 25 shutdown facility. Three wells (DMW-1, DMW-2, and DMW-3A) equipped with automatic pumps
| |
| | |
| 3-44 1 withdraw an average of approximately 20 gpm (0.11 mLd) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The 2 wells discharge into CTP-3 via the yard drainage system. Historically, potable groundwater 3 supply wells were installed at the site for irrigation use, but the wells have not been used within 4 the last 10 years and all have been abandoned or are being evaluated for abandonment (Duke 5 Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 6 3.5.2.3 Groundwater Quality
| |
| | |
| 7 Groundwater quality in the Piedmont region is generally good and within drinking water 8 standards for most constituents (USGS 1990-TN6648). In the upper Piedmont region, some 9 radionuclides are detectable in groundwater wells but at concentrations below drinking-water 10 standards (USGS 1990-TN6648, Wachob et al. 2009-TN9029).
| |
| | |
| 11 3.5.2.3.1 Groundwater Protection Program
| |
| | |
| 12 Based on the Groundwater Protection Initiative (GWPI) (NRC 2007-TN9033), Duke Energy 13 implemented a groundwater protection program in 2007 at Oconee Station to provide early 14 detection and effective management of any inadvertent releases of licensed radioactive material 15 to groundwater (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The program implemented at Oconee Station is 16 based on the results of a risk assessment that investigated information related to (1) nuclear 17 power plant SSCs considered to be potential sources of tritium (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948),
| |
| 18 (2) the regional conceptual model of geology and hydrogeology for the Piedmont Province of 19 North Carolina (LeGrand 2004-TN9017), and (3) site-specific information about geology and 20 hydrogeology from the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Duke Energy 2022-TN9000).
| |
| | |
| 21 The following nuclear power plant SSCs emerged as potential sources of past or future releases 22 of tritium to the environment (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948):
| |
| 23
| |
| * CTP-1, -2, and -3 24
| |
| * radioactive waste discharge line 25
| |
| * reactor building sump lines to radioactive waste facility 26
| |
| * turbine building sumps discharge lines 27
| |
| * spent fuel pools, Units 1, 2, and 3 28
| |
| * borated water storage tanks, Units 1, 2, and 3
| |
| | |
| 29 The monitoring well system implemented as part of the GWPI aims to provide early detection of 30 tritium releases and to verify no offsite migration (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Monitoring wells 31 were first selected based on their proximity to nuclear power plant SSC sources, followed by the 32 projected downgradient groundwater flow direction from potential sources (Duke Energy 2022-33 TN8948). Both shallow and deep wells were selected to account for the SSC locations in 34 relationship to the geologic stratum (i.e., installed in shallow surface soils vs. deep bedrock).
| |
| 35 Additionally, the historical occurrences of inadvertent releases of radioactive liquids with 36 potential to affect groundwater were reviewed and considered by Duke Energy in the selection 37 of monitoring well locations.
| |
| | |
| 38 Since the implementation of the GWPI at Oconee Station in 2007, the groundwater monitoring 39 network has expanded and now consists of 63 onsite monitoring wells (Figure 3-5) (Duke 40 Energy 2021-TN8897). Other monitoring programs fulfill requirements for Duke Energys 41 NPDES permit (No. SC0000515) and Class 2 Landfill Closure permit (No. 373303-1601).
| |
| 42 Results are reported to SCDHEC semiannually and annually, respectively.
| |
| | |
| 3-45 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-5 Oconee Station Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Wells. Source: Duke 3 Energy 2021-TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 4 As part of the Oconee Station radiological monitoring program, groundwater samples are 5 normally collected either quarterly, semiannually, or annually for analysis of tritium and gamma 6 emitters, and selected wells are analyzed for difficult-to-detect radionuclides (Duke Energy 7 2021-TN8897). Results of these samplings and other nonradiologically targeted samples have 8 been submitted to the NRC in annual monitoring reports and are discussed in the section below.
| |
| | |
| 3-46 1 3.5.2.3.2 Radiological and Nonradiological Spills
| |
| | |
| 2 No inadvertent releases of radioactive or nonradioactive contaminants have been reported to 3 have occurred at the Oconee Station site in the last 5 years, from January 2018 to January 4 2022 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948, Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). The most recent liquid release 5 event was reported to have occurred in May 2014. Oconee Station personnel reported 6 observing water seeping from the ground at a location near the transfer piping between CTP-1 7 and CTP-3 while transferring water from CTP-1 to CTP-3 on May 6, 2014 (Duke Energy 2021-8 TN8897). A 3 in. hole drilled in the side of the yard drain catch basin was identified as the cause 9 of the release and was repaired. Tritium concentrations in CTP-1 at the time were approximately 10 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and the amount of total tritium activity released was estimated 11 to be 2.4E-06 curies (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Monitoring results from two wells 12 downgradient of the release (A-13 and A-14) did not indicate any significant changes to tritium 13 concentrations in groundwater (Duke Energy 2022-TN8946).
| |
| | |
| 14 3.5.2.3.3 History of Tritium in Groundwater
| |
| | |
| 15 Beginning in January 2008, elevated tritium levels were detected in five onsite GWPI monitoring 16 wells: GM-2R, GM-2DR, GM-7, GM-7R, GM-7DR, shown in Figure 3-5 (Duke Energy 2022-17 TN8948). Maximum tritium concentrations were reported in wells GM-7R (28,000 pCi/L; April 18 2010) and GM-7DR (35,400 pCi/L; January 2010) (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Duke Energy 19 determined the probable source of the elevated tritium concentrations to be inadvertent 20 discharges from the turbine building to the CPT-3 tail race through the east yard drainage 21 system (Duke Energy 2023-TN8947, Attachment 7). The discharges through this pathway were 22 ceased in 2008 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8947, Attachment 7).
| |
| | |
| 23 The current remediation of tritium-affected groundwater was initiated in November 2010 with the 24 installation of recovery well (RW)-1, shown in Figure 3-5 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| 25 Groundwater extraction from RW-1 began in February 2011, and by April 2016, more than 26 25 million gal (95 million L) of water had been extracted from the well (Duke Energy 2021-27 TN8897). Groundwater recovered from RW-1 is discharged through dedicated piping to CTP-3 28 (Duke Energy 2023-TN9227). Combined with the dewatering activity around the standby 29 shutdown facility, the NRC staff calculated the average groundwater withdrawal from the site 30 between 2011 and 2016 to have been 29.06 gpm. As a result of the extraction at RW-1, tritium 31 concentrations in the target monitoring wells have decreased below the EPAs safe drinking 32 water standard (20,000 pCi/L) (EPA 1980-TN8950). In 2022, the maximum tritium concentration 33 reported in onsite GWPI wells was 3,990 pCi/L at GM-17R. (Duke Energy 2023-TN8947, 34 Attachment 7).
| |
| | |
| 35 The NRC staff reviewed tritium concentration trends in onsite GWPI wells reported in 36 Attachment 7 of the Annual Radiological Effluent Release Reports between 2018 and 2023 37 (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-TN8945, Duke 38 Energy 2022-TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-TN8947). Overall, tritium concentrations in onsite 39 wells are consistent or decreasing with time. However, an increase in sampled tritium 40 concentrations was observed in well GM-17R between the second and fourth quarter sampling 41 events in 2020 (no samples were collected during the third quarter of 2020) (Duke Energy 2021-42 TN8945, Attachment 7). Concentrations increased from 1,008 pCi/L to a maximum of 43 4,600 pCi/L in 2020. Sample frequency was increased from semiannually to quarterly at GM-44 17R following 2020, and concentrations have remained consistent between 2021 and 2022 with 45 an average concentration of 3,700 pCi/L (Duke Energy 2022-TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-
| |
| | |
| 3-47 1 TN8947). Well GM-17R is located hydraulically upgradient of abstraction well RW-1 and 2 approximately 150 ft (46 m) east of the south end of the turbine building.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.5.2.3.4 Monitoring of Other Radionuclides
| |
| | |
| 4 GWPI wells are regularly analyzed for tritium and gamma emitters, and select wells are 5 analyzed for difficult-to-detect radionuclides (Duke Energy 2022-TN8946). No gamma or 6 difficult-to-detect radionuclides were detected in the groundwater between 2018 and 2021 7 (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-TN8945, Duke 8 Energy 2022-TN8946).
| |
| | |
| 9 3.5.2.3.5 NPDES and Landfill Groundwater Monitoring
| |
| | |
| 10 As part of the site NPDES permit monitoring requirements, eight wells are monitored 11 semiannually for copper, barium, gamma emitters, difficult-to-detect radionuclides, tritium, 12 nitrate, sulfate, and ammonia (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). These wells monitor effluent from 13 the three onsite chemical treatment ponds. No violations of the site NPDES permit (SC0000515) 14 were identified in 2022 (EPA 2023-TN8953).
| |
| | |
| 15 Leachate from the closed onsite Class 2 landfill is collected and discharged to CPT-3 through 16 internal nuclear power plant Outfall 006 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Monitored parameters at 17 the outfall include biochemical oxygen demand, nitrate and nitrite as total nitrogen, total organic 18 carbon, total recoverable selenium, total recoverable zinc, and total recoverable copper (Duke 19 Energy 2021-TN8897). Eleven groundwater wells situated around the landfill (shown in 20 Figure 3-5) are also monitored for a variety of parameters including inorganic and organic 21 compounds, alpha and beta particles, gamma-emitting isotopes, and tritium (Duke Energy 2022-22 TN9012). Results are reported annually to SCDHEC (Duke Energy 2022-TN9012). Results are 23 compared to maximum and secondary contaminant levels from State Primary Drinking 24 Regulations. Adverse impacts on groundwater in the proximity of the Class 2 Landfill have not 25 been identified from 2020-2023 (Duke Energy 2020-TN9151, Duke Energy 2021-TN9152, Duke 26 Energy 2022-TN9012).
| |
| | |
| 27 3.5.3 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 28 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 29 SLR on the environmental issues related to surface water and groundwater in accordance with 30 Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 31 3.5.3.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 32 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of Oconee Station SLR 33 on the environmental issues identified in Table 3-1 that relate to surface water resources. No 34 other surface water resource-related issues apply to Oconee Station (see Table 3-1).
| |
| | |
| 35 3.5.3.1.1 Surface Water Use and Quality (Non-Cooling System Impacts)
| |
| | |
| 36 During the SLR term, surface water may be used at nuclear power plants for non-cooling 37 systems (e.g., during refurbishment activities for concrete preparation, dust suppression, 38 washing equipment, facility cleaning). Discharges to surface water bodies can occur from 39 stormwater runoff that may be affected by refurbishment-related land-disturbing activities 40 and potential spills of chemicals and fuels.
| |
| | |
| 3-48 1 Surface water use and quality are discussed and evaluated in Sections 3.6.3.1 and 3.6.4.1, 2 respectively, of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Instead of relying on surface 3 water, Oconee Station uses public domestic water to meet its potable and sanitary water 4 demand, which reduces non-cooling water consumption at the plant. Non-cooling water 5 withdrawals are mostly limited to plant activities such as facility and equipment cleaning.
| |
| 6 Because a public domestic water supply is used, the volume of water needed for non-cooling 7 purposes is negligible compared to the volume used for cooling purposes.
| |
| | |
| 8 Oconee Station discharges wastewater to Lake Keowee and the Keowee River in accordance 9 with its NPDES permit. Duke Energy submitted a permit renewal application in 2013 by, but the 10 SCDHEC has not yet issued a permit. Oconee Station NPDES Permit No. SC0000515 is 11 administratively continued (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948: Response to RCI SW-1). The plant 12 operates in compliance with the NPDES general industrial stormwater permit, which addresses 13 compliance with stormwater regulations, obtaining necessary stormwater permits, developing 14 SWPPPs, and implementing BMPs (both structural and non-structural). Moreover, Oconee 15 Station has a spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan and a chemical control 16 program to minimize oil spills and mitigate risks from hazardous and toxic chemicals. During the 17 proposed SLR term, these plans, programs, and procedures will remain in place and will be 18 updated as necessary (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899: ER Supplement 2). Duke Energy confirmed 19 that no reportable inadvertent releases or spills of nonradioactive contaminants have occurred 20 since Duke Energys Environmental Report Supplement 2 was submitted on November 7, 2022 21 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952: Response to RCI GEN-3).
| |
| | |
| 22 The NRC staff has not identified new and significant information related to surface water 23 use and quality (non-cooling system impacts) during the audit, scoping process, and review 24 of available information cited in this EIS. Compliance with the current NPDES permit and 25 stormwater regulatory requirements and permit conditions, and implementation of the SWPPP, 26 SPCC plan, and other BMPs will minimize the impacts on water quality. The NRC staff 27 concludes that the impacts on surface water use and quality from non-cooling water systems 28 during the proposed SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 3.5.3.1.2 Altered Current Patterns at Intake and Discharge Structures
| |
| | |
| 30 During the SLR term, flow rates associated with cooling system intake and discharge have the 31 potential to alter current patterns in a surface water body. The degree of the alterations depends 32 on the characteristics of the surface water body, the design of the intake and discharge 33 structures, and the flow rates.
| |
| | |
| 34 The main hydrologic features, including the lakes, rivers, and impoundments that influence 35 Oconee Station, are discussed in Section 3.6.1 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-36 TN8897). The ER also includes details of the intake and discharge structures. Lake Keowee 37 was formed by impounding the Keowee and Little Rivers and serves as the cooling water 38 source for Oconee Station. Oconee Station withdraws cooling water from the Little River arm of 39 Lake Keowee and discharges to the Keowee River arm. Duke Energy anticipates no 40 modifications in the operation of the plants cooling system associated with the proposed SLR 41 term that may change the existing current patterns at the intake and discharge structures (Duke 42 Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 43 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to altered current 44 patterns. The NRC staff finds that existing current patterns at intake and discharge structures 45 will remain the same during the proposed SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts
| |
| | |
| 3-49 1 on altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures for the proposed SLR term would 2 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.5.3.1.3 Altered Thermal Stratification of Lakes
| |
| | |
| 4 Because cooling systems typically withdraw from the deeper, cooler portion of the water column 5 of lakes or reservoirs and discharge to the surface, they have the ability to alter the thermal 6 stratification of a surface water body with relatively stagnant waters (e.g., a lake). The heated 7 discharge creates a thermal plume in the receiving water body and cools by losing heat to the 8 atmosphere and to ambient water.
| |
| | |
| 9 Oconee Station withdraws cooling water from the Little River arm of Lake Keowee and 10 discharges to the Keowee River arm. The thermal effect on stratification from Oconee Station, 11 which has a once-through heat dissipation system (see Section 2.2.3 of Duke Energy 2021-12 TN8897), is examined through the NPDES permit process. Duke Energys NPDES permit 13 establishes a thermal discharge limit in accordance with the CWA 316(a), and Oconee Station 14 operates in compliance with that limit. A license renewal application for the permit was 15 submitted in 2013, which resulted in an administrative extension of the permit.
| |
| | |
| 16 Since 2000, Duke Energy has monitored water temperatures below Keowee Dam. The results 17 demonstrate that temperature standards have not been exceeded and suggest that a stable 18 pattern has been established (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Temperature monitoring of the Little 19 River suggests negligible migration of the Oconee Station thermal plume into the Little River 20 watershed (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). Oconee Station also conducts CWA Section 316(a) 21 studies that requires temperature recording. These studies demonstrate that the thermal 22 discharge limits established in the NPDES permit protects the Lake Keowee fishery because the 23 extent of the resulting thermal plume is limited. The 2019 through 2021 monthly average 24 temperatures at the intake and discharge have remained within the year-to-year variation for 25 2014-2018 previously reported in the ER (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952: Response to RCI SW-1).
| |
| | |
| 26 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to altered thermal 27 stratification during the audit, scoping process, and review of available information cited in this 28 EIS. Because no modifications to the Oconee Station intake and discharge are planned during 29 the proposed SLR term, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of thermal stratification of 30 Lake Keowee would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 31 3.5.3.1.4 Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling Water
| |
| | |
| 32 The high flow rate of water from a cooling system discharge structure has the potential to scour 33 sediments and redeposit them elsewhere. The degree of scouring depends on the design of the 34 discharge structure, the discharge flow rate, and the sediment characteristics. Scouring is 35 expected to occur only in the vicinity of the discharge structures where flow rates may be high.
| |
| 36 While scouring is possible during reactor startup, operational periods would typically have 37 negligible scouring.
| |
| | |
| 38 The withdrawal and discharge of water to and from the Keowee Lake is discussed in 39 Section 2.2.3 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Oconee Station withdraws 40 cooling water from the Little River arm of Lake Keowee and discharges to the Keowee River 41 arm. No scouring impacts from discharged cooling water have been observed at Oconee 42 Station (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). Scour impacts would continue to be negligible with 43 continued compliance with regulatory, permit, and license requirements (Duke Energy 2022-
| |
| | |
| 3-50 1 TN8899). No modifications are planned for the Oconee Station cooling system that would alter 2 discharge patterns during the SLR term (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 3 The NRC staff identified no new and significant information related to the Oconee Station 4 cooling system during the audit, through the scoping process, and review of available 5 information cited in this EIS. Because no changes in existing current patterns are expected, 6 changes in scouring impacts are also not anticipated. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts 7 on scouring caused by discharged cooling water for the proposed SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 8 3.5.3.1.5 Discharge of Metals in Cooling System Effluent
| |
| | |
| 9 Heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and chromium can be leached from condenser tubing and 10 other components of the heat exchange system by circulating cooling water. These metals are 11 normally addressed in NPDES permits because high concentrations of them can be toxic to 12 aquatic organisms.
| |
| | |
| 13 The chemical additives approved by the SCDHEC that are used at Oconee Station to control 14 pH, scale, and corrosion are described in Section 3.6.1.2.1 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 15 2021-TN8897). Oconee Stations NPDES permit does not have a metals limit or require 16 monitoring for metals at the circulating condenser cooling water outfall.
| |
| | |
| 17 In response to a SCDHEC review evaluating the need to include a copper limit in the NPDES 18 permit, Duke Energy conducted 16 sampling events from 2005 to 2009. The results of these 19 sampling events indicated that the copper concentrations in the lake at the intake and the outfall 20 were consistently the same (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). In their analysis, SCDHEC concluded 21 that there is no reasonable potential for copper or other metals to result in a water quality 22 violation (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 23 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to discharge of 24 metals in cooling system effluent during the audit, scoping process, and review of available 25 information cited in this EIS. Based on compliance with current NPDES regulatory requirements, 26 and permit conditions, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts from the discharge of 27 metals in the cooling system effluent for the proposed SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 28 3.5.3.1.6 Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills
| |
| | |
| 29 The use of biocides and other water treatment chemicals is common and is required to control 30 biofouling and nuisance organisms in plant cooling systems. However, the types of chemicals, 31 their amounts or concentrations, and the frequency of their use may vary. Residual biocides 32 used in cooling systems are discharged with cooling system effluents. The discharge of treated 33 sanitary waste may occur via onsite wastewater treatment facilities, via an onsite septic field, or 34 through a connection to a municipal sewage system. Each of these factors represents a 35 potential impact on surface water quality.
| |
| | |
| 36 The chemical additives approved by the SCDHEC that are used at Oconee Station to control 37 pH, scale, and corrosion in the circulating water system, and to control biofouling of plant 38 equipment are discussed in Section 3.6.1.2.1 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-39 TN8897) and Section 4.5.11.2 of ER Supplement 2 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). The addition 40 of biocides is governed by Oconee Stations NPDES permit, which requires SCDHEC approval.
| |
| 41 The NPDES permit also addresses the use of other additives and water treatment chemicals.
| |
| | |
| 3-51 1 Since 2010, Oconee Station has been connected to a municipal sewage treatment system and 2 no longer discharges treated wastewater (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3 Oconee Station has an SPCC plan in place that identifies and describes the procedures, 4 materials, equipment, and facilities used to minimize the frequency and severity of oil spills.
| |
| 5 There is also a chemical control program that manages storage areas and assesses and 6 mitigates risk from hazardous and toxic chemicals (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 7 The NRC staff has found records of two spills reported to the National Response Center from 8 2014 through 2020, as indicated in Section 9.5.3.6 in Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-9 TN8897). These spills were related to lubricating oil and hydraulic oil releases at/near the 10 Keowee Hydro Station. Since 2020, two sewage spills have occurred, both of which were 11 reported to the SCDHEC. Oconee Station has environmental protection programs in place to 12 address the non-radiological hazards of plant operations. These programs focus on ensuring 13 adherence to environmental permits and requirements at the State and local levels. The 14 following corrective actions were taken by Duke Energy in response to the four spills (Duke 15 Energy 2023-TN8952: Response to RCI SW-2):
| |
| 16
| |
| * On July 20, 2014, a lubricating oil spill of approximately 5 gal (19 L) was released from the 17 Keowee Hydro Station to the Keowee tailrace. The source of the oil was stopped. The spill 18 reached the station sump. Two temporary booms were deployed below the station in the 19 Keowee River. Oil was removed from the sumps, and the station sumps were cleaned of oil 20 residue. SCDHEC was notified of the release.
| |
| 21
| |
| * On February 8, 2018, approximately 4 ounces (118 mL) of hydraulic oil leaked while testing 22 a submersible hydraulic pump adjacent to the Keowee Hydro Station spillway. Boom and 23 absorbent sheets were placed in the lake to contain and remove the approximately 1 ft by 24 2 ft (0.3 m by 0.6 m) oil sheen. The National Response Center and the SCDHEC were 25 notified of the release. The pump was removed from service. The oil sheen was removed 26 from the lake.
| |
| 27
| |
| * On November 21, 2021, a polyvinyl chloride pipe cracked, spraying approximately 3-5 gal 28 (11-19 L) of sewage from an air ejector into the Unit 1 and 2 turbine building sump. The 29 polyvinyl chloride pipe was repaired. A janitorial contractor cleaned and disinfected the 30 equipment and the floor area where the spill occurred. The spill was reported to the 31 SCDHEC.
| |
| 32
| |
| * On August 15, 2022, sewage air ejectors failed, causing a 50 gal (189 L) sewage spill into 33 the Keowee River. A janitorial contractor cleaned and disinfected the areas where the spill 34 occurred. The sewage air ejectors were repaired, and Duke Energy notified the SCDHEC of 35 the incident via ePermitting and a courtesy call to the Anderson, South Carolina, regional 36 office.
| |
| | |
| 37 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to discharge of 38 biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills. The NRC staff concludes that compliance 39 with current NPDES regulatory requirements and permit conditions along with the 40 implementation of the SPCC plan, SWPPP, and BMPs will mitigate impacts from wastewater 41 and stormwater discharges. The NRC staff concludes that impacts from discharges of biocides, 42 sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills would be SMALL during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 3-52 1 3.5.3.1.7 Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Once-through Cooling Systems)
| |
| | |
| 2 Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water 3 resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. As reported by 4 Dieter et al. (2018-TN6681), thermoelectric plant once-through cooling systems return most of 5 their withdrawn water to the same surface water body, and experience evaporative losses of 6 approximately 1 percent of the withdrawal amount. Consumptive use by plants with once-7 through cooling systems during the license renewal term is not expected to change unless 8 power uprates, with associated increases in water use, are proposed.
| |
| | |
| 9 The surface water withdrawals and returns at Oconee Station are discussed in Section 3.6.3.1 10 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Oconee Station returns nearly all the 11 surface water withdrawals (99 percent) to Lake Keowee, as reported in Section 2.2.3.5 of Duke 12 Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Duke Energy owns and operates the Keowee 13 Development (Lake Keowee and Keowee Hydroelectric Station), the Jocassee Development 14 (Lake Jocassee and the Jocassee Pumped Storage Station), and the Bad Creek Pumped 15 Storage Project (Bad Creek Reservoir and the Bad Creek Pumped Storage Station) in 16 coordination with the USACE, such that the power generating requirements of federally owned 17 hydroelectric projects (J. Strom Thurmond, Richard B. Russell, and Hartwell projects) are not 18 adversely affected (USACE 2014-TN9153). The operating agreement takes into account the 19 2014 USACE assessment of future water availability within the Savannah River Basin, including 20 Lake Keowee (USACE 2014-TN9153).
| |
| | |
| 21 The average surface water withdrawal rates by Oconee Station from 2014 through 2021 are 22 reported in Section 3.6.3.1 in Duke Energys ER and Section 4.5.12.2 in ER Supplement 2 23 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). For 2014 through 2021, average 24 Oconee Station water withdrawal from Lake Keowee was 2,628.2 mgd or 79,829 million gallons 25 per month. From 2017 through 2021 (the last 5 years), the average withdrawal was 2,648 mgd.
| |
| 26 The reported rates indicate that the withdrawal rates have been consistent throughout the 27 period and were within the permit limits (currently permitted withdrawal is a maximum of 28 94,885 million gallons per month [Duke Energy 2021-TN8897]).
| |
| | |
| 29 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to surface water 30 conflicts during the audit, scoping process, and review of available information cited in this EIS.
| |
| 31 Moreover, continued compliance with the USACE operating agreement mitigates water use 32 impacts by protecting downstream users and ecological communities. Hence, the NRC staff 33 concludes that the surface water use conflicts for the proposed SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.5.3.1.8 Effects of Dredging on Surface Water Quality
| |
| | |
| 35 Dredging in the vicinity of surface water intakes, canals, and discharge structures is undertaken 36 by some nuclear power plant licensees to remove deposited sediment and maintain the function 37 of plant cooling systems. Dredging may also be needed to maintain barge shipping lanes.
| |
| 38 Whether accomplished by mechanical, suction, or other methods, dredging disturbs sediments 39 in the surface water body and affects surface water quality by temporarily increasing the 40 turbidity of the water column. In areas affected by industries, dredging can also mobilize heavy 41 metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, or other contaminants in the sediments.
| |
| | |
| 42 Oconee Station does not periodically dredge at Lake Keowee and does not anticipate dredging 43 during the proposed SLR term (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). If any dredging needs arise during 44 the SLR term, Duke Energy would be required to obtain Federal and State permits.
| |
| | |
| 3-53 1 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to the effects of 2 dredging on surface water quality during the audit, scoping process, and review of available 3 information cited in this EIS. The NRC staff also recognizes that any dredging operations would 4 be performed under permits issued by USACE and possibly State agencies. The NRC staff 5 concludes that the impacts of dredging on surface water quality for the proposed SLR term 6 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 7 3.5.3.1.9 Temperature Effects on Sediment Transport Capacity
| |
| | |
| 8 Increased temperature and the resulting decreased viscosity have been hypothesized to change 9 the sediment transport capacity of water, leading to potential sedimentation problems, altered 10 turbidity of rivers, and changes in riverbed configuration.
| |
| | |
| 11 Oconee Station discharges heated cooling water to Lake Keowee in accordance with their 12 NPDES permit. Compliance with the permit requires Oconee Station to monitor surface 13 temperature and water column temperature at sampling points in Lake Keowee. The recorded 14 temperature is reviewed by SCDHEC during each NPDES permit renewal, as part of the 15 SCDHEC-approved CWA Section 316(a) study plan. Any concern SCDHEC may have related 16 to this issue would be addressed through the NPDES permitting process (Duke Energy 2022-17 TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 18 Duke Energy has not observed any sediment transport impacts resulting from cooling system 19 discharge temperature (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). Because no change in operation of the 20 cooling system is expected during the proposed SLR term, no change in the effects of sediment 21 transport capacity is anticipated.
| |
| | |
| 22 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information related to temperature 23 effects on sediment transport capacity during the audit, scoping process, and review of available 24 information cited in this EIS. The NRC staff expects that because Oconee Station discharges to 25 an impounded, rather than a free-flowing, river, little incoming sediment would be available and 26 could be subsequently deposited due to decreased transport capacity. The NRC staff concludes 27 that the temperature effects on sediment transport capacity for the proposed SLR term would be 28 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 3.5.3.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 30 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of Oconee Station SLR 31 on the environmental issues identified in Table 3-1 that relate to groundwater resources.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.5.3.2.1 Groundwater Contamination and Use (Non-cooling System Impacts)
| |
| | |
| 33 Onsite groundwater use is discussed and evaluated in Section 3.6.3.2 of Duke Energys ER 34 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Withdrawals from nuclear power plant dewatering operations and 35 tritium plume control are much less than 100 gpm and are unlikely to affect regional 36 groundwater availability based on the hydrogeological setting of the site (see Sections 3.5.2.2 37 and 3.5.2.3 of this EIS). Groundwater contour maps (Figure 3-5) indicate the radius of influence 38 of the combined abstractions does not extend offsite, and the relatively high storativity of the 39 regolith further reduces impacts on potential users of domestic wells within the vicinity of 40 Oconee Station (USGS 1990-TN6648).
| |
| | |
| 3-54 1 According to Section 3.6.4.2 of Duke Energys ER, industrial practices at the site generally 2 involve the use of chemicals associated with maintenance activities for plant, equipment, 3 buildings, and water treatment. Management of the chemicals is governed by Duke Energy 4 procedures and site-specific prevention plans (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 5 The NRC staff have not identified new and significant information during the audit, scoping 6 process, and review of available information cited in this EIS. The NRC staff has concluded that, 7 over the period of extended operation, potential groundwater contamination would likely remain 8 onsite, and no offsite wells are expected be affected. Oconee Station has implemented a 9 groundwater protection program to identify and monitor leaks through the installed monitoring 10 well network and adheres to the appropriate State pollution prevention permits. With a robust 11 sampling strategy, potential future releases of contamination into the groundwater would be 12 readily detected. Dewatering systems are not expected to increase significantly in discharge 13 volume, so an incremental effect on groundwater availability over that which has taken place is 14 unlikely. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the non-cooling system impacts on 15 groundwater contamination and use during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 16 3.5.3.2.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Nuclear Power Plants that Withdraw Less than 17 100 Gallons per Minute)
| |
| | |
| 18 According to Duke Energys ER (Section 3.6.3.2), no active groundwater supply wells are 19 installed on the stations property. Potable water for the nuclear power plant is supplied by 20 Seneca Light & Water. Potential impacts of dewatering and tritium plume control are discussed 21 above in Section 3.5.3.2.1. Local and regional water consumption is discussed in 22 Section 3.5.2.3 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 23 When evaluating the potential impacts resulting from groundwater use conflicts associated 24 with SLR, the NRC staff uses the existing groundwater resource conditions described in 25 Section 3.5.2 of this EIS as its baseline. These baseline conditions encompass the existing 26 hydrogeologic framework and conditions (including aquifers) potentially affected by continued 27 operations, as well as the nature and magnitude of groundwater withdrawals compared to 28 relevant appropriation and permitting standards. The baseline also considers other potentially 29 affected uses and users of the groundwater resources affected by the continued operation of 30 the nuclear power plant. Future activities related to SLR at the Oconee Station site are neither 31 expected to require withdrawal of more than 100 gpm, nor are these activities expected to lower 32 groundwater levels beyond the nuclear power plant boundary. Therefore, the NRC staff 33 concludes that for this issue during the SLR term, impacts would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.5.3.2.3 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater
| |
| | |
| 35 This issue was added for consideration as part of the groundwater review for license renewal in 36 the 2013 LR GEIS revision (NRC 2013-TN2654) because of the accidental releases of liquids 37 containing radioactive material into the groundwater at a number of nuclear power plants. In 38 2006, the NRC released a report documenting lessons learned from a review of these incidents 39 that ultimately concluded that these releases had not adversely affected public health and safety 40 (Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Report; NRC 2006-TN1000). This 41 report concluded, in general, that affected groundwater is expected to remain onsite, but 42 instances of offsite migration have occurred. The LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) determined 43 that impacts on groundwater quality from the release of radionuclides could be SMALL or 44 MODERATE, depending on the magnitude of the leak, the radionuclides involved, 45 hydrogeologic factors, distance to receptors, and response time of nuclear power plant
| |
| | |
| 3-55 1 personnel to identify and stop the leak in a timely fashion. As a result, this issue is considered 2 to be Category 2, thus requiring a site-specific evaluation.
| |
| | |
| 3 This issue was discussed and evaluated in Sections 3.6.4.2 and 4.5.5 of Duke Energys ER 4 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Oconee Station personnel monitor groundwater for inadvertent 5 releases as part of its groundwater protection program, which was implemented in 2007 under 6 NEI 07-07 and in conjunction with 10 CFR 20.1501TN283. Tritium is the only radionuclide that 7 has been historically detected in the regolith and weathered/fractured bedrock above the 8 minimum detectable concentration. As a result of remediation being implemented, recent 9 measurements of tritium in the groundwater are well below the EPA safe drinking water 10 standard of 20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 141-TN4456). Site hydrogeologic evaluations indicate 11 that the affected groundwater is migrating southeast toward CTP-3 and the conveyance. There 12 is no indication that the affected groundwater is migrating beyond the Oconee Station site 13 boundary or affecting offsite water uses and users.
| |
| | |
| 14 The NRC staff has evaluated this information as part of its review. In addition, the staff has 15 identified no new and significant information during the audit, scoping process, and review of 16 available information cited in this EIS. The NRC staff has concluded that over the period of 17 extended operation, potential groundwater contamination would likely remain onsite and no 18 offsite wells should be affected. Oconee Station has implemented a groundwater protection 19 program to identify and monitor leaks through the installed monitoring well network. With a 20 robust sampling strategy, potential future releases of tritium into the groundwater would be 21 readily detected. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater use and 22 quality related to the inadvertent release of radionuclides to groundwater during the SLR term 23 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 24 3.5.4 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 25 3.5.4.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 26 Under the no-action alternative, surface water withdrawals would greatly decrease and 27 eventually cease. Stormwater would continue to be discharged from the site, but wastewater 28 discharges would be reduced considerably. As a result, shutdown of Oconee Station would 29 reduce the overall impacts on surface water use and quality by reducing the pollutants 30 discharged and thermal loading to receiving waters, including Lake Keowee. Therefore, the 31 NRC staff concludes that the impact of the no-action alternative on surface water resources 32 would remain SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.5.4.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 34 With the cessation of operations, there would be a reduction in onsite groundwater abstraction 35 and little or no additional impacts on groundwater quality. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 36 that the impact of the no-action alternative on groundwater resources would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 37 3.5.5 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 38 3.5.5.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 39 Construction
| |
| | |
| 40 Construction activities associated with replacement power alternatives may cause temporary 41 impacts on surface water quality by increasing sediment loading to water bodies and
| |
| | |
| 3-56 1 waterways. Construction activities also may affect surface water quality through pollutants in 2 stormwater runoff from disturbed areas and excavations, spills, and leaks from construction 3 equipment; and from sediment and other pollutants disturbed by associated dredge and fill 4 activities. These pollutants could be detrimental to downstream surface water quality, where 5 applicable, and to ambient water quality in waterways near work sites.
| |
| | |
| 6 Facility construction activities might alter surface water drainage features within the construction 7 footprints of replacement power facilities, including any wetland areas. Potential hydrologic 8 impacts would vary depending on the nature and acreage of land area disturbed and the 9 intensity of excavation work.
| |
| | |
| 10 The NRC staff assumes that construction contractors would implement BMPs for soil erosion 11 and sediment control to minimize water quality impacts in accordance with applicable Federal, 12 State, and local permitting requirements. These measures would include spill prevention and 13 response procedures, such as measures to avoid and respond to spills and leaks of fuels and 14 other materials from construction equipment and activities.
| |
| | |
| 15 For example, land clearing and related site construction activities would need to be conducted 16 under an SCDHEC-issued NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from 17 Construction Activities (SCR100000), if more than 1 ac (0.4 ha) of land would be disturbed 18 (SCDHEC 2019-TN9154). In accordance with the NPDES general permit, Duke Energy and its 19 contractors would need to develop and implement erosion and sediment controls, stormwater 20 pollution prevention, and spill prevention and response practices to prevent or minimize any 21 surface water quality impacts during construction. The permit also requires a post-construction 22 stormwater management plan to be developed and implemented (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 23 In addition, deep excavation work required to construct the power block associated with the 24 thermoelectric components of replacement power alternatives could require groundwater 25 dewatering (see Section 3.5.5.2). Water pumped from excavations would be managed and 26 discharged in accordance with applicable NPDES requirements. As a result, the NRC staff 27 expects that dewatering would not affect surface water quality.
| |
| | |
| 28 To the maximum extent possible, after any necessary modification, the existing Oconee Station 29 surface water intake and discharge infrastructure would be used for replacement power 30 components located on or adjacent to the existing Oconee Station site. This would reduce the 31 potential water quality impacts associated with the construction of new structures at the site.
| |
| | |
| 32 Construction activities that would be conducted by Duke Energy and its contractors in and 33 adjacent to waterways, wetlands, and any nearshore areas would be subject to review and 34 approval by applicable Federal and State regulatory agencies. For example, the discharge of 35 dredged or fill material in waterways, at any stream crossings, and placement of structures in 36 navigable waters would be subject to USACE permit provisions under CWA Section 404 and 37 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, respectively (33 CFR Part 322-38 TN4484 and 33 CFR Part 323-TN4827). Additionally, any potential impacts on State wetlands 39 and adjacent waterways would be subject to regulation and permitting by the SCDHEC 40 (SCDHEC 2019-TN9264).
| |
| | |
| 41 The NRC staff does not expect that any surface water would be diverted or withdrawn to 42 support replacement power facility construction. It is more likely that where necessary, water 43 would be supplied by a temporary water tap from a municipal source and transported to the 44 point of use, or onsite groundwater could be used. The likely use of ready-mix concrete would 45 also reduce the need for onsite use of nearby water sources to support facility construction.
| |
| | |
| 3-57 1 Sanitary water use and wastewater generation would generally be limited to the construction 2 workforce and would likely be accommodated with portable restroom facilities.
| |
| | |
| 3 Operation
| |
| | |
| 4 The thermoelectric power generating components of the replacement power alternatives would 5 use closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers. For the facilities located on the 6 Oconee Station site, make-up water would be obtained from Lake Keowee (Duke Energy 2021-7 TN8897). Nuclear power plants using closed-cycle cooling systems with cooling towers 8 withdraw substantially less water for condenser cooling than a thermoelectric power plant using 9 a once-through system. However, the relative percentage of consumptive water use is greater in 10 closed-cycle nuclear power plants because of evaporative and drift losses during cooling tower 11 operation (NRC 2013-TN2654). Surface water withdrawals would be subject to the South 12 Carolina surface water withdrawal permitting and registration regulations (SCR 61-119, 13 TN9007).
| |
| | |
| 14 In addition, closed-cycle cooling systems typically require chemical treatment, such as biocide 15 injections to control biofouling (NRC 2013-TN2654). Residual concentrations of these chemical 16 additives would be present in the cooling tower blowdown discharged to receiving waters.
| |
| 17 However, chemical additions would be accounted for in the operation and permitting of liquid 18 effluents. All effluent discharges from the thermoelectric power generation components would 19 be subject to State-administered NPDES permit requirements for the discharge of wastewater 20 and industrial stormwater to State waters. NPDES permit conditions require the permit holder to 21 develop and implement an SWPPP and associated BMPs and procedures, which would help 22 reduce surface water quality impacts during facility operation.
| |
| | |
| 23 During operation of renewable energy facilities (i.e., solar PV farms and wind turbine 24 installations), only very small amounts of water normally would be needed by facility personnel 25 to periodically clean solar panels and turbine blades and motors, respectively, as part of routine 26 servicing. Some water also may be used for dust control. The NRC staff assumes that water 27 would be supplied from a municipal utility, onsite groundwater, or trucked to the point of use and 28 procured from nearby sources.
| |
| | |
| 29 Stormwater runoff from solar farm and wind turbine installations would normally be limited to 30 uncontaminated rainfall and snowmelt from facility surfaces, roads, and pad sites. The NRC 31 staff assumes that all renewable energy sites would be designed and constructed with 32 appropriate drainage and stormwater management controls to minimize offsite water quality 33 impacts in accordance with applicable State and local regulations.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.5.5.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 35 Construction
| |
| | |
| 36 Excavation dewatering for foundations and substructures during construction of replacement 37 power generation facilities, as applicable, may be required to stabilize slopes and permit 38 placement of foundations and substructures below the water table. Groundwater levels in the 39 immediate area surrounding an excavation may be temporarily affected, depending on the 40 duration of dewatering and the methods (e.g., cofferdams, sheet piling, sumps, and dewatering 41 wells) used for dewatering. The NRC staff expects that any impacts on groundwater flow and 42 quality caused by dewatering would be highly localized and short in duration and would cause 43 no effects on other groundwater users. Discharges resulting from dewatering operations would 44 be released in accordance with applicable State and local permits.
| |
| | |
| 3-58 1 Although foundations, substructures, and backfill may alter onsite groundwater flow patterns, 2 local and regional trends would remain unaffected. Construction of replacement power 3 generating facilities may contribute to onsite changes in groundwater infiltration and quality 4 due to removal of vegetation and construction of buildings, parking lots, and other impervious 5 surfaces. The potential impacts of increased runoff and subsurface pollutant infiltration or 6 discharge to nearby water bodies would be prevented or mitigated through implementation of 7 BMPs and an SWPPP.
| |
| | |
| 8 In addition to construction dewatering, onsite groundwater could be used to support construction 9 activities (e.g., dust abatement, soil compaction, and water for concrete batch plants).
| |
| 10 Groundwater withdrawal during construction could have a temporary impact on local water 11 tables or groundwater flow, and these withdrawals and resulting discharges would be subject to 12 applicable permitting requirements.
| |
| | |
| 13 Operation
| |
| | |
| 14 Dewatering for building foundations and substructures may be required during the operational 15 life of the replacement power facility. Operational dewatering rates, if required, are assumed to 16 be similar to the current dewatering rate for Oconee Station of less than 100 gpm and can be 17 managed subject to applicable permitting requirements. Dewatering discharges and treatment 18 would be properly managed in accordance with applicable NPDES permitting requirements.
| |
| 19 The NRC staff expects that any impacts on groundwater flow and quality affected by dewatering 20 at a rate of less than 100 gpm would be localized, and that there would be no effects on other 21 groundwater users due to their distance from the site location.
| |
| | |
| 22 Effluent discharges (e.g., cooling water, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater) from a facility are 23 subject to applicable Federal, State, and other permits specifying discharge standards and 24 monitoring requirements. Adherence by replacement power facility operators to proper 25 procedures during all material, chemical, and waste handling and conveyance activities would 26 reduce the potential for any releases to the environment, including releases to the subsurface 27 and groundwater.
| |
| | |
| 28 For replacement power alternatives, groundwater use during operation is assumed to be similar 29 to current nuclear power plant use, where a groundwater drawdown system and tritium plume 30 control abstracts less than 100 gpm. Onsite groundwater withdrawals would be subject to 31 applicable State water appropriation, permitting, and registration requirements. Site 32 groundwater use was determined by the NRC staff to have no impact on surrounding 33 groundwater use or quality, as described in Section 3.5.3.2. Therefore, the NRC staff 34 determined the groundwater use during operation of a replacement power alternative to 35 result in a SMALL impact.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.5.6 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 37 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 38 3.5.6.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 39 The hydrologic and water quality assumptions and implications for construction and operations 40 described in Section 3.5.5.1 as being common to all replacement power alternatives also apply 41 to this alternative. The impacts on surface water resources encompassing water quality and 42 water use from construction and operations associated with the new nuclear alternative would
| |
| | |
| 3-59 1 likely be similar to, but of overall greater magnitude than, those described and assumed to be 2 common to all alternatives in Section 3.5.5.1.
| |
| | |
| 3 For the ALWR component of this alternative, the NRC evaluated the impacts of construction and 4 operations on surface water use and water quality in its 2013 final EIS for the proposed 5 W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-2111) (NRC 2013-TN6435). As described in 6 NUREG-2111, the NRC staff concluded that the overall impacts would be SMALL. The NRC 7 staff found that the impact of construction and preconstruction on surface water would be of 8 limited duration, and peak water demands would represent a small portion of the available 9 water. The ALWR component could affect more than 3,000 ac (1,200 ha) of land. Regarding the 10 operational impacts of the ALWR, the staff determined in NUREG-2111 that consumptive water 11 use by Units 1 and 2 (i.e., 36 mgd [135 mLd]), through cooling-tower evaporation and drift, 12 would be only a small proportion of available flow in the make-up water body (i.e., Broad River).
| |
| 13 Additionally, the NRC staff determined that blowdown and other wastewater discharges from the 14 ALWR would represent a very small proportion of the receiving waters flow, and that all effluent 15 discharges would be subject to NPDES permitting.
| |
| | |
| 16 Construction-related impacts of the SMR component at Oconee Station would be similar but 17 smaller in comparison to those of the ALWR component because of the smaller size of the SMR 18 component that would need a smaller footprint and workforce. For operation of the SMR unit at 19 the Oconee Station site, the closed-cycle cooling system would withdraw approximately 20 13.3 mgd (50 mLd) of make-up water, with consumptive use of approximately 9.2 mgd 21 (35 mLd). This withdrawal would be a small fraction of the volume of water that Oconee Station 22 currently withdraws from Lake Keowee and less than Oconee Stations estimated consumptive 23 water use (see Section 3.5.1.2). In addition, the smaller volume of cooling water (primarily 24 cooling tower blowdown) returned to Lake Keowee would have a smaller thermal impact on 25 receiving waters than the current once-through cooling system. Based on these considerations, 26 the NRC staff concludes that the total impacts on surface water resources from construction and 27 operations under the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 28 3.5.6.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 29 The hydrologic and water quality assumptions and implications for construction and operations 30 described in Section 3.5.5.2 as being common to all replacement power alternatives also apply 31 to this alternative. The NRC staff did not identify any impacts on groundwater resources for this 32 alternative beyond those discussed above as being common to all replacement power 33 alternatives. In addition, the NRC staff recognizes that water demand could be decreased for 34 new nuclear alternatives. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater 35 resources from construction and operation of a new SMR nuclear power plant complex would 36 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 37 3.5.7 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 38 3.5.7.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 39 The hydrologic and water quality assumptions and implications for construction and operations 40 described in Section 3.5.5.1 as being common to all replacement power alternatives also apply 41 to this alternative. Additionally, a new gas pipeline would be required to connect the new gas-42 fired facility to existing service located approximately 21 mi (34 km) from Oconee Station.
| |
| 43 Pipeline construction would have the potential for additional hydrologic impacts. However, 44 water quality impacts would be minimized by the application of BMPs and by compliance with
| |
| | |
| 3-60 1 the State NPDES permitting requirements for construction activities and USACE Section 404 2 permits that would regulate construction of the pipeline in waterways and wetlands.
| |
| | |
| 3 Operation of a natural gas alternative using closed-cycle cooling would withdraw approximately 4 18 mgd (68 mLd) of water from Lake Keowee, with consumptive water use of approximately 5 14 mgd (53 mLd). These impacts would be significantly less than Oconee Stations current 6 average surface water withdrawals and associated consumptive use rates (see Section 3.5.1.2).
| |
| 7 In addition, the total volume of cooling water (blowdown) and comingled effluents discharged to 8 the lake would be significantly less than under the proposed action, although there would be 9 some differences in chemical constituents.
| |
| | |
| 10 Based on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes the overall impacts on surface water resources 11 from construction and operation under the natural gas alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.5.7.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 13 The hydrologic and water quality assumptions and implications for construction and operations 14 described in Section 3.5.5.2 as being common to all replacement power alternatives also apply 15 to this alternative. The NRC staff did not identify any impacts on groundwater resources for this 16 alternative beyond those discussed above as being common to all replacement power 17 alternatives. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater resources 18 from construction and operations under the natural gas combined cycle alternative would be 19 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 3.5.8 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 21 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 22 3.5.8.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 23 The hydrologic and water quality assumptions and implications for construction and operations 24 described in Section 3.5.5.1 as being common to all replacement power alternatives also apply 25 to this alternative, except as clarified below.
| |
| | |
| 26 For the new nuclear component (SMR) of this alternative, the overall construction and 27 operational impacts on surface water resources would be substantially less than those 28 described in Section 3.5.6.1 for the standalone new nuclear alternative, consisting of the 29 offsite ALWR and the onsite SMR components. However, the onsite SMR component of 30 this alternative would consist of three SMR units instead of one. As a result, the potential 31 construction and operational effects on surface water resources would be proportionally larger.
| |
| 32 Specifically, for operation of the SMR units at the Oconee Station site, the closed-cycle cooling 33 system would withdraw approximately 40 mgd (150 mLd) of make-up water, with consumptive 34 use of approximately 28 mgd (110 mLd). This withdrawal would still be a small fraction of the 35 volume of water that Oconee Station currently withdraws from Lake Keowee, and consumptive 36 water use would be similar to that of Oconee Stations current once-through cooling system 37 (see Section 3.5.1.2). Collectively, the discharge of effluents and cooling tower blowdown would 38 be substantially less under this alternative.
| |
| | |
| 39 Installation of utility-scale solar PV plants with battery storage would require the construction of 40 pad sites, access roads, and possibly transmission lines or substation improvements (i.e., for 41 sites that have no current access to transmission line or sufficient substation infrastructure), and 42 potentially would require the alteration of surface water drainages at numerous sites across
| |
| | |
| 3-61 1 Duke Energys service area, potentially affecting 10,000 ac (4,000 ha). As discussed in 2 Section 3.5.5.1 of this EIS, the NRC staff expects that all such construction activities would be 3 conducted in accordance with applicable permits and approvals requiring the implementation of 4 BMPs and procedures to minimize hydrologic and water quality impacts. Completed solar PV 5 plants would have little to no operational impacts on water resources.
| |
| | |
| 6 Construction of offshore wind turbine generator (WTG) facilities, including support infrastructure 7 would disturb and erode marine sediments and temporarily deteriorate water quality in the 8 marine environment over an area of some 6,300 ac (2,500 ha) during pile driving, cable laying, 9 and positioning of construction vessels and vessel anchors. The area of marine environment 10 that would be permanently disturbed would total approximately 66 ac (26 ha). The potential also 11 exists for the discharge of petroleum, oil, and lubricants to marine waters from construction 12 equipment and vessels (BOEM 2015-TN9066). The NRC staff expects that all marine 13 construction activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations governing 14 erosion control, oil spill prevention and response (i.e., 40 CFR Part 110-TN8485 and 40 CFR 15 Part 112-TN1041), and marine trash and debris plans and procedures, including U.S. Coast 16 Guard pollution prevention requirements regarding at-sea discharges (BOEM 2015-TN9066).
| |
| 17 Excavation work to emplace submarine cabling to interconnect the WTG installations and 18 connect the WTGs with onshore electric transmission and battery storage infrastructure would 19 result in additional land and seafloor disturbance.
| |
| | |
| 20 Once constructed, the area surrounding each WTG installation would be protected from further 21 erosion, scour, and current action by a pad of rock armor, 3 to 6 ft (1 to 2 m) thick and covering 22 an area of approximately 1 ac (0.4 ha) around each installation. The WTG facilities would likely 23 result in alteration of water currents, but the changes would be localized. To minimize the 24 potential for operational water quality impacts, the NRC staff presumes that each WTG 25 installation would be designed with built-in spill containment to retain any spills of oil or cooling 26 fluids (BOEM 2015-TN9066, BOEM 2018-TN8428).
| |
| | |
| 27 The operation of WTG installations would be unlikely to have any impacts on marine waters 28 because they are self-contained and do not produce discharges during normal operations 29 (BOEM 2018-TN8428).
| |
| | |
| 30 The NRC staff does not expect implementation of the demand-side management component of 31 this combination alternative to result in incremental impacts on surface water use and quality.
| |
| | |
| 32 Based on the cited information, as discussed above, the NRC staff concludes that the overall 33 impacts on surface water resources from construction and operation under the combination 34 alternative would range from SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.5.8.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 36 The hydrologic and water quality assumptions and implications for construction and operations 37 described in Section 3.5.5.2 as being common to all replacement power alternatives also apply 38 to this alternative. The NRC staff did not identify any impacts on groundwater resources for this 39 alternative beyond those discussed above as being common to all replacement power 40 alternatives. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on groundwater resources 41 from construction and operations under the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-62 1 3.6 Terrestrial Resources
| |
| | |
| 2 This section describes the terrestrial resources of the Oconee Station site and surrounding 3 landscape. After the description, the NRC staff analyzes potential impacts on terrestrial 4 resources from the proposed action (SLR) and alternatives to the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.6.1 Ecoregion
| |
| | |
| 6 Oconee Station lies within the Piedmont ecoregion (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: ER Section 7 3.7.2.2). The EPA describes the Piedmont ecoregion (Level III Ecoregion 45) as a transitional 8 area between mountainous ecoregions of the Appalachian Mountains to the northwest and the 9 relatively flat coastal plain to the southeast (Griffith et al. 2002-TN9270). Much of the region 10 near Oconee Station was cleared and converted for cotton production in the late 1800s but was 11 abandoned by the 1930s (NRC 1999-TN8942). Now, much of the forested portions of the region 12 are either second-growth forests of planted pine or successional pine and hardwood woodlands.
| |
| 13 Dominant conifers are various pine species, such as loblolly, shortleaf, and Virginia pines; and 14 common hardwoods include red and white oak, hickory, and tulip poplar (NRC 1999-TN8942).
| |
| | |
| 15 Duke Energys ER (TN8897: ER Section 3.7.2.2) includes descriptions of several regional 16 ecosystems in the landscape near the Oconee Station site, including the following:
| |
| 17
| |
| * Southern Piedmont Mesic Forest 18
| |
| * Southern Piedmont Dry Oak (Pine) Forest 19
| |
| * Southern Piedmont Cliff 20
| |
| * Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain and Riparian Forest
| |
| | |
| 21 The descriptions, presented in Duke Energys ER (TN8897: Appendix E, pp. 3-113 22 through 3-114) characterize the tree canopy, shrub, and herbaceous strata of each plant 23 community and are incorporated here by reference.
| |
| | |
| 24 The USACE defines wetlands as areas either inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 25 at a frequency and duration sufficient to supportand that under normal circumstances do 26 supporta prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
| |
| 27 Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR 328.3(c)(4))
| |
| 28 (TN1683). Duke Energy presents a map of wetland features in the landscape surrounding 29 Oconee Station in Figure 3.7-1 of the ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, pp. 3-158),
| |
| 30 which the NRC staff incorporates here by reference.
| |
| | |
| 31 Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory, Duke Energy 32 mapped and estimated that there are approximately 976 ac (395 ha) of wetlands in addition to 33 13,950 ac (5,645 ha) of lake surface within a 6 mi (10 km) radius of the Oconee Station site 34 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), which include the following:
| |
| 35
| |
| * freshwater emergent wetlands102 ac (41 ha) 36
| |
| * freshwater forested/shrub wetlands321 ac (130 ha) 37
| |
| * freshwater ponds102 ac (41 ha) 38
| |
| * lakes13,950 ac (5,645 ha) 39
| |
| * riverine waters450 ac (182 ha)
| |
| | |
| 3-63 1 3.6.2 Oconee Station Site
| |
| | |
| 2 The Oconee Station site lies in a forested valley with Lake Keowee, which was created 3 to provide cooling water for the nuclear power plant, occupying its northern boundary.
| |
| 4 Nearly 61 percent of the site is developed and consists of mostly generation and maintenance 5 facilities, laydown areas, parking, and mowed grass. Another 17.4 percent of the site is forested.
| |
| 6 Approximately 8 percent of the site is pasture/hay, and 6 percent is grassland/herbaceous.
| |
| 7 The remaining 0.9 percent of land is equal parts barren land, woody wetlands, and emergent 8 herbaceous wetlands. Plant communities include those typical in the southern Piedmont 9 dry oak-pine forest. This is a successional forest dominated by oak species, such as red and 10 white oaks (Quercus rubra, Q. alba. Respectively) and pines, such as the loblolly pine and 11 Virginia pine (Pinus taeda, P. virginiana, respectively) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 12 According to the National Wetlands Inventory, Oconee Station site boundaries include a total of 13 77 ac (31.2 ha) of wetlands, lakes, ponds, and riverine waters (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| 14 Table 3-5 identifies wetlands and surface water features on the Oconee Station site.
| |
| | |
| 15 Table 3-5 Wetlands and Surface Water Features on the Oconee Station Site
| |
| | |
| Wetland or Water Feature Area Percent of Onsite Wetland Habitat Freshwater emergent wetlands 12 ac (4.9 ha) 18%
| |
| Freshwater ponds 4 ac (1.6 ha) 6%
| |
| Lakes 48 ac (19.4 ha) 71%
| |
| Riverine waters 13 ac (5.3 ha) 5%
| |
| ac = acre(s); ha = hectare(s).
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 16 Figure 3-6 shows the location of National Wetlands Inventory wetlands on the Oconee Station 17 site.
| |
| | |
| 18 The wildlife species occurring at Oconee Station are representative of those typically found in 19 the southern Appalachian Mountains. Common mammals likely include the northern racoon 20 (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum 21 (Didelphis virginiana), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), skunk (Mephitis, 22 Spilogale putorius), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and eastern cottontail rabbit 23 (Sylvilagus floridanus). Table 3.7-4 in the Duke Energy ER presents a list of terrestrial wildlife 24 species likely to be observed in Oconee or Pickens Counties within a 6 mi (10 km) radius of the 25 Oconee Station site, and the NRC staff incorporates it here by reference (Duke Energy 2021-26 TN8897: Appendix E, pp. 3-145 through 3-157).
| |
| | |
| 27 The Oconee Station site offers bird habitats for year-round residents, seasonal residents, and 28 transients (birds stopping briefly during migration). Oconee Station is located within the Atlantic 29 flyway, a major migratory bird route that extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, including 30 along the East Coast of the United States. Migrant birds seek suitable habitats called stopovers 31 to feed, rest, and avoid predators. Lake Keowee and the surrounding area provide stopover 32 habitat for migrating birds, especially waterfowl (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3-64 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-6 National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands on the Oconee Station Site. Source:
| |
| 3 Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, Figure 3.7-2.
| |
| | |
| 3-65 1 3.6.3 Important Species and Habitats
| |
| | |
| 2 3.6.3.1 Federally Listed Species
| |
| | |
| 3 For a discussion of terrestrial species and habitats that are federally protected under the 4 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, see Section 3.8, Special Status Species and 5 Habitats, in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 6 3.6.3.2 State-Listed Species
| |
| | |
| 7 Duke Energy (TN8897) identified eight State-listed species known to occur or potentially occur 8 in Oconee or Pickens counties. Of these eight State-listed species, two species (the Indiana bat 9 and the bog turtle) are also federally listed as threatened or endangered. As explained in 10 Section 3.6.3.1 above, the NRC staff address federally listed species in Section 3.8 of this EIS.
| |
| 11 Table 3-6 below shows the six State-listed species for Oconee and Pickens counties that are 12 not also federally listed. These six State-listed species include three birds, two mammals (all 13 bats), and one reptile. The descriptions of the following State-listed species in Duke Energys 14 ER (TN8897: Appendix E, pp. 3-133 through-3-137) are incorporated here by reference.
| |
| | |
| 15 Table 3-6 State-Listed Species for Oconee or Pickens Counties, South Carolina, 16 Potentially Occurring in the Oconee Station Vicinity (That Are Not Also 17 Federally Listed)
| |
| Common Name Scientific Name Class State Legal Status American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum bird State-Threatened Bewicks Wren Thryomanes bewick bird State-Threatened Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus bird State-Threatened Eastern Small-Footed Myotis Myotis leibii mammal State-Threatened Rafinesques Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii mammal State-Endangered Southern Coal Skink Plestiodon anthracinus pluvialis reptile State-Threatened Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897
| |
| | |
| 18 The three State-listed bird species include the American peregrine falcon (Falco 19 peregrinus anatum), Bewicks wren (Thryomanes bewick), and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 20 leucocephalus). Potential habitat for all three birds exists in the vicinity of the Oconee Station 21 site. These three bird species, like most birds, are also protected under the Migratory Bird 22 Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. TN3331). In addition, the bald eagle is protected by the Bald 23 and Golden Eagle Protection Act (for more discussion of the bald eagle, see Section 3.6.3.3 in 24 this EIS). The American peregrine falcon was once widespread. Duke Energy maintains an 25 avian protection plan that addresses every avian incident. The plan includes employee and 26 contractor training, guidance for reducing avian interactions with nuclear power plant 27 infrastructure, procedures for responding to and required reporting of avian incidents to the 28 FWS, and associated corrective actions.
| |
| | |
| 29 The two State-listed mammal species are batsthe eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) 30 and Rafinesques big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). In 2015, a Duke Energy contractor 31 conducted acoustic bat surveys prior to timber removal and construction for an ISFSI 32 expansion. The survey was intended to determine whether the federally threatened northern 33 long-eared bat was present onsite. The survey identified five bat species occurring onsite, but 34 they did not include the northern long-eared bat or any of the two State-listed bat species. Bat 35 acoustic surveys conducted around Lake Keowee and Oconee Station by Duke Energy in 2012
| |
| | |
| 3-66 1 as part of an environmental assessment documented nine bat species, including two State-2 listed species: the eastern small-footed myotis, and Rafinesques big-eared bat. The eastern 3 small-footed myotis is a small bat, only about 3.5 in. (8.9 cm) long. Threats to this bat include 4 habitat destruction, disturbance of roosting and hibernation sites, and white-nose syndrome (a 5 fungal disease first documented in the United States in 2006 which has since killed millions of 6 bats). Rafinesques big-eared bat is a slightly larger species. Duke Energy protects summer 7 roosting habitat for the Rafinesques big-eared bat by protecting snag trees and mature 8 hardwood communities (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 9 The southern coal skink (Plestiodon anthracinus pluvialis) is a reptile that is State-listed as 10 threatened. The typical habitat is moist forests and riparian areas, and individuals are often 11 found under rocks and logs (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Appendix E, Section 3.7.8.2.6). Based 12 on 2012 surveys, the southern coal skink is known to occur in the region but not known to occur 13 onsite. However, potential habitat for the southern coal skink occurs on the Oconee Station site 14 and in the vicinity.
| |
| | |
| 15 3.6.3.3 Species Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
| |
| | |
| 16 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d et seq.-TN1447) extends 17 regulatory protections to the bald eagle and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The Act prohibits 18 anyone without a permit from the Secretary of the Interior from taking eagles, including their 19 parts, nests, or eggs. In addition, the bald eagle is protected under South Carolina State law as 20 a State-threatened species. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 21 conducts nesting season aerial flight surveys for eagle nests and makes the data public through 22 an online resource (SCDNR 2020-TN9272).
| |
| | |
| 23 Bald eagles nest throughout South Carolina, although most of them are found along the coast.
| |
| 24 The closest known active bald eagle nests are at a northern tributary of Lake Hartwell 25 approximately 14 mi (23 km) south of the Oconee Station site as well as the northern end of 26 Lake Jocassee approximately 17 mi (27 km) from Oconee Station. In addition, the Oconee 27 Station vicinity contains suitable bald eagle nesting habitat, and bald eagles are known to use 28 the area. However, bald eagles are not known to nest on the Oconee Station site. Duke Energy 29 expects to maintain compliance with all Federal and State requirements for protecting eagles 30 through its licensed life of Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 31 3.6.3.4 Species Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
| |
| | |
| 32 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, 33 transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the 34 parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to 35 Federal regulations.
| |
| | |
| 36 Several migratory birds that are species of conservation concern can occur within the vicinity of 37 Oconee Station. These migratory birds include the blue-winged warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera),
| |
| 38 Bachmans sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis), eastern whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus),
| |
| 39 Kentucky warbler (Geothlypis formosa), king rail (Rallus elegans), prairie warbler (Setophaga 40 discolor), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes 41 erythrocephalus), and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Duke 42 Energy monitors avian mortality at Oconee Station and reports incidents to the Duke Energy 43 migratory bird hotline (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: ER Section 3.7.7.2; Duke Energy 2018-44 TN9691). Duke Energy complies with regulatory requirements to conduct studies and 45 monitoringfor example, before land clearing and new construction.
| |
| | |
| 3-67 1 Duke Energy maintains a special purpose utility permit (MB000257-0) from the FWS to collect, 2 transport, and temporarily possess migratory birds (other than eagles or threatened or 3 engendered species) found dead on the property, structures, and ROWs (Duke Energy 2021-4 TN8897: ER Section 3.7.8.1.1). Oconee Station also has a migratory bird depredation permit 5 (MB48760D-0) from FWS authorizing the taking of black vultures and turkey vultures for 6 depredation control purposes.
| |
| | |
| 7 3.6.3.5 Invasive Species
| |
| | |
| 8 Invasive species are defined as alien species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause 9 economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health (Executive Order (EO) 13112, 10 Section 1(f)). EO 13112 (64 FR 6183-TN4477) directs Federal agencies to not authorize, fund, 11 or carry out actions likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species, 12 unless they determine that the benefits of the action clearly outweigh the harm from invasive 13 species, and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm are taken 14 (EO 13112, Section 2). Duke Energy maintains an herbicide/pesticide management plan to 15 combat invasive plant and insect species, and also uses mechanical removal methods, such 16 as mowing (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: ER Section 3.7.5).
| |
| | |
| 17 Duke Energy identified 10 important invasive terrestrial plant species and one important 18 invasive terrestrial animal species (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: ER Sections 3.7.5.3 and 19 3.7.5.4) as potential threats. These species are listed below, and their descriptions in the ER 20 are incorporated here by reference.
| |
| 21
| |
| * invasive terrestrial plant speciestrees: mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), princess tree 22 (Paulownia tomentosa), and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) 23
| |
| * invasive terrestrial plant speciesshrubs and forbs: Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
| |
| 24 Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese 25 honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), kudzu (Pueraria montana), Nepalese browntop 26 (Microstegium vimineum), and sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) 27
| |
| * invasive terrestrial animal species: emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), a serious forest 28 pest native to northeastern Asia. Adult insects lay eggs on ash trees, and when they hatch, 29 larvae bore into the tree to feed on phloem. When the infestation is large enough, the tree 30 dies.
| |
| | |
| 31 3.6.3.6 Important Habitats
| |
| | |
| 32 Important habitats include any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, preserves, or habitats identified by 33 State or Federal agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; wetlands and floodplains; 34 and land areas identified as being critical habitat for species listed by the FWS as threatened or 35 endangered.
| |
| | |
| 36 Important habitats on and surrounding the Oconee Station site include wetlands (discussed 37 above in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2) and the Keowee Wildlife Management Area.
| |
| | |
| 38 3.6.4 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 39 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 40 SLR on the environmental issues related to terrestrial resources in accordance with 41 Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 3-68 1 3.6.4.1 Effects on Terrestrial Resources (Non-cooling System Impacts)
| |
| | |
| 2 According to the LR GEIS, the impacts of non-cooling system activities on terrestrial resources 3 can include impacts that result from continued operation (e.g., site and landscape maintenance 4 activities, stormwater management, elevated noise levels, and other ongoing operations and 5 maintenance activities) as well as refurbishment activities that would occur during the license 6 renewal period on and near a nuclear power plant site. The NRC staff based its analysis in this 7 section on information from Duke Energys ER (TN8897), unless otherwise cited. Duke Energy 8 has not identified any refurbishment activities during the proposed subsequent relicensing term 9 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Therefore, no further analysis of potential impacts from 10 refurbishment activities is needed.
| |
| | |
| 11 In its ER, Duke Energy (TN8897) states that it would conduct ongoing operational and 12 maintenance activities at Oconee Station throughout the SLR term, including landscape 13 maintenance activities, stormwater management, piping installation, and fencing. The NRC staff 14 expects that physical disturbance would be limited to paved or disturbed areas or to areas of 15 mowed grass or early successional vegetation and would not encroach into wetlands or 16 remaining areas of mixed forest. The NRC staff concludes that the anticipated continued 17 operation activities would have only minimal effects on terrestrial resources based upon the 18 information presented in the applicants ER and the staffs independent analysis. Duke Energy 19 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) states that it has administrative controls in place at Oconee 20 Station to ensure that it reviews operational changes or construction activities and minimizes 21 environmental impacts through best management practices (BMPs), permit modifications, or 22 new permits, as needed. Duke Energy (TN8897) further states that regulatory programs for 23 issues like stormwater management, spill prevention, dredging, and herbicides further minimize 24 impacts on terrestrial resources (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The NRC staff concludes that 25 continued adherence to environmental management practices and BMPs already established 26 for Oconee Station would continue to protect terrestrial resources during the SLR period.
| |
| | |
| 27 The NRC staff presumes that Duke Energy would continue to comply with applicable 28 requirements of the State of South Carolinas regulatory programs. Furthermore, the staff 29 presumes that if appropriate, Duke Energy would obtain required incidental take permits for 30 impacts on bald eagles, black vultures, turkey vultures, or other protected bird species such 31 as migratory birds.
| |
| | |
| 32 Operational noise from Oconee Station facilities extends into the remaining natural areas on the 33 site. However, Oconee Station has exposed these habitats to similar operational noise levels 34 since it began construction approximately 55 years ago. The NRC staff therefore expects that 35 wildlife in the affected habitats have long ago acclimated to the noise and human activity of 36 Oconee Station operations and adjusted behavior patterns accordingly. Extending the same 37 level of operational noise levels during the 20-year SLR period is therefore unlikely to noticeably 38 change the patterns of wildlife movement and habitat use.
| |
| | |
| 39 Based on its independent review, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of continued 40 operation (e.g., landscape maintenance, stormwater management, elevated noise levels, and 41 other ongoing operations and maintenance activities that Duke Energy might undertake) during 42 the subsequent license renewal term would primarily be confined to already disturbed areas of 43 the Oconee Station site. These activities would neither have noticeable effects on terrestrial 44 resources nor would they destabilize any important attribute of the terrestrial resources on or in 45 the vicinity of the site. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on terrestrial resources 46 from non-cooling system activities during the subsequent license renewal term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-69 1 3.6.4.2 Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides
| |
| | |
| 2 This issue concerns the potential impacts on terrestrial organisms from exposure to 3 radionuclides from routine radiological effluent releases. The NRC staff will first summarize how 4 this issue has been addressed historically, and then provide a site-specific evaluation of the 5 issue for the Oconee Station SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 6 Radionuclides may be released from nuclear power plants into the environment through several 7 pathways. During normal operations, nuclear power plants can release gaseous emissions that 8 deposit small amounts of radioactive particulates in the surrounding environment. Gaseous 9 emissions typically include krypton, xenon, and argon (which may or may not be radioactive),
| |
| 10 tritium, isotopes of iodine, and cesium. Emissions also may include strontium, cobalt, and 11 chromium. Radionuclides may also be released into water as liquid effluents. Terrestrial plant 12 roots can absorb radionuclides that enter shallow groundwater or surface waters. Animals may 13 experience exposure to ionizing radiation through inhalation, direct contact (with air, water, or 14 other media), inhalation, or ingestion (of contaminated food, water, or soil).
| |
| | |
| 15 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) did not address this issue of the exposure of terrestrial 16 organisms to radionuclides released from routine plant operations during license renewal. In 17 2007, the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) issued revised 18 recommendations for a system of protection to control exposure from radiation sources (ICRP 19 2007-TN422). The recommendations included a section about the protection of the environment 20 in which the ICRP found that a clearer framework for assessing non-human organisms was 21 warranted. The ICRP indicated that it would develop a set of reference animals and plants as 22 the basis for relating exposure to dose, and dose to radiation effects. This information would 23 then provide a basis from which agencies and responsible organizations could make policy and 24 management decisions. Subsequently, the ICRP developed and published a set of 12 reference 25 animals and plants including a large and a small terrestrial mammal, an aquatic bird, a large and 26 a small terrestrial plant, and several other species (ICRP 2008-TN7530, ICRP 2009-TN7531).
| |
| 27 The ICRP also issues publications and information related to radiological effects and 28 radiosensitivity in non-human biota (Adam-Guillermin et al. 2018-TN7972).
| |
| | |
| 29 In 2009, after the NRC staff conducted a review of the ICRPs 2007 recommendations, the 30 Commission found that there was no evidence that the NRCs current (as of 2009) set of 31 radiation protection controls was not protective of the environment (NRC 2009-TN6651).
| |
| 32 For this reason, the Commission determined that the NRC staff should not develop separate 33 radiation protection regulations for plant and animal species (NRC 2009-TN6651). The 34 Commission charged the NRC staff with continuing to monitor international developments 35 on this issue and to keep the Commission informed. Nonetheless, the NRC addressed the 36 radiological exposure of non-human organisms in the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) 37 due to public concern about these impacts at some nuclear power plants.
| |
| | |
| 38 In the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC staff adopted the DOE standard for a 39 graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota (DOE 2019-40 TN6817). This DOE standard provides methods, models, and guidance that can be used to 41 characterize radiation doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota exposed to radioactive material 42 (DOE 2019-TN6817). The following DOE guidance dose rates are the levels below which no 43 adverse effects to resident populations are expected:
| |
| 44
| |
| * riparian animal: 0.1 radiation-absorbed dose per day (rad/day) (0.001 Gray per day 45 (Gy/day))
| |
| | |
| 3-70 1
| |
| * terrestrial animal: 0.1 rad/day (0.001 Gy/day) 2
| |
| * terrestrial plant: 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) 3
| |
| * aquatic animal: 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day)
| |
| | |
| 4 The NRC staff notes that in 1992, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992-TN712) 5 had concluded that chronic dose rates of 0.1 rad/day (0.001 Gy/day) or less do not appear to 6 cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. The United Nations Scientific 7 Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded in 1996 and reaffirmed in 2008 that 8 chronic dose rates of less than 0.1 mGy/hr (0.24 rad/day or 0.0024 Gy/day) to the most highly 9 exposed individuals would be unlikely to have significant effects on most terrestrial communities 10 (UNSCEAR 2010-TN7974).
| |
| | |
| 11 In the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC estimated the total radiological dose that 12 four non-human receptors (riparian animal, terrestrial animal, terrestrial plant, and aquatic 13 animal) would be expected to receive during normal nuclear power plant operations based on 14 plant-specific radionuclide concentrations in water, sediment, and soils at 15 operating nuclear 15 power plants. The NRC found that total calculated dose rates for all terrestrial receptors at all 16 15 plants were significantly less than the DOE guideline values. As a result, the NRC 17 anticipated in the 2013 LR GEIS that normal operations of these facilities would not result in 18 negative effects on terrestrial organisms from radionuclide release. The 2013 LR GEIS 19 concluded that the impact of radionuclides on terrestrial biota from past operations would be 20 SMALL for all nuclear plants and would not be expected to change appreciably during the initial 21 license renewal period.
| |
| | |
| 22 In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes the impact of radionuclides on terrestrial 23 organisms on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI 24 02 and CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8182, NRC 2022-TN8272).
| |
| | |
| 25 As discussed in Section 2.1.4 of this EIS, the NRC requires nuclear power plants to maintain a 26 radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) in accordance with NRC regulations at 27 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (TN249); 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283); and 10 CFR Part 72 (TN4884);
| |
| 28 through plant-specific technical specifications; and through the guidance in Regulatory Guide 29 4.1 (NRC 2009-TN3802). These regulations collectively require that licensees establish and 30 implement a REMP to obtain data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive material.
| |
| 31 REMP monitoring ensures that radiation is below regulatory limits and any changes are 32 detected and addressed.
| |
| | |
| 33 Duke Energys REMP measures the terrestrial, aquatic, and atmospheric environment for 34 ambient radiation and radioactivity. Duke Energy conducts monitoring for the following: direct 35 radiation, air, precipitation, well water, river water, surface water, milk, food products and 36 vegetation (such as edible broad leaf vegetation), fish, silt, and shoreline sediment. The REMP 37 also measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring 38 radioactive material, including radon. As part of its environmental review, the NRC staff 39 reviewed the past 5 years of Oconee REMP reports (Duke Energy 2017-TN9157, TN9158, 40 TN9159, TN9160, TN9160), assuming that a 5-year period provides adequate coverage to 41 evaluate a broad range of Oconee Station operational and maintenance activities that could 42 influence the generation and release of radionuclides. The NRC staff looked for indications of 43 adverse trends (i.e., increasing radioactivity levels) over the REMP review period.
| |
| | |
| 44 As discussed in Section 2.1.4 of this EIS, over the 5-year REMP review period, NRC staff found 45 no apparent increasing trend in concentration or pattern indicating either a new inadvertent
| |
| | |
| 3-71 1 release or persistently high tritium or other radionuclide concentration indicating a potential 2 ongoing inadvertent release from Oconee Station. The groundwater monitoring program data at 3 Oconee Station showed that Duke Energy monitors, characterizes, and actively remediates 4 spills, and that there were no significant radiological impacts to the environment from operations 5 at Oconee Station over the 5-year period.
| |
| | |
| 6 Oconee Station operations during the SLR term would continue current operating conditions, 7 site management controls, and environmental stressors rather than introduce entirely new 8 impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR term operations on radionuclide 9 exposure to terrestrial organisms would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of 10 radionuclide exposure would likely be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 11 any important attribute of this resource during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the 12 impacts of radionuclides on terrestrial organisms during the Oconee Station SLR term would be 13 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 14 3.6.4.3 Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Once-Through 15 Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)
| |
| | |
| 16 This issue concerns the potential impacts of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds at 17 nuclear power plants on terrestrial resources. Cooling system operation can alter the ecological 18 environment in a manner that affects terrestrial resources. Such alterations may include thermal 19 effluent additions to receiving water bodies, chemical effluent additions to surface water or 20 groundwater, impingement of waterfowl, disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands 21 associated with maintenance dredging, disposal of dredged material, and erosion of shoreline 22 habitat. In the following discussion, the NRC staff summarizes the manner in which this issue 23 has been addressed historically, and then presents a site-specific evaluation of the issue for 24 Oconee Station SLR.
| |
| | |
| 25 The 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) summarizes that many of the effects of cooling system 26 operations on terrestrial resources have only been identified at a small number of nuclear power 27 plants, and these plants have since modified their operations to reduce or eliminate the effects.
| |
| 28 For instance, in a study of eight nuclear power plants with copper alloys in their cooling 29 systems, elevated concentrations of copper were discharged into the cooling systems from 30 condenser tubing. At one plant, copper released from the cooling system increased deformities 31 and reduced reproductive capacity in the resident bluegill sunfish population 32 (Lepomis macrochirus) (Harrison 1985-TN7579); At another plant, abalone (Haliotis species) 33 mortality was attributed to copper exposure in plant effluents (NRC 1996-TN288). Terrestrial 34 wildlife such as migratory birds that feed on these aquatic organisms also could have been 35 exposed to elevated copper levels and could have also experienced adverse effects. However, 36 these eight nuclear power plants subsequently replaced their copper alloy condenser tubes with 37 tubes made of different materials (e.g., titanium), which eliminated these impacts. This issue 38 has not since been reported at any other nuclear power plants.
| |
| | |
| 39 In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes the effects of cooling system operations on 40 terrestrial resources on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance 41 with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8182, NRC 2022-TN8272).
| |
| | |
| 42 Duke Energys NPDES permit SC0000515, issued by the SCDHEC, authorizes discharge of 43 non-contact cooling water, stormwater, and other operations-related waters to Lake Keowee 44 and the Keowee River from Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). This permit is 45 administratively extended; the renewal application was submitted and received in 2013. Duke
| |
| | |
| 3-72 1 Energy reports no cooling discharge impacts in violation of the Oconee Station NPDES permit 2 over the last 5 years regarding water temperature or water availability in discharge. Duke 3 Energy reports two violations regarding contaminants (oil and grease) over the last 5 years: one 4 in 2017 and one in 2020. SCDHEC later rescinded the 2017 violation, finding that the 5 exceedance event did not result from a release by NPDES Outfall 007. In 2020, the SCDHEC 6 issued a notice of violation for oil and grease exceedance for Outfall 002. Duke Energy 7 investigated the site for contributing issues or conditions, found none, and collected four 8 additional follow-up samples. The follow-up samples were below detectable limits, and the 9 SCDHEC required no additional actions.
| |
| | |
| 10 Between 2014 and 2022, none of the recorded bird deaths and injuries at Oconee Station were 11 attributed to impingement on intake screens (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The intake structure 12 does not have features that would encourage birds to forage at the intake structures, which 13 would increase risk for impingement. Intake screens are routinely maintained to remove debris 14 and biofouling, reducing the likelihood of attracting birds to forage. At Oconee Station, Duke 15 Energy uses BMPs to protect wetlands and streams from stormwater runoff and erosion (Duke 16 Energy 2021-TN8897). Development, construction, and erosion control measures along the 17 Lake Keowee shoreline are subject to requirements defined in the Shoreline Management Plan 18 for the Keowee-Toxaway Project (Duke Energy 2014-TN9131). No wetlands or riparian habitats 19 are present near the Oconee Station intake and discharge structures. Duke Energy does not 20 periodically dredge Lake Keowee (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899: Appendix E, Supplement 2, 21 Section 4.5.13.2), and no dredging is anticipated during the SLR term. If any dredging needs 22 arise, Duke Energy would obtain applicable Federal and State permits.
| |
| | |
| 23 Duke Energy has not identified any construction or change in cooling system operations during 24 the SLR period. Therefore, the impacts of continued cooling system operations at Oconee 25 Station would be similar to current operational impacts. The NRC staff concludes that the 26 potential for cooling system impacts on terrestrial organisms during the Oconee Station SLR 27 term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 28 3.6.4.4 Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission Lines
| |
| | |
| 29 Bird collisions and the potential for bird mortality are associated with tall structures such as 30 cooling towers, transmission structures, meteorological towers, and other nuclear power plant 31 infrastructure. Bird mortality is of concern if the resulting reduction in population numbers 32 threatens the stability of the species or significantly impairs its function within the ecosystem. In 33 the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC staff found that the available data on bird collision 34 mortality associated with nuclear power plant cooling towers and other structures suggest that 35 the number of bird mortality collisions at nuclear power plants is small and they primarily occur 36 during the spring and fall migration of songbirds at night. In the following discussion, the NRC 37 staff analyzes the impact of bird collisions on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR 38 term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8182, NRC 2022-TN8272).
| |
| | |
| 39 In its environmental report, Duke Energy states that it plans no new construction of tall 40 structures, such as buildings or transmission lines, during the Oconee Station SLR term.
| |
| 41 Therefore, this site-specific analysis addresses potential impacts of bird collisions with existing 42 Oconee structures and transmission lines during the SLR term. Duke Energys ER describes 43 existing buildings, structures, and meteorological towers (Section 2.2.1-2.2.4), in-scope 44 transmission lines (Section 2.2.5), and provides a map of the Oconee Station plant layout 45 (Figure 3.1-1) and location of in-scope transmission lines (Figure 2.2-4). According to the ER 46 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, Section 3.2.3), the tallest structures on the Oconee
| |
| | |
| 3-73 1 Station site are the reactor containment buildings, which are 191 ft (58.2 m) tall. The two 2 meteorological towers are 60 m (197 ft) and 10 m (33 ft) tall, respectively. In-scope transmission 3 lines are those that connect the Oconee Station turbine building to the 230 kV and the 525 kV 4 switchyards.
| |
| | |
| 5 Duke Energys corporate avian protection plan adheres to the Avian Power Line Interaction 6 Committee and FWS guidelines regarding electricity and birds (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, 7 Appendix E, Section 2.2.5.3). In addition, Duke Energys avian protection plan provides 8 construction design standards for avian-safe structures, mortality reporting to FWS and State 9 agencies, and mortality reduction measures. Between 2014 and 2022, 35 avian deaths occurred 10 at Oconee Station. Most were caused by collisions (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). This low 11 number over 9 years suggests avian mortality at Oconee Station is generally low and does not 12 have the potential to adversely affect bird species at the population or ecological level.
| |
| | |
| 13 The Oconee Station SLR would extend current operating conditions and environmental 14 stressors on birds for 20 additional years rather than introduce new conditions and stressors.
| |
| 15 Because bird collision rates at Oconee Station are generally low under current operating 16 conditions, it stands to reason that bird collision rates will also be low during the SLR term.
| |
| 17 Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR on bird collisions would be similar. For 18 these reasons, the effects of bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines would 19 be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of bird 20 populations during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of bird collisions 21 with plant structures or transmission lines during the Oconee Station SLR term would be 22 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 23 3.6.4.5 Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management Impacts on Terrestrial 24 Resources
| |
| | |
| 25 This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on terrestrial plants and 26 animals. Utilities maintain transmission line ROWs so that the ground cover is composed of 27 low-growing herbaceous or shrubby vegetation and grasses. Generally, ROWs are initially 28 established by clear-cutting during transmission line construction and are subsequently 29 maintained by physical (e.g., mowing and cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicides or pesticides) 30 means. These activities alter the composition and diversity of plant communities and generally 31 result in lower-quality habitat for wildlife. Heavy equipment used for ROW maintenance can 32 crush vegetation and compact soils, which can affect soil quality and reduce infiltration to 33 shallow groundwater. This is especially of concern in sensitive habitats, such as wetlands.
| |
| 34 Chemical herbicides can be transported to neighboring undisturbed habitats through 35 precipitation and runoff. Disturbed habitats often favor non-native or nuisance species and can 36 lead to their proliferation. Noise and general human disturbance during ROW management can 37 temporarily disturb wildlife and affect their behaviors, and the presence of ROWs can favor 38 wildlife species that prefer edge or early successional habitats.
| |
| | |
| 39 Both the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) 40 concluded that the impacts of transmission line ROW management on terrestrial resources 41 would be SMALL during the initial license renewal term. In the 1999 Oconee Station LR 42 Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff found no new and significant information 43 concerning this issue and adopted the 1996 LR GEISs conclusion of SMALL impacts.
| |
| | |
| 3-74 1 In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific basis for the 2 Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8182, 3 NRC 2022-TN8272).
| |
| | |
| 4 Duke Energy proposes no additional transmission line expansion or construction under the 5 proposed action. Therefore, during the SLR term, in-scope transmission line ROWs would be 6 the same as the current ROWs that connect the Oconee Station turbine building to the 230 kV 7 and the 525 kV switchyards (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, Section 2.2.5.1, 8 Figure 2.2-4). In-scope transmission lines cross the Oconee Station industrial area, where 9 impervious surfaces and sparse vegetation require minimal vegetation management.
| |
| 10 Mechanical mowing and selective herbicide applications are the main methods for ROW 11 vegetation management. Duke Energy maintains a herbicide/pesticide management plan to 12 combat invasive plant and insect species (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). In-scope transmission 13 lines do not cross any designated critical habitat (see Section 3.8 of this report) or important 14 terrestrial habitats (see Section 3.6.3 of this report).
| |
| | |
| 15 During the SLR term, Duke Energy would continue to maintain onsite transmission line ROWs 16 in accordance with North American Electric Reliability Corporation standards (NERC 2023-17 TN9156). SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather 18 than introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR on 19 transmission ROW maintenance impacts on terrestrial resources would be similar. For these 20 reasons, the effects of transmission ROW maintenance impacts would be minor and would 21 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of this resource during the SLR 22 term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of transmission line ROW maintenance on 23 terrestrial resources during the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 24 3.6.4.6 Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna (Plants, Agricultural Crops, Honeybees, 25 Wildlife, Livestock)
| |
| | |
| 26 This issue concerns the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on terrestrial plants and 27 animals, including agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, and livestock. Operating transmission 28 lines, such as those at nuclear power plants, produce electric and magnetic fields, collectively 29 referred to as EMFs. EMF strength at the ground level varies greatly but is generally stronger 30 for higher-voltage lines. Corona is the electrical discharge occurring in air from EMFs; it can be 31 detected adjacent to phase conductors. Corona generally is not an issue for transmission lines 32 of 345 kV or less. Corona results in audible noise, radio and television interference, energy 33 losses, and ozone and nitrogen oxide production. For the purpose of license renewal, in-scope 34 transmission lines include lines that connect the plant to the first substation that feeds into the 35 regional power distribution system. The first substation usually (but not always) is on plant 36 property.
| |
| | |
| 37 In the LR GEIS (2013-TN2654), the NRC staff found that, with the exception of honeybee hives, 38 terrestrial biota located under and near the in-scope transmission lines do not experience 39 biologically or economically (in the case of agriculture) significant adverse effects from EMFs 40 during license renewal. Plant foliage and buds can sustain minor damage that reduces upward 41 and outward growth, but the damage does not interfere with overall plant growth or the health of 42 the lower parts of the plant (Miller 1983-TN1328). Studies on crop plants grown in electric fields 43 have shown either no effect or small reductions in germination or yield (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| 44 The generation of EMF from operating transmission lines is generally stronger from voltage 45 lines greater than 345 kV. However, even operating at up to 1,100 kV, there have been no 46 studies reporting significant ecological impacts from EMF generated by transmission lines (with
| |
| | |
| 3-75 1 the potential exception of honeybees in hives under transmission lines). Adverse effects to 2 honeybee hives under transmission lines include reduced growth, greater irritability, increased 3 production of propolis (a resin compound used as a sealant), and increased mortality. These 4 adverse effects can be reduced by shielding hives with a grounded metal screen or moving 5 hives so that they are no longer near transmission lines.
| |
| | |
| 6 In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes the issue of EMF on a site-specific basis for 7 the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-8 TN8182, NRC 2022-TN8272). As stated in the previous section, Duke Energy will not build 9 additional transmission lines under the proposed action of subsequent license renewal.
| |
| 10 Therefore, during the SLR term, the in-scope transmission lines would be the same as those 11 that currently connect the Oconee Station turbine building to the 230 kV and the 525 kV 12 switchyards (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, Section 2.2.5.1, Figure 2.2-4). The 13 existing transmission line ROWs mostly cross impervious paved surfaces or cleared land with 14 sparse vegetation; they do not cross agricultural fields, pastures, or other habitats important for 15 native wildlife or livestock. Therefore, simply because of the current route of the transmission 16 line ROW, during the SLR term, the EMF exposure of most terrestrial flora and fauna at Oconee 17 Station would be minimal and incidental. In the spring of 2022, Duke Energy staff discovered a 18 swarm of honeybees on the Power Circuit Breaker 54 in the 525-kV switchyard. As discussed in 19 the previous paragraph, honeybees are the only terrestrial species shown to experience 20 significant effects from EMF exposure. Duke Energy staff notified Nuclear Environmental Field 21 Support of the honeybee discovery (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Nuclear Environmental Field 22 Support contacted a qualified beekeeper, who relocated the swarm offsite to a beekeeper farm.
| |
| 23 Considering the relocation of the honeybee hive and the mostly paved area under the 24 transmission line ROW, the potential for EMF impacts on terrestrial resources during the SLR 25 term is not likely to be noticeable. In addition, any terrestrial plants or animals in the vicinity of 26 operating in-scope transmission lines are most likely already habituated to the existing EMF 27 exposure.
| |
| | |
| 28 During the SLR term, Oconee Station would continue current operating conditions, site 29 management controls, and environmental stressors rather than introduce entirely new impacts.
| |
| 30 Therefore, the EMF impacts of operations during the SLR period on terrestrial resources would 31 be similar to current impacts. For these reasons, the effects of EMF would be minor and would 32 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of this resource during the SLR 33 term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of EMF on terrestrial resources during the 34 Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.6.5 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 36 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue a subsequent renewed license, and 37 Oconee Station would shut down on or before the expiration of the current facility operating 38 licenses. Much of the operational noise and human activity at Oconee Station would cease, 39 thereby reducing disturbance to wildlife in forest cover and other natural vegetation on and near 40 the site. However, some continued maintenance of Oconee Station would still be necessary.
| |
| 41 Thus, some human activity, noise, and herbicide application would continue at the site with 42 possible impacts resembling, but perhaps of a lower magnitude than, those described for the 43 proposed action. Shutdown itself is unlikely to noticeably alter terrestrial resources. Reduced 44 human activity and frequency of operational noise may constitute minor beneficial effects on 45 wildlife inhabiting nearby natural habitats. The NRC staff therefore concludes that the impacts of 46 the no-action alternative on terrestrial resources during the proposed SLR term would be 47 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-76 1 3.6.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 2 Each of the replacement power alternatives located onsite at Oconee Station could use two 3 available onsite parcels of land located south and east of the 525 kV switchyard. In addition, 4 the natural gas alternative could use an adjacent offsite parcel immediately south of highway 5 SC 183 also owned by Duke Energy. Additional land would likely be temporarily disturbed for 6 construction and laydown areas. If not already previously disturbed, the licensee could later 7 revegetate temporarily disturbed land. The natural gas alternative and the combination 8 alternative would also involve construction on developed or undeveloped lands outside the 9 vicinity of the Oconee Station site with indeterminate loss of offsite forest or wetlands.
| |
| | |
| 10 Loss of habitat and increased noise generation during construction and operation of the new 11 facilities could cause terrestrial wildlife to move into other habitats in the surrounding landscape, 12 increasing demands on those habitats and competing with other wildlife. Erosion and 13 sedimentation from clearing, leveling, and excavating land could affect adjacent riparian and 14 wetland habitats. However, implementation of appropriate BMPs and revegetation of temporarily 15 disturbed lands would minimize impacts.
| |
| | |
| 16 In the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC staff concluded that many of the terrestrial 17 impacts from the operation of nuclear power plants and fossil fuel-fired plants would be 18 essentially similar and include cooling tower salt drift, noise, bird collisions with nuclear power 19 plant structures and transmission lines, impacts associated with herbicide application and 20 landscape management, and potential water use conflicts associated with cooling water 21 withdrawals. A new SMR or natural gas replacement plant would add tall mechanical cooling 22 towers to the Oconee Station site, which currently does not have them. Adding mechanical 23 cooling towers to the site would increase the number of tall structures on the site (potentially 24 increasing the bird and bat collision risk) and could expose terrestrial habitats and wildlife to 25 cooling tower salt drift. Fossil fuel alternatives would also expose terrestrial habitats and wildlife 26 to air emissions of criteria pollutants.
| |
| | |
| 27 3.6.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 28 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 29 For the new nuclear alternative, the NRC staff assumes that Duke Energy would replace the 30 generating capacity of Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 with a combination of (1) two ALWRs at 31 the proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina, and (2) a single-32 unit SMR at the Oconee Station site.
| |
| | |
| 33 For the ALWR portion of the alternative, more than 3,000 ac (1,200 ha) of land would be 34 temporarily and permanently disturbed in three separate areas: (1) onsite at the proposed 35 W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, (2) at the cooling water make-up pond site (1,100 ac [450 ha]
| |
| 36 disturbed (1,047 ac [423.7 ha] permanently), and (3) in the transmission line corridors (990 ac 37 [400 ha] permanently disturbed) (NRC 2013-TN6435; Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Most of the 38 terrestrial impacts of the proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station would result from site preparation 39 and construction activities as opposed to operations (NRC 2013-TN6435). Onsite at the 40 proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, impacts on terrestrial resources would be mitigated by 41 the fact that much of the land there is low-quality habitat previously disturbed as the former 42 proposed Cherokee nuclear plant site. In contrast, construction of the transmission line corridors 43 would permanently disturb 690 ac (280 ha) of upland-forest habitat and 1.15 ac (0.47 ha) of 44 wetlands as well as further fragment forest communities. Site preparation and inundation for the 45 cooling water make-up pond would affect 545 ac (221 ha) of undisturbed forest and inundate
| |
| | |
| 3-77 1 seven significant natural areas, four noteworthy State ecological associations of concern, and 2 3.55 ac (1.4 ha) of wetlands. In the final EIS for the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station (NRC 2013-3 TN6435), the NRC staff concluded that the construction and preconstruction impacts on 4 terrestrial resources would be MODERATE, largely because of the transmission lines and 5 cooling water make-up pond.
| |
| | |
| 6 For the SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative, the NRC staff assumes the applicant would 7 build a single-unit SMR on 36 ac (15 ha) on the Oconee Station site. Duke Energy (TN8897) 8 identified more than 107 ac (43 ha) of previously developed and undeveloped land spread 9 across two parcels on the site available for siting a new nuclear replacement alternative. These 10 two parcels include 72 ac (29 ha) of land south of the Oconee Station 525 kV switchyard and 11 35 ac (14 ha) of land east of the switchyard. The 72 ac (29 ha) onsite parcel contains a large, 12 forested area to the west, and pasture/hay, grassland/herbaceous, and developed lands 13 (including the nuclear power plant entrance area and the steam generator retirement facility).
| |
| 14 The 35 ac (14 ha) onsite parcel is more open and contains a mix of forest, pasture/hay, 15 grassland/herbaceous, and developed land. Because only 36 ac (15 ha) are required to operate 16 the single-unit SMR and 107 ac (43 ha) are available, the site could be chosen to avoid forested 17 areas and reuse previously developed areas. The continued use of previously developed areas 18 would not significantly change the impact on terrestrial resources because the land use would 19 remain developed. Wildlife present in the available 107 ac (43 ha) would be concentrated in the 20 forested areas and include species typically found at Oconee Station and in similar habitats in 21 South Carolina. Clearing forested area would displace wildlife and some mortality would be 22 inevitable. However, before tree removal, Duke Energy states it would conduct wildlife surveys 23 to identify protected species and habitat and craft avoidance and minimization measures (Duke 24 Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 25 A review of Figure 3.7-2 of the ER shows a possible wetland area (i.e., freshwater pond) either 26 in or directly adjacent to the 72 ac (29 ha) parcel and a possible freshwater emergent wetland in 27 the 35 ac (14 ha) parcel (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). If Duke Energy is not able to avoid these 28 areas for construction, it would have to perform wetland delineations of affected lands and apply 29 for permits for any wetland fill from the USACE and the SCDNR. The NRC staff expects that 30 any Federal or State permits authorizing wetland impacts would require mitigation.
| |
| | |
| 31 The NRC staff recognizes that the affected land provides habitat for the terrestrial wildlife listed 32 in Section 3.6 of this EIS, and it is possible that some of the important State-listed or otherwise 33 protected species described in Section 3.6.3 may occur onsite. Construction noise could affect 34 wildlife in nearby forested areas and wetlands. Operational noise from the new cooling towers 35 could also affect wildlife.
| |
| | |
| 36 Because the new nuclear SMR facility on the Oconee Station site would use existing Oconee 37 Station transmission lines, the NRC staff expects no increased potential for wildlife injury by 38 transmission lines. However, the SMR will require adding new, tall structures to the landscape, 39 including mechanical draft cooling towers 65 ft (20 m) in height, and a power block 160 ft (50 m) 40 in height. These mechanical draft cooling towers could result in avian (bird) collisions. In 41 addition, bats, including bats of the federally and State-listed protected species noted in 42 Sections 3.6.3 and 3.8.1, could collide with the towers and die. However, the NRC staff expects 43 that bird and bat populations would eventually become accustomed to the presence of the 44 towers and avoid them. Once the new SMR is built, operational impacts on terrestrial resources 45 would likely remain as expected for the proposed action. The NRC staff concludes that the 46 impacts on terrestrial resources from the SMR portion of the new nuclear option would be 47 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-78 1 Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on terrestrial resources 2 from the new nuclear option of two ALWRs at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Power Station and one 3 SMR at Oconee Station would be MODERATE because of the ALWR portion of the alternative.
| |
| | |
| 4 3.6.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 5 The natural gas combined-cycle alternative assumes that Duke Energy would build a new 6 natural gas facility on the Oconee Station site on two available onsite land parcels and an 7 adjacent Duke Energy-owned property directly south across Highway SC 183. An additional 8 191 ac (77 ha) of offsite land would be required for a ROW to build a 21 mi (34 km) natural gas 9 pipeline to Centerville, South Carolina. This impact would be partially offset by the elimination of 10 land used for uranium mining to supply fuel to Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 11 The NRC staff assumes the natural gas facility would require 130 ac (53 ha) of land.
| |
| 12 Duke Energy (TN8897) identified more than 107 ac (43 ha) of previously developed and 13 undeveloped land spread across two parcels on the site available for siting a natural gas 14 replacement alternative. These two parcels include 72 ac (29 ha) of land south of the Oconee 15 Station 525 kV switchyard and 35 ac (14 ha) of land east of the switchyard. For the remaining 16 land needed, the applicant could use a 28 ac (11 ha) parcel of Duke Energy-owned land directly 17 south across SC 183. The 35 ac (14 ha) parcel east of the switchyard is more cleared and 18 contains a mix of grassland and pasture areas, developed areas, smaller areas of forest, and 19 possibly some wetland along the northern end of the parcel. The 72 ac (29 ha) parcel south of 20 the switchyard contains a large area of deciduous and mixed forest at the western end as well 21 as a mix of grassland, pasture, cleared areas, and developed areas (Duke Energy 2021-22 TN8897: Appendix E, Figure 3.2-1). The continued use of developed areas would not 23 significantly change the impact on terrestrial resources. Wildlife present in the onsite land would 24 be concentrated in the forested areas and would include species typically found at Oconee 25 Station and in similar habitats in South Carolina. Clearing forested area would displace wildlife.
| |
| 26 While some wildlife could disperse to adjacent undisturbed habitats, such as the undisturbed 27 forest across SC 183, some mortality would be inevitable. However, before tree removal, Duke 28 Energy states it would conduct wildlife surveys to identify protected species and habitat, and 29 craft avoidance and minimization measures (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 30 Greater terrestrial impacts would result from clearing and construction in the 28 ac (11 ha) 31 Duke Energy-owned parcel directly south of the Oconee Station site across SC 183. Unlike the 32 onsite Oconee Station parcels, the third parcel area has not been part of an industrial site. It is 33 largely forested and contains previously undisturbed habitat. However, Duke Energy stated that 34 it could avoid higher-quality wildlife habitat of hardwood and mixed hardwood forests. In the final 35 EIS for the W.S. Lee Nuclear Power Station, the NRC staff reviewed the environmental impacts 36 of constructing two nuclear units at what is called the Keowee site, as an alternative. The 37 Keowee site includes the Duke Energy-owned 450 ac (180 ha) area adjacent to Oconee Station 38 of which this 28 ac (11 ha) parcel is a small part. In the final EIS for W.S. Lee Nuclear Station 39 (NRC 2013-TN6435), the NRC staff determined the impacts on terrestrial resources from 40 constructing two nuclear units on the 450 ac (180 ha) Duke Energy-owned Keowee site would 41 be MODERATE. However, the area of land disturbed for the Oconee Stations natural gas 42 alternative would be much smaller than the area of land disturbed for the W.S. Lee Nuclear 43 Station two nuclear unit alternative. For the Oconee Station natural gas alternative, most 44 disturbed land would be in the previous industrial Oconee Station site with only 28 ac (11 ha) 45 in the adjacent undisturbed area.
| |
| | |
| 3-79 1 The construction of the 191 ac (77 ha) ROW and 21 mi (34 km) natural gas pipeline would have 2 a greater effect on the terrestrial resources in and near the ROW. Once the pipeline route is 3 chosen, Duke Energy would have to perform wetland delineations of affected lands and apply 4 for permits for any wetland fill from USACE and the SCDNR. Terrestrial species could 5 experience habitat loss or fragmentation, loss of food resources, and altered behavior due to 6 noise- and construction-related disturbances. Erosion and sedimentation from clearing and 7 excavating land to create the ROW and lay the pipeline could affect nearby riparian and wetland 8 habitats. The use of BMPs would minimize such effects.
| |
| | |
| 9 The LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654: pp. 4119) concludes that many of the impacts on terrestrial 10 resources from the operation of fossil-fuel energy alternatives would be essentially similar to 11 those from continued operation of the nuclear power plant. However, some impacts particular 12 to a natural gas plant would be from air emissions of GHGs, such as nitrogen oxide, CO2, and 13 methane. Such GHGs can lead to consequences like climate change. Section 3.14.3.1 in this 14 EIS discusses the effects of climate change on terrestrial resources. Despite these emissions, 15 operating the natural gas alternative power plant would not likely destabilize any important 16 attribute of the terrestrial environment.
| |
| | |
| 17 Because the natural gas facility would use existing Oconee Station transmission lines, the NRC 18 staff expects no increase in potential wildlife injury from transmission lines. However, the natural 19 gas plant would require adding new, tall structures to the landscape, including mechanical draft 20 cooling towers 70 ft (20 m) in height, and a power block 150 ft (46 m) in height. These could 21 result in avian (bird) collisions. In addition, bats, including bats of the State-listed protected 22 species noted in Section 3.6.3 of this EIS, could collide with the towers and die. However, the 23 NRC staff expects that bird and bat populations would eventually become accustomed to the 24 presence of the towers and avoid them. Once the natural gas facility is built, operational impacts 25 on terrestrial resources would likely remain as expected for the proposed action. Based on 26 the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on terrestrial resources from the 27 natural gas alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE, primarily because of the possible loss 28 and fragmentation of forested habitat and wetlands caused by the construction and 29 maintenance of a new natural gas pipeline and ROW.
| |
| | |
| 30 3.6.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 31 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 32 New Nuclear (Small Modular Reactor)
| |
| | |
| 33 The terrestrial impacts of the construction and operation of three SMRs as part of the 34 combination alternative would be similar to but greater than the terrestrial impacts described 35 above (in Section 3.6.7) for the single-unit SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative. The 36 operation of three SMRs would require a larger footprint of 110 ac (45 ha), but as with the 37 single-unit SMR, all construction and operation would be confined to the Oconee Station site.
| |
| 38 Wildlife and habitat would be temporarily or permanently disturbed during construction, 39 especially in forested areas. However, Duke Energy states that before removing any trees it 40 would conduct wildlife surveys, identify protected species and habitat, and use avoidance and 41 minimization measures. Construction of new tall structures at Oconee Stationnamely, a new 42 mechanical cooling tower and power blockwould result in increased avian (birds) and bat 43 collisions. Noise from the operation of the cooling tower could also disturb wildlife. Based on the 44 above information and the conclusion reached in the SMR portion of Section 3.6.7 of this EIS, 45 the NRC staff concludes that terrestrial impacts from construction and operation of three SMRs 46 as part of the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-80 1 Solar PV
| |
| | |
| 2 Impacts on terrestrial habitats and biota from the construction and operation of solar PV plants 3 would depend largely on the amount of land required and its location. The NRC staff estimates 4 that the solar PV portion of the alternative would require 9,600 ac (3,900 ha) of cleared land for 5 12 utility-scale solar PV plants in the Oconee Station ROI. If the lands chosen for the plants 6 were previously cleared and used for industrial activity, the impacts on terrestrial resources 7 would be less significant than if the lands were virgin forest containing important species and 8 habitats. Vegetation clearing and tree removal would displace wildlife to nearby habitats, but 9 some species would return at the end of construction when temporarily disturbed land is 10 restored. Once in operation, solar PV plants pose special hazards to birds through collisions 11 with PV equipment and transmission lines, electrocution by substation and distribution lines, and 12 predation when injured after collision (Hathcock 2019-TN8470). Another less understood cause 13 of bird collisions is known as the lake effect theory. Birds, especially migrating waterfowl and 14 shorebirds, perceive the horizontally polarized light of PV solar panels as bodies of water and 15 are injured or killed when they attempt to land on the panels as if they were water (Horvath et al.
| |
| 16 2009-TN897). Water-seeking insects can also collide with the panels for the same reasons. In 17 large enough numbers, such insect deaths may affect food webs. The Multiagency Avian-Solar 18 Collaborative Working Group is a collection of Federal and State agencies identifying 19 information needs and best practices for reducing the avian impacts of solar energy.
| |
| 20 Collaboration with government agencies on best practices in the construction and siting of the 21 solar installations can mitigate their impacts on birds. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts 22 on terrestrial resources would be MODERATE to LARGE because the solar PV plants require 23 large areas of land and clearing the land could result in the significant loss of wildlife, habitats, 24 and vegetation.
| |
| | |
| 25 Offshore Wind
| |
| | |
| 26 During construction of an offshore wind facility, terrestrial habitats and biota may be affected by 27 onshore activities, such as installation of interconnection cables, fiber-optic cables, and switch 28 cabinets, and construction of interconnection stations. Species may experience habitat loss 29 directly from excavation or indirectly from pollutants from drilling fluids. Wildlife could be 30 disturbed by drilling and other operational noise and human activity during the construction 31 period. In addition, the NRC staff assumes the offshore wind portion of the combination 32 alternative would connect to an onshore battery storage system requiring 60 ac (24 ha) of land.
| |
| 33 If the lands chosen for the battery storage system were previously cleared and used for 34 industrial activity, the impacts on terrestrial resources would be less significant than if the lands 35 were undeveloped and contained important species and habitats. Vegetation clearing and tree 36 removal would displace wildlife to nearby habitats, but some species would return at the end of 37 construction when temporarily disturbed land is restored. Regulations in the South Carolina, 38 North Carolina, and Virginia coastal zone management programs would mitigate effects on 39 sensitive coastal resources.
| |
| | |
| 40 During operations, offshore wind turbines can affect terrestrial resources largely through the 41 collision of bats and birds with rotating turbine blades. The NRC staff estimates that the 42 combination alternative would require 66 offshore wind turbines to generate the needed 43 replacement power. Concerning bat collisions, in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean, bat activity declines 44 after 12.4 mi (20 km) from shore (Sjollema et al. 2014-TN8472). The offshore wind turbines 45 would be placed in a BOEM-identified area 10 to 24 nautical miles off the coast. It is possible 46 that some migratory tree bats may pass through the turbine sites during migration. Compared to 47 bats, impacts on birds from the operations of offshore wind turbines are an issue of greater 48 concern.
| |
| | |
| 3-81 1 Avian mortality rates at onshore wind turbines have been extensively studied and are estimated 2 to amount to an average of 5.3 birds killed per turbine per year (Loss et al. 2013-TN8489).
| |
| 3 Avian mortality from offshore turbines is difficult to accurately quantify because downed 4 individuals sink or are swept away by the ocean where they cannot be easily collected and 5 counted. The Atlantic Flyway, a major migratory route for birds protected under the Migratory 6 Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), spans the Atlantic coast, including the BOEM-identified waters off the 7 North and South Carolina coasts. The MBTA makes it illegal to take any migratory bird (or parts, 8 nests, or eggs) except under a valid permit issued under Federal regulations. The utility would 9 likely need to commission avian impact studies and obtain a permit for take of MBTA-protected 10 bird species. In addition to direct bird mortality from collisions, offshore wind farms, in general, 11 can disrupt bird flight formations and create barriers between areas that are ecologically linked, 12 such as between roosting sites and feeding sites, breeding sites and wintering sites, and 13 migration route points (Exo et al. 2003-TN8488). The maintenance and repair of turbines will 14 increase boat activity in the area, which can be very disruptive to some bird species that will 15 change course to avoid boats by as much as several kilometers (Exo et al. 2003-TN8488).
| |
| | |
| 16 Birds protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act would not likely occur near the 17 turbines. In the United States, golden eagles nest primarily in Western states and typically 18 migrate along the Appalachian Mountain ridgelines; bald eagles do not occur in the open ocean 19 (BOEM 2015-TN9066).
| |
| | |
| 20 Based on the above analysis, NRC staff concludes that the impact on terrestrial resources from 21 construction and operation of an offshore wind facility as part of the combination alternative 22 would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 23 Demand-Side Management
| |
| | |
| 24 The NRC staff has not identified any impacts on terrestrial resources associated with demand-25 side management.
| |
| | |
| 26 Combination Alternative Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 27 Based on the above discussion of SMR, solar, offshore wind, and demand-side management, 28 the NRC staff concludes that the overall impacts on terrestrial resources from the combination 29 alternative could range from MODERATE to LARGE, mainly because of the large area of land 30 and the types of land that could be used for the solar PV portion and the operational impacts on 31 birds and bats for the offshore wind portion of the alternative.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.7 Aquatic Resources
| |
| | |
| 33 This section describes the aquatic resources of the affected environment, including Lake 34 Keowee, Lake Jocassee, and Keowee Dam tailwaters of the Keowee River. The NRC staff 35 previously characterized aquatic resources in Section 2.2.5 of the final Supplemental EIS that 36 analyzed the initial license renewal (NRC 1999-TN8942: pp. 2-19). Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.4, 37 and 3.7.7.1 of Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897: Appendix E, pp. 3-107 to 3-111, 38 3-120 to 3-122, and 3-126 to 3-127, respectively) also describe aquatic resources. This 39 information is incorporated herein by reference, with key, new, and updated information 40 summarized below in the following subsections. Following the description of the aquatic 41 environment, the staff analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed action (i.e., SLR) and 42 alternatives on these resources.
| |
| | |
| 3-82 1 3.7.1 Lake Keowee
| |
| | |
| 2 Lake Keowee is an 18,357 ac (7,429 ha) humanmade reservoir located in the Savannah River 3 Basin. It was created in 1971 by the damming of the Keowee and Little Rivers to provide 4 a source of cooling water for Oconee Station and a source of hydropower generation for the 5 Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project. Lake Keowee also is used for public recreation and 6 serves as a drinking water source for the City of Greenville and surrounding communities. Duke 7 Energy owns and operates the reservoir.
| |
| | |
| 8 3.7.1.1 Biological Communities of Lake Keowee
| |
| | |
| 9 Lake Keowee is a relatively deep, monomictic reservoir. During the annual warming period in 10 the spring and summer, vertical stratification develops. During the annual cooling period in the 11 fall and winter, the lake exhibits homogenous mixing. The shoreline and shallow water region of 12 the lake includes numerous residential piers, and riprap comprises 33 percent of shallow water 13 substrate (FERC 2016-TN8967). Clay (25 percent) and cobble (13 percent) comprise the 14 remaining shallow water substrates (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 15 Lake Keowees biological community is typical of southeastern reservoirs. It primarily 16 supports warmwater species, and the lake is considered to have low to medium productivity.
| |
| 17 The trophic structure of Lake Keowee includes primary producers (i.e., plankton, macrophytes, 18 and periphyton), primary consumers (i.e., zooplankton and benthic macroinvertebrates), and 19 bottom-feeding, planktivorous, and piscivorous fish that serve as secondary and tertiary 20 consumers. Primary producers are organisms that capture solar energy and synthesize organic 21 compounds from inorganic chemicals. They form the trophic structures foundation by producing 22 the organic nutrients and energy used by consumers. Primary producers in lake systems 23 include phytoplankton, aquatic macrophytes, and periphyton. Of the three, phytoplankton are 24 the major producers in all but very shallow lakes. Figure 3-7 illustrates the trophic structure of 25 Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 26 Plankton
| |
| | |
| 27 Plankton are small and often microscopic organisms that drift or float in the water column.
| |
| 28 Phytoplankton are single-celled plant plankton and include diatoms (single-celled yellow algae) 29 and dinoflagellates (a single-celled organism with two flagella). Phytoplankton live suspended in 30 the water column and occur in the limnetic (open water) zone of a lake. Nine genera of 31 phytoplankton comprising 207 taxa are known to occur in Lake Keowee (see Table 3.7-1 of 32 Duke Energys ER [Duke Energy 2021-TN8897] for a complete list of taxa). More than two-33 thirds of Lake Keowees plankton population is comprised of green algae (Chlorophyta) and 34 diatoms (Bacillariophyta).
| |
| | |
| 35 Zooplankton are animals that either spend their entire lives as plankton (holoplankton) or exist 36 as plankton for a short time during development (meroplankton). Zooplankton include rotifers, 37 isopods, protozoans, marine gastropods, polychaetes, small crustaceans, and the eggs and 38 larval stages of insects and other aquatic animals. The zooplankton community in Lake Keowee 39 consists entirely of microcrustaceans (copepods and cladocerans) and rotifers. In studies 40 conducted from 2006 to 2011, researchers identified four zooplankton taxonomic classes and 41 47 species from the lake (see Table 3.7-2 of Duke Energys ER [Duke Energy 2021-TN8897] for 42 a complete list of taxa).
| |
| | |
| 3-83 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-7 Trophic Structure of Lake Keowee
| |
| | |
| 3 Macrophytes and Periphyton
| |
| | |
| 4 Aquatic macrophytes are large plants, both emergent and submerged, that inhabit shallow water 5 areas. Periphyton consists of single-celled or filamentous species of algae that attach to benthic 6 or macrophytic surfaces. Macrophytes and periphyton occur in the littoral (near-shore and 7 shallow) zone. They tend to be highly productive because they have more access to nutrients 8 through their roots than phytoplankton. Macrophytes within Lake Keowee are minimal because 9 water level fluctuations prevent establishment of native aquatic plants (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 10 Benthic Invertebrates
| |
| | |
| 11 Benthic invertebrates inhabit the bottom of the water column and its substrates. They include 12 macroinvertebrates (clams, crabs, oysters, and other shellfish) as well as certain zooplankton, 13 such as polychaetes (described previously). Benthic invertebrates, especially freshwater 14 mussels, are an important indicator of the health of an aquatic system.
| |
| | |
| 3-84 1 In a 2005-2008 survey of Lake Keowee associated with the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric 2 Project relicensing, researchers collected only three species of freshwater mussels: eastern 3 floater (Anodonta cataracta) (80 individuals), paper pondshell (Utterbackia imbecillis) 4 (62 individuals), and Florida pondhorn (Uniomerus carolinianus) (20 individuals) (FERC 2016-5 TN8967). Florida pondshell occurred in only the middle reaches of the lake, while the other two 6 species were documented throughout the lake. The lack of freshwater mussel diversity in Lake 7 Keowee may be attributable to the lake being an impoundment with limited habitat types.
| |
| 8 Greater diversity would be expected in a free-flowing river with more varied substrates and 9 microhabitats. The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) also is present in Lake Keowee. This 10 species, which is described further below, can contribute to native species declines by 11 outcompeting other species for limited resources.
| |
| | |
| 12 Finfish
| |
| | |
| 13 Centrarchids, especially bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and redbreast sunfish (L. ertici),
| |
| 14 dominate Lake Keowees fish community. The lake also hosts green sunfish (L. cyanellus),
| |
| 15 warmouth (L. gulosus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), largemouth bass (Micropterus 16 salmoides), spotted bass (M. punctulatus), and redeye bass (M. coosae). Blueback herring 17 (Alosa aestivalis) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) dominate the open water areas of 18 the lake.
| |
| | |
| 19 Since creation of the lake, Duke Energy, as well as State agencies and other organizations, 20 have monitored Lake Keowees fish populations. Most recently, Duke Energy conducted 21 sampling in 2006 and 2013 by way of electrofishing, purse seine, and hydroacoustic methods.
| |
| 22 Across all gear types, researchers collected 30 species (see Table 3-7). Electrofishing results 23 indicate a diverse littoral fish population that includes 18 species and 2 hybrid species.
| |
| 24 Centrarchids, bluegill, and sunfish were the most abundant taxa in these samples. Between the 25 two sampling years, largemouth bass and redeye bass populations exhibited slight decreases, 26 while the spotted bass population exhibited an increase (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897; FERC 27 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 28 Pelagic samples in 2006 and 2013 were primarily composed of threadfin shad and blueback 29 herring (FERC 2016-TN8967). Threadfin shad generally inhabit larger rivers and reservoirs and 30 commonly school in the middle of the water column of open water areas of the reservoir (Rohde 31 et al. 2009-TN9015). This species prefers warmer waters and has a lower lethal temperature 32 limit of approximately 41 to 45°F (5 to 7°C) (Parsons and Kimsey 1954-TN9020). Threadfin 33 shad spawn from April to July during brief time intervals between first light to sunrise, near the 34 shoreline, over aquatic plants and other submerged objects (Rohde et al. 2009-TN9015).
| |
| 35 Although the life span of threadfin shad can be 2 to 3 years, individuals rarely live past 1 year in 36 large reservoirs and may not grow more than 3 to 4 in. (8 to 10 cm) (SCDNR 2015-TN9021).
| |
| 37 Native blueback herring populations are typically anadromous; however, introduced landlocked 38 populations, such as the one in Lake Keowee, will reside in open water areas of reservoirs and 39 spawn close to shore in the spring (Rohde et al. 2009-TN9015). Blueback herring tolerate 40 temperatures as low as 36°F (2.2°C) (Pardue 1983-TN9023). In southeastern reservoirs, the 41 species generally prefer cool (55 to 75°F [12.8 to 23.9°C]), deep water (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| 42 Individuals generally mature at age 3 or 4 and can live to age 8 (Rohde et al. 2009-TN9015).
| |
| 43 Lake Keowees threadfin shad and blueback herring populations tend to show variable seasonal 44 abundance with higher and more variable abundances in the fall than in the spring (FERC 2016-45 TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 3-85 1 Table 3-7 Fish Species Reported from Lake Keowee, South Carolina Family Scientific Name Common Name Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus warmouth Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish Centrarchidae Micropterus coosae redeye bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass Centrarchidae Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie Cyprinidae Cyprinella nivea whitefin shiner Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio common carp Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner Cyprinidae Luxilus albeolus white shiner Clupeidae Alosa aestivalis blueback herring Clupeidae Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Ictaluridae Ameiurus brunneus snail bullhead Ictaluridae Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish Ictaluridae Ameiurus platycephalus flat bullhead Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus white catfish Percidae Percina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter Poeciliidae Gambusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish Catostomidae Hypentelium nigricans northern hog sucker Catostomidae Minytrema melanops spotted sucker Catostomidae Moxostoma collapsum notchlip redhorse Catostomidae Moxostoma spp. Brassy jumprock Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta brown trout Sources: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, FERC 2016-TN8967.
| |
| | |
| 2 3.7.1.2 Important Species and Habitats of Lake Keowee
| |
| | |
| 3 This section summarizes important fisheries of Lake Keowee as well as State-protected and 4 other special status species. Section 3.8 discusses federally listed species separately; however, 5 none occur in Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 6 Commercially Important Fisheries
| |
| | |
| 7 Commercial fishing is not permitted on Lake Keowee. Thus, there are no commercially 8 important fisheries.
| |
| | |
| 3-86 1 Recreationally Important Fisheries
| |
| | |
| 2 Lake Keowee is a popular angling destination. The lake experiences moderate fishing pressure 3 for its size. Species most sought by anglers include largemouth bass, smallmouth bass 4 (Micopterus dolomieu), spotted bass, redeye bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, redbreast sunfish, 5 channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Threadfin shad, 6 gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and blueback herring provide forage for these species 7 and are, therefore, also important to the recreational fishery.
| |
| | |
| 8 The SCDHEC has issued consumption advisories for certain fish because of mercury 9 concentrations. As of late 2023, the SCDHEC (SCDHEC 2023-TN8971) recommends limiting 10 consumption of largemouth bass and spotted bass to one meal per week.
| |
| | |
| 11 State-Protected and Other Special Status Species
| |
| | |
| 12 The State of South Carolina enacted the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act 13 (SC Code 50-15-10-TN9181) in 1976 to protect South Carolina-endemic species from possible 14 extinction throughout all or a significant part of those species native ranges. Under the authority 15 of this act, the SCDNR lists animals as State-endangered or threatened. No State-listed species 16 occur in Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 17 Under the South Carolina Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (SCDNR 2015-TN9025), the SCDNR 18 identifies many aquatic species as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The distribution and 19 abundance of such species are indicative of the greater diversity and health of wildlife within the 20 State. In Lake Keowee, one aquatic species, blueback herring, is designated as a high-priority 21 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. This species is given this designation primarily 22 because of its ecological function within free-flowing waterways where it is a diadromous 23 species. In Lake Keowee, blueback herring are unable to migrate as they would elsewhere and, 24 therefore, do not have the same ecological value as individuals that occur in native rivers that 25 flow to the Atlantic Ocean.
| |
| | |
| 26 State Parks
| |
| | |
| 27 The Keowee-Toxaway State Park lies at the north end of Lake Keowee. It was established 28 through a partnership between Duke Energy and the State of South Carolina and includes 29 1,000 ac (400 ha) open to camping, fishing, boating, and other recreational amenities. The 30 SCDNR manages 373 ac (151 ha) of the park as a wildlife preserve (SCSP 2023-TN9026).
| |
| | |
| 31 3.7.1.3 Invasive and Nuisance Species of Lake Keowee
| |
| | |
| 32 Nonnative species are those species that are present only because of introduction and that 33 would not naturally occur either currently or historically in an ecosystem. Invasive species are 34 nonnative organisms whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental 35 harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health (81 FR 88609-TN8375). For purposes of this 36 discussion, nuisance species are nonnative species that alter the environment but do not rise to 37 the level of invasive.
| |
| | |
| 38 Invasive and nuisance aquatic species in Lake Keowee include common hornwort 39 (Ceratophyllum demersum), parrot feather watermilfoil (Myriophyllum aquaticum), Asian clam, 40 common carp (Cyrpinus carpio), green sunfish, spotted bass, and flathead catfish.
| |
| | |
| 3-87 1 Aquatic plants primarily occur in the shallow water habitats of lakes and reservoirs where 2 sunlight penetrates the water column. Although aquatic plants can be beneficial to fish and 3 other aquatic organisms by providing habitat and refuge from predators, nonnative species can 4 out-compete native aquatic plants and lead to habitat degradation and loss of recreation if not 5 controlled. Duke Energy, in cooperation with the SCDNR, manages nuisance aquatic plants 6 within Lake Keowee (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 7 In general, aquatic vegetation is not abundant in Lake Keowee because of sediment 8 characteristics and water level fluctuations, both of which prevent plants from establishing. In 9 2012 aquatic plant surveys, Duke Energy only observed small populations of common hornwort 10 and parrot feather watermilfoil. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) historically occurred in the lake.
| |
| 11 However, through SCDNRs chemical and physical removal efforts, it has not been observed 12 since 2002 (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 13 The Asian clam, which is now ubiquitous in many major U.S. freshwater systems, can survive in 14 relatively cold waters and reproduce rapidly. Once established, Asian clams can alter benthic 15 substrates, out-compete other native benthic invertebrates, and cause the decline or local 16 disappearance of native mussel and clam populations. Asian clams are particularly damaging to 17 intake pipes for power and water facilities when large numbers of the clams, either dead or 18 alive, clog the pipes. Individuals will also biofoul the pipes by attaching themselves to pipe walls 19 where they incrementally obstruct more flow as they grow. Duke Energy monitors for Asian 20 clams at the intake canal and skimmer wall near the Oconee Station pump pits. Duke 21 Energy (TN8897) reports low-to-moderate potential for biofouling based on this monitoring.
| |
| | |
| 22 Common carp, green sunfish, spotted bass, and flathead catfish, when invasive, all grow 23 rapidly, prey on native species, alter habitats, or out-compete native species for limited 24 resources. Common carp alter habitats by uprooting aquatic vegetation and disturbing 25 sediment. Spotted bass, which were introduced into Lake Keowee in the 1980s, are a popular 26 angling species. However, this species is displacing and hybridizing with native redeye bass.
| |
| | |
| 27 3.7.2 Lake Jocassee
| |
| | |
| 28 Lake Jocassee is a 7,565 ac (3,061 ha) humanmade reservoir that lies upstream and 29 approximately 11 mi (18 km) north of Oconee Station. The lake was created in 1973 with the 30 construction of the Jocassee Dam on the Keowee River to provide a source of hydropower 31 generation for the Jocassee Hydroelectric Station. Water entering the Keowee watershed 32 comes from Lake Jocassee, and the spillway from this lake drains into the Keowee River and 33 Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 34 The SCDNR has designated Lake Jocassee as trout put, grow, and take water for recreational 35 rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) fisheries. Duke Energy 36 monitors lake water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other water quality metric to ensure 37 that the required habitat for trout is available. The lake is also a recreational fishery resource for 38 smallmouth and spotted bass.
| |
| | |
| 39 Lake Jocassee is a deep, low-productivity reservoir that thermally stratifies annually. The 40 shoreline is steeply sloped, and substrate is composed primarily of rocky outcrops with small 41 areas of sand, clay, and cobble. Emergent vegetation is minimal due to water level fluctuations.
| |
| 42 A variety of warm, cool, and coldwater fish inhabit the lake. Warmwater centrarchids, such as 43 redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass dominate the fish community and primarily 44 inhabit the shallow water areas. Redeye bass is another abundant centrarchid, although it tends
| |
| | |
| 3-88 1 to occupy only cool waters. Within the pelagic zone, blueback herring and threadfin shad are 2 abundant. Two coldwater species, rainbow trout and brown trout, occupy deeper, cooler, and 3 well-oxygenated areas in the summer and fall and move into shallower open waters during 4 cooler months. Natural reproduction of these two species is negligible in Lake Jocassee, but the 5 SCDNR stocks these species annually to maintain fishable populations (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 6 3.7.3 Keowee Dam Tailwaters
| |
| | |
| 7 The tailwaters of the Keowee Dam are characterized by natural rock, clay, sand, woody debris, 8 and riprap substrates. Centrarchids, particularly redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and redear sunfish, 9 dominate the fish community. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), which the SCDNR identifies as a 10 moderate-priority Species of Greatest Conservation Need, inhabits the tailwaters. However, 11 striped bass in this area originate from a stocked population downstream in Hartwell Lake and 12 are not naturally occurring or self-sustained (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 13 3.7.4 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 14 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 15 SLR on the environmental issues related to aquatic resources in accordance with Commission 16 direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 17 3.7.4.1 Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through 18 Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)
| |
| | |
| 19 For nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds, such as Oconee 20 Station, the NRC staff determined in the LR GEIS that impingement and entrainment of aquatic 21 organisms is a Category 2 issue that requires site-specific evaluation (NRC 2013-TN2654). In 22 1999, the NRC staff evaluated the impacts of the Oconee Station initial license renewal on 23 aquatic organisms as two issues: impingement of fish and shellfish and entrainment of fish 24 and shellfish in early life stages. For both issues, the NRC staff determined that the impacts of 25 continued operation of Oconee Station would be SMALL during the initial license renewal term 26 (i.e., 2013-2033 for Units 1 and 2 and 2014-2034 for Unit 3) (NRC 1999-TN8942). In 2013, the 27 NRC staff issued Revision 1 of the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654). In the revised LR GEIS, the 28 NRC staff combined the two aquatic issues into a single site-specific issue: impingement and 29 entrainment of aquatic organisms (nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or 30 cooling ponds). This section evaluates this consolidated issue because it applies to the 31 continued operation of Oconee Station for the proposed SLR term (i.e., 2033-2053 for Units 1 32 and 2 and 2034-2054 for Unit 3).
| |
| | |
| 33 Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the outer part of an intake structures 34 screening device (79 FR 48300-TN4488). The force of the intake water traps the organisms 35 against the screen, and individuals are unable to escape. Impingement can kill organisms 36 immediately or cause exhaustion, suffocation, injury, and other physical stresses that contribute 37 to mortality later. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the amount of time an 38 organism is impinged, its fragility (susceptibility to injury), and the physical characteristics of the 39 screen wash and fish return systems of the intake structure. The EPA has found that 40 impingement mortality is typically less than 100 percent if the cooling water intake system 41 includes fish return or backwash systems (79 FR 48300-TN4488). Because impingeable 42 organisms are typically fish with fully formed scales and skeletal structures, as well as well-43 developed survival traits such as behavioral responses to avoid danger, many impinged 44 organisms can survive under proper conditions (79 FR 48300-TN4488).
| |
| | |
| 3-89 1 Entrainment occurs when organisms pass through the screening device and travel through the 2 entire cooling system, including the pumps, condenser or heat exchanger tubes, and discharge 3 pipes (79 FR 48300-TN4488). Organisms susceptible to entrainment are of smaller size, such 4 as ichthyoplankton, larval stages of shellfish and other macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, and 5 phytoplankton. During travel through the cooling system, entrained organisms experience 6 physical trauma and stress, pressure changes, excess heat, and exposure to chemicals 7 (Mayhew et al. 2000-TN8458). Because entrainable organisms generally consist of fragile life 8 stages (e.g., eggs, which exhibit poor survival after interacting with a cooling water intake 9 structure; and early larvae, which lack a skeletal structure and swimming ability), the EPA has 10 concluded that for purposes of assessing the impacts of a cooling water intake system on the 11 aquatic environment, all entrained organisms are assumed to die (79 FR 48300-TN4488).
| |
| | |
| 12 Entrainment susceptibility is highly dependent on life history characteristics. For example, 13 broadcast spawners with non-adhesive, free-floating eggs that drift with the water current may 14 become entrained in a cooling water intake system. Nest-building species or species with 15 adhesive, demersal eggs are less likely to be entrained in early life stages. Susceptibility of 16 larval life stages to entrainment depends on body morphometrics and swimming ability.
| |
| | |
| 17 If several life stages of a species occupy the source water, that species can be susceptible to 18 both impingement and entrainment. For instance, adults and juveniles of a given species of fish 19 may be impinged against the intake screens, while larvae and eggs may pass through the 20 screening device and be entrained through the cooling system. The susceptibility to either 21 impingement or entrainment relates to the size of the individual relative to the size of the mesh 22 on the screening device. The EPA considers aquatic organisms that can be collected or 23 retained on a sieve with 0.56 in. (1.4 cm) diagonal openings to be susceptible to impingement 24 (79 FR 48300-TN4488). This equates to screen device mesh openings of 0.5 in. x 0.25 in.
| |
| 25 (1.3 cm x 0.635 cm), which is slightly larger than the openings on the typical 0.375 in. (0.95 cm) 26 square mesh found at many nuclear power plants. Organisms smaller than the 0.56 in. (1.4 cm) 27 mesh are considered susceptible to entrainment.
| |
| | |
| 28 The magnitude of the impact that impingement and entrainment create on the aquatic 29 environment depends on the plant-specific characteristics of the cooling system as well as the 30 local aquatic community. Relevant nuclear power plant-based characteristics include location of 31 the cooling water intake structure, intake velocities, withdrawal volumes, screening device 32 technologies, and the presence or absence of a fish return system. Relevant characteristics of 33 the aquatic community include species present in the environment, life history characteristics, 34 population abundances and distributions, special species statuses and designations, and 35 regional management objectives.
| |
| | |
| 36 Oconee Station Cooling Water Intake System
| |
| | |
| 37 The Oconee Station cooling water intake system impinges and entrains aquatic organisms as it 38 withdraws water from Lake Keowee. Section 2.1.3 of this EIS describes Oconee Stations 39 cooling and auxiliary water systems in detail. This section summarizes features of these 40 systems relevant to the impingement and entrainment analysis.
| |
| | |
| 41 Lake Keowee water first interacts with Oconee Stations cooling water intake structure at a 42 curtain wall located in the Little River arm of the reservoir. The curtain wall extends to a depth of 43 approximately 65 ft (20 m) so that only hypolimnetic water at depths of 65 to 88.6 ft (20 to 27 m) 44 is withdrawn from the source water. As Oconee Station withdraws water, fish and other aquatic 45 organisms that cannot swim fast enough to escape the flow of water may be swept into the
| |
| | |
| 3-90 1 intake. Approach velocity at the curtain wall varies from 0.60 to 0.83 feet per second (fps) 2 (0.18 to 0.25 meters per second [m/s]) depending on the number of pumps in operation 3 (i.e., one to four pumps per unit) 4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Organisms within the source 4 water that cannot resist or escape this flow are drawn into the cooling water intake structure 5 along with the water.
| |
| | |
| 6 Once drawn into the curtain wall, organisms enter a 5,860 ft (1,786 m)-long intake canal. The 7 canal ranges in width from 500 to 1,800 ft (152 to 548 m), and water depths in the canal vary 8 from 91 to 100 ft (28 to 30 m). Two barriers prevent large debris from traveling the length of the 9 canal and entering the intake structure. First, a submerged underwater weir lies approximately 10 850 ft (260 m) downstream of the curtain wall near the entrance to the intake canal. The weir 11 slopes on both the upstream and downstream sides. Second, a trash boom lies approximately 12 900 ft (274 m) upstream of the intake structure that funnels debris to the shoreline.
| |
| | |
| 13 After traveling through the intake canal and past the large debris barriers, organisms in the 14 source water encounter trash bars with 2.5 in. (6.4 cm) spacing followed by 10.75 ft (3.3 m) 15 fixed panel mesh screens that are 10.75 ft (3.3 m) wide, 50 ft (15.2 m) tall, and have 0.375 in.
| |
| 16 (0.95 cm) square mesh. Organisms that are too large to pass through the fixed screen mesh, 17 such as juvenile and adult fish and shellfish, become impinged on the screens. Through-bar 18 velocity varies from 1.03 to 1.43 fps (0.31 to 0.44 m/s) and through-screen velocity varies from 19 2.08 to 2.90 fps (0.63 to 0.88 m/s) depending on pump operation4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| 20 When differential pressure on the screens reaches 10 in. of mercury (in. of Hg, 254 mm of Hg),
| |
| 21 an alarm sounds to alert nuclear power plant personnel to lift and clean the screens of debris.
| |
| 22 Oconee Station does not have a fish return system, so all impinged organisms are either 23 collected at the trash racks or on the traveling screens and disposed of as solid waste along 24 with other debris.
| |
| | |
| 25 Organisms small enough to pass through the fixed screen mesh, such as fish eggs, larvae, and 26 other zooplankton, are entrained into the cooling water system. Entrained organisms pass 27 through the entire cooling system and re-enter the Keowee River arm of Lake Keowee just 28 above the Lake Keowee dam, along with heated effluent, through a submerged opening that is 29 25 to 40 ft (7.6 to 12 m) deep. During this process, entrained organisms are subject to 30 mechanical, thermal, and toxic stresses.
| |
| | |
| 31 Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Requirements for Existing Facilities
| |
| | |
| 32 Section 316(b) of the CWA addresses the adverse environmental impacts caused by the intake 33 of cooling water from waters of the United States. This section of the CWA grants the EPA the 34 authority to regulate cooling water intake structures to minimize adverse impacts on the aquatic 35 environment. Under CWA Section 316(b), the EPA has issued regulations for existing facilities, 36 such as Oconee Station, at 40 CFR Part 122 (TN2769) and 40 CFR Part 125 (TN254),
| |
| 37 Subpart J. Existing facilities include power generation and manufacturing facilities that are not 38 new facilities as defined at 40 CFR 125.83 and that withdraw more than 2 mgd (7.6 mLd) of 39 water from waters of the United States and use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw 40 exclusively for cooling purposes.
| |
| | |
| 4 [HDR] HDR Engineering, Inc. 2020. Oconee Nuclear Station, Oconee County, South Carolina, Clean Water Act §316(b) Compliance Submittal. Prepared for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. November 10, 2020. 1198 p. ADAMS Accession No. ML22019A124. Attachment 1 in Duke Energy 2022-TN8948.
| |
| | |
| 3-91 1 Under the CWA Section 316(b) regulations, the location, design, construction, and capacity of 2 cooling water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best technology available 3 (BTA) for minimizing impingement mortality and entrainment. The EPA, or authorized States 4 and Tribes, impose BTA requirements through NPDES permitting programs. In South Carolina, 5 the SCDHEC administers the NPDES program and issues NPDES permits to regulated 6 facilities.
| |
| | |
| 7 With respect to impingement mortality (IM), the BTA standard requires that existing facilities 8 comply with one of the following seven alternatives (40 CFR 125.94(c) (TN254):
| |
| 9 1. operate a closed-cycle recirculating system, as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(c) (herein referred 10 to as IM Option 1) 11 2. operate a cooling water intake structure that has a maximum through-screen design intake 12 velocity of 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s) 13 3. operate a cooling water intake structure that has a maximum actual through-screen intake 14 velocity of 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s) 15 4. operate an offshore velocity cap, as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(v), that was installed on or 16 before October 14, 2014 17 5. operate a modified traveling screenthat the NPDES Permit Director determines meets the 18 definition at 40 CFR 125.92(s) and that the NPDES Permit Director determines is the BTA 19 for impingement reduction at the site 20 6. operate any other combination of technologies, management practices, and operational 21 measures that the NPDES Permit Director determines is the BTA for impingement reduction 22 (herein referred to as IM Option 6) 23 7. achieve a 12-month impingement mortality performance standard of all life stages of fish 24 and shellfish of no more than 24 percent mortality, including latent mortality, for all non-25 fragile species
| |
| | |
| 26 Options (1), (2), and (4) above are essentially preapproved technologies requiring either no 27 demonstration or only a minimal demonstration that the flow reduction and control measures are 28 functioning as the EPA envisioned. Options (3), (5), and (6) require more detailed information to 29 be submitted to the permitting authority before the permitting authority may specify it as BTA for 30 a given facility. Under Option (7), the permitting authority may also review site-specific data and 31 conclude that a de minimis rate of impingement exists; and, therefore, no additional controls are 32 warranted to meet the BTA impingement mortality standard.
| |
| | |
| 33 With respect to entrainment, the CWA Section 316(b) regulations do not prescribe a single 34 nationally applicable entrainment performance standard, because the EPA did not identify a 35 technology for reducing entrainment that is effective, widely available, feasible, and does not 36 lead to unacceptable non-water-quality impacts (79 FR 48300-TN4488). Instead, the permitting 37 authority must establish the BTA entrainment requirement for each facility on a site-specific 38 basis. In establishing site-specific requirements, the regulations direct the permitting authority to 39 consider the following factors (40 CFR 125.98(f)(2)):
| |
| | |
| 40 1. numbers and types of organisms entrained, including, specifically, the numbers and species 41 (or lowest taxonomic classification possible) of federally listed, threatened and endangered 42 species, and designated critical habitat (e.g., prey base)
| |
| | |
| 3-92 1 2. impact of changes in particulate emissions or other pollutants associated with entrainment 2 technologies 3 3. land availability inasmuch as it relates to the feasibility of entrainment technology 4 4. remaining useful plant life 5 5. quantified and qualitative social benefits and costs of available entrainment technologies 6 when such information on both benefits and costs is of sufficient rigor to make a decision
| |
| | |
| 7 Analysis Approach
| |
| | |
| 8 When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting 9 authority with respect to the impacts of impingement and entrainment. Therefore, if the NPDES 10 permitting authority has made BTA determinations for a facility pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) 11 in accordance with the current regulations specified in 40 CFR Part 122 (TN2769) and 12 40 CFR Part 125 (TN254), which were promulgated in 2014 (79 FR 48300-TN4488), and that 13 facility has implemented any associated requirements or those requirements would be 14 implemented before the proposed SLR period, then the NRC staff assumes that adverse 15 impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR 51.10(c);
| |
| 16 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); and 10 CFR 51.71(d) [TN250]). In such cases, the NRC staff 17 concludes that the impacts of either impingement, entrainment, or both would be SMALL for the 18 proposed SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 19 In cases in which the NPDES permitting authority has not made BTA determinations, the NRC 20 staff analyzes the potential impacts of impingement, entrainment, or both using a 21 weight-of-evidence approach. In this approach, the staff considers multiple lines of evidence to 22 assess the presence or absence of ecological impairment (i.e., noticeable or detectable impact) 23 on the aquatic environment. For instance, as its lines of evidence, the NRC staff might consider 24 characteristics of the cooling water intake system design, the results of impingement and 25 entrainment studies performed at the facility, and trends in fish and shellfish population 26 abundance indices. The NRC staff then considers these lines of evidence together to predict the 27 level of impact (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) that the aquatic environment is likely to 28 experience during the proposed SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 29 Baseline Condition of the Resource
| |
| | |
| 30 For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumes that the baseline condition of the 31 resource is the Lake Keowee aquatic community as it occurs today, which is described in 32 Section 3.7.1 of this EIS. While species richness, evenness, and diversity within the community 33 may change or shift between now and when the proposed SLR period would begin, the NRC 34 staff finds the present aquatic community to be a reasonable surrogate in the absence of fishery 35 and species-specific projections.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.7.4.1.1 Impingement
| |
| | |
| 37 Impingement Mortality Best Technology Available
| |
| | |
| 38 The SCDHEC has not made an impingement mortality BTA determination for Oconee Station.
| |
| 39 Oconee Stations current NPDES permit was issued in 2010. Thus, the 2014 final rule 40 establishing CWA Section 316(b) regulations for existing facilities had not yet been promulgated 41 when the SCDHEC last renewed the permit. In March 2013, Duke Energy submitted a renewal
| |
| | |
| 3-93 1 application to the SCDHEC5 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898). That application is currently under 2 SCDHEC review. Because Duke Energy submitted a timely renewal application, the 3 2010 NPDES permit remains in effect until the SCDHEC completes its review.
| |
| | |
| 4 In November 2020, Duke Energy subsequently submitted information to the SCDHEC 5 concerning impingement mortality and entrainment pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) 6 requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(r)(2) through (13)4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). In that 7 submittal, Duke Energy requested the SCDHECs concurrence that Oconee Station meets the 8 regulatory criteria for a closed-cycle recirculating system (i.e., IM Option 1). Duke Energy found 9 that the design and operation of Oconee Stations cooling water intake system complies with IM 10 Option 1 for the following reasons4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948):
| |
| | |
| 11
| |
| * Lake Keowee was constructed before October 14, 2014, the effective date of the 2014 CWA 12 Section 316(b) final rule.
| |
| 13
| |
| * Lake Keowee was created for the purpose of serving as part of Oconee Stations cooling 14 water system. The lake serves as both a source of cooling water and a heat sink for Oconee 15 Station; whereby, the facility withdraws water from one part of the impoundment and 16 discharges the heated effluent back to the impoundment in another location to allow the 17 heated water time to cool before reuse.
| |
| 18
| |
| * Use of Lake Keowee requires no makeup water because precipitation and watershed runoff, 19 including upstream releases from the Jocassee Development, replace water lost through 20 evaporation, seepage, and downstream flow.
| |
| | |
| 21 If the SCDHEC agrees with Duke Energys determination, Oconee Station would be deemed in 22 compliance with the impingement mortality BTA standard under IM Option 1, and no cooling 23 water intake system modifications or upgrades would be necessary to reduce impingement 24 mortality.
| |
| | |
| 25 As an alternative compliance option, Duke Energy evaluated IM Option 6, a combination of 26 technologies, management practices, and operational measures. Duke Energy found Oconee 27 Station to also comply with this impingement mortality BTA compliance option for the following 28 reasons4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948):
| |
| | |
| 29
| |
| * The curtain wall causes water to be withdrawn from the lower 23 ft (7 m) of Lake Keowee 30 where dissolved oxygen is naturally lower and conditions are less favorable for fish. This 31 withdrawal effectively reduces impingement by minimizing the number of organisms present 32 in the portion of the water column withdrawn into the cooling water intake system.
| |
| 33
| |
| * The submerged weir near the intake canal entrance and overhanging wall at the cooling 34 water intake structure entrance further minimize the withdrawal zone.
| |
| 35
| |
| * The actual intake flows withdrawn at the cooling water intake structure, as documented 36 during a 5-year period (June 2014 through June 2019) is estimated to result in a 37 14.2 percent annual flow reduction and a 34 percent maximum seasonal flow reduction 38 when compared to the design intake flow.
| |
| | |
| 39 If the SCDHEC finds that this option is the BTA for reducing impingement mortality at Oconee 40 Station, implementation would effectively be immediate because each of these features are
| |
| | |
| 5 Duke Energy. 2013. Duke Power Company/Oconee Nuclear Station Renewal Application for NPDES Permit #SC0000515, Oconee County, South Carolina. March 28, 2013. 393 p. ADAMS Accession No. ML21328A163. Attachment 3 in Duke Energy 2021-TN8898.
| |
| | |
| 3-94 1 already in place and functioning to reduce impingement. No further system modifications or 2 upgrades would be necessary. However, Duke Energy would be required to perform an 3 impingement characterization study to evaluate the effectiveness of this option in accordance 4 with 40 CFR 125.94(c)(7).
| |
| | |
| 5 As one component of issuing a renewed NPDES permit, the SCDHEC will review the 6 compliance options described above and make an impingement mortality BTA determination.
| |
| 7 When the SCDHEC makes this determination, it may impose additional requirements to reduce 8 or mitigate the effects of impingement mortality at Oconee Station. Such requirements would be 9 incorporated as conditions of the renewed NPDES permit, which would be issued and take 10 effect before the SLR period. The NRC staff assumes that any additional requirements that the 11 SCDHEC imposes would minimize the impacts of impingement mortality over the course of the 12 proposed SLR term in accordance with CWA Section 316(b) requirements.
| |
| | |
| 13 However, because the SCDHECs impingement mortality BTA determination is currently 14 pending, the NRC staff also considers other lines of evidence below, including the impingement 15 area of influence (AOI) and results of impingement mortality studies, to more fully evaluate the 16 magnitude of impact that impingement would represent during the proposed SLR period.
| |
| | |
| 17 Impingement Area of Influence
| |
| | |
| 18 In connection with Duke Energys 2020 CWA Section 316(b) compliance submittal to the 19 SCDHEC, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) calculated the Oconee Station impingement AOI. The 20 impingement AOI is the region extending outward from the intake screens in which impingeable-21 sized aquatic organisms (i.e., juvenile and adult fish and shellfish) would not be capable of 22 overcoming the velocities created by water withdrawals at the cooling water intake structure 23 and, thus, would have a higher probability of becoming impinged upon an intake screen.
| |
| 24 Conservatively, the AOI can be considered the area encompassed by the 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s) 25 velocity contour at the cooling water intake system identified by 40 CFR 125.94(c) (TN254).
| |
| 26 At this boundary and beyond it, the potential for impingement is approximately zero; within this 27 boundary, the potential increases with increasing proximity to the intake. Organisms within the 28 AOI have a high probability of being impinged, but actual entrainment will be the product of 29 physical and biological factors that vary over space, time, and species. For instance, because 30 juvenile and adult fish have differing swimming abilities and differing preferred habitats, 31 including those that involve natural water velocities above 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s), a particular 32 organism within the 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s) velocity contour will vary in susceptibility to impingement.
| |
| 33 The impingement AOI was calculated by HDR4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948) based on Oconee 34 Stations design intake flow and water depth at maximum drawdown water elevation in Lake 35 Keowee. This water depth represents the most conservative (i.e., largest) AOI that may exist 36 during Oconee Station operations. HDR found that the impingement AOI consists of a thin band 37 directly in front of the intake, which is 328 linear ft (100 linear m) at maximum drawdown and 38 237 linear ft (72 linear m) at full pond elevation4 (see Figure 3-6 in Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| 39 The impingement AOI does not extend into the waterbody, and impingeable-sized organisms 40 within the intake canal in the vicinity of the intake would experience velocities less than 0.5 fps 41 (0.15 m/s). This means that only those fish and shellfish that leave the main body of Lake 42 Keowee, pass through the curtain wall, and swim down the intake canal into the area directly in 43 front of the intake would be susceptible to impingement. Duke Energy proposes no changes to 44 the cooling system and no changes to the amount of cooling water withdrawals as part of SLR.
| |
| 45 Therefore, the NRC staff assume that the impingement AOI would remain the same during the
| |
| | |
| 3-95 1 proposed SLR term. The impingement AOI is considered further below as one component 2 affecting the NRC staffs conclusion on impingement.
| |
| | |
| 3 Impingement Studies
| |
| | |
| 4 2006-2007 Impingement Mortality Characterization Study
| |
| | |
| 5 ASA Analysis & Communication Inc. (ASA) conducted an impingement mortality 6 characterization study at Oconee Station from September 2006 through August 2007. The 7 results of this study are reported in Duke Energys November 2020 CWA Section 316(b) 8 compliance submittal to the SCDHEC4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948), and the information in this 9 section is derived from that source, unless otherwise cited.
| |
| | |
| 10 During the study, researchers randomly sampled eight of Oconee Stations fixed screens during 11 24-hour periods for a total of 26 sampling events. Before sampling, the selected screens were 12 raised and cleaned, then replaced and allowed to accumulate impinged fish during the sampling 13 period. Researchers collected a total of 1,162 fish consisting of 11 species during the study.
| |
| 14 Threadfin shad was the most abundantly impinged species (849 individuals; 73.1 percent of the 15 total impinged fish), followed by blueback herring (250 individuals; 21.5 percent) and bluegill 16 (45 individuals; 3.9 percent). These three species accounted for approximately 98 percent of the 17 total number of fish impinged. An additional 18 individuals of 8 species comprised the remaining 18 2 percent of the collections. Table 3-8 shows the taxa and relative abundance of fish collected 19 during the study.
| |
| | |
| 20 Table 3-8 Species Collected During Impingement Sampling at Oconee Station, South 21 Carolina, 2006-2007
| |
| | |
| Total Percent Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Number Composition Clupeidae Dorsoma petenense threadfin shad 849 73.1 Clupeidae Alosa aestivalis blueback herring 250 21.5 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 45 3.9 Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 6 0.5 Centrarchidae Micropterus henshalli Alabama bass 4 0.3 Centrarchidae Micropterus coosae redeye bass 2 0.2 Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus warmouth 1 0.1 Percidae Percina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter 2 0.2 Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus white catfish 1 0.1 Ictaluridae Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish 1 0.1 Cyrprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 1 0.1 Not Applicable Not Applicable Total 1,162 100.0
| |
| | |
| 22 From its sampling results, ASA estimated annual impingement based on actual water 23 withdrawals at Oconee Station. In 2016, estimated annual impingement was 46,437 fish; while 24 in 2017, it was 45,399 fish. Approximately 95 percent of impingement mortality was of threadfin 25 shad and blueback herring, both of which are fragile species according to the EPAs 26 CWA 316(b) regulations. Excluding fragile species, impingement mortality was 2,037 fish in
| |
| | |
| 3-96 1 2016 and 2,084 fish in 2017, or approximately 5.6 nonfragile fish per day in 2016 and 2 5.7 nonfragile fish per day in 2017.
| |
| | |
| 3 Impingement rates did not appear to be influenced by water temperature, lake levels, or 4 dissolved oxygen. Peak impingement occurred during a period of declining water temperatures 5 from 83.1 to 61.8°F (28.4 to 16.6°C). Lake levels during peak impingement events were 3.5 to 6 4.3 ft (1 to 1.3 m) below full pond elevation.
| |
| | |
| 7 The ASA assessed the impact of the study results in terms of adverse environmental impact, 8 which it defined as an unacceptable reduction in biological integrity as measured in terms of 9 aquatic community species composition, diversity, and functional organization in Lake Keowee; 10 or an unacceptable reduction in human use of the aquatic resources of Lake Keowee, especially 11 fish opportunity or catch quantity or quality. ASA considered predicted future risks (prospective 12 effects) and effects linked to present operation (retrospective effects) using a 13 weight-of-evidence approach to determine the overall level of adverse environmental impact.
| |
| 14 ASA determined that Oconee Station operation is not causing adverse environmental impact in 15 Lake Keowee based on the following4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948):
| |
| | |
| 16
| |
| * The number of fish lost to impingement is very small compared to the likely size of fish 17 populations in Lake Keowee. For all but three species, impingement rates amounted to less 18 than one fish per day. For bluegill, impingement rates were less than four fish per day, which 19 is likely the daily harvest of a single recreational fisherman.
| |
| 20
| |
| * The total recreational catch that could result from fish lost to impingement equates to an 21 estimated 30 lb (14 kg) per year. Most of this lost catch would be composed of bluegill, and 22 this level of harvest would be equivalent to the catch of a few fishermen.
| |
| 23
| |
| * For threadfish shad and blueback herringthe two most abundant speciesthe total 24 number impinged each year amounted to less than 0.7 percent of the lake population of 25 each species. The total production foregone resulting from this loss was less than 1,600 lb 26 (726 kg) per year of biomass. Threadfish shad and blueback herring are prolific spawners 27 with high growth rates and short life spans, which allows each species to easily compensate 28 for the relatively small impingement losses with no noticeable long-term effect.
| |
| 29
| |
| * The estimated total economic value of fish impinged at Oconee Station is $369 per year. It is 30 unlikely that the value exceeds $600 per year, with the uncertainty being taken into account.
| |
| 31 This value is extremely small in comparison to the total economic value of the recreational 32 fishery in Lake Keowee.
| |
| 33
| |
| * Species richness, species abundance, and trophic composition in Lake Keowee remain 34 healthy and exhibit no long-term trends that can be attributed to Oconee Station operation.
| |
| | |
| 35 Based on the above information, ASA concluded that there is no evidence of adverse 36 environmental impact from impingement.
| |
| | |
| 37 Historic Studies
| |
| | |
| 38 In addition to the 2006-2007 impingement mortality characterization study, Duke Energy 39 performed impingement studies from July 1974 through May 1975 and January through 40 March 1990. These studies are described in the NRC staffs EIS for the initial license renewal of 41 Oconee Station, and this information is incorporated herein by reference (NRC 1999-TN8942:
| |
| 42 Section 4.1.2, pp. 4-9-4-12). During that environmental review, the NRC staff found that
| |
| | |
| 3-97 1 impingement was not causing detectable population-level effects in Lake Keowee and that the 2 impacts of impingement during the 20-year initial license renewal period would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3 With respect to shellfish, freshwater mussels do not appear to be susceptible to impingement at 4 Oconee Station and have not been collected in any impingement studies. In the EIS for the 5 initial license renewal of Oconee Station, the NRC staff (NRC 1999-TN8942) attributed this to a 6 lack of endemic freshwater mussel populations in Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 7 Impingement Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 8 The impingement AOI is an extremely small area, and only those impingeable-sized organisms 9 that swim directly in front of the intake would experience intake velocities above 0.5 fps 10 (0.15 m/s) where they would be susceptible to impingement.
| |
| | |
| 11 Impingement mortality studies indicate that annual impingement at Oconee Station is low and 12 confined to primarily three species. The two most abundantly impinged species, threadfish shad 13 and blueback herring, are forage species whose populations are easily capable of recovering 14 from losses caused by their prolific spawning and high growth rates. The third most abundantly 15 impinged species is bluegill, which is recreationally important. However, impingement losses of 16 bluegill equate to roughly the daily harvest of a single recreational fisherman. During the most 17 recent impingement study conducted in 2006 and 2007, researchers identified no long-term 18 trends in Lake Keowees fish populations and no changes in the lakes species richness, 19 species abundance, or trophic composition attributable to Oconee Station operation.
| |
| | |
| 20 The impingement AOI, combined with the results of impingement mortality studies, do not reveal 21 any noticeable or detectable impacts on the finfish populations of Lake Keowee attributable to 22 impingement. Shellfish do not appear to be susceptible to impingement and are, therefore, 23 unaffected by operation of the cooling water intake system.
| |
| | |
| 24 Because water withdrawals, and the associated risk of impingement, would remain the same 25 under the proposed action, the NRC staff anticipates similar (i.e., nondetectable) effects during 26 the proposed SLR period. Further, the SCDHEC will make an impingement mortality BTA 27 determination as part of issuing a renewed NPDES permit, which would likely be issued and 28 take effect before the renewed operating license period begins. If the SCDHEC imposes any 29 additional requirements beyond those contained in the current permit, those requirements would 30 likely further reduce the impacts of impingement during the proposed SLR term, in accordance 31 with CWA Section 316(b) requirements.
| |
| | |
| 32 For the reasons described above, the NRC staff finds that the impacts of impingement of 33 aquatic organisms resulting from the proposed SLR of Oconee Station would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.7.4.1.2 Entrainment
| |
| | |
| 35 Entrainment BTA
| |
| | |
| 36 The SCDHEC has not made an entrainment BTA determination for Oconee Station. As 37 discussed in Section 3.7.4.11 of this EIS, the SCDHEC is currently reviewing Duke 38 Energys 2013 renewal application along with its 2020 CWA Section 316(b) compliance 39 submittal, so, the 2010 NPDES permit remains in effect until the SCDHEC completes its review.
| |
| | |
| 3-98 1 As part of its 2020 CWA Section 316(b) compliance submittal, Duke Energy submitted to the 2 SCDHEC analyses in support of a site-specific entrainment BTA determination. After 3 considering the results of entrainment characterization studies and weighing the costs and 4 benefits of certain entrainment reduction technologies, Duke Energy requested the SCDHECs 5 determination that the existing nuclear power plant configuration and operation is BTA for 6 reducing entrainment. Duke Energy found the existing configuration to represent entrainment 7 BTA for the following reasons:
| |
| 8
| |
| * Entrainment under Oconee Stations current configuration with the existing curtain wall 9 design is commensurate with entrainment reductions that might be achieved with installation 10 of cooling towers.
| |
| 11
| |
| * More than 98 percent of entrainment at Oconee Station is of fragile forage species in the 12 Clupeidae family (e.g., blueback herring and threadfish shad), and entrainment primarily 13 consist of blueback herring eggs. These species have high fecundity and high natural 14 mortality, and entrainment is not expected to result in noticeable population-level impacts 15 that would affect these species or other species that rely on them as prey.
| |
| 16
| |
| * Fish community surveys document a balanced and indigenous fish community, and no 17 federally threatened or endangered species or State-listed species occur in Lake Keowee.
| |
| 18
| |
| * No freshwater mussels have been collected in entrainment studies, and entrainable-sized 19 fish are not viable glochidia hosts. Therefore, entrainment has no effect on Lake Keowees 20 freshwater mussel populations.
| |
| | |
| 21 As one component of issuing a renewed NPDES permit, the SCDHEC will make an entrainment 22 BTA determination. If the SCDHEC finds that the current configuration of Oconee Stations 23 cooling water intake structure is entrainment BTA, no further system modifications or upgrades 24 would be necessary, and implementation would effectively be immediate. Alternatively, the 25 SCDHEC may impose additional requirements to reduce or mitigate the effects of entrainment 26 at Oconee Station. Such requirements would be incorporated as conditions of the renewed 27 NPDES permit. The NRC staff assumes that any additional requirements that the SCDHEC 28 imposes would minimize the impacts of entrainment over the course of the proposed SLR term 29 in accordance with CWA Section 316(b) requirements.
| |
| | |
| 30 However, because the SCDHECs entrainment BTA determination is currently pending, the 31 NRC staff also considers other lines of evidence below, including the entrainment AOI and 32 results of entrainment studies, to more fully evaluate the magnitude of impact that entrainment 33 would represent during the proposed SLR period.
| |
| | |
| 34 Entrainment Area of Influence
| |
| | |
| 35 In connection with Duke Energys CWA Section 316(b) compliance submittal to the SCDHEC in 36 2020, HDR4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948) evaluated the Oconee Station entrainment AOI. The 37 entrainment AOI is the area within which plankton may be drawn into the intake rather than 38 transported away in the ambient flow. For an organism to become entrained, it must enter the 39 entrainment AOI of the cooling water intake system. Organisms within the AOI have a high 40 probability of being withdrawn by the intake, but not all organisms within the AOI will be 41 entrained. Actual entrainment will be the product of physical and biological factors that vary over 42 space, time, and species. Physical and temporal factors that influence the AOI include (EPRI 43 2000-TN8459):
| |
| | |
| 3-99 1
| |
| * speed, direction, and distribution of flow in the waters that surround the cooling water intake 2 structure 3
| |
| * bathymetry of the surrounding waters 4
| |
| * intake flow rate and variability of flow to the intake 5
| |
| * design of the intake
| |
| | |
| 6 Because of the the variability associated with these factors at Oconee Station, HDR4 (Duke 7 Energy 2022-TN8948) qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, evaluated the entrainment AOI.
| |
| 8 At Oconee Station, organisms first need to enter the intake canal to be susceptible to 9 entrainment. As organisms travel down the intake canal, the likelihood of entrainment increases 10 with proximity to the cooling water intake structure. However, the curtain wall installed at the 11 entrance of the intake canal facilitates water withdrawal from the lower portion of the water 12 column. Ichthyoplankton typically occur in the upper portion of the water column, so the curtain 13 wall reduces the number of ichthyoplankton that enter the intake canal. An entrainment study 14 conducted in 2016 and 2017 (discussed further below) found that ichthyoplankton densities on 15 the intake side of the curtain wall were 76.6 percent lower than ichthyoplankton densities on the 16 lake side. This indicates that the curtain wall is effective in limiting the number of Lake Keowee 17 organisms susceptible to entrainment.
| |
| | |
| 18 Entrainment Studies
| |
| | |
| 19 2016-2017 Entrainment Characterization Study
| |
| | |
| 20 The most recent entrainment characterization study at Oconee Station from March 2016 21 through October 2017 was conducted by HDR4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). During this 22 period, researchers collected ichthyoplankton samples twice a month using a pumped sampling 23 technique. Samples were collected on the upstream side of the cooling water intake structure at 24 two depths: (1) just beneath the top of the curtain wall opening and (2) near the bottom of the 25 intake. Samples were taken at 6-hour intervals to represent morning, day, evening, and night, 26 for a total of four diel samples during each 24-hour sampling event. Each sample consisted of 27 the organisms present in approximately 100 m3 (3,500 ft3) of water. In total, researchers 28 collected 128 entrainment samples during 16 sampling events. All organisms in each sample 29 were collected and preserved and then later processed in a laboratory for identification, 30 enumeration, and further analysis.
| |
| | |
| 31 A total of 176 ichthyoplankton from two taxonomic families: (1) Clupeidae (shads and 32 (2) herrings) and Centrarchidae (sunfishes), were collected during the entrainment 33 characterization study. Clupeidae species dominated samples from both years. In 2016, 34 species belonging to family Clupeidae consisted of 98.8 percent of collected ichthyoplankton, 35 and in 2017, Clupeidae consisted of 97.9 percent of collected ichthyoplankton. In both years, 36 blueback herring was the species that dominated the total catch (92.7 and 78.7 percent of 37 collected individuals in 2016 and 2017, respectively). The Clupeid group, identified as blueback 38 herring, alewife, gizzard shad, or threadfin shad were the most prevalent taxa group, followed 39 by the shad group, identified as gizzard shad or threadfin shad. A single sunfish identified to the 40 genus Lepomis was collected in 2016. Samples collected in both years were predominantly 41 eggs (92.7 and 86.2 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively) followed by post yolk-sac larvae.
| |
| 42 Few yolk-sac and no young-of-year life stages were collected. Table 3-9 summarizes the 43 composition and relative abundance of taxa collected during the study, and Table 3-10 44 summarizes the total numbers of ichthyoplankton collected by life stage.
| |
| | |
| 3-100 1 Table 3-9 Composition and Relative Abundance of Taxa Collected in Entrainment 2 Samples at Oconee Station, South Carolina, 2016-2017
| |
| | |
| Total No. Percent Total No. Percent Collected in Total (for Collected in Total (for Taxa Common Name 2016 2016) 2017 2017)
| |
| Alosa aestivalis blueback herring 76 92.7 74 78.7 Clupeidae clupeid group(a) 3 3.7 12 12.8 Dorsoma spp. Shad group(b) 2 2.4 6 6.4 Lepomis spp. Sunfish species 1 1.2 - -
| |
| unidentified species unidentified species - - 2 2.1 Total Not Applicable 82 100 94 100 Total Number of Not Applicable 3 100 2 -
| |
| Unique Taxa Collected No table entry has been denoted by -.
| |
| (a) Clupeid group consists of individuals identified as blueback herring, alewife or threadfin shad.
| |
| (b) Shad group consists of individuals identified as gizzard shad or threadfin shad.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2022-TN8948, Table 9-3.
| |
| | |
| 3 Table 3-10 Total Number of Ichthyoplankton Collected by Life Stage in Entrainment 4 Samples at Oconee Station, South Carolina, 2016-2017 Total No. Total No.
| |
| Collected in Percent Total Collected in Percent Total Life Stage 2016 (for 2016) 2017 (for 2017) egg 76 92.7 81 86.2 yolk-sac larvae 2 2.4 - -
| |
| post yolk-sac larvae 2 2.4 8 8.5 unidentified larval stage 2 2.4 5 5.3 Total 82 100 94 100 No table entry has been denoted by -.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2022-TN8948, Table 9-4.
| |
| | |
| 5 In both sample years, most entrainment occurred in June and July. No entrainment occurred in 6 March, April, May, or October 2016 or in September or October 2017. This seasonal pattern is 7 consistent with other southeastern U.S. reservoirs containing landlocked blueback herring.
| |
| 8 Ichthyoplankton densities were highest during morning hours (0300-0900 hours) and lowest 9 during the daytime (0900-1500 hours) in both sampling years. This pattern also likely correlates 10 with the blueback herring spawning season. Females of this species broadcast spawn 11 demersal, adhesive eggs at the surface of shallow, and fast-moving water along the shoreline 12 of river tributaries. Blueback herring and other Clupeids have a relatively short egg incubation 13 period and high fecundity (i.e., fertility). HDR found that the seasonal and diel collection 14 distributions indicated that resident blueback herring likely occurred in the intake canal that were 15 spawning near Oconee Stations intake. Any blueback herring in the intake canal are effectively 16 lost to the population because they cannot reenter Lake Keowee once in the intake canal.
| |
| 17 Estimates by HDR4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948) showed that Oconee Station entrained an 18 average of 36.8 million organisms annually based on actual withdrawal rates during the study 19 period. Under maximum water withdrawal conditions, maximum average annual entrainment
| |
| | |
| 3-101 1 would be 37.5 million organisms. Based on these numbers, the NRC staff estimates that the 2 loss of blueback herring eggs, which made up the majority of entrainment samples, would 3 equate to the annual egg production of roughly 100 spawning females assuming a spawning 4 rate of up to 350,000 eggs annually per female (FWS 2006-TN9698). The single sunfish 5 ichthyoplankton sample collected in 2016 would equate to the loss of the annual egg production 6 of roughly 16 spawning females per year assuming a spawning rate of up to 25,000 eggs 7 annually per female (Morris et al. 2005-TN9697). As established in the discussion on 8 impingement above, this would equate to approximately 4 days of a recreational fishermans 9 harvest (four fish per day). As a result of the study, HDR concluded that entrainment at Oconee 10 Station is not anticipated to have an impact on population viability for any species in Lake 11 Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 12 2017 Curtain Wall Entrainment Reduction Performance Study 13 In connection with the entrainment characterization study, HDR4 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948) 14 performed a curtain wall study from March through October 2017 to evaluate the extent to which 15 the curtain wall reduces the number of economically valuable species and overall abundance of 16 ichthyoplankton that enter the intake canal. Researchers collected ichthyoplankton samples 17 from each side of the curtain wall once per month for a total of 64 samples. A total of 18 179 ichthyoplankton consisting of at least three distinct taxa representing two families were 19 collected on both sides of the curtain wall. A higher number of ichthyoplankton were collected 20 on the lake side (145 organisms) than on the intake side (34 organisms). Taxa on the lake side 21 consisted of shads and herrings (81.4 percent), the shad group as either threadfin shad or 22 gizzard shad (16.6 percent), and sunfishes (2 percent). The dominant taxa on the intake side 23 were the herring group (61.7 percent), shads and herrings (26.4 percent), the shad group 24 (5.9 percent), alewife (2.9 percent), and unidentified fish (2.9 percent). Only larval life stages 25 were collected on the lake side, while eggs accounted for 65.0 percent of ichthyoplankton 26 collected on the intake side. This indicates that spawning of resident fish within the intake canal 27 are likely significant contributors to ichthyoplankton collected in this study and the entrainment 28 study. Species diversity and life stages on both sides of the curtain wall were consistent with the 29 results of the 2016-2017 entrainment characterization study. From the lake side of the curtain 30 wall to the intake side of the curtain wall, HDR found that the curtain wall effectively reduced 31 entrainment by 76 percent or more during the study period, and up to 89.7 percent during peak 32 entrainment in April and May.
| |
| | |
| 33 Historic Studies
| |
| | |
| 34 The only other study that has been performed at Oconee Station to evaluate entrainment 35 occurred in 1976. As with the study described above, this study evaluated the effectiveness of 36 the curtain wall in reducing entrainment. The researchers concluded that the curtain wall was 37 effective in reducing entrainment by excluding larval fish from entering the intake canal. The 38 study found that the depth of the curtain wall opening in relation to the thermal and dissolved 39 oxygen stratification in the source waterbody, was the key factor in reducing ichthyoplankton 40 abundance on the intake side of the curtain wall. This study is described in the NRC staffs 41 Supplemental EIS for the initial license renewal of Oconee Station, and this information is 42 incorporated here by reference (NRC 1999-TN8942: Section 4.1.1, pp. 4-8 to 4-9).
| |
| | |
| 43 Entrainment Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 44 The entrainment AOI is confined to the intake canal. Organisms are not susceptible to 45 entrainment until they pass through the curtain wall and enter the intake canal. As organisms
| |
| | |
| 3-102 1 travel through the intake canal, the likelihood of entrainment increases with proximity to the 2 cooling water intake structure. Because the curtain wall causes the draw of water to be from the 3 lower portion of the water column, it significantly limits susceptibility of Lake Keowee organisms 4 to entrainment.
| |
| | |
| 5 A study that examined the effectiveness of the curtain wall in reducing entrainment found that 6 ichthyoplankton composition and density differs significantly from the lake side to the intake side 7 of the curtain wall. The curtain wall effectively reduced entrainment by 76 percent or more 8 during the study period, and up to 89.7 percent during peak entrainment in April and May. Only 9 larval stages were collected on the lake side, while eggs predominated the collections on the 10 intake side. This suggests that much of the entrainment occurring at Oconee Station is likely 11 attributable to fish residing in the intake canal and that the curtain wall is effective at mitigating 12 entrainment loss of ichthyoplankton from the lake itself. Fish within the intake canal cannot 13 reenter the lake and are effectively lost to the population. Entrainment of ichthyoplankton 14 originating from these individuals would therefore not affect Lake Keowee populations because 15 there would be no way for these individuals or their offspring to interact with the lake population.
| |
| | |
| 16 Entrainment studies indicate that a limited number of species are entrained at Oconee Station 17 and that most entrainment is of blueback herring eggs. Estimated average annual losses of this 18 species equate to the egg production of roughly 100 spawning females per year. Researchers 19 attributed much of these losses to spawning females that inhabit the intake canal. As stated 20 above, this entrainment would not affect the populations of this species in Lake Keowee.
| |
| 21 Ichthyoplankton of only one recreational taxa, a single individual in the sunfish family, appeared 22 in entrainment study collections. Estimated average annual losses of sunfish equate to the egg 23 production of roughly 16 spawning females per year. These losses are unlikely to noticeably 24 affect sunfish populations within Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 25 The entrainment AOI, combined with the results of entrainment studies, do not reveal any 26 noticeable or detectable impacts on the finfish populations of Lake Keowee attributable to 27 impingement. Entrainable-sized fish are not viable glochidia hosts for freshwater mussels; 28 therefore, entrainment has no effect on Lake Keowees shellfish populations.
| |
| | |
| 29 Because water withdrawals, and the associated risk of entrainment, would remain the same 30 under the proposed action, the NRC staff anticipates similar (i.e., non-detectable) effects during 31 the proposed SLR period. Further, the SCDHEC will make an entrainment BTA determination 32 as part of issuing a renewed NPDES permit. If the SCDHEC imposes any additional 33 requirements beyond those contained in the current permit, those requirements would likely 34 further reduce the impacts of entrainment over the course of the proposed SLR term, in 35 accordance with CWA Section 316(b) requirements.
| |
| | |
| 36 For the reasons described above, the NRC staff finds that the impacts of entrainment of aquatic 37 organisms resulting from the proposed SLR of Oconee Station would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 38 3.7.4.1.3 Impingement and Entrainment Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 39 For the reasons summarized above under Impingement Conclusion and Entrainment 40 Conclusion, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of impingement and entrainment on 41 aquatic organisms resulting from the proposed SLR of Oconee Station would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-103 1 3.7.4.2 Entrainment of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton (All Plants)
| |
| | |
| 2 This issue concerns entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton from cooling water 3 withdrawal. Entrainment occurs when organisms pass through the cooling systems screening 4 device and travel through the entire system, including the pumps, condenser or heat exchanger 5 tubes, and discharge pipes (79 FR 48300-TN4488). Organisms susceptible to entrainment are 6 of smaller size, such as ichthyoplankton, meriplankton, zooplankton, and phytoplankton. During 7 travel through the cooling system, entrained organisms experience physical trauma and stress, 8 pressure changes, excess heat, and exposure to chemicals (Mayhew et al. 2000-TN8458).
| |
| 9 Because entrainable organisms generally consist of fragile life stages (e.g., eggs, which exhibit 10 poor survival after interacting with a cooling water intake structure, and early larvae, which lack 11 a skeletal structure and swimming ability), the EPA has concluded that, for purposes of 12 assessing the impacts of a cooling water intake system on the aquatic environment, all 13 entrained organisms are assumed to die (79 FR 48300-TN4488). The NRC staff assesses the 14 site-specific impacts of entrainment of fish and shellfish during the Oconee Station SLR term in 15 Section 3.7.4.1 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 16 Most nuclear power plants were required to monitor for entrainment effects during the initial 17 years of operation. The effects of entrainment on phytoplankton and zooplankton are of SMALL 18 significance if monitoring indicates no evidence that nuclear power plant operation has reduced 19 or otherwise affected populations of these organisms in the source water body. The 2013 LR 20 GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) summarizes the results of entrainment monitoring at several nuclear 21 power plants. The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and 2013 LR GEIS concluded that 22 nuclear power plants had not noticeably altered phytoplankton or zooplankton abundance near 23 these and other plants and that the impacts of initial license renewal would be similar and 24 SMALL. In the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff 25 found no new and significant information concerning this issue, and the NRC staff adopted the 26 1996 LR GEISs conclusion of SMALL for Oconee Station initial license renewal. In the following 27 discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station 28 SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 29 Phytoplankton and zooplankton inhabiting Lake Keowee may be entrained into Oconee 30 Stations once-through cooling water system. Section 3.7.4.1, subsection Oconee Station 31 Cooling Water Intake System describes how entrainable organisms interact with the cooling 32 system as Oconee Station withdraws water from the lake.
| |
| | |
| 33 Researchers have conducted field studies to characterize the phytoplankton and zooplankton 34 populations in Lake Keowee since 1973 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). In its environmental 35 report, Duke Energy describes the most recent phytoplankton and zooplankton data, which 36 researchers collected from 2006 through 2011. During this period, zooplankton densities and 37 species diversity declined; however, Duke Energy attributed this shift to normal lake aging 38 processes (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897; Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 39 Entrainment AOI is an important factor in determining the potential impacts of entrainment on 40 phytoplankton and zooplankton. As discussed in Section 3.7.4.1.2 the entrainment AOI is the 41 area within which plankton may be drawn into the intake rather than transported away in the 42 ambient flow. The design of Oconee Stations curtain wall, which lies at the entrance to the 43 intake canal, causes the draw of water to be from the lower portion of the water column.
| |
| 44 Because phytoplankton reside in the upper water column to acquire light for photosynthesis, the 45 curtain wall design is likely to significantly limit the number of phytoplankton that enter the intake 46 canal and would then be susceptible to entrainment. Zooplankton, which prey on phytoplankton
| |
| | |
| 3-104 1 and each other, also typically occupy the upper water column and would, therefore, also be less 2 likely to enter the intake canal where they would become entrained. The design of Oconee 3 Stations cooling water intake structure would remain the same during the proposed SLR term.
| |
| 4 Therefore, the proportion of Lake Keowees phytoplankton and zooplankton that would be 5 susceptible to entrainment would remain very low.
| |
| | |
| 6 Finfish monitoring also can provide insight into the health of Lake Keowees phytoplankton and 7 zooplankton communities. As described in Section 3.7.1.1, Duke Energy and State agencies 8 periodically monitor Lake Keowees fish populations. Results of this monitoring indicate that 9 Lake Keowees fish populations are healthy, and monitoring trends indicate no consistent 10 upward or downward trends in finfish populations over several decades of monitoring. Although 11 these studies do not directly gather information on phytoplankton and zooplankton, the NRC 12 staff finds it reasonable to assume that entrainment is not affecting these communities to a 13 degree that causes trophic cascade or monitoring would reveal downward trends of other shifts 14 in the abundance and composition of finfish species that are primary consumers in the trophic 15 structure.
| |
| | |
| 16 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors conditions 17 rather than introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and 18 SLR on phytoplankton and zooplankton would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of 19 entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be minor and would neither destabilize nor 20 noticeably alter any important attribute of these populations during the SLR term. The NRC staff 21 concludes that the impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the Oconee 22 Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 23 3.7.4.3 Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems 24 or Cooling Ponds)
| |
| | |
| 25 For nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems, such as Oconee Station, the NRC 26 has determined in the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) that thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 27 is a Category 2 issue that requires site-specific evaluation. In 1999, the NRC staff evaluated the 28 thermal impacts of the Oconee Station initial license renewal on aquatic organisms under the 29 issue heat shock. The NRC staff determined that the impacts of continued operation of 30 Oconee Station would be SMALL during the initial license renewal term (i.e., 2013-2033 for 31 Units 1 and 2 and 2014-2034 for Unit 3) (NRC 1999-TN8942). In 2013, the NRC issued 32 Revision 1 of the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654). In the revised LR GEIS, the staff renamed the 33 issue of heat shock to thermal impacts on aquatic organisms. The renaming did not affect the 34 scope of the issue for license renewal. This section of the EIS evaluates thermal impacts on 35 aquatic organisms as they apply to continued operation of Oconee Station during the proposed 36 SLR term (i.e., 2033-2053 for Units 1 and 2 and 2034-2054 for Unit 3).
| |
| | |
| 37 The primary form of thermal impact of concern at Oconee Station is heat shock. Heat shock 38 occurs when water temperature meets or exceeds the thermal tolerance of an aquatic species 39 for some duration of the exposure (NRC 2013-TN2654). In most situations, fish can avoid areas 40 that exceed their thermal tolerance limits, although some aquatic species or life stages lack 41 such mobility. Heat shock is typically observable only for fish because they tend to float when 42 dead. In addition to heat shock, thermal plumes resulting from thermal effluent can create 43 barriers to fish passage, which is of particular concern for migratory species. Thermal plumes 44 can also reduce the available aquatic habitat or alter habitat characteristics in a manner that 45 results in cascading effects on the local aquatic community.
| |
| | |
| 3-105 1 Oconee Station Effluent Discharge
| |
| | |
| 2 Oconee Station discharges heated effluent to the Keowee River arm of Lake Keowee just 3 above the Lake Keowee dam through a submerged opening that is 25 to 40 ft (7.6 to 12 m) 4 deep. Oconee Stations NPDES permit6 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) designates this discharge 5 point as Outfall 001. Discharges create a distinct but variable-sized thermal plume that is largest 6 in the winter and smallest in the summer.
| |
| | |
| 7 Duke Energy (2021-TN8898) monitors water temperatures at several Lake Keowee stations as 8 part of its CWA Section 316(a) monitoring requirements imposed by the SCDHEC through the 9 NPDES permit. The most recent CWA Section 316(a) demonstration report submitted to the 10 SCDHEC covers the years 2006-2011. The closest station to the nuclear power plants 11 discharge is location 508, which is 656 ft (200 m) from Outfall 001. The annual maximum 12 surface water temperatures at location 508 during this period ranged from 92.5°F (33.6°C) in 13 2009 to 94.8°F (34.9°C) in 2008. There were no instances when surface water temperatures 14 exceeded the permitted thermal limits during the period and the reported surface water 15 temperatures were similar to values reported in the previous two reports dated 1995 and 2007.
| |
| 16 Table 3-11 lists mean, median, minimum, and maximum recorded surface water temperatures 17 at various Lake Keowee monitoring locations during the 2006-2011 period.
| |
| | |
| 18 During the October 2021 environmental site audit, NRC staff reviewed interim surface water 19 monitoring data for the period 2012-2019. Data from this period are similar to values reported 20 during the 2006-2011 period.
| |
| | |
| 21 Table 3-11 Lake Keowee Surface Water Temperature Characteristics by Location, 2006-22 2011
| |
| | |
| Distance Distance from Mean Median Minimum Maximum from Keowee Dam Temperature Temperature Temperature Temperature Location Discharge (ft) (ft) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) 508 656 984 78.3 74.8 57.4 94.8 504 2,625 656 76.5 73.9 57.6 93.7 504.5 2,953 1,312 73.6 73.8 57.7 91.8 505 14,764 15,748 74.5 73.8 54.1 91.6 502 16,076 17,717 72.3 72.1 50.0 89.2 506 33,465 32,808 73.8 73.9 52.3 90.3 501 46,916 48,556 70.9 71.6 46.8 89.2 507 50,525 49,869 68.4 70.5 48.4 85.6 500 65,617 67,257 70.7 71.2 46.4 89.2
| |
| °F = degree(s) Fahrenheit; ft = feet. To convert feet to meters, multiply by 0.3. To convert °F to degree(s) Celsius, subtract 32 and multiply by 5/9.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8898, Table 2-4.
| |
| | |
| 6 [SCDHEC] South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Discharge to Surface Waters, Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, Oconee Nuclear Station. Permit No.: SC0000515. Issued March 30, 2010. Effective May 1, 2010. 35 pp.
| |
| In Attachment B of Duke Energy 2021-TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 3-106 1 Clean Water Act of 1972 Section 316(a) Requirements for Point Source Discharges 2 CWA Section 316(a) addresses the adverse environmental impacts associated with thermal 3 discharges into waters of the United States. This section of the act grants the EPA the authority 4 to impose alternative, less-stringent, facility-specific effluent limits (called variances) on the 5 thermal component of point source discharges. To be eligible, facilities must demonstrate, to the 6 satisfaction of the NPDES permitting authority, that facility-specific effluent limitations will ensure 7 the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and 8 wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. CWA Section 316(a) variances are valid for the 9 term of the NPDES permit (i.e., 5 years). Facilities must reapply for variances with each NPDES 10 permit renewal application. The EPA issued regulations under CWA Section 316(a) at 11 40 CFR 125, Subpart H (TN254).
| |
| | |
| 12 Analysis Approach
| |
| | |
| 13 When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting 14 authority with respect to thermal impacts on aquatic organisms. Therefore, if the NPDES 15 permitting authority has made a determination under CWA Section 316(a) that thermal effluent 16 limits are sufficiently stringent to ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, 17 indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water, and 18 the facility has implemented any associated requirements, then the NRC staff assumes that 19 adverse impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR 51.10(c) (TN250);
| |
| 20 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); and 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the NRC staff concludes that 21 thermal impacts on aquatic organisms would be SMALL.
| |
| 22 In cases in which the NPDES permitting authority has not granted a CWA Section 316(a) 23 variance, the NRC staff analyzes the potential impacts of thermal discharges using a weight-of-24 evidence approach. In this approach, the staff considers multiple lines of evidence to assess the 25 presence or absence of ecological impairment (i.e., noticeable or detectable impact) on the 26 aquatic environment. For instance, as its lines of evidence, the staff might consider 27 characteristics of the cooling water discharge system design, the results of thermal studies 28 performed at the facility, and trends in fish and shellfish population abundance indices. The staff 29 then considers these lines of evidence together to predict the level of impact (SMALL, 30 MODERATE, or LARGE) that the aquatic environment is likely to experience during the 31 proposed SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 32 Baseline Condition of the Resource
| |
| | |
| 33 For the purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff assumes that the baseline condition of the 34 resource is the Lake Keowee aquatic community as it occurs today, which is described in 35 Section 3.7.1 of this EIS. While species richness, evenness, and diversity within the community 36 may change or shift between now and when the proposed SLR period would begin, the NRC 37 staff finds the present aquatic community to be a reasonable surrogate in the absence of fishery 38 and species-specific projections.
| |
| | |
| 39 CWA 316(a) Thermal Variance 40 In 1977, Duke Energy submitted to the SCDHEC a comprehensive study that examined the 41 effects of Oconee Stations heated effluent on the ecology of Lake Keowee. Based on the 42 results of this study, the SCDHEC established alternative thermal limits to ensure the protection 43 and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on 44 Lake Keowee. The SCDHEC incorporated the alternative thermal limits into the 1981 renewed 45 NPDES permit (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 3-107 1 Since that time, Duke Energy has continued to collect physical, chemical, and biological 2 monitoring data pursuant to NPDES permit requirements. Duke Energy has used this data to 3 prepare CWA Section 316(a) demonstrations. The most recent CWA Section 316(a) 4 demonstration5 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898) found that water quality and chemistry continued 5 to provide a suitable aquatic habitat for a diverse biological community. Both phytoplankton and 6 zooplankton populations remained diverse with no observable short- or long-term impacts 7 attributable to Oconee Station operation. Fish species abundance and diversity did not differ 8 between the thermal plume zone and other areas of the lake, indicating that thermal impacts on 9 Lake Keowees fish community are minimal.
| |
| | |
| 10 With each NPDES permit renewal application, Duke Energy has requested, and the SCDHEC 11 has granted, continuation of the CWA Section 316(a) variance. In the current NPDES permit6 12 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), the CWA Section 316(a) variance appears in Part V, 13 Condition E.9. The current NPDES permit also includes thermal limits for discharge from 14 Outfall 001, the cooling system discharge, in Part III, Condition A.1. Table 3-12 summarizes 15 these limits. The permit requires Duke Energy to sample temperatures at Outfall 001 hourly and 16 report to the SCDHEC monthly. In its environmental report, Duke Energy states that the 17 SCDHEC has issued no notices of violation concerning these thermal limits (Duke Energy 2021-18 TN8897).
| |
| 19 In its 2013 NDPES permit renewal application5 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898), Duke Energy 20 again requested continuance of the CWA Section 316(a) variance based on its 2013 CWA 21 Section 316(a) demonstration5 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898), which concluded that operation of 22 Oconee Station appears to have little long-term impact on sportfish populations and that a 23 balanced indigenous fish community exists in Lake Keowee. As part of its NPDES permit 24 renewal application review, the SCDHEC will consider Duke Energys request for continuance of 25 the variance. The SCDHEC may determine that the original CWA Section 316(a) demonstration, 26 paired with Duke Energys continued temperature monitoring, is sufficient to ensure the 27 protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in 28 and on Lake Keowee. Alternately, the SCDHEC may require additional mitigation or m onitoring 29 in the renewed NPDES permit.
| |
| | |
| 30 Table 3-12 Thermal Effluent Limitations at Oconee Station, South Carolina
| |
| | |
| Effluent Characteristics Daily Maximum Temperature for Thermal Discharges Temperature (effluent)(a) 100°F Temperature (effluent)(b) 103°F Temperature (difference)(c) 22°F
| |
| | |
| °F = degree(s) Fahrenheit. To convert °F to degree(s) Celsius, subtract 32 and multiply by 5/9.
| |
| (a) This limit applies, unless critical hydrological and meteorological conditions are combined with high customer demand, which cannot be met from other sources as determined by the System Operations Center.
| |
| (b) This limit applies only when critical hydrological and meteorological conditions are combined with high customer demand, which cannot be met from other sources as determined by the System Operations Center.
| |
| (c) This limit applies when the intake temperature is greater than 68°F. The temperature difference shall be determined by the effluent temperature minus the intake temperature.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897.6
| |
| | |
| 31 Thermal Impacts Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 32 Because the SCDHEC has granted Duke Energy multiple, sequential variances under CWA 33 Section 316(a), the NRC staff finds that the adverse impacts on the aquatic environment 34 associated thermal effluent are minimized. Because the characteristics of the thermal effluent
| |
| | |
| 3-108 1 would remain the same under the proposed action, the NRC staff anticipates similar effects 2 during the proposed SLR period. Further, the SCDHEC will continue to review the CWA 3 Section 316(a) variance with each successive NPDES permit renewal and may require 4 additional mitigation or monitoring in a future renewed NPDES permit if it deems such actions to 5 be appropriate to ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of 6 shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on Lake Keowee. The NRC staff assumes that any additional 7 requirements that the SCDHEC imposes would further reduce the impacts of the Oconee 8 Station thermal effluent during the proposed SLR term. For these reasons, the NRC staff finds 9 that thermal impacts during the proposed SLR period would neither destabilize nor noticeably 10 alter any important attribute of the aquatic environment and would, therefore, result in SMALL 11 impacts on aquatic organisms.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.7.4.4 Infrequently Reported Thermal Impacts (All Plants)
| |
| | |
| 13 This issue concerns the infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents. These effects include 14 cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of freshwater aquatic insects, 15 and proliferated growth of aquatic nuisance species.
| |
| | |
| 16 Cold shock occurs when an organism has been acclimated to a specific water temperature or 17 range of temperatures and is subsequently exposed to a rapid decrease in temperature. This 18 can result in a cascade of physiological and behavioral responses and, in some cases, death 19 (Donaldson et al. 2008-TN7515). Rapid temperature decreases may occur from either natural 20 sources (e.g., thermocline temperature variation and storm events) or anthropogenic sources 21 (e.g., thermal effluent discharges). The magnitude, duration, and frequency of the temperature 22 change, as well as the initial acclimation temperatures of individuals, can influence the extent of 23 the consequences of cold shock on fish and other aquatic organisms (Donaldson et al. 2008-24 TN7515). At nuclear power plants, cold shock could occur during refueling outages, reductions 25 in power generation level, or other situations that would quickly reduce the amount of cooling 26 capacity required at the nuclear power plant. Cold shock is most likely to be observable in the 27 winter. The 1996 LR GEIS reports that cold shock events have only rarely occurred at nuclear 28 power plants. Fish mortalities usually involved only a few fish and did not result in 29 population-level effects. Gradual depowering or shutdown of nuclear power plant operations, 30 especially in winter months, can mitigate the effects of cold shock.
| |
| | |
| 31 Thermal effluents have the potential to create migration barriers if the thermal plume covers an 32 extensive cross-sectional area of a river and temperatures within the plume exceed a species 33 physiological tolerance limit. This impact has been examined at several nuclear power plants, 34 but it has not been determined to result in observable effects (NRC 1996-TN288, NRC 2013-35 TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 36 The 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS also considered that the heated effluents of nuclear 37 power plants could accelerate the maturation of aquatic insects in freshwater systems and 38 cause premature emergence. The maturation and emergence of aquatic insects are often 39 closely associated with water temperature regimes. If insects develop or emerge early in the 40 season, they may be unable to feed or reproduce or they may die because the local climate is 41 not warm enough to support them.
| |
| | |
| 42 The 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS also considered that heated effluents could proliferate 43 the growth of aquatic nuisance organisms. Aquatic nuisance species are organisms that disrupt 44 the ecological stability of infested inland (e.g., rivers and lakes), estuarine, or marine waters 45 (EPA 2022-TN7519). The LR GEISs discuss the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and
| |
| | |
| 3-109 1 Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), two bivalves that are of particular concern in many freshwater 2 systems because they can cause significant biofouling of industrial intake pipes at power and 3 water facilities. These species are also of ecological concern because they outcompete and 4 lead to the decline of native freshwater mussels. Nuclear power plants that withdraw water from 5 water bodies in which these species are known to occur often periodically chlorinate intake 6 pipes or have other procedures in place to mitigate the spread of these bivalves. There is no 7 evidence, however, that thermal effluent leads to these species proliferation.
| |
| | |
| 8 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) concluded 9 that these infrequently reported thermal impacts would be SMALL during the initial license 10 renewal term. The 1996 LR GEIS evaluated these concerns as five issues; the 2013 LR GEIS 11 consolidated them into one issue. In the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 12 1999a), the NRC staff found no new and significant information concerning these issues, and 13 the NRC staff adopted the 1996 LR GEISs conclusion of SMALL for Oconee Station initial 14 license renewal. In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific 15 basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 16 With respect to cold shock, no such events have been reported at Oconee Station (Duke 17 Energy 2022-TN8899). Therefore, cold shock is not expected to be of concern for the Oconee 18 Station SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 19 With respect to thermal migration barriers, this issue is not relevant to Oconee Station because 20 Oconee Stations thermal effluent discharges to a lake. While there is a distinct thermal plume 21 (see Section 3.7.4.3), the NRC staff do not expect it to negatively impact migration of fish 22 because the plume only occurs within a small area of Lake Keowee (i.e., diameter of about 3 mi 23 [about 5 km]) and fish can freely swim around and away from the thermal plume.
| |
| | |
| 24 Regarding accelerated maturation of freshwater aquatic insects or proliferated growth of aquatic 25 nuisance species, the 2013 LR GEIS describes that in the early 1980s, oligochaete numbers 26 increased in the vicinity of Oconee Stations thermal effluent discharge; however, researchers 27 were unable to directly link these changes with increased water temperatures near the 28 discharge. In its environmental report, Duke Energy (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899) reports that 29 while nuisance species exist in Lake Keowee (e.g., Asian clams, hydrilla, common carp, or 30 green sunfish), none have proliferated to levels requiring Duke Energy to take invasive species 31 control actions. Additionally, the NRC staff identified no information indicating that Oconee 32 Stations thermal effluent may specifically contribute to the enhanced growth or survival of these 33 species.
| |
| | |
| 34 The SLR term would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather 35 than introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR 36 would be similar. For these reasons, infrequently reported thermal impacts would be minor and 37 would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic ecosystems 38 during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that infrequently reported thermal impacts on 39 aquatic resources during the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 40 3.7.4.5 Effects of Cooling Water Discharge on Dissolved Oxygen, Gas Supersaturation, and 41 Eutrophication
| |
| | |
| 42 This issue concerns the effects of thermal effluents on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, 43 and eutrophication. Because nuclear power plant effluents are heated, discharged water can 44 change certain biological conditions in the receiving water body in a manner that affects the
| |
| | |
| 3-110 1 characteristics of that habitat and the potential suitability of that habitat for local fish, shellfish, 2 and other aquatic organisms.
| |
| | |
| 3 Aerobic organisms, such as fish, require oxygen, and the concentration of dissolved oxygen in a 4 water body is one of the most important ecological water quality parameters. Dissolved oxygen 5 also influences several inorganic chemical reactions. In general, dissolved oxygen 6 concentrations of less than 3 parts per million (ppm) in warmwater habitats or less than 5 ppm in 7 coldwater habitats can adversely affect fish (Morrow and Fischenich 2000-TN7351). Oxygen 8 dissolves into water via diffusion, aeration, and as a product of photosynthesis. The amount of 9 oxygen water can absorb depends on temperature; the amount of oxygen that can dissolve in a 10 volume of water (i.e., the saturation point) is inversely proportional to the temperature of the 11 water. Thus, when other chemical and physical conditions are equal, the warmer the water is, 12 the less dissolved oxygen it can hold. Increased water temperatures also affect the amount of 13 oxygen that aquatic organisms need due to increase in metabolic rates and chemical reaction 14 rates. The rates of many chemical reactions in water approximately double for every 18°F 15 (10°C) increase in temperature.
| |
| | |
| 16 The thermal effluent discharges of nuclear power plants have the potential to stress aquatic 17 organisms by simultaneously increasing these organisms need for oxygen and decreasing 18 oxygen availability. Aquatic organisms are more likely to experience adverse effects from 19 thermal effluents in ecosystems where dissolved oxygen levels are already approaching 20 suboptimal levels from other factors in the environment. This is most likely to occur in 21 ecosystems where increased levels of detritus and nutrients (e.g., eutrophication), low flow, and 22 high ambient temperatures already exist. These conditions can occur from drought conditions or 23 in hot weather, especially in lakes, reservoirs, or other dammed freshwater.
| |
| | |
| 24 Although the thermal effluents of nuclear power plants may contribute to reduced dissolved 25 oxygen in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point, as the effluent disperses, diffusion and 26 aeration from turbulent movement introduce additional oxygen into the water. As the water 27 cools, the saturation point increases, and the water can absorb additional oxygen as it is 28 released by aquatic plants and algae through photosynthesis, which is a continuously ongoing 29 process during daylight hours. Therefore, lower dissolved oxygen is generally only a concern 30 within the thermal mixing zone, which is typically a small area of the receiving water body. Many 31 States address thermal mixing zones in State water quality criteria to ensure that mixing zones 32 provide a continuous zone of passage for aquatic organisms. Additionally, the EPA, or 33 authorized States and Tribes, often imposes conditions specifically addressing dissolved 34 oxygen through NPDES permits to ensure that receiving water bodies maintain adequate levels 35 of oxygen to support aquatic life. These conditions are established pursuant to CWA 36 Section 316(a), which requires that regulated facilities operate under effluent limitations that 37 ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, 38 and wildlife in and on the receiving water body.
| |
| | |
| 39 Rapid heating of cooling water can also affect the solubility and saturation point of other 40 dissolved gases, including nitrogen. As water passes through the condenser cooling system, it 41 can become supersaturated with gases. Once the supersaturated water is discharged in the 42 receiving water body, dissolved gas levels equilibrate as the effluent cools and mixes with 43 ambient water. This process is of concern if aquatic organisms remain in the supersaturated 44 effluent for a long enough period to become equilibrated to the increased pressure associated 45 with the effluent. If these organisms then move into water of lower pressure too quickly when, 46 for example, swimming out of the thermal effluent or diving to depths, the dissolved gases within 47 the affected tissues may come out of solution and cause embolism (bubbles in the circulatory
| |
| | |
| 3-111 1 system). The resulting condition is known as gas bubble disease. In fish, it is most noticeable in 2 the eyes and fins. Affected tissues can swell or hemorrhage and result in behavioral 3 abnormalities, increased susceptibility to predation, or death. Mortality in fish generally occurs at 4 gas supersaturation levels above 110 or 115 percent (EPA 1986-TN7726). Aquatic insects and 5 crustaceans appear to be more tolerant of supersaturated water (Nebeker et al. 1981-TN7725).
| |
| | |
| 6 The ability to detect and avoid supersaturated waters varies among species. A fish can avoid 7 supersaturated waters by either not entering the affected area or by diving to avoid the onset of 8 supersaturated conditions near the surface. Some species, however, may not avoid 9 supersaturated waters until symptoms of gas bubble disease occur; at that point, some fish may 10 already be lethally exposed. Other species may be attracted to supersaturated waters because 11 it is often warmer (Gray et al. 1983-TN7727).
| |
| | |
| 12 The 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS report cases of fish mortality from gas bubble disease at 13 hydroelectric dams and coal-fired power plants. Typically, gas bubble disease is of concern at 14 facilities where the configuration of the discharge allows organisms to reside in the 15 supersaturated effluent for extended periods of time (e.g., discharge canals that fish can freely 16 enter). However, fish mortality from gas bubble disease has been observed in only one instance 17 in the mid-1970s at a nuclear power plant that is no longer operating.
| |
| | |
| 18 An early concern about nuclear power plant discharges was that thermal effluents would cause 19 or speed eutrophication by stimulating biological productivity in receiving water bodies (NRC 20 1996-TN288). Eutrophication is the gradual increase in the concentration of phosphorus, 21 nitrogen, and other nutrients in a slow-flowing or stagnant aquatic ecosystem, such as a lake.
| |
| 22 These nutrients enter the ecosystem primarily through runoff from agricultural land and 23 impervious surfaces. The increase in nutrient content allows algae to proliferate on the waters 24 surface, which reduces light penetration and oxygen absorption necessary for underwater life.
| |
| 25 The 1996 LR GEIS reports that several nuclear power plants conducted long-term monitoring to 26 investigate this potential effect. No evidence of eutrophication was detected.
| |
| | |
| 27 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) concluded 28 that the effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and 29 eutrophication would be SMALL during the initial license renewal term. The 1996 LR GEIS 30 evaluated these concerns as three issues; the 2013 GEIS consolidated them into one issue. In 31 the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff found no 32 new and significant information concerning these issues, and the NRC staff adopted the 1996 33 LR GEISs conclusion of SMALL for Oconee Station initial license renewal. In the following 34 discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station 35 SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 36 With respect to dissolved oxygen, since 1977, Duke Energy has collected physical, chemical, 37 and biological monitoring data pursuant to NPDES permit requirements and used this data to 38 prepare CWA Section 316(a) demonstration reports that show that the alternative thermal limits 39 established by the SCDHEC for Oconee Stations thermal effluents ensure the protection and 40 propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on Lake 41 Keowee (see Section 3.7.4.2). With each NPDES permit renewal application, Duke Energy has 42 requested, and the SCDHEC has granted, continuation of the CWA Section 316(a) variance.
| |
| 43 The most recent CWA Section 316(a) demonstration report that covers the years 2006-2011 44 shows that the dissolved oxygen levels nearby the discharge location and elsewhere in Lake 45 Keowee have been above the SCDHECs water quality criteria of a 5 mg/L daily average and a 46 low of 4 mg/L (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898). Because SLR would continue current operating
| |
| | |
| 3-112 1 conditions and the sites NPDES permit would continue requiring minimum levels of and 2 monitoring for dissolved oxygen, reduced dissolved oxygen resulting from Oconee Stations 3 thermal effluent is not expected to be of concern during the SLR period.
| |
| | |
| 4 With respect to gas supersaturation, Duke Energy has not reported any instances of fish kills at 5 Oconee Station or any other information indicating that fish may have experienced symptoms of 6 gas bubble disease (Duke Energy 2021-TN8898). As described above, gas supersaturation has 7 only been reported at one nuclear power plant that is no longer in service. Because SLR would 8 continue current operating conditions, gas supersaturation resulting from Oconee Stations 9 thermal effluent is not expected to be of concern during the SLR period.
| |
| | |
| 10 With respect to eutrophication, the main concern would be the death and decomposition of algal 11 (phytoplankton) blooms that would reduce dissolved oxygen. As discussed above, 12 eutrophication has not been a concern because dissolved oxygen levels have remained above 13 SCDHEC thresholds (i.e., 5 mg/L daily average and a low of 4 mg/L) (SCDHEC 2014-TN6986).
| |
| 14 Duke Energys most recent CWA Section 316(a) demonstration report analyzes phytoplankton 15 abundances and trends (via chlorophyll levels) near the thermal effluent discharge and 16 elsewhere in Lake Keowee from 1994-2011 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). All chlorophyll 17 samples during this time period were within the State water quality standard of 40 µg/L, and 18 chlorophyll levels were similar near the discharge and elsewhere in the lake. Eutrophication is 19 not expected to be a concern during the SLR period because the SLR would continue current 20 operating conditions and eutrophication has not been a problem in the past.
| |
| | |
| 21 The SLR would enable the continuation of current operating conditions and environmental 22 stressors rather than introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current 23 operations and SLR on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of 24 cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication would be 25 minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic 26 ecosystems during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of cooling water 27 discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication during the Oconee 28 Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 3.7.4.6 Effects of Nonradiological Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms
| |
| | |
| 30 This issue concerns the potential effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms 31 that could occur as a result of nuclear power plant operations. This issue was originally of 32 concern because some nuclear power plants used heavy metals in condenser tubing that could 33 leach from the tubing and expose aquatic organisms to these contaminants. Because aquatic 34 organisms can bioaccumulate heavy metals, even when exposed at low levels, this can cause 35 toxicity in fish and other animals that consume contaminated organisms. Section 3.9.2 of the 36 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) describes instances in which copper contamination was an 37 issue at operating nuclear power plants. Heavy metals have not been found to be of concern 38 other than in these few instances. In all cases, the nuclear power plants eliminated leaching by 39 replacing the affected piping, and these changes were implemented during the initial operating 40 license terms. The NRC staff has not identified this issue to be of concern during any license 41 renewal reviews to date.
| |
| | |
| 42 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) concluded 43 that the effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms would be SMALL during 44 the initial license renewal term. In the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-45 TN8942), the NRC staff did not identify any nonradiological contamination impacts beyond what
| |
| | |
| 3-113 1 was discussed in the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288). In the following discussion, the NRC 2 staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance 3 with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 4 Oconee Stations NPDES permit establishes nonradiological pollutant discharge limits, and it 5 requires Duke Energy to monitor and report the concentrations of these contaminants that are 6 discharged to Lake Keowee with the thermal effluent. Currently, Duke Energy uses no biocides 7 in the cooling water system, and the NPDES permit would require Duke Energy to seek approval 8 if Duke Energy were to do so in the future. With respect to storm water pollution, Duke maintains a 9 SWPPP as a requirement of the NPDES permit. Duke Energy routes stormwater and any spills 10 from operations to chemical treatment ponds in the wastewater treatment system. Duke Energy 11 discharges effluent from this system at Outfall 002 in accordance with NPDES permit 12 requirements (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Section 3.5.1.3 of this EIS describes one NOV and 13 two self-reported wastewater events. In all instances, Duke Energy identified that it took action to 14 remedy the issue and minimize environmental impacts of the spills and that the SCDHEC required 15 no further action.
| |
| | |
| 16 As explained in Section 3.7.1.2 of this EIS, the SCDHEC has issued consumption advisories for 17 certain fish because of mercury concentrations. However, Oconee Station is not the source of 18 this contamination. During the most recent NPDES permit renewal in 2010, SCDHEC evaluated 19 whether it should include discharge limits for certain metals, including mercury, in the renewed 20 permit. The SCDHEC opted not to include such limits because it determined that there was no 21 reasonable potential for Oconee Station to contribute to water quality violation for metals (Duke 22 Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 23 Duke Energy has complied with their NPDES permit requirements for nonradiological 24 contamination and will be required to in the future by the SCDHEC. Any violations must be 25 reported to the SCDHEC and are subject to investigation and potential mitigation actions.
| |
| | |
| 26 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than 27 introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR on aquatic 28 resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of nonradiological contaminants on 29 aquatic organisms would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 30 attribute of aquatic resources during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of 31 nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms during the Oconee Station SLR term would 32 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.7.4.7 Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides
| |
| | |
| 34 This issue concerns the potential impacts on aquatic organisms from exposure to radionuclides 35 from routine radiological effluent releases. As explained in Sections 2.1.4 and 3.5.2, radionuclides 36 may be released from nuclear power plants into the environment through several pathways, 37 including via gaseous and liquid emissions. Aquatic plants can absorb radionuclides that enter 38 shallow groundwater or surface waters through their roots. Aquatic animals can be exposed 39 externally to ionizing radiation from radionuclides in water, sediment, and other biota and can be 40 exposed internally through ingested food, water, and sediment and absorption through the 41 integument and respiratory organs.
| |
| | |
| 42 As explained in Section 3.6.4.2, the DOE has produced a standard for a graded approach to 43 evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota (DOE 2019-TN6817). The DOE 44 standard provides methods, models, and guidance that can be used to characterize radiation
| |
| | |
| 3-114 1 doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota exposed to radioactive material (DOE 2019-TN6817). For 2 aquatic animals, the DOE guidance dose rate is 1 rad/d (0.1 Gy/d), which represents the level 3 below which no adverse effects on resident populations are expected. The DOE also 4 recommends that the screening-level concentrations of most radionuclides in aquatic 5 environments be based on internal exposure as well as external exposure to contaminated 6 sediments, rather than external exposure to contaminated water (DOE 2019-TN6817).
| |
| | |
| 7 Previously, in the early 1990s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (IAEA 1992-8 TN712) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991-9 TN729) had also concluded that a chronic dose rate of no greater than 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) to 10 the maximally exposed individual in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure protection 11 of the population. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 12 (UNSCEAR) concluded in 1996 and re-affirmed in 2008 that chronic dose rates of less than 13 0.4 mGy/hr (1.0 rad/day or 0.01 Gy/day) to the most highly exposed individuals would be 14 unlikely to have significant effects on most aquatic communities (UNSCEAR 2010-TN7974).
| |
| | |
| 15 In the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC staff adopted the DOEs standard on a 16 graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota (DOE 2019-17 TN6817). In addition, the NRC estimated the total radiological dose that aquatic biota would be 18 expected to receive during normal nuclear power plant operations using plant-specific 19 radionuclide concentrations in water and sediments at 15 nuclear power plants using Argonne 20 National Laboratorys RESRAD-BIOTA dose evaluation model. The NRC found that total 21 calculated dose rates for aquatic organisms at all 15 plants was all less than 0.2 rad/d 22 (0.002 Gy/d), which is less than the DOE guideline value of 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d). As a result, the 23 NRC anticipated in the 2013 LR GEIS that normal operations of these facilities would not result 24 in negative effects on aquatic biota. The 2013 LR GEIS concluded that the impact of 25 radionuclides on aquatic biota from past operations would be SMALL for all nuclear power 26 plants and would not be expected to change appreciably during the initial license renewal 27 period.
| |
| | |
| 28 The NRC staff neither evaluated the exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides during the 29 initial license renewal period in the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-30 TN8942) nor was it addressed in the 1996 LR GEIS. However, the 2013 LR GEIS later 31 addressed this issue generically for initial license renewal of all nuclear power plants and 32 concluded that impacts would be SMALL. In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes 33 this issue on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI 34 02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 35 As discussed in Section 2.1.4 of this EIS, the NRC requires nuclear power plants to maintain a 36 radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) through its regulations at 10 CFR Part 37 50, Appendix I (TN249), 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283), and 10 CFR Part 72 (TN4884), and through 38 plant-specific technical specifications. These collectively require that licensees establish and 39 implement a REMP to obtain data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive material.
| |
| 40 The NRC staff provides guidance to licensees on acceptance methods for establishing and 41 conducting REMPs in Regulatory Guide 4.1 (NRC 2009-TN3802).
| |
| | |
| 42 Duke Energys REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environment for 43 ambient radiation and radioactivity. Monitoring is conducted for the following: direct radiation, 44 air, precipitation, well water, river water, surface water, milk, food products and vegetation (such 45 as edible broad leaf vegetation), fish, silt, and shoreline sediment. The REMP also measures 46 background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring radioactive
| |
| | |
| 3-115 1 material, including radon. As part of its environmental review, the NRC staff reviewed the past 2 five years of REMP reports (Duke Energy 2017-TN9157, TN9158, TN9159, TN9160, TN9160).
| |
| 3 A 5-year period provides a dataset that covers a broad range of activities that occur at a nuclear 4 power plant, such as refueling outages, routine operation, and maintenance that can affect the 5 generation and release of radioactive effluents into the environment. During this period, Duke 6 Energy collected 12 to 15 fish per year for gamma spectroscopy testing. All tested samples 7 were below reportable limits for radionuclides in environmental samples.
| |
| | |
| 8 The NRC regulations require nuclear power plants to monitor radiation in the environment and 9 to report the results of such monitoring to the NRC through a REMP. Maintaining REMP 10 monitoring ensures that levels of radiation are below regulatory limits and that any changes in 11 radionuclide concentrations are detected and addressed. To date, Duke Energy has not 12 detected levels of radioactivity attributable to Oconee Station operations that would result in 13 measurable radiological impacts on aquatic organisms.
| |
| | |
| 14 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than 15 introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR on aquatic 16 resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of radionuclides on aquatic 17 organisms would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 18 attribute of aquatic resources during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of 19 radionuclides on aquatic organisms during the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 3.7.4.8 Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Organisms
| |
| | |
| 21 This issue concerns the effects of dredging at nuclear power plants on aquatic resources.
| |
| 22 Small-particle sediment, such as sand and silt, that enters water bodies through erosion can 23 subsequently deposit and accumulate along shorelines and in shallow water areas. If sediment 24 deposition affects cooling system function or reliability, a nuclear power plant may need to 25 periodically dredge to improve intake flow and keep the area clear of sediment. Nuclear power 26 plants where dredging may be necessary are typically located along fast-flowing waters with 27 sandy or silty bottoms, such as large rivers or the ocean. In some instances, dredging may be 28 performed to maintain barge slips for transport of materials and waste to and from the site.
| |
| 29 Dredging entails excavating a layer of sediment from the affected areas and transporting that 30 sediment to onshore or offshore areas for disposal. The three main types of dredges are 31 mechanical dredges, hydraulic dredges, and airlift dredges. The selection of dredge type 32 generally is related to the sediment type, the size of the area to be dredged, and the aquatic 33 resources present. At operating nuclear power plants, dredging is performed infrequently, if at 34 all.
| |
| | |
| 35 In the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff did not 36 consider dredging because Duke Energy did not anticipate that dredging would be required 37 during the Oconee Station initial license renewal period. The 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-38 TN2654) analyzed the effects of dredging on aquatic organisms as a new issue and concluded 39 that the effects of this issue would be SMALL during the initial license renewal term for all 40 nuclear power plants. In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-41 specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI 22-03.
| |
| | |
| 42 Duke Energy (TN8897) anticipates no dredging as part of Oconee Station SLR term. Therefore, 43 there would be no impacts on aquatic resources. If Duke Energy determines at a future date 44 that dredging is necessary, Duke Energy would be required to obtain permits from the USACE 45 under CWA Section 404. BMPs and conditions associated with these permits would minimize
| |
| | |
| 3-116 1 impacts on the ecological environment. The granting of such permits would also require the 2 USACE to conduct environmental reviews prior to undertaking dredging. The NRC staff expects 3 that Duke Energy would continue to implement site environmental procedures and would obtain 4 any necessary permits for future dredging activities, if determined necessary. Implementation of 5 such controls would further reduce or mitigate potential effects.
| |
| | |
| 6 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than 7 introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR on aquatic 8 resources would be similar. Dredging is not expected during the SLR, and if it were, Duke 9 Energy would need to obtain the necessary permits and implement environmental procedures.
| |
| 10 For these reasons, the effects of dredging on aquatic resources would be minor and would 11 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic resources during the 12 SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the effects of dredging on aquatic resources during the 13 Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 14 3.7.4.9 Effects on Aquatic Resources (Non-cooling System Impacts)
| |
| | |
| 15 This issue concerns the effects of nuclear power plant operations on aquatic resources during 16 SLR that are unrelated to operation of the cooling system. Such activities include landscape and 17 grounds maintenance, stormwater management, and ground-disturbing activities that could 18 directly disturb aquatic habitat or cause runoff or sedimentation. These impacts are expected to 19 be like past and ongoing impacts that aquatic resources are already experiencing at the nuclear 20 power plant site.
| |
| | |
| 21 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) concluded 22 that the non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources would be SMALL during the initial 23 license renewal term. In the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC evaluated the impacts of refurbishment on 24 aquatic resources. In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC expanded this issue to include impacts of 25 other site activities, unrelated to cooling system operation, that may affect aquatic resources. In 26 the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff found no 27 new and significant information concerning this issue, and the NRC staff adopted the 1996 LR 28 GEISs conclusion of SMALL for Oconee Station initial license renewal. In the following 29 discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station 30 SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 31 Regarding ground disturbance, Duke Energy does not plan on any refurbishment or 32 construction activities for the proposed SLR term (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) that would 33 impact aquatic habitats. If Duke Energy determines that ground disturbance is needed, Duke 34 Energy indicates that it would acquire the necessary permits. For instance, ground disturbance 35 of over one acre would require a stormwater permit from the SCDHEC that would specify BMPs 36 to reduce erosion and sedimentation of onsite waters). Duke Energys Shoreline Management 37 Plan (Duke Energy 2014-TN9131) addresses these same issues along the Lake Keowee 38 shoreline (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 39 With respect to stormwater management, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces can 40 change the frequency or duration of inundation and soil infiltration within wetlands and 41 neighboring terrestrial habitats. The effects of stormwater runoff may include erosion, altered 42 hydrology, sedimentation, and other changes in nuclear power plant community characteristics.
| |
| 43 Runoff may contain sediments, contaminants and oils from road or parking surfaces, or 44 herbicides.
| |
| | |
| 3-117 1 Duke Energys SWPPP identifies BMPs to prevent or reduce soil erosion (see Sections 3.4.3 2 and 3.5.1 of this EIS). In addition, sumps capture liquid spills and stormwater runoff from 3 operational areas and divert it to chemical treatment ponds. Duke Energy monitors discharges 4 from this wastewater treatment system at Outfall 002 in accordance with the NPDES permit.
| |
| 5 Duke Energy also maintains a chemical control program designed to reduce contamination 6 risks, such as the frequency and severity of oil spills. Collectively, these measures ensure that 7 the effects on aquatic resources from pollutants carried by stormwater would be minimized 8 during the SLR term (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 9 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than 10 introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR on aquatic 11 resources would be similar. For these reasons, the non-cooling system impacts on aquatic 12 resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 13 attribute of aquatic resources during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes that the non-14 cooling system impacts on aquatic resources during the Oconee Station SLR term would be 15 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 16 3.7.4.10 Impacts of Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management on Aquatic 17 Resources
| |
| | |
| 18 This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on aquatic plants and 19 animals. Transmission line management can directly disturb aquatic habitats if ROWs traverse 20 aquatic features and heavy machinery are used in these areas. Heavy equipment can also 21 compact soils, which can affect soil quality and reduce infiltration to shallow groundwater, 22 resulting in runoff and erosion in nearby aquatic habitats. Chemical herbicides applied in ROWs 23 can be transported to nearby aquatic habitats through precipitation and runoff. For small 24 streams, trees may grow sufficiently between cutting cycles to provide shading and support 25 microhabitats. Tree removal to maintain appropriate transmission line clearance could alter the 26 suitability of habitats for fish and other aquatic organisms and locally increase water 27 temperatures.
| |
| | |
| 28 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) concluded 29 that the impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources would be SMALL 30 during the initial license renewal term. In the 1999 Oconee Station LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 31 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff found no new and significant information concerning this issue, 32 and the NRC staff adopted the 1996 LR GEISs conclusion of SMALL for Oconee Station initial 33 license renewal. In the following discussion, the NRC staff analyzes this issue on a site-specific 34 basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 35 As described in Section 3.6.4, which discusses the impacts of transmission line ROW 36 maintenance on terrestrial resources, the transmission lines within the scope of the Oconee 37 Station SLR review are contained within the industrial use portion of the site. Since these lines 38 do not cross any natural areas, vegetation management is not required. Therefore, maintenance 39 of these lines has no discernible effect on ecological resources.
| |
| | |
| 40 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than 41 introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR would be 42 similar for aquatic resources. For these reasons, the effects of transmission line ROW 43 maintenance on aquatic resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably 44 alter any important attribute of plant or animal populations during the SLR term. The NRC staff 45 concludes that the impacts of transmission line ROW maintenance on aquatic resources during 46 the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-118 1 3.7.4.11 Losses from Predation, Parasitism, and Disease Among Organisms Exposed to 2 Sublethal Stresses
| |
| | |
| 3 This issue concerns the effects of nuclear power plant operation that can increase the 4 susceptibility of aquatic organisms to predation, parasitism, and disease. Such sublethal effects 5 can result from impingement, if an organism is subsequently returned to the source water body, 6 as well as from exposure to thermal effluents. This issue does not apply to entrainment.
| |
| 7 Because entrainable organisms generally consist of fragile life stages, all entrained organisms 8 are assumed to die (79 FR 48300-TN4488) and would, therefore, not survive entrainment to 9 subsequently experience sublethal effects.
| |
| | |
| 10 The 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) concluded 11 that the losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal 12 stresses would be SMALL during the initial license renewal term. In the 1999 Oconee Station 13 LR Supplemental EIS (NRC 1999-TN8942), the NRC staff found no new and significant 14 information concerning this issue, and the NRC staff adopted the 1996 LR GEISs conclusion of 15 SMALL for Oconee Station initial license renewal. In the following discussion, the NRC staff 16 analyzes this issue on a site-specific basis for the Oconee Station SLR term, in accordance with 17 CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 18 Sublethal Effects of Impingement The EPAs 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations establish 19 BTA standards for impingement mortality. Impingement mortality considers the survival rate of 20 impinged organisms, rather than simply the total number of organisms impinged. Survival 21 studies typically consider latent mortality associated with stunning, disorientation, or injury. Such 22 effects can result from the injury itself or from increased susceptibility to predation, parasitism, 23 or disease that results from the sublethal effects of impingement.
| |
| | |
| 24 As explained in Section 3.7.3, the Oconee Station intake system does not include a fish return 25 system, and Duke Energy has no plans to alter the design or function of the cooling system 26 under the proposed action. Therefore, all impingement would result in mortality, and the issue of 27 sublethal effects from impingement does not apply to Oconee Station.
| |
| 28 Sublethal Effects of Thermal Effluents Fish and shellfish that are exposed to the thermal effluent 29 of a nuclear power plant may experience stunning, disorientation, or injury. These sublethal 30 effects can subsequently affect an organisms susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease.
| |
| 31 With respect to susceptibility to predation, laboratory studies of the secondary mortality of fish 32 following exposure to heat or cold shock demonstrate increased susceptibility of these fish to 33 predation; however, field evidence of such effects is often limited to anecdotal information, such 34 as observations of increased feeding activity of seagulls and predatory fish near effluent outfalls 35 (e.g., Cada et al. 1981-TN7733). For example, Barkley and Perrin (1971-TN7734) and Romberg 36 et al. (1974-TN7891) reported increased concentration of predators feeding on forage fish 37 attracted to thermal plumes. However, these studies did not quantify whether the observed 38 behaviors resulted in population-level effects on prey species.
| |
| | |
| 39 With respect to susceptibility to parasitism and disease, Langford (1983-TN7676) found that the 40 tendency for fish to congregate in heated effluent plumes, the increased physiological stress 41 that higher water temperatures exert on fish, and the ability of some diseases and parasites to 42 proliferate at higher temperatures were all factors that could contribute to increased rates of 43 disease or parasitism in exposed fish. Some studies have suggested that crowding of fish within 44 the thermal plume, rather than the thermal plume itself, may lead to an increased risk of 45 exposure to infectious diseases (Coutant 1987-TN7736).
| |
| | |
| 3-119 1 The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs reported that neither scientific literature reviews nor consultations 2 with agencies or utilities yielded clear evidence of nuclear power plant operation causing 3 sublethal effects that result in noticeable increases in the susceptibility of exposed organisms to 4 predation, parasitism, or disease. Duke Energy (TN8897, TN8899) reports no evidence of such 5 effects, and Duke Energys continued adherence to its CWA Section 316(a) variance would 6 ensure that such effects would be minimized.
| |
| | |
| 7 The SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than 8 introduce entirely new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and SLR would be 9 similar. For these reasons, losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 10 exposed to sublethal stresses would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 11 any important attribute of aquatic populations during the SLR term. The NRC staff concludes 12 that the impacts of losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to 13 sublethal stresses during the Oconee Station SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| 14 3.7.5 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 15 If Oconee Station were to permanently cease operating, impacts on the aquatic environment 16 would decrease or stop following reactor shutdown. Some withdrawal of water from Lake 17 Keowee would continue during the shutdown period to provide cooling to spent fuel in the spent 18 fuel pool until that fuel could be transferred to dry storage. The amount of water withdrawn for 19 this purpose would be a small fraction of water withdrawals during operations, would decrease 20 over time, and would likely end within the first several years following shutdown. The reduced 21 demand for cooling water would substantially decrease the effects of impingement, entrainment, 22 and thermal effluent on aquatic organisms, and these effects would entirely cease following the 23 transfer of spent fuel to dry storage. Effects from cold shock would be unlikely, given the small 24 area of Lake Keowee affected by thermal effluent under normal operating conditions, combined 25 with the phased reductions in withdrawal and discharge of lake water that would occur following 26 shutdown.
| |
| | |
| 27 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of the no-action alternative on 28 aquatic resources would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 3.7.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 30 Construction impacts for many components of the replacement power alternatives would be 31 qualitatively and quantitatively similar. Construction could result in aquatic habitat loss, 32 alteration, or fragmentation; disturbance and displacement of aquatic organisms; mortality of 33 aquatic organisms; and increase in human access. For instance, construction-related chemical 34 spills, runoff, and soil erosion could degrade water quality in Lake Keowee, its tributaries, or the 35 Keowee River by introducing pollutants and increasing sedimentation and turbidity. Dredging 36 and other in-water work could directly remove or alter the aquatic environment and disturb or kill 37 aquatic organisms. Because construction effects would be short term, associated habitat 38 degradation would be relatively localized and temporary. Effects could be minimized by the use 39 of existing infrastructure, such as the Oconee Station intake and discharge systems for those 40 alternatives that would make use of the existing site, as well as the use of existing transmission 41 lines, roads, parking areas, and certain existing buildings and structures. Aquatic habitat 42 alteration and loss could be minimized by siting components of the alternatives farther from 43 waterbodies and away from drainages and other aquatic features.
| |
| | |
| 44 Water quality permits required through Federal and State regulations would control, reduce, or 45 mitigate potential effects on the aquatic environment. Through such permits, the permitting 46 agencies could include conditions requiring Duke Energy to follow BMPs or to take certain
| |
| | |
| 3-120 1 mitigation measures if adverse impacts are anticipated. For instance, USACE oversees CWA 2 Section 404 permitting for dredge and fill activities, and the SCDHEC oversees NPDES 3 permitting and general stormwater permitting. Duke Energy would likely be required to obtain 4 each of these permits to construct a new replacement power alternative on the Oconee Station 5 site. Notably, the EPA final rule under Phase I of the CWA Section 316(b) regulations applies to 6 new facilities and sets standards to limit intake capacity and velocity to minimize impacts on fish 7 and other aquatic organisms in the source water (40 CFR Part 125-TN254). Any new 8 replacement power alternative subject to this rule would be required to comply with the 9 associated technology standards.
| |
| | |
| 10 With respect to operation of a new replacement power alternative, operational impacts for the 11 replacement power alternatives would be qualitatively similar but would vary in intensity, based 12 on each alternatives water use and consumption. Each alternative would use mechanical draft 13 cooling towers to dissipate waste heat. The NRC staff analyzed the impacts of operating cooling 14 tower nuclear power plants on the aquatic environment in the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) 15 and determined that operation of nuclear facilities with cooling towers would result in SMALL 16 impacts on the aquatic environment, including those impacts resulting from impingement, 17 entrainment, and thermal effluents. These results are caused by the relatively low volume of 18 make-up water withdrawal for nuclear power plants with a cooling tower system and the minimal 19 heated effluent that would be discharged. The same would be true of nonnuclear facilities, such 20 as the NGCC alternative, which would also use mechanical draft cooling towers but would 21 consume significantly less water during operations.
| |
| | |
| 22 3.7.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 23 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 24 The NRC staff evaluated the impacts of the ALWR portion of this alternative in its 2013 final EIS 25 for the proposed W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2013-TN6435). The NRC staff 26 concluded that construction of the cooling water reservoir required to supply water to the cooling 27 system would result in MODERATE impacts on the aquatic environment. To create the 28 reservoir, London Creek and portions of its tributaries would be impounded. Impacts on streams 29 and open water would occur because of excavation of borrow material, placement of fill and 30 spoil material, building of new haul roads, and temporary flooding associated with the use of 31 cofferdams. Impounding London Creek and building a make-up water supplemental reservoir 32 would replace a lotic system with a lentic system, resulting in a clearly noticeable and 33 permanent change in aquatic resources in London Creek and its tributaries. Some of the upper 34 reaches of tributaries to London Creek not impounded would retain their lotic characteristics, but 35 they would become isolated from other lotic habitats. Most of the riparian habitat of the main-36 stem London Creek would be lost.
| |
| | |
| 37 Operational impacts of the ALWR portion of this alternative would be SMALL (NRC 2013-38 TN6435). Cooling towers would be operated with low through-screen velocity (less than 0.5 fps 39 [0.15 m/s]), a fish return system, and would be located in deep-water areas away from primary 40 fish spawning and rearing habitat. Effluent discharge would be controlled by an NPDES permit 41 that would minimize adverse impacts on aquatic life.
| |
| | |
| 42 With respect to the SMR portion of this alternative, the types of impacts that the aquatic 43 environment would experience are characterized in the previous section discussing impacts 44 common to all replacement power alternatives. In that section, construction impacts are 45 sufficiently addressed as they would apply to the new nuclear alternative. Based on that 46 discussion, the NRC staff finds that the impacts of construction on aquatic resources would be
| |
| | |
| 3-121 1 SMALL because construction effects would be of limited duration, the new nuclear power plant 2 would use some of the existing site infrastructure and buildings, and required Federal and State 3 water quality permits would likely include conditions requiring BMPs and mitigation strategies to 4 minimize environmental effects.
| |
| | |
| 5 With respect to operation of the SMR portion of this alternative, Federal and State water quality 6 permits would control and mitigate many of the potential effects on the aquatic environment, 7 including water withdrawal and discharge, such that the associated effects would be unlikely to 8 noticeably alter or destabilize any important attribute of the aquatic environment. Therefore, the 9 NRC staff finds that the impacts of operation on aquatic resources would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 10 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on aquatic resources from a new 11 nuclear alternative would be MODERATE during construction and SMALL during operation.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.7.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 13 The types of impacts that the aquatic environment would experience from this alternative are 14 characterized in the previous section discussing impacts common to all replacement power 15 alternatives. This alternative would also involve the construction of a new pipeline and 16 associated utility corridors that would run approximately 21 mi (34 km) to connect with existing 17 gas service to the southeast in Centerville, South Carolina. This pipeline would cross several 18 streams and tributaries. Implementation of BMPs would minimize potential effects to waterways, 19 drainage areas, or other isolated aquatic features that may be present. The NRC staff finds that 20 the impacts of construction on aquatic resources would be SMALL because construction effects 21 would be of limited duration, the natural gas combined-cycle alternative would use some of the 22 existing site infrastructure and buildings and required Federal and State water quality permits 23 would likely include conditions requiring BMPs and mitigation strategies to minimize 24 environmental effects.
| |
| | |
| 25 With respect to operation, Federal and State water quality permits would control and mitigate 26 many of the potential effects on the aquatic environment, including water withdrawal and 27 discharge, such that the associated effects would be unlikely to noticeably alter or destabilize 28 any important attribute of the aquatic environment. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the 29 impacts of operation on aquatic resources would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 30 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on aquatic resources from 31 construction and operation of a natural gas alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.7.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 33 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 34 The types of impacts that the aquatic environment would experience from the SMR portion of 35 the combination alternative are characterized in Sections 3.7.6 and 3.7.7 discussing impacts 36 common to all alternatives and impacts of the new nuclear alternative. Construction and 37 operation impacts of this portion of the combination alternative would be qualitatively similar.
| |
| 38 Because the nuclear portion of the combination alternative would involve construction and 39 operation of a smaller SMR facility, less cooling water would be required, which would result in 40 fewer impacts on the aquatic environment. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the impacts of 41 construction and operation of the SMR portion of the combination alternative on aquatic 42 resources would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-122 1 Impacts of constructing the solar PV portion of the combination alternative are also addressed in 2 Section 3.7.6 under impacts common to all alternatives. These impacts would be SMALL to 3 MODERATE, depending on the site(s) selected, the aquatic habitats present, and the extent to 4 which construction would degrade, modify, or permanently alter those habitats. Operation of the 5 solar PV portion would have no discernable effects on the aquatic environment.
| |
| | |
| 6 The impacts of constructing the offshore wind component of this alternative would include 7 increased turbidity, noise, vibration, and other physical disturbances to the aquatic environment 8 from pile-driving, turbine construction, and submarine power cable installation. Cable installation 9 could disturb large spans of aquatic habitat and would be especially detrimental to nearshore 10 and estuarine habitats used by early life stages of finfish and shellfish. Dredging would likely be 11 necessary in some areas to prepare for cable installation and would result in destruction of the 12 existing benthic habitat and temporary habitat loss until the benthic community could repopulate 13 the area. Increased vessel anchoring during survey activities, construction, installation, and 14 maintenance would increase turbidity and disturb the benthic environment. Accidental releases 15 of contaminants from fuel and chemical spills would also pose a hazard to the aquatic 16 environment and would be especially detrimental to nearshore, estuarine, and unique or 17 sensitive habitats (BOEM 2020-TN7494). As explained under the discussion of impacts 18 common to all alternatives, water quality permits required through Federal and State regulations 19 would control, reduce, or mitigate potential effects on the aquatic environment. Through such 20 permits, the permitting agencies could include conditions requiring Duke Energy to follow BMPs 21 or to take certain mitigation measures if adverse impacts are anticipated. The impacts of 22 construction of the offshore wind component of this alternative on aquatic resources would likely 23 be MODERATE to LARGE, depending on the sensitivity and uniqueness of the particular 24 aquatic habitats affected.
| |
| | |
| 25 During operation of the offshore wind component of this alternative, fuel and chemical spills 26 would remain a potential hazard. The presence of permanent structures could lead to impacts 27 on finfish and aquatic invertebrates through entanglement from gear loss, hydrodynamic 28 disturbance, fish aggregation, habitat conversion, and migration disturbances. These impacts 29 may arise from buoys, meteorological towers, foundations, scour/cable protection, and 30 transmission cable infrastructure. However, structure-oriented or hard-bottom species could 31 benefit from the new structures because they would have new material or substrate to anchor 32 themselves upon and build colonies (BOEM 2020-TN7494). The impacts of operation of this 33 component of the alternative on aquatic resources would be SMALL to MODERATE, depending 34 on the effectiveness of the measures implemented to control accidental releases of 35 contaminants or to clean up such releases if they occur.
| |
| | |
| 36 The demand-side management component would have no discernable effects on the aquatic 37 environment.
| |
| | |
| 38 The NRC staff concludes that the impacts on aquatic resources from construction and operation 39 of a combination alternative would be MODERATE to LARGE during construction and SMALL 40 to MODERATE during operation. The higher magnitude of potential impacts experienced by the 41 aquatic environment is primarily attributable to the offshore wind component of the alternative.
| |
| | |
| 42 3.8 Special Status Species and Habitats
| |
| | |
| 43 The NRC must consider the effects of its actions on ecological resources protected under 44 several Federal statutes and must consult with the FWS or the National Oceanic and
| |
| | |
| 3-123 1 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prior to taking action in cases where an agency action may 2 affect those resources. These statutes include the following:
| |
| 3
| |
| * Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.-TN1010) 4
| |
| * Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1996 as 5 amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.-TN7841) 6
| |
| * National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.-TN7197)
| |
| | |
| 7 This section describes the species and habitats that are federally protected under these statutes 8 and analyzes how the proposed SLR and alternatives may affect these resources.
| |
| | |
| 9 3.8.1 Endangered Species Act
| |
| | |
| 10 Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the 11 ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of 12 endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, listed species) and the habitats in 13 which they are found. The FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the lead 14 Federal agencies for implementing the ESA, and these agencies are charged with identifying 15 species that warrant listing. The following sections describe the Oconee Station action area and 16 the species and habitats that may occur in the action area under each of the Services 17 jurisdictions.
| |
| | |
| 18 3.8.1.1 Endangered Species Act: Action Area
| |
| | |
| 19 The implementing regulations for Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define action area as all areas 20 affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 21 in the action (50 CFR 402.02-TN4312). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of 22 federally listed species and critical habitats because only species and habitats that occur within 23 the action area may be affected by the Federal action.
| |
| | |
| 24 For the purposes of assessing the potential impacts of Oconee Station SLR on federally listed 25 species, the NRC staff considers the action area to consist of the following.
| |
| | |
| 26 Oconee Station Site: The terrestrial region of the action area consists of the 510 ac (206 ha) 27 Oconee Station site in Oconee County, South Carolina. Lake Keowee occupies the area 28 immediately north and west of the site. The majority (60.8 percent) of the Oconee Station site is 29 developed. Deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forests occupy 17.4 percent of the site, while the 30 remaining 21.8 percent comprises of grasslands, pastures, wetlands, barren land, and open 31 water. Section 3.2 and Section 3.6 of this EIS describe the developed and natural features of 32 the site and the characteristic vegetation and habitats.
| |
| | |
| 33 Lake Keowee: The aquatic region of the action area encompasses the impingement AOI 34 (described in Section 3.7.4.1 of this EIS), the entrainment AOI (described in Section 3.7.4.1 of 35 this EIS), and the area of the Lake Keowee that experiences increased temperatures from 36 discharge of heated effluent (described in Section 3.7.4.2 of this EIS).
| |
| | |
| 37 The NRC staff recognizes that, although the described action area is stationary, federally listed 38 species can move in and out of the action area. For instance, a migratory bird could occur in the 39 action area seasonally as it forages or breeds within the action area. Thus, in its analysis, the 40 NRC staff considers not only those species known to occur directly within the action area but 41 those species that may passively or actively move into the action area. The NRC staff then
| |
| | |
| 3-124 1 considers if the life history and habitat requirements of each species make it likely to occur in 2 the action area where it could be affected by the proposed SLR. The following sections first 3 discuss listed species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction, followed by those under 4 NMFS jurisdiction.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.8.1.2 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats under 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jurisdiction
| |
| | |
| 7 This section evaluates nine species, eight of which are listed and one of which is proposed for 8 listing under the ESA, that may be present in the action area. The NRC staff determined these 9 species to be relevant to this review based on desktop analysis of the Oconee Station action 10 area, available scientific literature and studies, and the results of past ESA Section 7 11 consultations in connection with the Oconee Station site. Table 3-13 lists each of these species 12 and its federal status. No designated or proposed critical habitat occurs in the action area.
| |
| | |
| 13 Table 3-13 Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jurisdiction 14 Evaluated for Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal Common Name Species Federal Status(a) monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC Indiana bat Myotis sodalis FE northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis FE tricolored bat Perimyotis subflavus FPE bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbuergii FT persistent trillium Trillium persistens FE small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides FT smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata FT dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora FT mountain sweet pitcher-plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii FE (a) Indicates protection status under the Endangered Species Act. FC = candidate for federal listing; FE = federally endangered; FPE = proposed for Federal listing as endangered; and FT = federally threatened.
| |
| | |
| 15 During the NRC staffs environmental review for the 1999 initial license renewal, the staff 16 evaluated the effects of Oconee Station operation on several federally listed species that occur 17 within Oconee County. These species were the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), persistent trillium 18 (Trillium persistens), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and smooth coneflower 19 (Echinacea laevigata). The staff also evaluated the bald eagle and peregrine falcon 20 (Falco perengrinus), both of which the FWS has since delisted. In its biological assessment, the 21 NRC (NRC 1999-TN8964) concluded that license renewal would have no effect on all these 22 species, except for the smooth coneflower, for which the NRC concluded not likely to adversely 23 affect because ROW vegetation management would maintain open prairie habitat, and such 24 management would be beneficial to this species, if present. The FWS (1999-TN9002, 1999-25 TN9003) concurred with these determinations. Notably, this consultation also addressed several 26 species that had the potential to inhabit approximately 330 mi (530 km) of ROWs associated 27 with offsite transmission lines. For the current proposed action of SLR, all offsite transmission 28 lines that distribute power to or from Oconee Station would remain energized regardless of 29 whether Oconee Station operates for an additional 20 years. Therefore, offsite transmission 30 lines are not within the action area for SLR.
| |
| | |
| 3-125 1 During preparation of its SLR application, Duke Energy coordinated with the FWS pursuant to 2 the ESA in 2019 and 2020 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). In a {{letter dated|date=November 18, 2019|text=November 18, 2019 letter}}, the 3 FWS (FWS 2019 in Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) stated that no federally protected threatened or 4 endangered species or designated critical habitats occur within the action area or within 6 mi 5 (10 km) of the Oconee Station site. In April 2020, Duke Energy (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) 6 met with the FWS, and the FWS confirmed that this determination remained valid.
| |
| | |
| 7 During its environmental review for the proposed SLR, the NRC staff reviewed the previously 8 discussed information as well as records in the FWSs Environmental Conservation Online 9 System Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database and available ecological 10 surveys. The IPaC database identified seven federally listed species under FWS jurisdiction that 11 may be present in the Oconee Station action area: northern long-eared bat 12 (Myotis septentrionalis), bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbuergii), dwarf-flowered heartleaf 13 (Hexastylis naniflora), mountain sweet pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii), persistent 14 trillium, small whorled pogonia, and smooth coneflower (FWS 2023-TN9004). Additionally, the 15 FWS proposed to list the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as endangered in 2022 and the 16 monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) became a candidate species (FWS 2023-TN9004). The 17 database identified no candidate species or critical habitats (proposed or designated) within the 18 Oconee Station action area. As explained below, available information suggests that no 19 federally listed species are likely to be present in the action area; however, the tricolored bat 20 has been identified in acoustic surveys conducted on the site.
| |
| | |
| 21 The northern long-eared bat is present but uncommon in the Blue Ridge province portions of 22 Oconee, Pickens, and Greenville counties in western South Carolina. However, the Oconee 23 Station action area is too low in elevation based on records of the species from western South 24 Carolina (Webster 2013-TN8968). In a 2013 mammalian survey associated with the Federal 25 Energy Regulatory Commissions license renewal of the Keowee-Toxaway Project, researchers 26 determined that the northern long-eared bat was not present in the area (Webster 2013-27 TN8968). In a 2015 acoustic bat survey associated with the Oconee Station independent spent 28 fuel storage expansion, researchers recorded 253 bat call sequences over 45 night hours of 29 acoustic monitoring. These calls were identified as eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), little 30 brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), big brown bat 31 (Eptesicus fuscus), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) (Duke Energy 2018-TN8965). The 32 northern long-eared bat was not recorded, and researchers determined that the species is 33 unlikely to be present (Duke Energy 2018-TN8965).
| |
| | |
| 34 Bog turtles in South Carolina are part of the southern population, which is federally listed as 35 threatened because of similarity of appearance to bog turtles found in northern states 36 (i.e., Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and 37 Pennsylvania), which are listed as threatened. This designation bans the collection and 38 interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population but has 39 no effect on land management activities by private landowners within the southern population 40 range. The FWS also considers the southern population of bog turtles as a Federal species of 41 concern because of habitat loss. Bog turtles are associated with wetlands and herbaceous 42 sedge meadows or fens with thickly vegetated or wooded borders. They are known to occur in 43 Pickens County, South Carolina, but the species has not been observed near the Oconee 44 Station site (FERC 2016-TN8967).
| |
| | |
| 45 With respect to the listed plant species, researchers identified no suitable habitat for such 46 species in a 2013 botanical field survey associated with the Federal Energy Regulatory 47 Commissions license renewal of the Keowee-Toxaway Project (Gaddy 2013-TN8969). In its
| |
| | |
| 3-126 1 ER, Duke Energy (TN8897) states that its shoreline management plan would ensure that Duke 2 Energy takes the appropriate actions to protect federally listed species at its nuclear power 3 plants if any were to be identified on the Oconee Station site in the future.
| |
| | |
| 4 Based on the above information, the NRC staff finds that no federally listed species or 5 designated critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction occur in the action area. The monarch 6 butterfly, a candidate species, and the tricolored bat, a proposed species that is known to occur 7 in the action area, are discussed in detail below.
| |
| | |
| 8 Monarch Butterfly
| |
| | |
| 9 The monarch butterfly is a candidate for Federal listing. In 2020, the FWS issued a 12-month 10 finding announcing its intent to prepare a proposed rule to list the monarch as threatened (85 11 FR 81813-TN8590). In 2022, the FWS identified the monarch listing action as a priority because 12 the magnitude of threats is moderate to low, however those threats are imminent for the eastern 13 and western North American populations. Although the ESA does not require consultation for 14 candidates, the NRC considers this species here at the recommendation of the FWS (2023-15 TN9004) in its IPaC report for the proposed project. Information in this section is drawn from the 16 FWSs candidate review unless otherwise cited (87 FR 26152-TN8591).
| |
| | |
| 17 The monarch is a large butterfly with bright orange wings and black veining and borders. During 18 the breeding season, females lay eggs on milkweed (primarily Asclepias spp.). Developing 19 larvae feed on milkweed, which allows them to sequester toxic chemicals as a defense against 20 predators, before pupating into a chrysalis to transform into the adult butterfly form. Monarchs 21 produce multiple generations each breeding season, and most adult butterflies live two to five 22 weeks. Overwintering adults, however, enter reproductive diapause and live six to nine months.
| |
| | |
| 23 Monarch butterflies occur in 90 countries, islands, or island groups. Monarch butterflies have 24 become naturalized at most of these locations outside of North America since 1840. The 25 populations outside of eastern and western North America (including southern Florida) do not 26 exhibit long-distance migratory behavior. In many regions, monarchs breed year-round. In 27 temperate climates, such as eastern and western North America, monarchs migrate long 28 distances and live for an extended period. In the fall, in both eastern and western North 29 America, monarchs begin migrating to their respective overwintering sites in the forests of 30 California and Mexico. These overwintering sites provide protection from the elements and 31 moderate temperatures, as well as nectar and clean water sources located nearby. Migrations 32 can be of distances of over 1,900 mi (3,000 km) and span a two-month period. In early spring 33 (February-March), surviving monarchs break diapause and mate at overwintering sites before 34 dispersing. The same individuals that undertook the initial southward migration begin flying back 35 through the breeding grounds and their offspring start the cycle of generational migration over 36 again.
| |
| 37 Factors Affecting the Species
| |
| | |
| 38 The primary threats to the monarchs biological status include loss and degradation of habitat 39 from conversion of grasslands to agricultural land, widespread use of herbicides, 40 logging/thinning at overwintering sites in Mexico, senescence and incompatible management of 41 overwintering sites in California, urban development, drought, exposure to insecticides, and 42 effects of climate change.
| |
| | |
| 3-127 1 Occurrence Within the Action Area
| |
| | |
| 2 Monarchs are associated with prairie, meadow, and grassland habitats. Within Ohio, 13 native 3 milkweed species provide habitat for the development of monarch eggs and larvae, the most 4 prevalent of which is the common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). It is unknown whether 5 milkweed occurs on the Oconee Station site, although grasslands within the action area are 6 undeveloped and would remain undisturbed during the proposed license renewal period. The 7 NRC staff conservatively assumes that monarchs could occur in the action area during spring 8 and fall migration when individuals are moving between areas of more suitable habitat.
| |
| 9 Accordingly, the staff assesses the potential impacts of the proposed action on this species in 10 Section 3.8.4 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 11 Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
| |
| | |
| 12 The FWS issued a proposed rule to list the tricolored bat as endangered in 2022 (87 FR 56381-13 TN8546). The FWS proposed no critical habitat with the rule because it found that such a 14 designation could increase the degree of threat to the species. Information in this section is 15 drawn from the FWSs species status assessment (FWS 2021-TN8589) unless otherwise cited.
| |
| | |
| 16 The tricolored bat is a small insectivorous bat that is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur, 17 which often appears yellowish to nearly orange. The species occurs across 39 states in the 18 eastern and central United States and in portions of southern Canada, Mexico, and Central 19 America. During the winter, tricolored bats are often found in caves and abandoned mines. In 20 the southern United States, where caves are sparse, tricolored bats also roost in road culverts 21 where they exhibit shorter hibernation bouts and may leave hibernacula to forage during warm 22 nights. Tricolored bats hibernate singly, but sometimes in pairs or in small clusters of both sexes 23 away from other bats. Between mid-August and mid-October, males and females converge at 24 cave and mine entrances to swarm and mate, and females typically give birth to two young 25 between May and July.
| |
| | |
| 26 Tricolored bats disperse from winter hibernacula to summer roosting habitat in the spring.
| |
| 27 Tracking studies have recorded migration paths that span from 27 mi (44 km) to 151 mi 28 (243 km). During the spring, summer, and fall, tricolored bats occupy forested habitats.
| |
| 29 Individuals roost among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees, but 30 individuals may also roost in pines (Pinus spp.), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
| |
| 31 Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides), Usnea trichodea lichen, and occasionally human-made 32 structures. Tricolored bats are opportunistic feeders and consume small insects including 33 caddisflies (Trichoptera), flying moths (Lepidoptera), small beetles (Coleoptera), small wasps 34 and flying ants (Hymenoptera), true bugs (Homoptera), and flies (Diptera).
| |
| | |
| 35 Factors Affecting the Species
| |
| | |
| 36 Tricolored bats face extinction primarily due to the rangewide impacts of whitenose syndrome, a 37 deadly disease affecting cave-dwelling bats. The FWS estimates that white-nose syndrome has 38 caused population declines of 90 percent or more in affected tricolored bat colonies across most 39 of the species range.
| |
| | |
| 40 Occurrence Within the Action Area
| |
| | |
| 41 As described previously in this section, the tricolored bat was identified in a 2015 acoustic bat 42 survey to be associated with the Oconee Station independent spent fuel storage expansion
| |
| | |
| 3-128 1 (Duke Energy 2018-TN8965). Therefore, the species is known to occur within the action area.
| |
| 2 The NRC staff assumes that deciduous forest habitat within the action area, which covers 50 ac 3 (20 ha), could support foraging, mating, and sheltering in the spring, summer, and fall.
| |
| 4 Accordingly, the staff assesses the potential impacts of the proposed action on this species in 5 Section 3.8.4.1 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 6 Summary of Potential Species Occurrences in the Action Area
| |
| | |
| 7 Table 3-14 below summarizes the potential for each federally listed species discussed in this 8 section to occur in the action area. As explained in the beginning of this section, no proposed or 9 designated critical habitat occurs in the action area.
| |
| | |
| 10 Table 3-14 Occurrences of Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife 11 Service Jurisdiction in the Oconee Station Subsequent License Renewal 12 Action Area Type of and Likelihood of Occurrence in the Oconee Station Species Subsequent License Renewal Action Area monarch butterfly Occasional transitory presence possible during spring and fall migration when individuals are moving between areas of more suitable habitat.
| |
| Indiana bat Not present.
| |
| Northern long-eared bat Not present.
| |
| Tricolored bat Presence possible in spring, summer, and fall in deciduous forest habitat within the action area.
| |
| Bog turtle Not present.
| |
| Persistent trillium Not present.
| |
| Small whorled pogonia Not present.
| |
| Smooth coneflower Not present.
| |
| Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Not present.
| |
| Mountain sweet pitcher-plant Not present.
| |
| | |
| 13 3.8.1.3 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats under 14 National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction
| |
| | |
| 15 No federally listed species or designated critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction occur in the 16 action area. Therefore, this section of this EIS does not contain a discussion of any such 17 species or habitats.
| |
| | |
| 18 3.8.2 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat
| |
| | |
| 19 Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in 1976 to foster long-term biological and 20 economic sustainability of the Nations marine fisheries (TN7841). The Magnuson-Stevens 21 Fishery Conservation and Management Act directs the Fishery Management Councils, in 22 conjunction with NMFS, to designate areas of essential fish habitat (EFH) and to manage 23 marine resources within those areas. The EFH represents the coastal and marine waters and 24 substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity (50 CFR Part 600-25 TN1342). For each federally managed species, the Fishery Management Councils and NMFS 26 designate and describe the EFH by life stage (i.e., egg, larva, juvenile, and adult). No coastal or 27 marine waters occur near Oconee Station. Therefore, this EIS does not discuss EFH.
| |
| | |
| 3-129 1 No EFH occurs within Lake Keowee. Therefore, this section of this EIS does not discuss any 2 species or habitats protected under the act.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.8.3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources
| |
| | |
| 4 The Congress enacted the NMSA in 1972 to protect areas of the marine environment that have 5 special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish the 6 National Marine Sanctuary System and designate sanctuaries within that system, which 7 includes 15 sanctuaries and two marine national monuments, encompassing more than 8 600,000 square miles (m2) of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington State to the 9 Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. Within these areas, sanctuary 10 resources include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that 11 contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural, 12 archaeological, scientific, or aesthetic value of the sanctuary. No coastal or marine waters or 13 Great Lakes occur near Oconee Station. Therefore, this EIS does not discuss national marine 14 sanctuaries or their resources.
| |
| | |
| 15 3.8.4 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 16 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 17 SLR on the environmental issues related to special status species and habitats in accordance 18 with Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 19 3.8.4.1 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats under 20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction
| |
| | |
| 21 In Section 3.8.1.2, the NRC staff determines that no federally listed species or proposed or 22 designated critical habitat occur in the action area. However, the monarch butterfly, a candidate 23 species, and the tricolored bat, which is proposed for Federal listing as endangered, occur in the 24 action area. Section 3.8.1.2 includes relevant information on habitat requirements, life history, 25 and regional occurrence of these species. In the sections below, the NRC staff analyzes the 26 potential impacts of the proposed Oconee Station SLR on the monarch butterfly and tricolored 27 bat. Table 3-15 identifies the NRC staffs Endangered Species Act effect determination that 28 resulted from the staffs analysis.
| |
| | |
| 29 Table 3-15 Effect Determinations for Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and 30 Wildlife Service Jurisdiction for Oconee Station Subsequent License 31 Renewal
| |
| | |
| Federal Potentially Present in the Species Status(a) Action Area? Effect Determination(b) monarch butterfly FC Yes NLAA Indiana bat FE No NE northern long-eared bat FE No NE tricolored bat FPE Yes NLAA bog turtle FT No NE persistent trillium FE No NE small whorled pogonia FT No NE smooth coneflower FT No NE
| |
| | |
| 3-130 Federal Potentially Present in the Species Status(a) Action Area? Effect Determination(b) dwarf-flowered heartleaf FT No NE mountain sweet pitcher-plant FE No NE (a) Indicates protection status under the Endangered Species Act. FC = candidate for Federal listing; FE = federally endangered; FPE = proposed for federal listing as endangered; FT = federally threatened; and FPT = proposed for federal listing as endangered.
| |
| (b) The NRC staff makes its effect determinations for federally listed species in accordance with the language and definitions specified in the FWS and NMFS Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998-TN1031). NLAA = may affect but is not likely to adversely affect; NE = no effect.
| |
| | |
| 1 In Section 3.8.1.2, the NRC staff describes several federally listed species. The staff explains 2 that these species do not occur in the action area; therefore, the staff does not address these 3 species any further because SLR would have no effect on them. Table 3-15 identifies these 4 species and the NRCs staffs no effect findings.
| |
| | |
| 5 Appendix C.1 of this EIS summarizes the NRCs obligations under ESA Section 7, describes the 6 NRCs consultation with FWS for Oconee SLR, and lists relevant correspondence.
| |
| | |
| 7 Monarch Butterfly
| |
| | |
| 8 In Section 3.8.1.2 of this Supplemental EIS, the NRC staff concludes that monarch butterflies 9 may occur in the action area during spring and fall migration when individuals are moving 10 between areas of more suitable habitat. If present, monarchs would occur occasionally and for 11 short periods of time.
| |
| | |
| 12 The FWS (2020-TN8593) identifies the primary drivers affecting the health of the two North 13 American migratory populations of monarch butterfly as: (1) habitat loss and degradation and 14 (2) insecticide exposure, and (3) climate change effects.
| |
| | |
| 15 Monarch habitat loss and degradation has resulted from conversion of grasslands to agriculture, 16 widespread use of herbicides, logging/thinning at overwintering sites in Mexico, senescence and 17 incompatible management of overwintering sites in California, urban development, and drought 18 (FWS 2020-TN8593). The proposed Oconee Station SLR would not involve any habitat loss, 19 land-disturbing activities, or any activities that would degrade existing natural areas or potential 20 habitat for monarch butterflies. The continued preservation of existing natural areas on the site 21 would result in positive impacts on monarch butterflies.
| |
| | |
| 22 Most insecticides are non-specific and broad-spectrum in nature. Furthermore, the larvae of 23 many Lepidopterans are considered major pest species, and insecticides are specifically tested 24 on this taxon to ensure that they will effectively kill individuals at the labeled application rates 25 (FWS 2020-TN8593). Although insecticide use is most often associated with agricultural 26 production, any habitat where monarchs are found may be subject to insecticide use. Studies 27 looking specifically at dose-response of monarchs to neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and 28 pyrethroids have demonstrated monarch toxicity (e.g., Krischik et al. 2015-TN8596; James 29 2019-TN8595; Krishnan et al. 2020-TN8597; Bagar et al. 2020-TN8594). Moreover, the 30 magnitude of risk posed by insecticides may be underestimated, as research usually examines 31 the effects of the active ingredient alone, while many of the formulated products contain more 32 than one active insecticide.
| |
| | |
| 3-131 1 During the proposed SLR period, Duke Energy would continue applying herbicides, as needed, 2 according to labeled uses. Application would primarily be confined to industrial-use and other 3 developed portions of the site, such as perimeters of parking lots, roads, and walkways.
| |
| 4 Continued herbicide application could directly affect monarchs in the action area by injuring or 5 killing individuals exposed to these chemicals. Certain herbicides, such as glyphosate (e.g.,
| |
| 6 Roundup) can kill milkweed, which can affect the ability of female monarchs to lay eggs.
| |
| 7 However, milkweed is not specifically known to occur on the Oconee Station site, and Duke 8 Energy has no plans to apply herbicides to natural areas. Additionally, monarchs are only likely 9 to occur in the action area seasonally during spring and fall migration when individuals are 10 moving between areas of more suitable habitat. Because of the low likelihood of monarchs to be 11 exposed to hazardous levels of chemicals, this potential impact is insignificant because it is 12 unlikely to reach the scale where a take might occur.
| |
| | |
| 13 Because the current and projected monarch population numbers are low, both the eastern and 14 western populations are more vulnerable to catastrophic events, such as extreme storms at the 15 overwintering habitat, and other climate change related phenomena. The FWS (2020-TN8593) 16 anticipates that the eastern population will gain habitat in the northcentral region of North 17 America as the species expands northward in response to increasing ambient temperatures.
| |
| 18 The degree and rate of which this expansion occurs will depend on the simultaneous northward 19 expansion of milkweed. In the southern region of the continent, the population will either 20 experience no gain or some loss of habitat.
| |
| | |
| 21 Impacts on climate change during normal operations at nuclear power plants can result from the 22 release of greenhouse gases from stationary combustion sources, refrigeration systems, 23 electrical transmission and distribution systems, and mobile sources. However, such emissions 24 are typically very minor because nuclear power plants do not normally combust fossil fuels to 25 generate electricity. During the proposed SLR term, the contribution of Oconee Station 26 operations to climate change-related effects on monarch butterflies would be too small to be 27 meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated.
| |
| | |
| 28 Summary of Effects
| |
| | |
| 29 The potential stressors evaluated in this section are unlikely to result in effects on the monarch 30 butterfly that could be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated, and such stressors are 31 otherwise unlikely to occur for the following reasons:
| |
| 32
| |
| * The proposed action would not involve any habitat loss, land-disturbing activities, or any 33 activities that would degrade existing natural areas or potential habitat for monarch 34 butterflies.
| |
| 35
| |
| * Continued preservation of the existing natural areas on the site would result in positive 36 impacts on monarch butterflies.
| |
| 37
| |
| * Herbicides would only be applied according to labeled uses in developed and manicured 38 areas of the site. Herbicides would not be applied in natural areas. Monarchs would only 39 have to potential to occur in the action area seasonally and infrequently, making the 40 likelihood of herbicide exposure low. This represents an insignificant effect because it is 41 unlikely to reach the scale where a take might occur.
| |
| 42
| |
| * The contribution of Oconee Station operations to climate change-related effects on monarch 43 butterflies would be too small to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluate.
| |
| | |
| 44 Conclusion for the Monarch Butterfly
| |
| | |
| 3-132 1 All potential effects on the monarch butterfly resulting from the proposed action would be 2 insignificant. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may affect but is not 3 likely to adversely affect the monarch butterfly. Because the monarch is a candidate for Federal 4 listing, the ESA does not require the NRC to consult with or receive concurrence from the FWS 5 regarding this species.
| |
| | |
| 6 Tricolored Bat
| |
| | |
| 7 In Section 3.8.1.2 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that tricolored bats may occur in the 8 action areas deciduous forest habitat in spring, summer, and fall based on positive identification 9 of the species during acoustic monitoring of the site in 2015.
| |
| | |
| 10 The potential stressors that tricolored bats could experience from operation of a nuclear power 11 plant (generically) are as follows.
| |
| 12
| |
| * mortality or injury from collisions with nuclear power plant structures and vehicles 13
| |
| * habitat loss, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation, and associated effects 14
| |
| * behavioral changes resulting from refurbishment or other site activities
| |
| | |
| 15 This section addresses each of these stressors below.
| |
| | |
| 16 Mortality or Injury from Collisions with Nuclear Power Plant Structures and Vehicles
| |
| | |
| 17 Listed bats can be vulnerable to mortality or injury from collisions with nuclear power plant 18 structures and vehicles. Bat collisions with human-made structures at nuclear power plants are 19 not well documented but are likely rare based on the available information. In an assessment of 20 the potential effects of operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio, the NRC 21 (NRC 2014-TN7385) noted that four dead bats were collected at the nuclear power plant during 22 bird mortality studies conducted from 1972 through 1979. Two red bats (Lasiurus borealis) were 23 collected from the cooling tower, and one big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and one tricolored 24 bat (Perimyotis subflavus) were collected near other nuclear power plant structures. During the 25 initial license renewal review, the NRC (NRC 2014-TN7385) found that future collisions of bats 26 would be extremely unlikely and, therefore, discountable given the small number of bats 27 collected during the study and the marginal suitable habitat that the nuclear power plant site 28 provides. Notably, the tricolored bat was not yet proposed for listing when the NRC conducted 29 this review; hence this consultation only considered the bat (Myotis sodalis), and northern long-30 eared bat (M. septentrionalis). The FWS (FWS 2014-TN7605) concurred with this 31 determination. In a 2015 assessment associated with the Indian Point plant in New York, the 32 NRC (NRC 2015-TN7382) determined that bat collisions were less likely to occur at the Indian 33 Point plant than at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station because Indian Point does not have 34 cooling towers or similarly large obstructions. The tallest structures on the Indian Point site are 35 134 ft (40.8 m) tall turbine buildings and 250 ft (76.2 m) tall reactor containment structures. The 36 NRC (NRC 2015-TN7382) concluded that the likelihood of bats colliding with these and other 37 nuclear power plant structures on the Indian Point site during the license renewal period was 38 extremely unlikely and, therefore, discountable. The FWS (NRC 2014-TN7385) concurred with 39 this determination. In 2018, the NRC (NRC 2018-TN7381) determined that the likelihood of bats 40 colliding with site buildings or structures on the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant site in New 41 Hampshire would be extremely unlikely. The tallest structures on that site are a 199 ft (61 m) tall 42 containment structure and 103 ft (31 m) tall turbine and heater bay building. The FWS (FWS 43 2018-TN7610) concurred with the NRCs determination. In 2020, the NRC (NRC 2020-TN7324) 44 determined that the likelihood of bats colliding with site buildings or structures on the Surry 45 Power Station site in Virginia would be extremely unlikely. The FWS (FWS 2019-TN7609) again
| |
| | |
| 3-133 1 concurred with the NRC staffs determination on the basis that activities associated with the 2 Surry Power Station SLR would be consistent with the activities analyzed in the FWSs January 3 5, 2016, programmatic biological opinion (FWS 2016-TN7400). Most recently, the NRC (NRC 4 2021-TN7293) determined that the likelihood of bats colliding with site buildings or structures at 5 the Point Beach Nuclear plant in Wisconsin would be extremely unlikely based on structure 6 height and operating experience. The FWS (NRC 2021-TN9162) also concurred with this 7 determination on the basis of the FWSs 2016 programmatic biological opinion (FWS 2016-8 TN7400).
| |
| | |
| 9 On the Oconee Station site, the tallest site structures are the reactor containment buildings, 10 each of which is 191 ft (58 m) high (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The turbine buildings and 11 transmission lines are also prominent features on the site that could pose collision hazard. To 12 date, Duke Energy has reported no incidents of injury or mortality of any species of bat on the 13 Oconee Station site associated with site buildings or structures. Accordingly, the NRC staff finds 14 the likelihood of tricolored bat collisions with site buildings or structures to be extremely unlikely 15 and, therefore, discountable.
| |
| | |
| 16 Vehicle collision risk for bats varies depending on factors including time of year, location of 17 roads and travel pathways in relation to roosting and foraging areas, the characteristics of 18 individuals flight, traffic volume, and whether young bats are dispersing. Although collision has 19 been documented for several species of bats, the Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan (FWS 2007-20 TN934) indicates that bat species do not seem to be particularly susceptible to vehicle 21 collisions. However, FWS also finds it difficult to determine whether roads pose a greater risk for 22 bats colliding with vehicles or a greater likelihood of decreasing risk of collision by deterring bat 23 activity (FWS 2016-TN7400). In most cases, FWS expects that roads of increasing size 24 decrease the likelihood of bats crossing the roads and, therefore, reduce collision risk (FWS 25 2016-TN7400).
| |
| | |
| 26 During the proposed Oconee Station SLR term, vehicular traffic from truck deliveries, site 27 maintenance activities, and personnel commuting to and from the site would continue 28 throughout the SLR period as they have during the current licensing period. Vehicle use would 29 occur primarily in areas that bats would be less likely to frequent, such as along established 30 county and State roads or within industrial-use areas of the Oconee Station site. Additionally, 31 most vehicle activity would occur during daylight hours when bats are less active. To date, Duke 32 Energy has reported no incidents of injury or mortality of any species of bat on the Oconee 33 Station site associated with vehicle collisions. Accordingly, the NRC staff finds the likelihood of 34 future northern long-eared bat collisions with vehicles to be extremely unlikely and, therefore, 35 discountable.
| |
| | |
| 36 Habitat Loss, Degradation, Disturbance, or Fragmentation, and Associated Effects
| |
| | |
| 37 As previously discussed in this EIS, the Oconee Station action area includes deciduous forest 38 habitat that tricolored bats may inhabit in spring, summer, and fall.
| |
| | |
| 39 In its final rule listing the northern long-eared bat (80 FR 17974-TN4216), the FWS identifies 40 forest conversion and forest modification as two of the most common causes of habitat loss, 41 degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation affecting federally listed bats. Forest conversion is 42 the loss of forest to another land use type, such as cropland, residential, or industrial. This can 43 lead to loss of suitable habitat, fragmentation of remaining habitat patches, and elimination of 44 travel corridors (80 FR 17974-TN4216). Forest management practices maintain forest habitat at 45 the landscape level, but they involve practices that can have direct and indirect effects on bats.
| |
| | |
| 3-134 1 Impacts from forest management are typically temporary in nature and can include positive, 2 neutral, and negative impacts.
| |
| | |
| 3 The proposed action would not involve forest conversion or management and would generally 4 not disturb existing forested habitat on the site. Duke Energy states that it would continue to 5 perform vegetation maintenance on the site over the course of the proposed SLR term. Most 6 maintenance would be of grassy, mowed areas between buildings and along walkways within 7 the industrial portion of the site or on adjacent hillsides. Duke Energy would continue to maintain 8 onsite transmission line ROWs in accordance with North American Electric Reliability 9 Corporation standards. Less-developed areas and forested areas would be largely unaffected.
| |
| 10 Duke Energy does not intend to expand the existing facilities or otherwise perform construction 11 or maintenance activities within these areas (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Site personnel may 12 occasionally remove select trees around the margins of existing forested areas if those trees are 13 deemed hazardous to buildings, infrastructure, or other site facilities or to existing overhead 14 clearances. Negative impacts on bats could result if such trees are potential roost trees. Bats 15 could also be directly injured during tree clearing. However, tree removal would be infrequent, 16 and Duke Energy personnel would follow company guidance to minimize potential impacts on 17 bats, as discussed in more detail below.
| |
| | |
| 18 The NRC staff finds that infrequent to rare hazardous tree removal in forested areas during the 19 proposed SLR term would not measurably affect any potential bat habitat in the action area.
| |
| 20 Direct injury or mortality to bats during tree removal is also unlikely because Duke Energy 21 company guidance would ensure that personnel take the appropriate measures to avoid this 22 potential impact. For instance, Duke Energy could avoid this impact by removing hazardous 23 trees in the winter when bats are unlikely to be present on the site. Additionally, the continued 24 preservation of the existing forested areas on the site during the SLR term would result in 25 positive impacts on tricolored if they are present within or near the action area.
| |
| | |
| 26 Behavioral Changes Resulting from Refurbishment or Other Site Activities
| |
| | |
| 27 Construction or refurbishment and other site activities, including site maintenance and 28 infrastructure repairs, could prompt behavioral changes in bats. Noise and vibration and general 29 human disturbance are stressors that may disrupt normal feeding, sheltering, and breeding 30 activities in bats (FWS 2016-TN7400). At low noise levels or farther distances, bats initially may 31 be startled but would likely habituate to the low background noise levels. At closer range and 32 louder noise levels, particularly if accompanied by physical vibrations from heavy machinery, 33 many bats would likely be startled to the point of fleeing from their daytime roosts. Fleeing 34 individuals could experience increased susceptibility to predation and would expend increased 35 levels of energy, which could result in decreased reproductive fitness (FWS 2016-TN7400, 36 Table 4-1). Increased noise may also affect foraging success. Schaub et al. (TN8867) found that 37 the foraging success of the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) diminished in areas with 38 noise mimicking the traffic sounds that would be experienced within 15 m (49 ft) of a highway.
| |
| | |
| 39 Within the Oconee Station action area, noise, vibration, and other human disturbances could 40 dissuade bats from using the action areas forested habitat during migration, which could also 41 reduce the fitness of migrating bats. However, bats that use the action area have likely become 42 habituated to such disturbance because Oconee Station has been consistently operating for 43 several decades. According to the FWS, bats that are repeatedly exposed to predictable, loud 44 noises may habituate to such stimuli over time (FWS 2010-TN8537). For instance, Indiana bats 45 have been documented as roosting within approximately 1,000 ft (300 m) of a busy State route 46 adjacent to Fort Drum Military Installation and immediately adjacent to housing areas and
| |
| | |
| 3-135 1 construction activities on the installation (Army 2014-TN8512). Tricolored bats would likely 2 respond similarly.
| |
| | |
| 3 Continued operation of Oconee Station during the SLR term would not include major 4 construction or refurbishment and would involve no other maintenance or infrastructure repair 5 activities besides routine activities already performed on the site. Levels and intensity of noise, 6 lighting, and human activity associated with continued day-to-day activities and site 7 maintenance during the SLR term would be similar to ongoing conditions since Oconee Station 8 began operating, and such activity would only occur on the developed, industrial-use portions of 9 the site. While these disturbances could cause behavioral changes in migrating or summer 10 roosting bats, such as the expenditure of additional energy to find alternative suitable roosts, the 11 NRC staff assumes that tricolored bats, if present in the action area, have already acclimated to 12 regular site disturbances. Thus, continued disturbances during the SLR term would not cause 13 behavioral changes in bats to a degree that would be able to be meaningfully measured, 14 detected, or evaluated or that would reach the scale where a take might occur.
| |
| | |
| 15 Duke Energy Endangered Species Procedure
| |
| | |
| 16 During the NRC staffs April 2023 environmental audit, staff reviewed Duke Energys corporate 17 Endangered Species Procedure. This procedure applies to all Duke Energy business units, 18 including the Oconee Station site. The procedure summarizes the requirements of the ESA and 19 how these requirements apply to Duke Energys sites and activities. It includes checklists and 20 protocols to ensure that Duke Energy employees and contractors adequately consider listed 21 species before undertaking an activity that has the potential to affect such species. The 22 procedure details how incidents should be logged and reported if a listed species is harmed.
| |
| 23 Duke Energy personnel must gather detailed information about the incident and report it to the 24 Duke Energy wildlife team, the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the appropriate 25 State natural resource agency, as appropriate. Such reporting would also trigger a report to the 26 NRC under 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(xi), as described in Section 3.2.12 of NUREG-1022, Revision 3, 27 Event Report Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 28 Duke Energy requires that employees and contractors complete training if they could encounter 29 listed species or have incidents during their everyday work activities. Such trainings must be 30 conducted by a qualified subject matter expert and should be project- or species-specific. For 31 instance, Duke Energy has recently conducted trainings for employees and contractors on 32 protected bats, including current and likely-to-be-listed species, such as the tricolored bat, and 33 how Duke Energy is addressing potential impacts of its projects and activities on these species.
| |
| 34 The trainings have addressed bat life history, seasonal distributions, habitat preferences, and 35 how to identify suitable versus non-suitable roosting trees, among other topics (Duke Energy 36 2023-TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 37 Duke Energy Habitat Conservation Plan Development
| |
| | |
| 38 In discussions among NRC staff and Duke Energy personnel during the NRC staffs April 2023 39 environmental audit, Duke Energy shared that it is preparing a multi-state Habitat Conservation 40 Plan (HCP) that would cover its entire regulated service area (e.g., Ohio, Indiana, North 41 Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida). This will include the Oconee 42 Station site. The HCP will address all federally protected bats, including the Indiana bat, 43 northern long-eared bat, gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Florida bonneted bat 44 (Eumops floridanus), and likely-to-be-listed bats, including the tricolored bat and little brown bat 45 (Myotis lucifugus). The HCP will address potential impacts to include tree trimming and cutting, 46 grounds maintenance, and other routine operational activities at facilities such as the Oconee
| |
| | |
| 3-136 1 Station site. Duke Energy is also developing facility-based bat management plans as part of this 2 effort, which would be implemented at Oconee Station, among other sites. Duke Energy is 3 coordinating with the FWS in its development of the HCP. Once drafted, Duke Energy will 4 submit the HCP, along with an Incidental Take Permit application, to the FWS for approval in 5 accordance with ESA Section 10. Duke Energy estimates that it will receive approval by roughly 6 2027 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 7 Summary of Effects
| |
| | |
| 8 The potential stressors evaluated in this section are unlikely to result in effects on the tricolored 9 bat that could be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated, and such stressors are 10 otherwise unlikely to occur for the following reasons:
| |
| 11
| |
| * Bat collisions with nuclear power plant structures in the United States are rare, and none 12 have been reported at Oconee Station. Vehicle collisions attributable to the proposed action 13 are also unlikely, and none have been reported at Oconee Station.
| |
| 14
| |
| * The proposed action would not involve any construction, land clearing, or other ground-15 disturbing activities.
| |
| 16
| |
| * Continued preservation of the existing forested areas on the site would result in positive 17 impacts on northern long-eared bats.
| |
| 18
| |
| * Bats, if present in the action area, have likely already acclimated to the noise, vibration, and 19 general human disturbances associated with site maintenance, infrastructure repairs, and 20 other site activities. During the SLR term, such disturbances and activities would continue at 21 current rates and would be limited to the industrial-use portions of the site.
| |
| 22
| |
| * Duke Energy maintains a corporate Endangered Species Procedure to ensure that federally 23 listed species are appropriately considered when planning activities and projects. Duke 24 Energy is also preparing an HCP to address listed bats that will cover its entire regulated 25 service area. Duke will submit the FWS, along with an Incidental Take Permit application, to 26 the FWS for approval in accordance with ESA Section 10.
| |
| | |
| 27 Conclusion for the Tricolored Bat
| |
| | |
| 28 All potential effects on the tricolored bat resulting from the proposed action would be 29 insignificant or discountable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action may 30 affect but is not likely to adversely affect the tricolored bat. Following the issuance of this EIS, 31 the NRC staff will seek the FWSs concurrence regarding this finding.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.8.4.2 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats under 33 National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction
| |
| | |
| 34 No EFH occurs within the action area (see Section 3.8.1.3). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 35 that the proposed action would have no effect on the EFH.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.8.4.3 Endangered Species Act: Cumulative Effects
| |
| | |
| 37 The Endangered Species Act regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) (TN4312) direct Federal 38 agencies to consider cumulative effects as part of the proposed action effects analysis. Under 39 the Endangered Species Act, cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private 40 activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action 41 area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02-TN4312). Cumulative effects
| |
| | |
| 3-137 1 under the Endangered Species Act do not include past actions or other Federal actions 2 requiring separate Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, which differs from the 3 definition of cumulative impacts under NEPA.
| |
| | |
| 4 When formulating biological opinions under formal Endangered Species Act Section 7 5 consultation, FWS and NMFS (FWS and NMFS 1998-TN1031) consider cumulative effects 6 when determining the likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification. Therefore, cumulative 7 effects need only be considered under the Endangered Species Act if listed species will be 8 adversely affected by the proposed action and formal Section 7 consultation is necessary (FWS 9 2017-TN5753). Because the NRC staff concluded earlier in this section that the proposed SLR 10 is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species and would not destroy or adversely 11 modify designated critical habitats, the NRC staff did not separately consider cumulative effects 12 for the listed species and designated critical habitats. Further, the NRC staff did not identify any 13 actions within the action area that meet the definition of cumulative effects under the 14 Endangered Species Act.
| |
| | |
| 15 3.8.4.4 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat
| |
| | |
| 16 No EFH occurs within the action area (see Section 3.8.2). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 17 that the proposed action would have no effect on the EFH.
| |
| | |
| 18 3.8.4.5 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources
| |
| | |
| 19 No National Marine Sanctuaries occur within the affected area (see Section 3.8.3). Therefore, 20 the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on sanctuary resources.
| |
| | |
| 21 3.8.5 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 22 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue a renewed license, and Oconee 23 Station would shut down on or before the expiration of the current renewed facility operating 24 licenses. Upon shutdown, the nuclear power plant would require substantially less cooling water 25 and would produce little to no discernable thermal effluent. Thus, the potential for impacts on all 26 aquatic species related to cooling system operation would be significantly reduced. The 27 Endangered Species Act action area under the no-action alternative would most likely be the 28 same or similar to the area described in Section 3.8.1.1. No federally listed species or 29 designated critical habitats currently occur in the action area (see Section 3.8.1), nor does any 30 EFH occur in the region (see Section 3.8.2). Thus, shutdown is unlikely to result in impacts on 31 such species and habitats. However, actual impacts would depend on the specific shutdown 32 activities and if any listed species, critical habitats, or designated EFH are present when the no-33 action alternative is implemented.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.8.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 35 The Endangered Species Act action area and estuarine waters potentially containing 36 designated EFH for any of the replacement alternatives would depend on factors including site 37 selection, current land uses, planned construction activities, temporary and permanent structure 38 locations and parameters, and the timeline of the alternative. The listed species, critical habitats, 39 and EFH potentially affected by a replacement power alternative would depend on the 40 boundaries of that alternatives effects and the species and habitats federally protected at the 41 time the alternative is implemented. For instance, if Oconee Station continues to operate until 42 the end of the current license terms and a replacement power alternative is implemented at that 43 time, the FWS and NMFS may have listed new species, delisted currently listed species whose
| |
| | |
| 3-138 1 populations have recovered, or revised EFH designations. These listing and designation 2 activities would change the potential for the various alternatives to impact special status species 3 and habitats. Additionally, requirements for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 4 Species Act with the FWS and NMFS as well as EFH consultation with the NMFS would depend 5 on whether Federal permits or authorizations are required to implement each alternative.
| |
| | |
| 6 Sections 3.6.5 and 3.8.6 describe the types of impacts that terrestrial and aquatic resources 7 would experience under each alternative. Impacts on special status species and habitats would 8 likely be similar in type. However, the magnitude and significance of such impacts could be 9 greater for special status species and habitats because such species and habitats are rare and 10 more sensitive to environmental stressors.
| |
| | |
| 11 3.8.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 12 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 13 The impacts of the new nuclear alternative are largely addressed in the impacts common to all 14 replacement power alternatives described in the previous section. Because the NRC would 15 remain the licensing agency under this alternative, the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 16 Conservation and Management Act would require the NRC to consult with the FWS and NMFS, 17 as applicable, before issuing a license for construction and operation of the new facility. During 18 these consultations, the agencies would determine whether the new reactors would affect any 19 federally listed species, adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat, or result in 20 adverse effects on EFH. If the new facility requires a CWA Section 404 permit, USACE may be 21 a cooperating agency for required consultations, or USACE may be required to consult 22 separately. Ultimately, the magnitude and significance of adverse impacts on special status 23 species and habitats would depend on the site location and layout, nuclear power plant design, 24 nuclear power plant operations, and the special status species and habitats present in the area 25 when the alternative is implemented.
| |
| | |
| 26 3.8.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 27 The NRC does not license natural gas facilities; therefore, the NRC would not be responsible for 28 ESA Section 7 or EFH consultation for this alternative. The Federal and private responsibilities 29 for addressing impacts on special status species and habitats under this alternative would be 30 similar to those described in Section 3.8.4 of this EIS. Ultimately, the magnitude and 31 significance of adverse impacts on special status species and habitats resulting from the natural 32 gas alternative would depend on the site location and layout, nuclear power plant design, 33 nuclear power plant operations, and the special status species and habitats present in the area 34 when the alternative is implemented.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.8.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 36 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 37 Section 3.8.5 above addresses the impacts of the SMR component of this alternative. The NRC 38 does not license solar or wind facilities or play a role in energy-planning decisions; therefore, the 39 NRC would not be responsible for ESA Section 7 or an EFH consultation for these components 40 of the alternative. The Federal and private responsibilities for addressing impacts on special 41 status species and habitats under these components of this alternative would be similar to those 42 described in Section 3.8.4. Ultimately, the magnitude and significance of adverse impacts on 43 special status species and habitats resulting from the combination alternative would depend on
| |
| | |
| 3-139 1 the site location and layout, nuclear power plant design, nuclear power plant operations, and the 2 special status species and habitats present in the area when the alternative is implemented.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources
| |
| | |
| 4 This section describes the cultural background and the historic and cultural resources found at 5 Oconee Station and in the surrounding area. The description of the resources is followed by the 6 staffs analysis of the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from the proposed 7 action (SLR) and alternatives to the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 8 3.9.1 Cultural Background
| |
| | |
| 9 Human occupation in South Carolina dates back more than more than 12,000 years. Prehistoric 10 occupation of the area is commonly divided into the following cultural periods:
| |
| 11
| |
| * Paleoindian Period (12,000-8,000 BC) 12
| |
| * Archaic Period (8,000-13,000 BC) 13
| |
| * Woodland Period (3,000 BC-1,000 AD) 14
| |
| * Mississippian Period (1,000 AD-1,520 AD)
| |
| | |
| 15 The Paleoindian Period is characterized by the presence of small mobile bands dependent on 16 large game, and to some extent on smaller aquatic and terrestrial game and flora. Many of 17 these bands lived in sites at the confluence of large streams and rivers. The Archaic Period is 18 divided into early, middle, and late subperiods defined on the basis of changing projectile point 19 types and evolving resource procurement strategies. During this period, people appear to have 20 become increasingly less nomadic and more adept at exploiting resources found within their 21 environment, thereby resulting in an overall increase in population. The late Archaic Period is 22 characterized by the presence of sand-tempered pottery, which arrived at the Piedmont region 23 by way of the coastal plain. The earliest known house in South Carolina, constructed from shell 24 middens along the outer coastal plain, also dates from this period. The Woodland Period is 25 similarly divided into early, middle, and late subperiods characterized by changing pottery types.
| |
| 26 During this time in the Piedmont region, bow and arrow technology and extensive use of pottery 27 was employed, reliance on freshwater shellfish increased, and larger settlements were 28 established along major river terraces where horticulture was practiced. The Mississippian 29 Period is characterized by ceremonial mounds, distinctive mortuary practices, and large maize 30 agriculture-based settlements generally considered to have been controlled by chiefdoms.
| |
| 31 Non-mound sites from this period are also common across South Carolina (Duke Energy 2021-32 TN8897; NRC 2013-TN6435; SCDAH 2023-TN9005).
| |
| | |
| 33 The arrival of Europeans in 1526 began the Exploratory Period in South Carolina, during which 34 Spanish, and later French, explorers attempted to establish early settlements. These efforts 35 resulted in severe reductions to Native American populations in the region caused by the 36 introduction of European and African diseases. The current Historic Period in South Carolina 37 began with colonization by the British in 1670 and the establishment of trading posts. Tensions 38 between colonists and several Native American Tribes led to the Yamasee War from 39 1715 to 1717. Ultimately, many of these Tribes were unable to resist colonial encroachment in 40 the region and were forced to migrate west. An exception to this migration were the Catawba, 41 who were granted a reservation in 1763 and remain in South Carolina to this day (Duke Energy 42 2021-TN8897; NRC 2013-TN6435; SCDAH 2023-TN9005).
| |
| | |
| 3-140 1 During the period between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the region was populated 2 by small farms focused primarily on livestock, grain, and cotton production. In the late 1800s, 3 the development of a greater regional railroad infrastructure led to the establishment of several 4 small towns centered around cotton and textile mills. In the 1960s, Duke Energy began a 5 large-scale power-generating project in the area. Known as the Keowee-Toxaway complex, it 6 included the construction of Lake Keowee and Lake Jocassee; the Keowee, Jocassee, and Bad 7 Creek hydroelectric stations; and Oconee Station. Following the decline of the local textile 8 industry in the late 1900s and Duke Energys development of the Keowee-Toxaway complex, 9 increased focus has been directed toward establishing and promoting recreation and tourism 10 opportunities in the region (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897; NRC 1999-TN8942; SCDAH 2023-11 TN9005).
| |
| | |
| 12 3.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at Oconee Station
| |
| | |
| 13 Historic and cultural resources within the Oconee Station site can include prehistoric era and 14 historic era archaeological sites, historic districts, and buildings; as well as any site, structure, or 15 object that may be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 16 (NRHP). Historic and cultural resources also include traditional cultural properties that are 17 important to a living community of people for maintaining their culture. Historic property is the 18 legal term for a historic or cultural resource that is included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the 19 NRHP.
| |
| | |
| 20 Cultural resource surveys were not conducted within the 510 ac (210 ha) Oconee Station site 21 before construction. Although construction of the Oconee Station facility would have impacted 22 any archaeological resources that may have been located within its footprint, much of the 23 surrounding area remains largely undisturbed (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Nine cultural 24 resource surveys of the offsite area within a 6 mi (9.6 km) radius of Oconee Station have 25 subsequently identified the presence of 104 archaeological and historic resources (Duke Energy 26 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 27 The NRHP lists 22 historic properties in Oconee County, and 28 in Pickens County (NPS 2023-28 TN9230). Three of these historic properties are located within a 6 mi radius from the center of 29 the Oconee Station site: the Old Pickens Presbyterian Church (adjacent to the southeast corner 30 of the Oconee Station site), the Alexander-Hill House (approximately 2 mi [3.5 km] west) and 31 the Newry Historic District, (approximately 5 mi [8 km] south) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, NPS 32 2023-TN9230). Duke Energy has also commissioned an architectural survey to evaluate the 33 eligibility of Oconee Station for listing on the NRHP (see Section 3.9.4.2 below).
| |
| | |
| 34 3.9.3 Procedures and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan
| |
| | |
| 35 Duke Energy has multiple procedures in place to protect cultural resources, including the 36 Corporate Cultural Resources Procedure, the nuclear Environmental Review Process and 37 Environmental Checklist, the Nuclear Land Disturbing Activities procedure, and the cultural 38 resources section of the corporate Environmental, Health, and Safety Handbook. These 39 procedures help to increase awareness of the importance identifying, protecting, and minimizing 40 disturbance to cultural resources during the planning, scoping, and implementation of all 41 potential ground disturbing activities at Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 3-141 1 3.9.4 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 2 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 3 SLR on the environmental issues related to historic and cultural resources in accordance with 4 Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.9.4.1 Historic and Cultural Resources
| |
| | |
| 6 The NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. TN4157), requires Federal agencies to consider the 7 effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Issuing a renewed operating license to a 8 nuclear power plant is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties. Historic 9 properties are defined as resources included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the NRHP. The 10 criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 Criteria for Evaluation, [TN1682] and include:
| |
| 11 (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with the lives of persons 12 significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or 13 construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important 14 information.
| |
| | |
| 15 The historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations 16 issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of 17 Historic Properties (TN513). In accordance with NHPA provisions, the NRC is required to make 18 a reasonable effort to identify historic properties included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the 19 NRHP in the area of potential effect. The area of potential effect for a license renewal action 20 includes the nuclear power plant site, the transmission lines up to the first substation, and 21 immediate environs that may be affected by the SLR decision and land-disturbing activities 22 associated with continued reactor operations during the SLR term. In addition, the NRC is 23 required to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) if historic properties would not 24 be affected by SLR or if no historic properties are present. In South Carolina, the State Historic 25 Preservation Office within the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, administers 26 the States historic preservation program. The NRC also notifies all consulting parties, including 27 Indian Tribes, and makes this finding public (through the NEPA process) before issuing the 28 renewed operating license. Similarly, if historic properties are present and could be affected by 29 the undertaking, the NRC is required to assess and resolve any adverse effects in consultation 30 with the SHPO and any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified 31 historic properties.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.9.4.2 Consultation
| |
| | |
| 33 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, 34 (TN513) on August 23, 2021, the NRC initiated written consultations with the Advisory Council 35 on Historic Preservation and the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Also, on 36 August 23, 2021, the NRC initiated consultation with the following federally recognized Tribes:
| |
| 37
| |
| * Catawba Indian Nation 38
| |
| * Cherokee Nation 39
| |
| * Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 40
| |
| * Muscogee (Creek) Nation 41
| |
| * United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
| |
| | |
| 42 In these letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, defined the area of 43 potential effect, and indicated that the NHPA review would be integrated with the NEPA
| |
| | |
| 3-142 1 process, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) (TN513). The NRC invited participation in the 2 identification of, and possible decisions concerning, historic properties, and also invited 3 participation in the scoping process. Separate from these consultations, the NRC staff also sent 4 a letter inviting a State-recognized Tribe, the Piedmont American Indian Association, and the 5 Lower Eastern Cherokee Nation of South Carolina to participate in the scoping process.
| |
| | |
| 6 On September 20, 2021, the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office stated in 7 correspondence to the NRC that it was their understanding that Duke Energy had 8 commissioned a cultural resources survey of primary structures at Oconee Station and 9 recommended that an evaluation of the eligibility of these structures for the NRHP be conducted 10 as a part of the license renewal undertaking (SCDAH 2023-TN9005). Duke Energys draft report 11 concerning the architectural survey and NRHP eligibility evaluation that was submitted to the 12 South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office identified resources within the boundary of 13 Oconee Station and revisited the Old Pickens Presbyterian Church located outside the 14 boundary. The survey recommended three resources as eligible for listing in the NRHP:
| |
| 15
| |
| * The Oconee Nuclear Station, with multiple contributing resources, including the reactor 16 buildings, turbine buildings, intake structure, discharge structure, water tower, skimmer wall, 17 and steam generator retirement facility 18
| |
| * The World of Energy Visitor Center, which is individually eligible and also contributes to a 19 proposed Oconee Nuclear Station Historic District 20
| |
| * The Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Facility, with contributing resources including the 21 Keowee power house, intake structure, and spillway
| |
| | |
| 22 The South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office provided initial concurrence that these 23 resources meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP on October 7, 2021, and final concurrence of 24 the report and findings on January 4, 2022 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948, SCDAH 2023-25 TN9005).
| |
| | |
| 26 3.9.4.3 Findings
| |
| | |
| 27 Section 3.9.2 discusses cultural resources on the Oconee Station property. Duke Energy does 28 not anticipate physical changes or ground-disturbing activities at Oconee Station or any location 29 outside the property boundary to support SLR (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Duke Energy has 30 procedures in place to manage and protect cultural resources at Oconee Station. If inadvertent 31 cultural or historic resources are encountered, work should be stopped and the SHPO should be 32 contacted to determine the appropriate next steps (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 33 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 34 Given (1) that no new ground disturbance or modifications are anticipated during the SLR 35 period, (2) the location of historic properties within and near the area of potential effect is 36 known, and (3) that Duke Energy has procedures in place to manage and protect cultural 37 resources, the NRC staff concludes that SLR for Oconee Station would not adversely affect any 38 known historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
| |
| | |
| 39 3.9.5 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 40 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue subsequent licenses, and Duke 41 Energy would terminate reactor operation on or before the expiration of the current renewed 42 licenses. As a result of facility shutdown, land-disturbing activities or dismantlement are not
| |
| | |
| 3-143 1 anticipated because these would be conducted during decommissioning. However, effects on 2 historic properties or historic and cultural resources would depend on the specific shutdown 3 activities when the no-action alternative is implemented.
| |
| | |
| 4 3.9.6 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 5 If construction and operation of replacement power alternatives require a Federal undertaking 6 (e.g., license, permit), the Federal agency would need to make a reasonable effort to identify 7 historic properties within the area of potential effects and consider the effects of their 8 undertakings on historic properties, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as 9 amended (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. TN4157). Historic and cultural resources identified would 10 need to be recorded and evaluated for eligibility for listing on the NRHP. If historic properties are 11 present and could be affected by the undertaking, adverse effects would be assessed, 12 determined, and resolved in consultation with the state historic preservation officer and any 13 Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified historic properties 14 through the NHPA Section 106 process.
| |
| | |
| 15 Construction
| |
| | |
| 16 Impacts to historic and cultural resources from the construction of replacement power 17 alternatives are primarily related to ground disturbance (e.g., land clearing, excavations). For 18 the natural gas alternative, and SMR portions of the new nuclear alternative and combination 19 alternative, this environmental review assumes the new facilities would be built on the Oconee 20 Station site. A portion of the new nuclear alternative would also be constructed at the W.S. Lee 21 Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina. For the solar PV and offshore wind 22 portions of the combination alternative, this environmental review assumes they would be 23 constructed at other sites (offsite from the Oconee Station site). Undisturbed land areas (onsite 24 and offsite) would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and cultural material. Any 25 historic or cultural resources and archaeological sites found during these surveys would need to 26 be evaluated for eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Areas of greatest cultural sensitivity should 27 be avoided while maximizing the use of previously disturbed areas.
| |
| | |
| 28 Operation
| |
| | |
| 29 The potential for impacts on historic and cultural resources from the operation of replacement 30 power alternatives would be related to maintenance activities at the site, as well as visual 31 impacts that would vary with nuclear power plant heights and associated exhaust stack or 32 cooling towers. As in the case of construction (discussed above), undisturbed land areas would 33 need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and cultural material. Any historic and 34 cultural resources and archaeological sites found during these surveys would need to be 35 evaluated for eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Areas of greatest cultural sensitivity should be 36 avoided while maximizing the use of previously disturbed areas.
| |
| | |
| 37 3.9.7 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 38 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 39 Potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from the construction and operation of a 40 new nuclear alternative would include those common to all replacement power alternatives 41 discussed in Section 3.9.6. The ALWR portion of a new nuclear alternative would require more 42 than 3,000 ac (1,200 ha) of land on the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site; and the SMR portion 43 would require approximately 36 ac (15 ha) on or adjacent to the Oconee Station site. The extent
| |
| | |
| 3-144 1 of potential impacts on historic properties would depend on the degree to which the lands 2 chosen for the new nuclear facilities have been previously developed or disturbed. Avoidance of 3 historic and cultural material may not be possible but would be minimized or mitigated.
| |
| | |
| 4 Construction and operation of a new nuclear alternative would introduce additional buildings and 5 structures to the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station and Oconee Station sites that, while not out of 6 character with the current facilities, could affect the viewshed of historic properties or historic 7 and cultural resources. A plume, particularly during winter months, could also be visible as a 8 result of operation of the mechanical draft cooling towers. The impact determination of this 9 alternative would depend on the specific locations chosen for the new ALWR and SMR facilities.
| |
| 10 The South Carolina SHPO would need to be consulted before commencing any 11 ground-disturbing activities in undisturbed land areas at each location.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.9.8 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 13 Potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from the construction of a natural gas 14 alternative would include those common to all replacement power alternatives discussed in 15 Section 3.9.6. The natural gas alternative would require an estimated 130 ac (53 ha) of land on 16 and adjacent to the Oconee Station site and up to an additional 191 ac (77 ha) for a natural gas 17 pipeline. The extent of potential impacts on historic properties would depend on the degree to 18 which the lands chosen for the natural gas facilities have been previously developed or 19 disturbed. Avoidance of historic and cultural material may not be possible but would be 20 minimized or mitigated.
| |
| | |
| 21 Construction and operation of a natural gas alternative would introduce additional buildings and 22 structures to the Oconee Station site that, while not out of character with the current facility, 23 could affect the viewshed of historic properties or historic and cultural resources. A plume, 24 particularly during winter months, could also be visible as a result of operation of the mechanical 25 draft cooling towers. The impact determination of this alternative would depend on the specific 26 location chosen for the natural gas facilities. The South Carolina SHPO would need to be 27 consulted before commencing any ground-disturbing activities in undisturbed land areas at 28 Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 29 3.9.9 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 30 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 31 Potential impacts on historic and cultural resources during construction and operation of a 32 combination of SMR, solar PV, and offshore wind power-generating facilities would include 33 those common to all replacement power alternatives discussed in 3.9.6. Activities associated 34 with demand-side management would not likely have any direct impact on these resources.
| |
| | |
| 35 Because it would be sited within the Oconee Station site and have similar nuclear power plant 36 structures, potential impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction and operation 37 of the SMR portion of the combination alternative would be similar to those discussed for the 38 SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative in Section 3.9.7, although the size of the facility 39 footprint would be larger and require approximately 110 ac (45 ha) on or adjacent to the Oconee 40 Station site. The solar PV portion of the combination alternative would require approximately 41 9,600 ac (3,900 ha) of land located at multiple locations within Duke Energys service area 42 offsite of Oconee Station. The offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would be 43 sited within an approximately 66 square-nautical miles (56,000 ac, 23000 ha) area, and the 44 onshore battery storage systems supporting these facilities would disturb an additional 60 ac
| |
| | |
| 3-145 1 (24 ha) of land offsite of Oconee Station. The extent of potential impacts on historic properties 2 would depend on the degree to which the areas chosen for these facilities have been previously 3 developed or disturbed. Taller structures, such as wind turbines, would be visible for extended 4 distances.
| |
| | |
| 5 Avoidance of historic and cultural material may not be possible but would be minimized or 6 mitigated. The impact determination of this alternative would depend on the specific location of 7 new facilities. The South Carolina SHPO would need to be consulted before commencing any 8 ground- or seabed-disturbing activities in undisturbed areas at Oconee Station and at other 9 onshore and offshore locations within its jurisdiction.
| |
| | |
| 10 3.10 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 11 This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be affected by 12 changes in nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station. Oconee Station and the 13 communities that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The 14 communities support the people, goods, and services required to operate the nuclear power 15 plant. Nuclear power plant operations, in turn, supply wages and benefits for people as well as 16 dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of a communitys ability to support 17 Oconee Stations operations depend on the communitys ability to respond to changing 18 environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions.
| |
| | |
| 19 3.10.1 Nuclear Power Plant Employment
| |
| | |
| 20 The socioeconomic ROI is defined by the areas where Oconee Station workers and their 21 families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thus affecting the economic 22 conditions of the regions. In 2023, Duke Energy employed a permanent workforce of 23 622 workers and 495 contingent non-outage workers (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| 24 Approximately, 76 percent of Oconee Station permanent workers reside in Oconee County 25 (44 percent of the workers) and Pickens County (32 percent of the workers), South Carolina.
| |
| 26 The remaining workers are spread among counties in South Carolina, Georgia, and North 27 Carolina (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). Because most of Oconee Stations permanent workers 28 are concentrated in Oconee County and Pickens County, the greatest socioeconomics effects 29 are likely to be experienced there. The focus of the impact analysis, therefore, is on the 30 socioeconomic impacts of continued Oconee Station operation on these two counties.
| |
| | |
| 31 Refueling outages occur on a 58-month cycle for all three units on a staggered schedule, with 32 one fall outage scheduled during odd years, and spring and fall outages scheduled for even 33 years. Refueling outages last approximately 30 days and an additional 800 to 900 workers are 34 onsite during a typical outage.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.10.2 Regional Economic Characteristics
| |
| | |
| 36 Goods and services are needed to operate the Oconee Station site. Although procured from a 37 wider region, some portion of these goods and services are purchased directly from within the 38 socioeconomic ROI. These transactions sustain existing jobs and maintain income levels in the 39 local economy. This section presents information on employment and income in the Oconee 40 Station socioeconomic ROI.
| |
| | |
| 41 According to the U.S. Census Bureaus (USCB) 2017-2021 American Community Survey 42 5-Year Estimates, the educational services and healthcare and social assistance industry
| |
| | |
| 3-146 1 represented the largest employment section in the socioeconomic ROI, followed by 2 manufacturing (USCB 2022-TN9034). The Oconee County and Pickens county civilian labor 3 force was 97,121 persons and the number of individuals employed was 92,280 (USCB 2022-4 TN9034). Estimated income information for the socioeconomic ROI is presented in Table 3-16.
| |
| 5 As shown in Table 3-16, people living in the two-county ROI had a median household income 6 less than the State average. Additionally, the percentage of individuals living below the poverty 7 level in Oconee and Pickens counties was higher than the percentage of individuals living below 8 the poverty level in the State of South Carolina.
| |
| | |
| 9 According the USCB 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the 10 unemployment rate in Oconee County and Pickens County were 6.1 and 4.4 percent, 11 respectively. Comparatively, the unemployment rate in South Carolina during the same time 12 period was 5.3 percent (USCB 2022-TN9034).
| |
| | |
| 13 Table 3-16 Estimated Income Information for the Oconee Station Socioeconomic 14 Region of Influence (2017-2021, 5-Year Estimates)
| |
| | |
| Parameter Oconee County Pickens County South Carolina Median household income (dollars)(a) 52,842 53,188 58,234 Per capita income (dollars)(a) 32,986 29,218 32,823 Families living below the poverty level (percent) 10.2 8.8 10.4 People living below the poverty level (percent) 15.4 17.2 14.5 (a) In 2021 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars.
| |
| Source: USCB 2022-TN9034.
| |
| | |
| 15 3.10.3 Demographic Characteristics
| |
| | |
| 16 According to the 2020 Census, an estimated 226,363 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) radius of 17 Oconee Station, which equates to a population density of 180 persons per square mile 18 (persons/mi2) (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). This amount translates to a Category 4, Least 19 sparse population density using the LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) measure of sparseness, 20 which is defined as greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 mi [32 km].
| |
| 21 An estimated 1,549,634 people live within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site, 22 which equates to a population density of 197 persons/mi2 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). This 23 translates to a Category 4 proximity index. Therefore, Oconee Station is in a high population 24 area based on the LR GEIS spareness and proximity matrix (NRC 1996-TN288).
| |
| | |
| 25 Table 3-17 shows population projections and percent growth from 1990 to 2060 for Oconee and 26 Pickens Counties. During the last several decades, both counties have experienced increasing 27 population. Based on population projections, the population in both counties is expected to 28 continue to increase, but at a slower rate.
| |
| | |
| 29 Table 3-17 Population and Percent Growth in Oconee Station Socioeconomic Region 30 of Influence Counties 1990-2020 and 2030-2060 (Projected)
| |
| | |
| Oconee County Oconee County Pickens County Pickens County Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change 1990 57,494 - 93,894 -
| |
| 2000 66,215 15.2 110,757 18.0 2010 74,273 12.2 119,224 7.6
| |
| | |
| 3-147 Oconee County Oconee County Pickens County Pickens County Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change 2020 78,607 5.8 131,404 10.2 2030 84,940 8.1 135,865 3.4 2040 88,493 4.2 143,818 5.9 2050 96,554 9.1 156,206 8.6 2060 102,711 6.4 165,838 6.2 No table entry has been denoted by -.
| |
| Sources: 1900 data from USCB 1992-TN9035; 2000 data from USCB 2001-TN9036; 2010 data from USCB 2012-TN9037; 2020 data from USCB 2022-TN9038; 2030-2040 Projected Data from Appalachian Council of Governments ACOG 2022-TN9039; 2050-2060 projected population calculated by NRC.
| |
| | |
| 1 The 2020 Census demographic profile of the Oconee Station ROI population is presented in 2 Table 3-18. According to the 2020 Census, minorities (race and ethnicity combined) comprised 3 approximately 18.1 percent of the total population for the ROI. The largest minority population in 4 the ROI were Black or African American of any race (6.4 percent of the total population; 5 36 percent of the total minority population). According to the USCBs 2020 census, since 2010, 6 minority populations in the two-county ROI were estimated to have increased approximately by 7 12,336 persons, and now comprise 18 percent of the population (see Table 3-18). The largest 8 changes occurred in the population of people who identify themselves as two or more races (not 9 Hispanic or Latino), which grew by more than 6,600 persons since 2010.
| |
| | |
| 10 Table 3-18 Demographic Profile of the Population in the Oconee Region of Influence in 11 2020 Oconee Pickens Region of Demographics County County Influence Total Population 78,607 131,404 210,011 Percent White race 82.3 81.6 81.9 Percent Black or African American race 6.5 6.4 6.4 Percent American Indian and Alaska Native race 0.2 0.2 0.2 Percent Asian race 0.8 2.1 1.6 Percent Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander race 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent some other race 0.2 0.3 0.3 Percent two or more races 4.4 4.3 4.3 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ethnicity of any race (total 4,384 6,572 10,956 population)
| |
| Percent Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ethnicity of any race of 5.6 5.0 5.2 total population Total minority 13,911 24,157 38,068 Percent of total population 17.7 18.4 18.1 Source: USCB 2020-TN9040.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.10.3.1 Transient Population
| |
| | |
| 13 Oconee County and Pickens County can experience seasonal transient population growth as a 14 result of local tourism, recreational activities, or college and university attendance. For instance, 15 there are four State parks, three County parks, multiple camping areas, the Sumter National 16 Forest, and multiple lake and river recreational resources in Oconee County. Pickens County
| |
| | |
| 3-148 1 has a number of parks, including Table Rock State Park, Mile Creek Park, and 2 Keowee-Toxaway State Park (Pickens County 2022-TN9041). In 2022, approximately 28,466 3 students were enrolled in Clemson University (Clemson University 2022-TN9042). A transient 4 population creates a demand for temporary housing and service in the area. Based on the 5 Census Bureaus 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (USCB 2021-6 TN9043), 4,844 seasonal housing units are located in the two-county socioeconomic ROI.
| |
| | |
| 7 3.10.3.2 Migrant Farm Workers
| |
| | |
| 8 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 9 crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 10 follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout rural areas of the United States.
| |
| 11 Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 12 and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant 13 workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these minority and 14 low-income workers would be under-represented in the decennial Census population counts.
| |
| | |
| 15 Since 2002, the Census of Agriculture reports the numbers of farms hiring migrant workers.
| |
| 16 Migrant workers, as defined by the Census of Agriculture, are farm workers whose employment 17 requires travel that prevents the worker from returning to their permanent place of residence the 18 same day (USDA 2019-TN9044). The Census of Agriculture is conducted every 5 years and 19 results in a comprehensive compilation of agricultural production data for every county in the 20 Nation.
| |
| | |
| 21 Information about both migrant and temporary farm labor (i.e., working fewer than 150 days) 22 can be found in the 2017 Census of Agriculture (at the time of publication of this EIS, the 2022 23 Census of Agriculture data was not yet available). Table 3-19 presents information on migrant 24 and temporary farm labor in Oconee County and Pickens County. According to the 25 2017 Census of Agriculture, 481 farm workers were hired to work for fewer than 150 days and 26 were employed on 201 farms in the two-county ROI. One farm in Pickens County reported hiring 27 migrant workers.
| |
| | |
| 28 Table 3-19 Migrant Farm Workers and Temporary Farm Labor in Oconee County and 29 Pickens County Number of Farms Number of Farm Number of Farms Hiring Workers for Workers Working Number of Farms with Hired Farm Less Than for Less Than Reporting Migrant County Labor(a) 150 days(a) 150 days(a) Farm Labor(a)
| |
| Total 276 201 481 1 South Carolina 152 98 200 N/A CountyOconee South Carolina 124 103 281 1 CountyPickens N/A = not available; ROI = region of influence.
| |
| Note: ROI counties are in bold italics.
| |
| (a) Source: Table 7. Hired farm LaborWorkers and Payroll: 2017 (USDA 2019-TN9044).
| |
| | |
| 30 3.10.4 Housing and Community Services
| |
| | |
| 31 This section presents information on housing and local public services, including education and 32 water supply.
| |
| | |
| 3-149 1 3.10.4.1 Housing
| |
| | |
| 2 Table 3-20 lists the total number of occupied and vacant housing units, vacancy rates, and 3 median values in the two-county ROI. Based on the USCBs 2017-2021 American Community 4 Survey 5-year estimates, there were 96,462 housing units in the ROI, of which 81,851 were 5 occupied. The median values of owner-occupied housing units in the ROI range from $169,900 6 in Oconee County to $166,800 in Pickens county. The homeowner vacancy rate was 7 approximately 1.1 percent in Oconee county and 0.9 percent in Pickens county (USCB 2021-8 TN9045).
| |
| | |
| 9 Table 3-20 Housing in the Oconee Station Region of Influence (2017-2021, 5-Year 10 Estimate)
| |
| Region of Parameter Oconee County Pickens County Influence Total housing units 40,531 55,931 96,462 Occupied housing units 32,413 49,438 81,851 Total vacant housing units 8,118 6,493 14,611 Percent total vacant 20.0 11.6 17.9 Owner-occupied units 24,131 34,040 58,171 Median value (dollars) 169,900 166,800 168,086(a)
| |
| Owner vacancy rate (percent) 1.1 0.9 1.0(b)
| |
| Renter-occupied units 8,282 15,398 23,680 Median rent (U.S. dollars/month) 801 842 828(c)
| |
| Rental vacancy rate (percent) 7.6 6.3 6.8(b)
| |
| (a) Weighted average by owner-occupied units in Oconee County and Pickens County.
| |
| (b) Weighted average by total housing units in Oconee County and Pickens County.
| |
| (c) Weighted average by occupied units paying rent in Oconee County and Pickens County.
| |
| Source: USCB 2021-TN9045.
| |
| | |
| 11 3.10.4.2 Education
| |
| | |
| 12 The Oconee County School District comprises 16 public schools, with a total of 10,232 students 13 as of October 2022 (School District of Oconee County 2022-TN9046). These 16 public schools 14 include 10 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools. The Oconee 15 County School District budget was approximately $84 million dollars for the 2019-2020 school 16 year (Oconee County 2019-TN9047). The Pickens County School District comprises 23 public 17 schools, with approximately 16,400 students for the 2020-2021 school year (School District of 18 Pickens County [SDPC]; SDPC 2020-TN9048). These 23 public schools include 14 elementary 19 schools, 5 middle schools, and 4 high schools. The Pickens County School District budget for 20 the 2022-2023 school year was approximately $146 million dollars (SDPC 2022-TN9049).
| |
| | |
| 3-150 1 3.10.4.3 Public Water Supply
| |
| | |
| 2 Water service is provided to residents of Oconee County by 22 community water systems, of 3 which seven are public water systems (Oconee County 2020-TN9067). Major water sources for 4 Oconee County include Lake Keowee, Chauga Creek, Coneross Creek, and Lake Hartwell. In 5 Oconee County, water treatment is primarily provided by four plants: the City of Seneca Water 6 Treatment Plant, the City of Walhalla Coneross Creek Water Treatment Plant, the City of 7 Westminster Water Treatment Plant, and the Robert J. Stevenson Water Treatment Plant.
| |
| 8 Table 3-21 presents the capacity, average daily demand, and water source for each of these 9 water treatment plants. At the Oconee Station site, water from the City of Seneca Water 10 Treatment Plant is used for potable water (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 11 Wastewater treatment in Oconee County is provided by the Oconee Joint Regional Sewer 12 Authoritys Coneross Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Coneross Creek Wastewater 13 Treatment Plant has a capacity of 7.8 million gallons per day (mgd) (0.3 cubic meters/second 14 [m3/sec]) and an average daily flow of 3 mgd (0.1 m3/sec) (Oconee County 2020-TN9067).
| |
| 15 Additionally, the Oconee Joint Regional Sewer Authority owns and operates a wastewater 16 conveyance system that consists of 60 mi (97 km) of gravity sewer,18 pump stations, 20 mi 17 (32 km) of force mains, and three permanent flow-monitoring stations. Public wastewater is 18 managed by five providers.
| |
| | |
| 19 Table 3-21 Oconee County Water Treatment Plant Characteristics Capacity Average Daily Water Treatment Plant (mgd)(a) Demand (mgd) Water Sources
| |
| | |
| City of Seneca Water Treatment Plant 20 6.5 Lake Keowee City of Walhalla Coneross Creek Water Treatment Plant 3 1.9 Coneross Creek City of Westminster Water Treatment Plant 4 2 Chauga River Robert J Stevenson Water Treatment Plant 2.5 - Lake Hartwell (a) million gallons per day (mgd)
| |
| Source: Oconee County 2020-TN9067.
| |
| | |
| 20 The Pickens County Water and Sewer Authority operates all water distribution systems in 21 Pickens County. There are 14 municipal water districts in Pickens County that supply water to 22 customers, three water sellers that wholesale water to the districts, and five water treatment 23 facilities (Pickens County 2022-TN9041; Clemson Strom Thurmond Institute 2012-TN9050).
| |
| 24 The primary sources source of water for Pickens County include Lake Keowee, Lake Hartwell, 25 Twelve Mile Creek, the City Lake, and Lake Saluda. Wastewater treatment in Pickens County is 26 provided by the Pickens County Public Service Commission, the City of Pickens, the Easley 27 Combined Utilities, and the City of Clemson. The Pickens County Public Service Commission 28 operates six wastewater facilities which have a total capacity of 2.9 mgd (0.1 m3/sec) (Pickens 29 County-TN9051). The City of Pickens operates the Twelve Mile River wastewater treatment 30 plant with a capacity of 0.95 mgd (0.04 m3/sec) (City of Pickens-TN9052). The Easley 31 Combined Utilities operates three wastewater treatment plants with a total capacity of 4.9 mgd 32 (0.2 m3/sec) (ECU-TN9053). The City of Clemson jointly operates with the City of Pendleton one 33 wastewater treatment plant with a total capacity of 2.0 mgd (Pendleton South Carolina-TN9054).
| |
| | |
| 3-151 1 3.10.5 Tax Revenue
| |
| | |
| 2 The State of South Carolina does not have a State-level property tax. Counties, cities, and 3 school districts are authorized to impose ad valorem taxes on real and personal property.
| |
| 4 Oconee County bills and collects its own property taxes. Oconee County also collects taxes and 5 their disbursement for the Keowee Key Fire District and the Oconee County School District.
| |
| 6 Property taxes are levied on the assessed value of real and personal property. As discussed 7 below, Duke Energy pays property taxes on behalf of the Oconee Station site to Oconee 8 County.
| |
| | |
| 9 The Oconee County budget is comprised of appropriations from various sources. The total 10 Oconee County revenues for fiscal years 2018-2022 are presented in Table 3-22. Property 11 taxes are a significant source of Oconee County funding. For instance, property tax revenues 12 have ranged from 60 to 67 percent of the total Oconee County revenues between 2018-2022.
| |
| 13 Oconee County revenues fund various programs, including public safety, public works, 14 transportation, general government, culture and recreation, education, health and welfare, and 15 economic development (Oconee County 2021-TN9055). Oconee Station property tax payments 16 for 2018-2022 are also presented in Table 3-22.
| |
| | |
| 17 Table 3-22 Duke Energy Tax Payments, 2018-2022
| |
| | |
| Parameter 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Oconee county revenues(a) 64,559,875 68,100,110 72,021,067 77,975,524 86,661,419 Fiscal year Oconee county 43,219,013 44,172,858 46,988,932 49,241,399 52,080,875 property tax revenue(a)
| |
| Oconee power station annual 19,892,944(b) 18,235,040(b) 20,365,583(b) 24,398,227 23,892,267 property tax paid(b)
| |
| Oconee proportion of total 31% 27% 28% 31% 28%
| |
| county revenue (a) Source: Oconee County 2022-TN9058, Oconee County 2021-TN9059, Oconee County 2020-TN9060, Oconee County 2019-TN9057; Oconee County 2018-TN9061.
| |
| (b) Tax property paid include accounts for manufacturer tax exemption and tax adjustments.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2023-TN8952.
| |
| | |
| 18 In 2017, the State of Carolina provided partial exemption from property taxes for the value of 19 manufacturing property assessed for property tax purposes (SDCR 2018-TN9056). The partial 20 exemption is phased in over six equal and cumulative percentage installments starting with the 21 2018 property tax year. However, the State of South Carolina concluded that a power company 22 does not qualify as a manufacturer under the statute (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). In 2019, 23 Duke Energy contested the State of South Carolinas decision that a power company does not 24 qualify as a manufacturer. On December 21, 2020, the South Carolina Administrative Law Court 25 issued a decision and held that Duke Energy is a manufacturer for South Carolina property tax 26 purposes; and therefore, the property qualifies for a partial manufacturing property tax 27 exemption in South Carolina. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Duke Energy is entitled to the 28 exemption for all the property used in manufacturing; but property not used in manufacturing is 29 not eligible for the exemption. However, a determination was not made as to what portion of the 30 property is eligible for the property tax exemption; and on October 7, 2021, the Court issued a 31 decision concluding that more evidence is needed to determine what portion of the property 32 qualifies for the exemption and parties are conducting discovery (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| 33 Subsequently, Duke Energy resolved the exemption determination for tax years 2018 through 34 2020 and received a tax reduction for those years (reflected in Table 3-22). However, there will
| |
| | |
| 3-152 1 be no tax reduction going forward because the State of South Carolina has changed the law to 2 exclude electric companies from the property tax exemption. (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke 3 Energy 2022-TN8948, Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 4 In addition to property taxes, Duke Energy makes payments to Oconee County for the Duke 5 Energy Fixed Nuclear Facility Fund for preparation and evaluation of radiological response and 6 preparedness (Oconee County 2019-TN9057). Furthermore, Duke Energy employees annually 7 participate in charitable fundraising. In 2018, Duke Energy employees, along with the Duke 8 Energy Foundation community grants, contributed $109,000 to United Way of Oconee, Baby 9 Read, Youth Link, and the Education Foundation of Oconee County (Duke Energy 2021-10 TN8897; Duke Energy 2022-TN8948).
| |
| | |
| 11 3.10.6 Local Transportation
| |
| | |
| 12 The transportation network surrounding the Oconee Station site is comprised of interstate, State 13 highways, and local roads. Interstate 85 (I-85) is a major interstate highway that runs 14 southwest-northeast through South Carolina. Interstate I-85 is south of Oconee Station and 15 intersects U.S. highways and State highways that link to State highways that provide access to 16 the Oconee Station site. Access to the Oconee Station site is by way of SC 183 (E. Pickens 17 Highway) and SC 130 (Rochester Highway) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The SC 183 is a 18 53 mi (85 km) State highway that travels from Westminster to Greenville in a 19 southeast-northeast direction. Near Oconee, SC 183 is a two-lane highway. The SC 130 is a 20 30 mi (48 km) State highway that generally travels in a south-north direction. Near Oconee, 21 SC 130 is a two-lane highway. Table 3-23 lists the South Carolina Department of Transportation 22 (SCDoT) ADDT volumes for these State highways for the 2020-2022 time period. As part of a 23 10 year Statewide plan, the SCDoT plans to improve the road safety of SC 183 (SCDoT 2021-24 TN9062). A start date for these improvements has not been established.
| |
| | |
| 25 Table 3-23 South Carolina State Routes in the Vicinity of Oconee Station: Annual 26 Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates
| |
| | |
| Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Daily Traffic Volume Daily Traffic Volume Roadway and Location Estimates for 2022 Estimates for 2021 Estimates for 2020 Keowee River Road 1,700 1,750 1,500 SC 130 (Rochester Hwy) to 7,100 7,000 6,300 County Line -Pickens (east of Oconee Station Entrance and West of Keowee River)
| |
| (Station ID: 37-0245)
| |
| County Line - Oconee Station 6,600 6,500 6,200 to S-157 (Gap Hill RD), L-157 (West of the Keowee River)
| |
| (Station ID: 39-0368)
| |
| SC 183 (Rochester Hwy), S-15 9,200 9,000 8,500 to SC 183 (Pickens Hwy)
| |
| (Station ID: 37-0211)
| |
| S 38 (Katelynn Lane) to SC 183 7,400 7,200 6,900 (Rochester Hwy), S-15 (Station ID: 370209)
| |
| | |
| 3-153 1 Within a 10 mi (16 km) radius of Oconee Station, there are eight aviation airfields (Duke Energy 2 2021-TN8897). The nearest airport to Oconee Station is the Greenville-Spartanburg 3 International Airport located east of Greenville, South Carolina. Amtrak rail also provides service 4 to the region with the closest station to Oconee Station being located in Clemson, South 5 Carolina.
| |
| | |
| 6 3.10.7 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 7 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 8 SLR on the environmental issues related to socioeconomics in accordance with Commission 9 direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 10 3.10.7.1 Employment and Income, Recreation, and Tourism
| |
| | |
| 11 Oconee Station and the communities that support it can be described as a dynamic 12 socioeconomic system. The communities supply the people, goods, and services required to 13 operate the nuclear power plant. Power plant operations, in turn, supply wages and benefits for 14 people and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of a communitys ability to 15 support Oconee Station operations depends on the communitys ability to respond to changing 16 environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. The following sections address 17 the site-specific environmental impacts of Oconee Station SLR on five environmental issues 18 related to socioeconomics. As discussed in Section 3.10.13.10.1 the majority of permanent 19 workers (76 percent) reside in Oconee and Pickens County, and the most significant 20 socioeconomic effects of plant operations are likely to occur in these counties. The focus of the 21 impact analysis and ROI, therefore, is on the socioeconomic impacts of continued Oconee 22 Station operations during the SLR period on Oconee and Pickens County.
| |
| | |
| 23 Nuclear power plants generate employment and income in the local economy. Therefore, 24 continued operations and refurbishment associated with SLR can impact employment, income, 25 recreation, and tourism. Nuclear power plant operations provide employment and income and 26 pays for goods and services from communities. Wages, salaries, and expenditures generated 27 by nuclear plant operation create demand for goods and services in the local economy, while 28 wage and salary spending by workers creates additional demand for services and housing.
| |
| 29 Additional employment and expenditures occur during refueling and maintenance outages and 30 refurbishment activities at nuclear power plants. Payments for these goods and services create 31 additional employment and income opportunities in the community. Communities located near 32 nuclear power plants in coastal regions experience summer, weekend, and retirement 33 population increases due to the recreational and tourism related activities that attract visitors.
| |
| 34 Some communities attract visitors interested in outdoor recreational activities. The aesthetic 35 impacts of nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities could potentially affect tourism 36 and recreational businesses.
| |
| | |
| 37 Duke Energy indicated in its environmental report that there are no SLR related refurbishment 38 activities, and that Duke Energy has no plans to add additional employees to support nuclear 39 power plant operations during the SLR term (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-40 TN8948). In 2021, the Oconee and Pickens County combined civilian labor force was 97,121 41 persons and the number of employed persons was 92,280 (USCB 2022-TN9034). Oconee 42 Stations permanent workforce (475 workers) residing in Oconee and Pickens County 43 represents a small fraction of Oconee and Pickens Countys combined employed civilian labor 44 force (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). In Section 3.3.1 of this EIS, the NRC considered the 45 aesthetic impacts of Oconee Station continued operations and concluded that the impacts 46 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-154 1 The effects of Oconee Station operations on employment, income, recreation, and tourism are 2 ongoing and have become well established. The impacts from power plant operations during the 3 license renewal term on employment and income in communities near nuclear power plants are 4 not expected to noticeably change from those currently being experienced. Aesthetic impacts 5 are SMALL and therefore are not expected to affect tourism and recreational businesses. As 6 discussed above, the number of nuclear plant operation workers is not expected to change 7 Therefore, SLR would not constitute new employment and new indirect jobs would not be 8 created. Furthermore, Oconee Stations permanent workforce represent a small portion of 9 Oconee and Pickens Countys combined employed civilian workforce. Based on these 10 considerations, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from continued nuclear plant operations 11 during the SLR term on employment, income, recreation, and tourism would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 12 3.10.7.2 Tax Revenues
| |
| | |
| 13 Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, 14 payments in lieu of tax payments, or tax payments related to energy production. Changes in the 15 workforce and property taxes or property tax payments, payments in lieu of taxes paid to local 16 governments and public schools can directly affect socioeconomic conditions in the counties 17 and communities near the nuclear power plant. Property tax assessments, settlements, and 18 agreements, and State tax laws are continually changing the amount of taxes paid to tax 19 jurisdictions by nuclear plant owners, independent of license renewal or refurbishment activities.
| |
| 20 Tax revenues may be used by local, regional, and State governmental entities to fund 21 education, public safety, local government services, and transportation. In smaller rural 22 communities, power plant tax revenues can affect the level and quality of public services 23 available to local residents. Even in semiurban regions, revenues from power plants provide 24 support for public services at the local level. The primary impact of SLR would be the 25 continuation of the receipt of tax revenue to local governments and public-school districts.
| |
| | |
| 26 As discussed in Section 3.10.5 of this EIS, the State of South Carolina does not have a 27 State-level property tax. Oconee County bills and collects its own property taxes. The Oconee 28 County budget is comprised of appropriations from various sources. Duke Energy pays property 29 taxes on behalf of the Oconee Station site to Oconee County. The total Oconee County 30 revenues and annual property tax payments made on behalf of Oconee Station for fiscal years 31 2018-2022 are presented in Table 3-22 of this EIS. Oconee property tax payments represent 32 27-31 percent of the total Oconee County tax revenues. In the initial license renewal 33 Supplemental EIS for Oconee Station (NUREG-1437, Supplement 2), the NRC staff noted that 34 Duke Energy paid $22.3 million in property taxes to Oconee County for fiscal year 1999. The 35 NRC concluded that the tax revenue impacts from operation of Oconee Station are positive, but 36 SMALL (NRC 1999-TN8942). Property tax payments have not substantially changed between 37 1999 and those for years 2018-2022, as compared and presented in Table 3-22.
| |
| | |
| 38 Duke Energy does not expect there to be a noticeable or significant change in future property 39 tax payments during the SLR period (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897 and Duke Energy 2022-40 TN8948). Given that Duke Energy does not plan to conduct refurbishment activities during the 41 SLR term, changes to the assessed value of Oconee Station are not anticipated from these 42 activities. Tax payments during the SLR term would be similar to those already being paid and 43 impacts would be the same as previously experienced. Based on these considerations, the 44 NRC staff concludes that the impacts from continued nuclear plant operations during the SLR 45 term on tax revenue would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-155 1 3.10.7.3 Community Services and Education
| |
| | |
| 2 Nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities as a result of workforce changes can 3 affect the availability and quality of community (i.e., public safety and public utilities) and 4 educational services. An increase in operations and refurbishment activity and related 5 populations can increase the demand and cause disruption of community services and 6 education. The impact on community and educational services will depend on the projected 7 number of in-migrating workers and their families during the renewal term and the ability to 8 respond to the level of demand for services. Tax payments from nuclear power plants can 9 support a range of community services and have a beneficial impact on the quality and 10 availability of these services to local residents.
| |
| | |
| 11 Section 3.10.4.2 of this EIS discusses the Oconee and Pickens County Public School Districts.
| |
| 12 In South Carolina, the average student-teacher ratio in any school should not exceed 28 to 1 13 ratio based on the average daily enrollment (SBE Regulation 43-205). Oconee and Pickens 14 County Public School Districts both meet this requirement with a student ratio of 23.3 to 1 and 15 26 to 1, respectively (SDoE 2023-TN9064). Section 3.10.4.3 of this EIS discusses the public 16 water services for Oconee and Pickens Counties. As can be seen in Table 3-21, the capacity of 17 Oconee County water treatment plants exceeds demand. Capacity and demand data was not 18 readily available for water treatment plants in Pickens County.
| |
| | |
| 19 Duke Energy indicated in its supplemental environmental report that there are no subsequent 20 license renewal related refurbishment activities, and that Duke Energy has no plans to add 21 additional employees to support plant operations during the subsequent license renewal term 22 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Therefore, continued operations of Oconee Station will not result 23 in an increase in or additional demand for services as a result of an influx of permanent workers 24 during the SLR term. Any potential increase in demand for community and educational services 25 would be from the increase in number of workers at Duke Energy during regular scheduled plant 26 refueling and maintenance outages. However, impacts to community and education services 27 during the subsequent license renewal period would be the same as those that have occurred 28 during past operations of Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 29 Given that workforce changes would are not expected to occur at Oconee Station during the 30 SLR term, the plants demand and effects on community service and education in the vicinity of 31 the plant are not expected to change from what is currently being experienced. As discussed 32 above, existing services in Oconee and Pickens Counties are adequate and impacts on 33 community services and education during the SLR term would be the same to those that have 34 occurred during past operations. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that community services 35 and education impacts due to continued nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station 36 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 37 3.10.7.4 Population and Housing
| |
| | |
| 38 Population and housing demand and availability can be affected by changes in the numbers of 39 workers at a nuclear power plant related to continued operations and refurbishment activities.
| |
| 40 Population growth from employment at a nuclear power plant is one of the main drivers of 41 socioeconomic impacts. Population growth can occur as a result of an increase in the number of 42 permanent onsite employees during the SLR term, as well as increase in the number of workers 43 at a nuclear power during regularly scheduled plant refueling and maintenance outages and 44 during refurbishment activities. Plant refueling and maintenance outages and refurbishment 45 activities, however, are of temporary and short duration and therefore create a short-term
| |
| | |
| 3-156 1 increase in employment. Housing in the vicinity of nuclear power plants ranges in the number of 2 housing units and the type and quality of available housing. Long-term housing demand can be 3 affected by changes in the number of permanent onsite employees. Short-term increase in the 4 demand for temporary (rental) housing occurs during periodic outages or refurbishment 5 activities, when refueling and maintenance workers require rental accommodations.
| |
| | |
| 6 Table 3-17 shows the population percent growth and projections from 1990 to 2060 in Oconee 7 and Pickens County. During the last several decades, both counties have experienced 8 increasing population. Based on population projections, the populations in both counties are 9 expected to continue to increase, but at a slower rate. Duke Energy employs a permanent 10 workforce of 622 (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). Approximately 72 percent of this workforce 11 resides in Oconee and Pickens County. Oconee Station has no plans to add additional 12 employees to support plant operations during the SLR period and there are no SLR related 13 refurbishment activities (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Therefore, 14 SLR would not constitute new employment. Any population increase would be from the 15 increased number of workers at Oconee Station during regularly scheduled plant refueling and 16 maintenance outages. Refueling outages occur on a 58-month cycle for all three units on a 17 staggered schedule, with one fall outage scheduled during the odd years, and spring and fall 18 outages scheduled for even years. Refueling outages last approximately 30 days and additional 19 800 to 900 workers are onsite during a typical outage. Outage workers represent less than 20 1 percent of the 2020 and the 2030-2060 projected population in Oconee and Pickens 21 Counties. Furthermore, plant refueling and maintenance outages and refurbishment activities 22 are of temporary and short duration and therefore create a short-term increase in employment 23 and population changes.
| |
| | |
| 24 Because Duke Energy has no plans to add additional employees to support plant operations 25 during the SLR period and there are no SLR-related refurbishment activities, increases in 26 housing demand would occur as a result of the short-term increase in the number of workers 27 (800 to 900 workers for 30 days) during regularly scheduled plant refueling and maintenance 28 outages. Table 3-20 presents the total number of occupied and vacant housing units in Oconee 29 and Pickens Counties. Based on the United Stated Census Bureaus 2021 American 30 Community Survey 5-year estimates, there were 96,462 housing units in Oconee and Pickens 31 counties, of which 14,611 were vacant, and 4,844 housing units are vacant for seasonal, 32 recreational, or occasional use. Therefore, Oconee and Pickens Counties have available vacant 33 housing units to support the outage workforce.
| |
| | |
| 34 The operational effects on population and housing values and availability in the vicinity of 35 nuclear power plants are not expected to change from what is currently being experienced. The 36 NRC staff concludes that little or no population growth or increased demand for permanent 37 housing would occur during the SLR term. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that population 38 and housing impacts due to continued power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR 39 term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 40 3.10.7.5 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 41 Continued operations and refurbishment associated with the SLR term can affect traffic volumes 42 and local transportation systems. Local and regional transportation networks in the vicinity of 43 nuclear power plant sites may vary considerably depending on the regional population density, 44 location, and size of local communities, nature of economic development patterns, location of 45 the region relative to interregional transportation corridors, and land surface features, such as 46 mountains, rivers, and lakes. Transportation impacts depend on the size of the workforce, the
| |
| | |
| 3-157 1 capacity of the local road network, traffic patterns, and the availability of alternate commuting 2 routes to and from the nuclear plant.
| |
| | |
| 3 The transportation network surrounding the Oconee Station site is described in Section 3.10.6 4 of this EIS. Table 3-23 presents annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume estimates in the 5 vicinity of Oconee Station. Traffic flow has stayed consistent over the years. The SC 183 and 6 SC 130, provide access to the Oconee Station site, have a reported AADT of 7,100 (296 7 vehicles/hour [vehicles/h]) and 9,200 (383 vehicles/h), respectively. Near the Oconee Station 8 site, SC 183 and SC 130 are two-lane highways. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, 9 the capacity of a two-lane highway is 3,200 passenger vehicles/h (TRB 2000-TN9065).
| |
| 10 Therefore, there is sufficient capacity available on SC 183 and SC 130.
| |
| 11 Duke Energy indicated in its supplemental ER that there are no SLR-related refurbishment 12 activities, and that Duke Energy has no plans to add additional employees to support plant 13 operations during the SLR term (Duke Energy 2022-TN8948). Increases in the number of 14 workers would occur during regularly scheduled plant refueling and maintenance outages.
| |
| 15 During refueling outages, onsite employment typically increases by an additional 800-900.
| |
| 16 However, because of the short duration of the outages (30 days), outages result in short-term 17 increases in traffic volumes and, as noted above, roads in the vicinity of Oconee Station have 18 sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic.
| |
| 19 Transportation impacts are ongoing and have become well established in the vicinity of Oconee 20 Station. Given that the size of the workforce is not expected to increase during the SLR term 21 and the capacity availability of roads in the vicinity of Oconee Station, traffic on the roads 22 surrounding the Oconee Station site would not noticeably increase relative to the current traffic 23 volumes as a result of SLR. No transportation impacts during the license renewal would occur 24 beyond those already being experienced. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 25 transportation impacts from continued operation of Oconee Station during the SLR term would 26 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 27 3.10.8 No-Action Alternative 28 3.10.8.1 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 29 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue subsequent renewed operating 30 licenses, and the Oconee Station site would permanently shut down on or before the expiration 31 of the current renewed operating licenses. This would have a noticeable impact on 32 socioeconomic conditions in the counties and communities near the Oconee Station site.
| |
| 33 Socioeconomic impacts from the termination of reactor operations would be concentrated in 34 Oconee County and Pickens County. As jobs are eliminated, some, but not all, of the 35 approximately 622 permanent workers could begin to leave the region. If Oconee Station 36 workers and their families move out of the region, increasing housing vacancies and decreased 37 demand could cause housing prices to fall.
| |
| | |
| 38 The loss of tax revenue would result in the reduction or elimination of some public and 39 educational services. As discussed in Section 3.10.5, Oconee Station property tax payments 40 represent 27-31 percent of Oconee Countys total tax revenue (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). As 41 noted in Oconee Countys annual budget, any change in the assessment of the Oconee Station 42 site property value could significantly impact the Countys tax revenue (Oconee County 2021-43 TN9055). Therefore, a reduction in property value as a result of nuclear power plant shutdown 44 can have a noticeable and significant loss to Oconee Countys tax revenue. Therefore, the NRC 45 staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from the no-action alternative would be 46 MODERATE to LARGE.
| |
| | |
| 3-158 1 3.10.8.2 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 2 Traffic volume as a result of commuting workers and truck deliveries on roads in the vicinity of 3 Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 would be reduced after a nuclear power plant shutdown. The 4 reduction in traffic would be associated with the loss of jobs. Similarly, truck deliveries to 5 Oconee Station would be reduced. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that traffic-related 6 transportation impacts would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 7 3.10.9 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 8 The following provides a discussion of the common socioeconomic and transportation impacts 9 during construction and operations of replacement power-generating facilities.
| |
| | |
| 10 3.10.9.1 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 11 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes in the social and economic conditions 12 of a region. For example, the creation of jobs and the purchase of goods and services during 13 the construction and operation of a replacement nuclear power plant could affect regional 14 employment, income, and tax revenue. The socioeconomic ROI would depend on where 15 workers and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thus affecting the 16 economic conditions of the region. For each alternative, two types of jobs would be created:
| |
| 17 (1) construction jobs, which are transient, short in duration, and less likely to have a long-term 18 socioeconomic impact, and (2) operations jobs, which have the greater potential for permanent, 19 long-term socioeconomic impacts. The following provides a discussion of the common 20 socioeconomic and transportation impacts during construction and operations of replacement 21 power alternatives.
| |
| | |
| 22 Construction
| |
| | |
| 23 The relative economic effect of an influx of workers on the local economy and tax revenue 24 would vary and depend on the size of the workforce and construction completion time. The 25 greatest impact would occur in the communities where the majority of construction workers 26 would reside and spend their incomes. While some construction workers would be local, 27 additional workers may be required from outside the immediate area depending on the local 28 availability of appropriate trades and occupational groups. The construction workforce would 29 stimulate spending on goods and services resulting in the creation of indirect jobs. The ROI 30 could experience a short-term economic boom during construction from increased tax revenue, 31 income generated by expenditures for goods and services, and the increased demand for 32 temporary (rental) housing. After construction, the ROI would likely experience a return to 33 preconstruction economic conditions. The economic effect from construction would include 34 increased tax revenue, additional wages and benefits, and increased income generated by 35 operational expenditures. Overall, the relative socioeconomic impact from job creation, labor 36 wages and salaries, and additional tax revenue as a result of construction, while beneficial, 37 would depend on the tax structure of the local economy, availability of local workforce and 38 worker migration, and location of major equipment suppliers.
| |
| | |
| 39 Operation
| |
| | |
| 40 Before the commencement of startup and operations, local communities could see an influx of 41 operations workers and their families resulting in an increased demand for permanent housing 42 and public services. These communities would also experience the economic benefits from
| |
| | |
| 3-159 1 increased income and tax revenue generated by the purchase of goods and services needed to 2 operate a new replacement nuclear power plant. Consequently, operations would have a 3 greater potential for effecting permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts on the region. As 4 would be the case for construction, the impacts from operations on employment and income in 5 the local area and region around a facility would vary depending on the location of major 6 equipment suppliers and the availability of local labor. The economic effects from operating a 7 new facility could include increased tax revenue from property and sales tax, additional wages, 8 increased income generated by operational expenditures, and increased demand for housing.
| |
| 9 The relative socioeconomic impact would depend on the tax structure of the local economy, 10 availability of local workforce and worker migration, and available housing.
| |
| | |
| 11 3.10.9.2 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 12 Transportation impacts are defined in terms of changes in level-of-service conditions on local 13 roads in the region. Additional vehicles on local roadways during construction and operations 14 could lead to traffic congestion, level-of-service impacts, and delays at intersections.
| |
| 15 Transportation impacts depend on the size of the workforce and additional vehicles, the 16 capacity of the local road network and infrastructure, and baseline traffic conditions and 17 patterns.
| |
| | |
| 18 Construction
| |
| | |
| 19 Transportation impacts during the construction of a replacement nuclear power plant would 20 consist of commuting workers and truck deliveries of equipment and material to the construction 21 site. Workers would arrive by way of site access roads, and the volume of traffic would increase 22 during shift changes. In addition, trucks would transport equipment and material to the 23 construction site, thus increasing the amount of traffic on local roads. The increase in traffic 24 volumes could result in levels of service impacts and delays at intersections during certain hours 25 of the day. In some instances, construction material could also be delivered by rail or barge.
| |
| | |
| 26 Operation
| |
| | |
| 27 Traffic-related transportation impacts would be greatly reduced after construction has been 28 completed. Transportation impacts would include daily commuting by the operations workforce 29 and deliveries of material, and the removal of commercial waste material by truck. Increased 30 commuter traffic would occur during shift changes and deliveries of materials and equipment to 31 the nuclear power plant.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.10.10 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 33 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 34 3.10.10.1 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 35 Construction
| |
| | |
| 36 Socioeconomic impacts from construction for the new nuclear alternative would include those 37 discussed for all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.10.9.1. Construction of the SMR 38 portion of the new nuclear alternative at the Oconee Station site would require 550 peak 39 workers; which would represent approximately 0.6 percent of civilian labor force in Oconee 40 County and Pickens County. As presented in Section 3.10.4, Oconee County and Pickens 41 County have a combined total of 14,611 vacant units to adequately support 550 peak workers.
| |
| | |
| 3-160 1 Tax revenue increases in the form of sales taxes in the region would occur. However, increases 2 in property tax revenue would not be anticipated until construction is completed. Therefore, the 3 NRC staff concludes that the impacts from construction of the SMR portion at the Oconee 4 Station site of the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 5 The ALWR portion of this alternative would be comprised of two ALWR units providing 6 2,234 MWe of generating capacity. The NRC evaluated the economic impacts from construction 7 of two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the W.S. Lee 8 Nuclear Station site in Section 4.4.3 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435: pp. 4-87 through 9 4-90). The staff considered the impacts from construction workers, wages, sales tax, and 10 payments in-lieu of taxes on the regional economy and taxes. The staff concluded in 11 NUREG-2111 that the economic impacts from construction of two ALWR units would be SMALL 12 and beneficial. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Section 4.8.2 of NUREG-2111 13 (pp. 4-87 through 4-90) herein by reference. In Sections 4.4.4.2, 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 4.4.4.5 14 and 4.4.4.6 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 4-92 through 4-98), the NRC staff considered the impacts of 15 constructing two ALWR units at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site with a total net electrical 16 output capacity of 2,234 MWe on public services, recreation, housing, and education. The staff 17 concluded in NUREG-2111 that the impacts on public services, recreation, housing, and 18 education would be minimal. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Sections 4.4.4.2, 19 4.4.4.3, 4.4.4.4, 4.4.4.5, and 4.4.4.6 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 4-92 through 4-98) here by reference.
| |
| 20 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from constructing the 21 ALWR portion of the new nuclear alternative (two ALWR units at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station 22 site) would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 23 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts associated with construction 24 of the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 25 Operations
| |
| | |
| 26 Socioeconomic impacts from operations for the new nuclear alternative would include those 27 discussed for all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.10.9.1. Operation of the SMR 28 portion of the new nuclear alternative would require 250 workers. This amount would represent 29 approximately 0.26 percent of the civilian labor force in Oconee County and Pickens County. As 30 presented in Section 3.10.4, Oconee County and Pickens County have a combined total of 31 14,611 vacant units to adequately support 250 workers. Tax revenues would increase from 32 sales taxes and property taxes. However, the SMR would be a single 400 Mwe unit with a 33 relative small land requirement (36 ac [15 ha]). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 34 socioeconomic impacts operations of the SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative would be 35 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 36 The ALWR of this alternative would be comprised of two ALWR units providing 2,234 Mwe of 37 generating capacity. The NRC evaluated the economic impacts from operations of two ALWR 38 units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 Mwe at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site 39 in Section 5.4.3 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435: pp. 5-46 through 5-49). The staff 40 considered the impacts from the operations workforce, indirect jobs, wages, sales tax, and 41 payments in-lieu of taxes (rather than property taxes) on the regional economy. Because of the 42 significant fee-in-lieu payments, the NRC staff concluded that the economic impacts would be 43 LARGE and beneficial. In Sections 5.4.4.2, 5.4.4.3, 5.4.4.4, 5.4.4.5 and 5.4.4.6 of NUREG-2111 44 (pp. 5-50 through 5-53), the NRC staff considered the impacts from operations of two ALWR 45 units at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site on public services, recreation, housing, and 46 education. The staff concluded in NUREG-2111 that the impacts on public services, recreation,
| |
| | |
| 3-161 1 housing, and education would be SMALL because of the small relative workforce. The NRC 2 staff incorporates the analysis in Sections 5.4.4.2, 5.4.4.3, 5.4.4.4, 5.4.4.5 and 5.4.4.6 of 3 NUREG-2111 (pp. 5-50 through 5-53), herein by reference. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 4 that the socioeconomic impacts from operations of the ALWR portion (two ALWR units at the 5 W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site) of the new nuclear alternative would be LARGE and beneficial.
| |
| | |
| 6 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts associated with operations of 7 the new nuclear alternative would be LARGE.
| |
| | |
| 8 3.10.10.2 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 9 Construction
| |
| | |
| 10 Construction of the SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative would consist of an additional 11 550 worker vehicles during peak construction as well as truck deliveries. As discussed in 12 Section 3.10.6, access to the Oconee Station site is by way of the two-lane State Highway 13 SC 183 and SC 130. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a two-lane 14 highway is 3,200 passenger vehicles/hour (TRB 2000-TN9065). The SC 183 and SC 130 have 15 a reported AADT of 7,100 (296 vehicles/h) and 9,200 (383 vehicles/h), respectively (see 16 Table 3-23 of this EIS). Conservatively assuming that all 550 vehicles would be on State 17 Highway SC 183 or SC 130 at the same time (not accounting for shift changes), there would be 18 sufficient capacity available on SC 183 (74 percent) and SC 130 (71 percent). Therefore, the 19 NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from construction of the SMR portion of the 20 new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 21 The advanced light-water reactor portion of this alternative would be comprised of two ALWR 22 units providing 2,234 MWe of generating capacity. The NRC evaluated the transportation 23 impacts from construction of two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 24 2,234 MWe at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site in Section 4.4.4.1 of NUREG-2111 (pp. 4-90 25 through 4-92). The NRC staff considered the number of workers, number of shift changes 26 throughout the day, number of truck deliveries, and capacity and use of the roads. The NRC 27 staff concluded that during peak site employment, traffic from the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site 28 activities would have locally noticeable impacts in the immediate vicinity of the site, but not 29 destabilizing. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Section 4.4.4.1 of NUREG-2111 30 (pp. 4-90 through 4-92). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from 31 construction of the ALWR portion would have the new nuclear alternative would be 32 MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 33 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts associated with construction of 34 the new nuclear alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 35 Operations
| |
| | |
| 36 Operations of the SMR portion of the new nuclear alternative would consist of an additional 37 250 worker vehicles. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a two-lane high 38 is 3,200 passenger vehicles/hour (TRB 2000-TN9065). SC 183 and SC 130 have a reported 39 AADT of 7,100 (296 vehicles/hour) and 9,200 (383 vehicles/hr), respectively. (see Table 3-24 of 40 this EIS). Conservatively assuming that all 250 vehicles would be on State Highway SC 183 or 41 SC 130 at the same time (not accounting for shift changes), there would be sufficient capacity 42 available on SC 183 (83 percent) and SC 130 (80 percent). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 43 that the transportation impacts from operations of the SMR portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-162 1 The ALWR portion of this alternative would be comprised of two ALWR units providing 2 2,234 MWe of generating capacity. The NRC evaluated the transportation impacts from 3 operations of two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the 4 W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site in Section 5.4.4.1 of NUREG-2111 (p. 5-50). The NRC staff 5 considered the number of workers (950), number of shift changes throughout the day, and 6 capacity and use of the roads. The NRC staff concluded that there is enough capacity on the 7 nearby roads to support for the additional vehicles from operations. The NRC staff incorporates 8 the analysis in Section 5.4.4.1 of NUREG-2111 (p. 5-50) in this EIS. Therefore, the NRC staff 9 concludes that the transportation impacts from operation of the ALWR portion (two ALWR units 10 at the W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site) would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 11 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts associated with operations of 12 the new nuclear alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 13 3.10.11 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 14 3.10.11.1 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 15 Construction
| |
| | |
| 16 Socioeconomic impacts from construction of the natural gas alternative would include those 17 discussed for all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.10.9.1. Construction of the natural 18 gas alternative would require 1,000 peak workers; which would represent approximately 19 1.0 percent of civilian labor force in Oconee County and Pickens County. As presented in 20 Section 3.10.4, Oconee County and Pickens County have a combined total of 14,611 vacant 21 units to adequately support 1,000 peak workers. Tax revenue increases in the form of sales 22 taxes and personal income tax in the region would occur. However, increases in property tax 23 revenue would not be anticipated until construction is completed. Therefore, the NRC staff 24 concludes that construction of the natural gas alternative would be beneficial, but SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 25 Operations
| |
| | |
| 26 Socioeconomic impacts from operations for the natural gas alternative would include those 27 discussed for all replacement power alternatives in Section 3.10.9.1. Operations of the natural 28 gas alternative would require 190 workers. Tax revenues would increase from sales taxes and 29 property taxes. Given the number of units (i.e., six) and land requirement for natural gas 30 alternative, property taxes could be noticeable given Oconee Countys small property tax base 31 (see Section 3.10.5). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that socioeconomic impacts from 32 operations of a natural gas alternatives would be beneficial and SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.10.11.2 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 34 Construction
| |
| | |
| 35 Construction of the natural gas alternative would consist of 1,000 worker vehicles during peak 36 construction as well as truck deliveries. As discussed in Section 3.10.6, access to the Oconee 37 Station site is by way of the two-lane State Highway SC 183 or SC 130. According to the 38 Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a two-lane high is 3,200 passenger vehicles/h (TRB 39 2000-TN9065). The SC 183 and SC 130 have a reported AADT of 7,100 (296 vehicles/h) and 40 9,200 (383 vehicles/h), respectively (see Table 3-23 of this EIS). Conservatively assuming that 41 all 1,000 vehicles would be on State Highway SC 183 at the same time (not accounting for shift 42 changes), there would be sufficient capacity available on SC 183 (60 percent) or SC 130 43 (57 percent). However, the increase in traffic from an additional 1,000 vehicles would be
| |
| | |
| 3-163 1 noticeable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from construction 2 of the natural gas alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 3 Operations
| |
| | |
| 4 Operations of the natural gas alternative would consist of an additional 190 worker vehicles.
| |
| 5 Conservatively assuming that all 190 vehicles would be on State Highway SC 183 or SC 130 at 6 the same time (not accounting for shift changes), there would be sufficient capacity (85 percent) 7 available on SC 183 (85 percent) or SC 130 (82 percent). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 8 that the transportation impacts from operations of the natural gas alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 9 3.10.12 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 10 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 11 3.10.12.1 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 12 Construction
| |
| | |
| 13 The socioeconomic impacts from construction of the new nuclear portion of the combination 14 alternative would include those discussed for all replacement power alternatives in 15 Section 3.10.9.1. Impacts from construction of three 400-MWe small modular reactor units 16 would be similar but greater than the impacts discussed under the single-unit 400-MWe SMR 17 portion of the new nuclear alternative in Section 3.10.10.1. Construction of the new nuclear 18 portion of the combination alternative would require 1,650 workers during peak construction.
| |
| 19 This amount would represent approximately 1.7 percent of the civilian labor force in Oconee 20 County and Pickens County. The local communities would experience a short-term economic 21 boom from increased tax revenue and income generated by construction expenditures and the 22 increased demand for temporary housing. Given the relatively large construction workforce and 23 Oconee Countys small tax base, the socioeconomic impacts could be noticeable. Therefore, 24 the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from construction the new nuclear 25 portion of the combination alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 26 The solar component of the combination alternative would consist of 12 utility-scale solar plants 27 and require 1,100 workers during peak construction. The solar plants could be located at 28 multiple sites across the ROI. A construction workforce of 1,100 could result in noticeable 29 increase in housing demand, wages, or tax revenue depending on the location and the number 30 of sites. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from constructing 31 the solar portion would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 32 Construction of offshore wind energy facility would provide temporary jobs for 300 workers 33 during peak construction. Construction of offshore wind energy facilities would have beneficial 34 impacts on tax revenues, employment, and economic activity. However, studies have found that 35 the additional workforce during assessment activities and construction of offshore wind facilities 36 have minor demographic and employment impacts around ports in North Carolina and South 37 Carolina given the current population there (BOEM 2015-TN9066, BOEM 2021-TN7704). Any 38 necessary modifications to ports during construction, such as for staging or cable landing 39 installation, and increased vessel traffic could disrupt port activity and therefore tourism and 40 recreation. Assessments have found that vessel traffic associated with construction of offshore 41 wind energy facilities along the coasts of North Carolina and South Carolina would be relatively 42 small relative to existing vessel traffic. Furthermore, impacts on recreation, tourism, and 43 commercial fisheries were found to be minor (BOEM 2015-TN9066, BOEM 2021-TN7704).
| |
| | |
| 3-164 1 Similarly, seafloor and acoustic disturbances are expected to have minor impacts on 2 commercial and recreational fisheries (BOEM 2015-TN9066, BOEM 2021-TN7704). Therefore, 3 the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from construction of the offshore wind portion of the 4 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 5 Overall, the NRC concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from construction of the 6 combination alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 7 Operations
| |
| | |
| 8 The socioeconomic impacts from operations of the new nuclear portion of the combination 9 alternative would include those discussed for all replacement power alternatives in 10 Section 3.10.9.1. Impacts from operations of three 400 MWe small modular reactor units would 11 be similar but greater than the impacts discussed under the single 400 MWe small modular 12 reactor unit portion of the new nuclear alternative in Section 3.10.10.1. Operations of the new 13 nuclear portion of the combination alternative would require 750 workers. This amount would 14 represent approximately 0.8 percent of the combined civilian labor force in Oconee County and 15 Pickens County, respectively. As presented in Section 3.10.4, Oconee County and Pickens 16 County have a combined total of 14,611 vacant units to adequately support 750 peak workers.
| |
| 17 Tax revenues would increase from sales taxes and property taxes. Given Oconee Stations 18 small tax base, the property tax revenue from three 400 MWe SMR units would be noticeable.
| |
| 19 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the new nuclear 20 component of the combination alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 21 A small number of workers would be needed to maintain and operate the solar portion of the 22 combination alternative (50 workers). This amount would not result in a noticeable or substantial 23 increase in housing demand, jobs, or wages. Operation of solar plants would generate tax 24 revenue from operation expenditures and the large amount of land required to support this 25 alternative (total 9,600 ac [3,900 ha]). The tax base and tax revenue could be substantial and 26 noticeable depending on the location and number of sites. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 27 that the socioeconomic impacts from operations of the solar component would be SMALL to 28 MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 29 Operations of the offshore wind portion would require 150 workers. Operations of offshore wind 30 energy facilities would have beneficial impacts on tax revenues, employment, and economic 31 activity. However, given the relatively small workforce, while beneficial, the additional workforce 32 during operation would have minor demographic and economic impacts. Studies have found 33 that offshore wind energy facilities have no effect on property values (BOEM 2018-TN8428).
| |
| 34 Given the distance to shore (10 to 24 nautical miles), meteorological towers and wind turbines 35 would be minimally visible and property values due to visual effects would therefore be 36 negligible. Increased vessel traffic would be relatively small and therefore, impacts on 37 recreation, tourism, and commercial fisheries are expected to be minor. Therefore, the NRC 38 staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from operations of the offshore wind portion of 39 the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 40 The demand-side management component could generate additional employment, depending 41 on the nature of the conservation and energy efficiency programs and the need for direct 42 measure installations in homes and office buildings. Jobs would likely be few and scattered 43 throughout the region and would not have a noticeable effect on the local economy. Therefore, 44 the NRC concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from the demand-side component would be 45 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-165 1 Overall, the NRC concludes that the socioeconomic impacts from operations of the combination 2 alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.10.12.2 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 4 Construction
| |
| | |
| 5 Construction of the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would consist of an 6 additional 1,650 worker vehicles during peak construction as well as truck deliveries. Access to 7 the Oconee Station site is by way of the two-lane State Highway SC 183 or SC 130. According 8 to the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 3,200 passenger 9 vehicles/h (TRB 2000-TN9065). The SC 183 and SC 130 have a reported AADT of 7,100 10 (296 vehicles/h) and 9,200 (383 vehicles/h), respectively. Conservatively assuming that all 11 1,650 vehicles would be on State Highway SC 183 or SC 130 at the same time (not accounting 12 for shift changes), there would be a significant reduction in capacity on SC 183 (39 percent) or 13 SC 130 (36 percent). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from 14 construction of the advanced light-water reactor portion would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 15 Construction of solar component of the combination alternative would require 1,100 workers 16 during peak construction. The solar plants could be located at multiple sites across the ROI. An 17 additional 1,100 vehicles could result in noticeable changes in level of service conditions on 18 local roads in the region depending on the location and the number of sites of the solar plants.
| |
| 19 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from constructing the solar 20 portion would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 21 Construction of the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would require 22 300 worker on-road vehicles during peak construction. Given the relatively small number of 23 workers, the NRC does not anticipate a noticeable reduction in capacity of roads or level of 24 service. Construction will also result in increased vessel activity to and from shore. Studies have 25 found that the additional vessel activity from construction relative to existing vessel traffic along 26 the coasts of North Carolina and South Carolina would be minor (BOEM 2015-TN9066, BOEM 27 2021-TN7704). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from 28 constructing the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from constructing the 30 combination alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| | |
| 31 Operations
| |
| | |
| 32 Operations of the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would consist of an 33 additional 750 worker vehicles. Conservatively assuming that all 750 vehicles would be on State 34 Highway SC 183 or SC 130 at the same time (not accounting for shift changes), there would be 35 sufficient capacity (67 percent) available on SC 183 (67 percent) or SC 130 (65 percent).
| |
| 36 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from operations of the new 37 nuclear portion would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 38 Operation of the solar component of the combination alternative would require 50 workers.
| |
| 39 Given the relatively small workforce, an additional 50 vehicles are not anticipated to have 40 noticeable changes in traffic; the transportation impacts from operation of the solar portion of the 41 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-166 1 Construction of the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would require 2 150 worker on-road vehicles during peak construction. Given the relatively small number of 3 workers, the NRC does not anticipate a noticeable reduction in capacity of roads or level of 4 service. Operations will also result in increased vessel activity to and from shore. Studies have 5 found that the additional vessel activity from operations of offshore facilities relative to existing 6 vessel traffic along the coasts of North Carolina and South Carolina would be minor (BOEM 7 2015-TN9066, BOEM 2021-TN7704). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 8 transportation impacts from constructing the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative 9 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 10 The demand-side management component could generate additional employment. However, 11 jobs would likely be few and scattered throughout the region and would not cause an increase in 12 traffic volumes on local roads. Therefore, the demand-side management component has no 13 transportation impacts.
| |
| | |
| 14 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impacts from operations of the 15 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 16 3.11 Human Health
| |
| | |
| 17 Oconee Station is both an industrial facility and a nuclear power plant. Similar to any industrial 18 facility or nuclear power plant, the operation of Oconee Station during the SLR period will 19 produce various human health risks for workers and members of the public. This section 20 describes the human health risks resulting from the operation of Oconee Station, including from 21 radiological exposure, chemical hazards, microbiological hazards, electromagnetic fields, and 22 other hazards. The description of these risks is followed by the NRC staffs analysis of the 23 potential impacts on human health from the proposed action (SLR) and alternatives to the 24 proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 25 3.11.1 Radiological Exposure and Risk
| |
| | |
| 26 Operation of a nuclear power plant involves the use of nuclear fuel to generate electricity.
| |
| 27 Through the fission process, the nuclear reactor splits uranium atoms, resulting very generally 28 in: (1) the production of heat, which is then used to produce steam to drive the nuclear power 29 plants turbines and generate electricity; and (2) the creation of radioactive byproducts. As 30 required by NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1101, Radiation protection programs, (TN283) 31 Duke Energy designed a radiation protection program to protect onsite personnel (including 32 employees and contractor employees), visitors, and offsite members of the public from radiation 33 and radioactive material at Oconee Station. The Oconee Station radiation protection program is 34 extensive and includes, but is not limited to, the following:
| |
| 35
| |
| * organization and administration (e.g., a radiation protection manager who is responsible for 36 the program and ensures trained and qualified workers for the program) 37
| |
| * implementing procedures 38
| |
| * an ALARA Program to minimize dose to workers and members of the public 39
| |
| * dosimetry program (i.e., measure radiation dose to nuclear power plant workers) 40
| |
| * radiological controls (e.g., protective clothing, shielding, filters, respiratory equipment, and 41 individual work permits with specific radiological requirements)
| |
| | |
| 3-167 1
| |
| * radiation area entry and exit controls (e.g., locked or barricaded doors, interlocks, local and 2 remote alarms, personnel contamination monitoring stations) 3
| |
| * posting of radiation hazards (i.e., signs and notices alerting nuclear power plant personnel of 4 potential hazards) 5
| |
| * recordkeeping and reporting (e.g., documentation of worker dose and radiation survey data) 6
| |
| * radiation safety training (e.g., classroom training and use of mockups to simulate complex 7 work assignments) 8
| |
| * radioactive effluent monitoring management (i.e., controlling and monitoring radioactive 9 liquid and gaseous effluents released into the environment) 10
| |
| * radioactive environmental monitoring (e.g., sampling and analysis of environmental media, 11 such as direct radiation, air, water, groundwater, milk, food products [corn, soybeans, and 12 peanuts], fish, oysters, clams, crabs, silt, and shoreline sediment to measure the levels of 13 radioactive material in the environment that may impact human health) 14
| |
| * radiological waste management (i.e., controlling, monitoring, processing, and disposing of 15 radioactive solid waste)
| |
| | |
| 16 For radiation exposure to Oconee Station personnel, the NRC staff reviewed the data contained 17 in NUREG-0713, Volume 42, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power 18 Reactors and other Facilities 2020: Fifty-Third Annual Report (NRC 2022-TN8530). The Fifty-19 Third Annual Report was the most recent annual report available at the time of this 20 environmental review. It summarizes the occupational exposure data in the NRCs Radiation 21 Exposure Information and Reporting System database through 2020. Nuclear power plants are 22 required by 10 CFR 20.2206, Reports of individual monitoring, to report their occupational 23 exposure data to the NRC annually (TN283).
| |
| | |
| 24 NUREG-0713 calculates a 3-year average collective dose per reactor for workers at all nuclear 25 power reactors licensed by the NRC. The 3-year average collective dose is one of the metrics 26 that the NRC uses in the reactor oversight process to evaluate the applicants ALARA program.
| |
| 27 Collective dose is the sum of the individual doses received by workers at a facility licensed to 28 use radioactive material during a 1-year period. There are no NRC or EPA standards for 29 collective dose. Based on the data for operating pressurized-water reactors like the units at 30 Oconee Station, the average annual collective dose per reactor year was 31 person-roentgen 31 equivalent man (rem) (NRC 2022-TN8530). In comparison, Oconee Station had a reported 32 annual collective dose per reactor year of 16.6 person-rem.
| |
| | |
| 33 Section 2.1.4, Radioactive Waste Management Systems, of this EIS discusses offsite dose to 34 members of the public and provides a detailed description of the radiological exposure and risk 35 to the public.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.11.2 Chemical Hazards
| |
| | |
| 37 State and Federal environmental agencies regulate the use, storage, and discharge of 38 chemicals, biocides, and sanitary wastes. Such environmental agencies also regulate how 39 facilities like Oconee Station manage minor chemical spills. Chemical and hazardous wastes 40 can potentially affect workers, members of the public, and the environment.
| |
| | |
| 41 At Oconee Station, chemical effects could result from discharge of waste, heavy metal leaching, 42 the use and disposal of chemicals, and chemical spills. Workers may encounter chemicals when
| |
| | |
| 3-168 1 adjusting coolant systems, applying biocides, during maintenance activities on equipment 2 containing hazardous chemicals, and when solvents are used for cleaning (Duke Energy 2021-3 TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 4 Duke Energy currently controls the use, storage, and discharge of chemicals, biocides, and 5 sanitary wastes at Oconee Station in accordance with its chemical control procedures, waste 6 management procedures, and Oconee Station site-specific chemical accident spill prevention 7 provisions (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Duke Energy monitors and controls discharges of 8 chemicals, biocides, and sanitary wastes through Oconee Stations NPDES permit process, 9 discussed in Section 3.5.1.3. These nuclear power plant procedures, plans, and processes are 10 designed to prevent and minimize the potential for a chemical or hazardous waste release and, 11 in the event of such a release, minimize the impact on workers, members of the public, and the 12 environment.
| |
| | |
| 13 At Oconee Station, no reportable spills occurred due to Oconee Station operations from 2014 14 through October 2021. Two sewage spills occurred during the period from October 2021 to 15 November 2022. Duke Energy followed reporting requirements and reported the spills to the 16 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| 17 During the June 2023 audit, Duke Energy confirmed the corrective actions taken in response to 18 the spills (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952). From the period of November 2022 until June 2023, 19 Duke Energy confirmed that no reportable inadvertent releases or spills of nonradioactive 20 contaminants occurred (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 21 3.11.3 Microbiological Hazards
| |
| | |
| 22 Microbiological hazards occur when workers or members of the public come into contact with 23 disease-causing microorganisms, also known as etiological agents. Thermal effluents 24 associated with nuclear power plants that discharge to a cooling pond or lake, such as Oconee 25 Station, have the potential to promote the growth of certain thermophilic microorganisms linked 26 to adverse human health effects. Microorganisms of particular concern include several types of 27 bacteria (Legionella species, Salmonella species, Shigella species, and 28 Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and the free-living amoeba (Naegleria fowleri).
| |
| | |
| 29 The public can be exposed to the thermophilic micro-organisms Salmonella, Shigella, 30 P. aeruginosa, and N. fowleri during swimming, boating, or other recreational uses of 31 freshwater. If these organisms are naturally occurring and a nuclear power plants thermal 32 effluent enhances their growth, the public could experience an elevated risk of infection when 33 recreating in the affected waters. Public exposure to Legionella from nuclear power plant 34 operation is generally not a concern because exposure risk is confined to cooling towers and 35 related components and equipment, which are typically within the protected area of the site and, 36 therefore, not accessible to the public.
| |
| | |
| 37 Nuclear power plant workers can be exposed to Legionella when performing cooling system 38 maintenance through inhalation of cooling tower vapors because these vapors are often within 39 the optimum temperature range for Legionella growth. Nuclear power plant personnel at 40 Oconee Station most likely to come in contact with aerosolized Legionella are workers who 41 clean and maintain the condenser tubes. Nuclear power plant workers can be exposed to 42 N. fowleri during cooling water discharges (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 3-169 1 Thermophilic Microorganisms of Concern
| |
| | |
| 2 Salmonella typhimurium and S. enteritidis are two species of enteric bacteria that cause 3 salmonellosis, a disease more common in summer than winter. Salmonellosis is transmitted 4 through contact with contaminated human or animal feces and may be spread through water 5 transmission, contact with infected animals or food, or contamination in laboratory settings 6 (CDC 2022-TN8513). These bacteria grow at temperatures ranging from 77°F to 113°F (25°C to 7 45°C), have an optimal growth temperature around human body temperature (98.6°F [37°C]),
| |
| 8 and can survive extreme temperatures as low as 41°F (5°C) and as high as 122°F (50°C) 9 (Oscar 2009-TN8514). Research studies examining the persistence of Salmonella species 10 outside of a host found that the bacteria can survive for several months in water and in aquatic 11 sediments (Moore et al. 2003-TN8515).
| |
| | |
| 12 Shigella species causes the infection shigellosis, which can be contracted through contact with 13 contaminated food, water, or feces. When ingested, the bacteria release toxins that irritate the 14 intestines. Like salmonellosis, shigellosis infections are more common in summer than in winter 15 because the bacteria optimally grow at temperatures between 77°F and 99°F (25°C and 37°C) 16 (PHAC 2010-TN8868). Shigellosis outbreaks related to recreational uses of water are rare; 17 almost all cases are related to food contamination.
| |
| | |
| 18 Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be found in soil, hospital respirators, water, and sewage, and on 19 the skin of healthy individuals. It is most commonly linked to infections transmitted in healthcare 20 settings. Infections from exposure to P. aeruginosa in water can lead to the development of mild 21 respiratory illnesses in healthy people. These bacteria optimally grow at 98.6°F (37°C) and can 22 survive in high-temperature environments up to 107.6°F (42°C) (Todar 2004-TN7723).
| |
| | |
| 23 The free-living amoeba N. fowleri prefers warm freshwater habitats and is the causative agent of 24 human primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). Infections occur when N. fowleri penetrate 25 the nasal tissue through direct contact with water in warm lakes, rivers, or hot springs; and 26 migrate to the brain tissues. This free-swimming amoeba species grows best at higher 27 temperatures of up to 115°F (46°C) (CDC 2021-TN7271). It is typically not present in waters 28 below 95°F (35°C) (Tyndall et al. 1989-TN8598). The N. fowleri caused disease PAM is rare in 29 the United States. From 1962 through 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 30 Prevention reports an average of 2.5 cases of PAM annually nationwide.
| |
| | |
| 31 Legionella is a genus of common warm water bacteria that occurs in lakes, ponds, and other 32 surface waters, as well as some groundwater sources and soils. The bacteria thrive in aquatic 33 environments as intracellular parasites of protozoa and are only pathogenic to humans when 34 aerosolized and inhaled into the lungs. Approximately 2 to 5 percent of those exposed in this 35 way develop an acute bacterial infection of the lungs known as Legionnaires disease (AWT 36 2019-TN8518). Legionella optimally grow in stagnant surface waters containing biofilms or 37 slimes that range in temperature from 95°F to 113°F (35°C to 45°C), although the bacteria can 38 persist in waters from 68°F to 122°F (20°C to 50°C) (AWT 2019-TN8518). As such, human 39 infection is often associated with complex water systems within buildings or structures, such as 40 cooling towers (CDC 2016-TN8519). Potential adverse health effects related to Legionella 41 would generally not be of concern at Oconee Station because the nuclear power plant does not 42 use cooling towers. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues biannual 43 surveillance summary reports concerning Legionnaires disease.
| |
| | |
| 3-170 1 Baseline Conditions in Lake Keowee
| |
| | |
| 2 As described in Section 2.1.3 of this EIS, Oconee Station uses a once-through cooling system 3 for all three units drawing water from the Little River arm of Lake Keowee with discharge to the 4 Keowee River arm of the lake just above the Lake Keowee dam. The surface water temperature 5 of Lake Keowee can range from an average of 52.3°F to 90.7°F (11.3°C to 32.6°C) depending 6 on the year and season. The average heated water discharge temperature can vary between 7 57.4°F to 94.8°F (14.1°C to 34.9°C) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The current NPDES permit 8 for Oconee Station limits the maximum discharge temperature to 100°F (37.8°C) as a daily 9 average. The maximum temperature rise above intake is limited to 22°F (5.6°C) when the intake 10 temperature is greater than 68°F (20°C). Under critical hydrological, meteorological, and 11 electrical demand conditions, the discharge temperature cannot exceed 103°F (39.4°C) (Duke 12 Energy 2021-TN8897). A distinct but variable-size thermal plume occurs in the vicinity of the 13 Oconee Station discharge, primarily in the Keowee River watershed where the plume is largest 14 in the winter and smallest in the summer (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 15 3.11.4 Electromagnetic Fields
| |
| | |
| 16 Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are generated by any electrical equipment. All nuclear power 17 plants have electrical equipment and power transmission systems associated with them. Power 18 transmission systems consist of switching stations (or substations) located on the nuclear power 19 plant site and the transmission lines needed to connect the plant to the regional electrical 20 distribution grid. Transmission lines operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second),
| |
| 21 which is low compared with the frequencies of 55 to 890 MHz for television transmitters and 22 1,000 MHz and greater for microwaves.
| |
| | |
| 23 The scope of the evaluation of transmission lines includes only those transmission lines that 24 connect the plant to the switchyard where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution 25 system (encompassing those lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the regional 26 electric power grid) and power lines that feed the plant from the grid are considered within the 27 regulatory scope of the license renewal environmental review. In-scope transmission lines are 28 confined to the Oconee Station site, spanning the short distance between the generating units 29 and the switchyards, as depicted in Figure 2.2-4 of Duke Energys environmental report (Duke 30 Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 31 Electric fields are produced by voltage and their strength increases with increases in voltage.
| |
| 32 A magnetic field is produced from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices, and its 33 strength increases as the current increases. Electric and magnetic fields, collectively referred to 34 as EMF, are produced by operating transmission lines.
| |
| | |
| 35 Occupational workers or members of the public near transmission lines may be exposed to the 36 EMFs produced by the transmission lines. The EMF strength varies in time as the current and 37 voltage change, so that the frequency of the EMF is the same (e.g., 60 Hz for standard 38 alternating current, or AC). Electrical fields can be shielded by objects such as trees, buildings, 39 and vehicles. Magnetic fields, however, penetrate most materials, but their strength decreases 40 with increasing distance from the source.
| |
| | |
| 41 The EMFs resulting from 60 Hz power transmission lines fall under the category of non-ionizing 42 radiation. The LR license renewal GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) summarizes NRC accepted 43 studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields. There are no U.S. Federal standards 44 limiting residential or occupational exposure to EMFs from power lines, but some States have
| |
| | |
| 3-171 1 set electric field and magnetic field standards for transmission lines (NIEHS 2002-TN6560). A 2 voluntary occupational standard has been set for EMFs by the International Commission on 3 Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP 1998-TN6591). The National Institute of 4 Occupational Safety and Health does not consider EMFs to be a proven health hazard (NIOSH 5 1996-TN6766).
| |
| | |
| 6 3.11.5 Other Hazards
| |
| | |
| 7 This section addresses two additional human health hazards: (1) physical occupational hazards 8 and (2) occupational electric shock hazards.
| |
| | |
| 9 Nuclear power plants are industrial facilities that have many of the typical occupational hazards 10 found at any other electric power generation utility. Nuclear power plant workers may perform 11 electrical work, electric powerline maintenance, repair work, and maintenance activities and 12 may be exposed to potentially hazardous physical conditions. A physical hazard is an action, 13 agent or condition that can cause harm upon contact. Physical actions could include slips, trips, 14 and falls from height. Physical agents could include noise, vibration, and ionizing radiation.
| |
| 15 Physical conditions could include high heat, cold, pressure, confined space, or psychosocial 16 issues, such as work-related stress.
| |
| | |
| 17 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for developing and 18 enforcing workplace safety regulations. Congress created OSHA by enacting the Occupational 19 Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.-TN4453) to safeguard the 20 health of workers. With respect to nuclear power plants, nuclear power plant conditions that 21 result in an occupational risk, but do not affect the safety of licensed radioactive materials, are 22 under the statutory authority of OSHA rather than the NRC as set forth in a Memorandum of 23 Understanding (NRC and OSHA 2013-TN8542) between the NRC and OSHA. Occupational 24 hazards are reduced when workers adhere to safety standards and use appropriate protective 25 equipment; however, fatalities and injuries caused by accidents may still occur. Duke Energy 26 maintains at Oconee Station an occupational safety program for its workers in accordance with 27 OSHA regulations (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 28 Based on its evaluation in the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC has not found electric 29 shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic 30 structures to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants. Generally, the NRC staff 31 also does not expect electric shock from such sources to be a human health hazard during the 32 SLR period. However, a site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the 33 electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope of 34 this EIS. Transmission lines that are within the scope of the NRCs SLR environmental review 35 are limited to: (1) those transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation 36 where electricity is fed into the regional distribution system, and (2) those transmission lines that 37 supply power to the nuclear power plant from the grid (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 38 As discussed in Section 2.1.6.5, Power Transmission Systems, of this EIS, the only 39 transmission lines that are in-scope for Oconee Station SLR are onsite. Specifically, there are 40 six in-scope transmission lines (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The three units have incoming 41 lines from the 230 kilovolt (kV) switchyard. Units 1 and 2 have outgoing lines to the 230 kV 42 switchyard, and Unit 3 has an outgoing line to the 525 kV switchyard. These in-scope lines are 43 in compliance with National Electrical Safety Code clearances (Duke Energy 2021-44 TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). Therefore, there is no potential shock hazard to offsite 45 members of the public from these onsite transmission lines.
| |
| | |
| 3-172 1 3.11.6 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 2 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 3 SLR on the environmental issues related to human health in accordance with Commission 4 direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.11.6.1 Radiation Exposures to The Public
| |
| | |
| 6 Nuclear power plants, under controlled conditions, release small amounts of radioactive 7 materials to the environment during normal operation. The NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 8 (TN283) identify maximum allowable concentrations of radionuclides that can be released from 9 a licensed nuclear power plant, such as Oconee Station, into the air and water above 10 background at the boundary of unrestricted areas to control radiation exposures of the public 11 and releases of radioactivity. These concentrations are derived based on an annual total 12 effective dose equivalent of 0.1 roentgen equivalent man (rem) to individual members of the 13 public. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36a, Technical specifications on effluents from 14 nuclear power reactors, (TN249), nuclear power plants have special license conditions called 15 technical specifications for radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from the nuclear power plant 16 that are required to minimize the radiological impacts associated with nuclear power plant 17 operations to levels that are ALARA.
| |
| | |
| 18 Radioactive waste management systems are incorporated into the design of each nuclear 19 power plant. They are designed to remove most of the fission product radioactivity that leaks 20 from the fuel, as well as most of the activation- and corrosion-product radioactivity produced by 21 neutrons in the vicinity of the reactor core. The amounts of radioactivity released through vents 22 and discharge points to areas outside the nuclear power plant boundary are recorded and 23 published annually in the radioactive effluent release reports. These environmental monitoring 24 programs are in place at all nuclear power plants. Because there is no reason to expect 25 effluents to increase at Oconee Station during the SLR term, while doses from continued 26 operation are expected to be well within regulatory limits established in 10 CFR Part 20, 27 (TN283), and 40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear 28 Power Operations (TN739). No mitigation measures beyond those already implemented under 29 the current-term license would be warranted because current mitigation practices have kept 30 public radiation doses well below regulatory standards and are expected to continue to do so.
| |
| | |
| 31 The NRC staff reviewed Oconee Station effluent reports from years 2018-2022 (Duke Energy 32 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-TN8945, Duke Energy 2022-33 TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-TN8947) and determined that the annual public dose recorded is a 34 fraction of the regulatory limits and was in accordance with radiation protection standards 35 identified in 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249; Appendix I), 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283), and 40 CFR Part 36 190 (TN739). This 5-year review period provided a dataset that covers a broad range of 37 activities that occur at a nuclear power plant, such as refueling outages, routine operation, and 38 maintenance that can affect the generation and release of radioactive effluents into the 39 environment. The NRC staff looked for indications of adverse trends (e.g., increasing 40 radioactivity levels) over the period of 2018 through 2022. Based on its review of this 41 information, the NRC staff found no apparent increasing trend in concentration or pattern 42 indicating either a new inadvertent release or persistently high tritium concentrations that might 43 indicate an ongoing inadvertent release from Oconee Station. The groundwater monitoring 44 program at Oconee Station is robust, and any future leaks that might occur during the SLR 45 period should be readily detected. All spills are well monitored, characterized, and actively
| |
| | |
| 3-173 1 remediated. Taken together, the data show that there were no significant radiological impacts 2 on the environment from operations at Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 3 Radiation doses to the public from continued operation are expected to continue at current 4 levels and would remain below regulatory limits during the SLR term. The NRC staff identified 5 no information at Oconee Station that would result in different impacts than those of current 6 operations. The NRC staff concludes that the health impacts from public radiation exposure due 7 to continued nuclear plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL 8 based on public doses being maintained within regulatory limits.
| |
| | |
| 9 3.11.6.2 Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers
| |
| | |
| 10 Nuclear power plant workers conducting activities involving radioactively contaminated systems 11 or working in radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. Individual occupational doses are 12 measured by nuclear power plant licensees as required by the NRC radiation protection 13 standard, at 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283). Most of the occupational radiation dose to nuclear power 14 plant workers results from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure from 15 inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Workers also receive radiation exposure during the 16 storage and handling of radioactive waste. Occupational doses from any refurbishment activities 17 associated with SLR, and occupational doses from continued operations during the SLR term, 18 are expected to be similar to the doses during current operations. The occupational doses are 19 estimated to be much less than the regulatory dose limits.
| |
| | |
| 20 Under 10 CFR 20.2206, Reports of individual monitoring, (TN283), the NRC requires nuclear 21 plant licensees to submit an annual report of the results of individual monitoring carried out by 22 the licensee for each individual for whom monitoring was required by 10 CFR 20.1502, 23 Conditions requiring individual monitoring of external and internal occupational dose, during 24 that year. The NRC staff has reviewed the Oconee Station occupational dose reports and 25 summary reports through 2022 (NRC 2022-TN8530) and identified no information for Oconee 26 Station that would result in different impacts than those of current operations. The NRC staff 27 concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure due to continued 28 nuclear plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL based on 29 individual worker doses being maintained within 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283) limits. No mitigation 30 measures beyond those implemented during the current license term would be warranted, 31 because the ALARA process continues to be effective in reducing radiation doses.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.11.6.3 Human Health Impact from Chemicals
| |
| | |
| 33 Impacts of chemical discharges on human health are considered to be SMALL if the discharges 34 of chemicals to water bodies are within effluent limitations designed to protect water quality and 35 if ongoing discharges have not resulted in adverse effects on aquatic biota. During the SLR 36 term, human health impacts from chemical hazards are expected to be the same as those 37 experienced during operations under the prior license term.
| |
| | |
| 38 Small quantities of biocides are readily dissipated and/or chemically altered in the water body 39 receiving them, so significant cumulative impacts on water quality would not be expected. Major 40 changes in the operation of the cooling system are not expected during the SLR term (Duke 41 Energy 2022-TN8899), so no change in the effects of biocide discharges on the quality of the 42 receiving water is anticipated.
| |
| | |
| 3-174 1 The effects of minor chemical discharges and spills at nuclear power plants on water quality 2 have been of SMALL significance and mitigated as needed. Significant cumulative impacts on 3 water quality would not be expected because the small amounts of chemicals released by these 4 minor discharges or spills are readily dissipated in Lake Keowee, the receiving water body.
| |
| 5 Although there is risk of human health impacts from chemicals due to accumulation within Lake 6 Keowee, annual biological studies of Lake Keowee have demonstrated that operation of 7 Oconee Station has not resulted in significant harm to the biological community (Duke Energy 8 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 9 Heavy metals (e.g., copper, zinc, and chromium) may be leached as small-volume waste 10 streams or corrosion products. However, heavy metals, including mercury, are not required to 11 be reported by the Oconee Station NPDES permit as analysis indicated no reasonable potential 12 for parameters to cause or contribute to a water quality violation for heavy metals (Duke Energy 13 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 14 Overall, based on the existing procedures, plans and processes, the NRC staff concludes that 15 the human health impacts from chemicals due to continued nuclear power plant operations at 16 Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 17 3.11.6.4 Microbiological Hazards to the Public (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Canals or 18 Cooling Towers That Discharge to a River)
| |
| | |
| 19 In the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the NRC staff determined that effects of thermophilic 20 micro-organisms on the public for nuclear power plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals or 21 cooling towers that discharge to a river is a Category 2 issue that requires site-specific 22 evaluation during each license renewal review.
| |
| | |
| 23 The thermophilic micro-organisms N. fowleri can pose public health concerns in 24 recreational-use waters when these organisms are present in high enough concentrations to 25 cause infection. Based on the information presented in Section 3.11.3, the thermophilic 26 organisms most likely to be of potential concern in Lake Keowee are N. fowleri, a free-living 27 amoeba that causes the infection PAM. The public could be exposed to these microorganisms 28 during swimming, boating, fishing, and other recreational uses of Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 29 As previously discussed, Oconee Stations thermal effluent discharge is below N. fowleris 30 optimal growth temperature of 115°F (46°C). Thus, the Oconee Station thermal discharges are 31 not high enough in temperature to facilitate proliferation of this microorganism or to cause a 32 public health concern. There have been no known occurrences of PAM from Lake Keowee, and 33 the proposed action would not result in any operational changes that would affect thermal 34 effluent temperature or otherwise create favorable conditions for N. fowleri growth (Duke Energy 35 2022-TN8899). During the proposed SLR term, the public health risk from N. fowleri exposure in 36 Lake Keowee remains extremely low.
| |
| | |
| 37 The NRC staff concludes that the impacts of thermophilic micro-organisms on the public due to 38 continued nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be 39 SMALL because thermal effluent discharges from Oconee Station during the proposed SLR 40 term would not contribute to the proliferation in Lake Keowee of N. fowleri.
| |
| | |
| 3-175 1 3.11.6.5 Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers
| |
| | |
| 2 Impacts from microbiological hazards to nuclear power plant workers due to continued nuclear 3 power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term are considered SMALL. Nuclear 4 power plant workers can be exposed to Legionella during maintenance activities of the 5 condenser tubes and N. fowleri during cooling water discharges. No change in existing 6 microbiological hazards is expected due to SLR as Duke Energy is not proposing changes in 7 the cooling water system or sanitary wastewater treatment and disposal. Duke Energy 8 implements a health and safety program to minimize the potential for nuclear power plant 9 worker exposure (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 10 3.11.6.6 Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)
| |
| | |
| 11 The LR GEIS (10 CFR 51 [TN250]), Subpart A, Appendix B; NRC 2013-TN2654) does not 12 designate the chronic effects of 60 Hz EMFs from powerlines as either a Category 1 or 2 issue.
| |
| 13 Until a scientific consensus is reached on the health implications of EMFs, the NRC will not 14 include them as Category 1 or 2 issues.
| |
| | |
| 15 Scientific consensus on the health implications of EMFs has not been established. The potential 16 for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The 17 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through 18 the DOE. The NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999-TN78) contains the following conclusion:
| |
| 19 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency electromagnetic field) 20 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that 21 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to 22 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the 23 United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive 24 regulatory action is warranted such as continued emphasis on educating both the public 25 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does 26 not believe that other cancers or noncancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence 27 of a risk to currently warrant concern.
| |
| | |
| 28 This statement did not cause the NRC to change its position with respect to the chronic effects 29 of EMFs. The NRC staff considers the impacts to be UNCERTAIN.
| |
| | |
| 30 3.11.6.7 Physical Occupational Hazards
| |
| | |
| 31 As nuclear power plants have many of the typical occupational hazards found at other electric 32 power generation utilities, the issue of occupational hazards can be evaluated by comparing the 33 rate of fatal injuries and nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the utility sector with the 34 rate in all industries combined. Based on the 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics for incidence rate 35 of fatal and nonfatal occupational injuries, utility sector rates are lower than those of many other 36 sectors (BLS 2021-TN7691). Occupational hazards can be minimized when workers adhere to 37 safety standards and use appropriate personal protective equipment; however, fatalities and 38 injuries caused by accidents may still occur.
| |
| | |
| 39 Work at Oconee Station is under the statutory authority of OSHA and managed onsite by an 40 industrial safety program. The NRC staff expects that workers will continue to adhere to safety 41 standards and use protective equipment. The NRC staff expects that Duke Energy will continue 42 to employ an occupational safety program so that physical occupational hazards due to 43 continued nuclear power plant power operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term are
| |
| | |
| 3-176 1 minimized. As a result, the NRC staff concludes that physical occupational hazards at Oconee 2 Station would be of SMALL significance (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| | |
| 3 3.11.6.8 Electric Shock Hazards
| |
| | |
| 4 Based on the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the Commission found that electric shock resulting 5 from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has 6 not been identified as a problem at most operating nuclear power plants and generally is not 7 expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, a site-specific review is 8 required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential along the portions of the 9 transmission lines that are within the scope of Oconee Station SLR review.
| |
| | |
| 10 As discussed in Section 3.11.5, Other Hazards, there are no offsite transmission lines that are 11 in scope for this EIS. Therefore, there are no potential impacts on members of the public. There 12 are six onsite overhead transmission lines with the potential for electric shock to workers 13 through induced currents. To address this occupational hazard, Duke Energy adheres to the 14 National Electrical Safety Code for clearances and OSHA compliance requirements for shock 15 hazard avoidance (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). As discussed in 16 Section 3.11.5, Oconee Station maintains an occupational safety program in accordance with 17 OSHA regulations for its workers, which includes protection from acute electric shock.
| |
| 18 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts from acute electric shock during 19 the LR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 3.11.6.9 Postulated Accidents
| |
| | |
| 21 The LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) evaluates the following two classes of postulated accidents 22 as they relate to license renewal:
| |
| 23
| |
| * Design-Basis Accidents: Postulated accidents that a nuclear facility must be designed and 24 built to withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components necessary to 25 ensure public health and safety.
| |
| 26
| |
| * Severe Accidents: Postulated accidents that are more severe than design-basis accidents 27 because they could result in substantial damage to the reactor core.
| |
| | |
| 28 As shown in Table 3-1 of this report, the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) addresses design-basis 29 accidents as a Category 1 issue and concludes that the environmental impacts of design-basis 30 accidents are of SMALL significance for all nuclear power plants. For Severe Accidents, 31 Table 3-1 refers to EIS Appendix F of this report.
| |
| | |
| 32 Based on information in the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC determined in 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250),
| |
| 33 Subpart A, Appendix B that for all nuclear power plants, the environmental impacts of severe 34 accidents associated with license renewal is SMALL, with a caveat as follows:
| |
| 35 The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open 36 bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from 37 severe accidents are SMALL for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe 38 accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.
| |
| 39 (NRC 2013-TN2654)
| |
| | |
| 40 The NRC Staff evaluates Postulated Accidents and SAMA for Oconee Station during the SLR 41 term in Appendix F of this report, in accordance with Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and 42 CLI-22-03. The results are summarized below.
| |
| | |
| 3-177 1 Duke Energys 1999 environmental report submitted as part of its initial license renewal 2 application included an assessment of SAMAs for Oconee (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The 3 NRC staff at that time reviewed Duke Energys 1999 analysis of SAMAs and documented this 4 review in its EIS for the initial license renewal, which the NRC published in 1999, as 5 Supplement 2, Regarding Oconee Nuclear Station to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental 6 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 1999-TN8942). Since the NRC 7 staff had previously considered SAMAs for Oconee Station, Duke Energy is not required to 8 perform another SAMA analysis for its SLR application (see 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) [TN250]).
| |
| | |
| 9 However, the NRCs regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), which implement Section 102(2) of 10 the NEPA, require that all applicants for license renewal submit an environmental report to the 11 NRC and in that report identify any new and significant information regarding the environmental 12 impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)).
| |
| 13 Accordingly, in its SLR application environmental report (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897), Duke 14 Energy evaluated areas of new and potentially significant information that could affect the 15 environmental impact of postulated accidents during the SLR period. The NRC staff provides a 16 discussion of new information pertaining to Postulated Accidents and SAMAs in Appendix F, 17 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents, in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 18 Based on the NRC staffs review and evaluation of Duke Energys analysis of new and 19 potentially significant information regarding SAMAs and the staffs independent analyses as 20 documented in Appendix F, Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents, to this EIS, the 21 staff finds that there is no new and significant information for Oconee Station related to 22 Postulated Accidents or SAMAs.
| |
| | |
| 23 3.11.7 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 24 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue subsequent renewed licenses, and 25 Oconee Station would shut down on or before the expiration of the current renewed licenses.
| |
| 26 Human health risks would be smaller following nuclear power plant shutdown. The reactor units, 27 which currently operate within regulatory limits, would emit less radioactive gaseous, liquid, and 28 solid material to the environment. In addition, following shutdown, the variety of potential 29 accidents at the nuclear power plant (radiological or industrial) would be reduced to a limited set 30 associated with shutdown events and fuel handling and storage. In Section 3.11.6, Proposed 31 Action, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of continued nuclear power plant operation on 32 human health would be SMALL, except for Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs),
| |
| 33 for which the impacts are UNCERTAIN. In Section 3.11.6.9, Postulated Accidents, the NRC 34 staff concluded that the impacts of accidents during operation are SMALL. Therefore, as 35 radioactive emissions to the environment decrease, and as the likelihood and types of accidents 36 decrease following shutdown, the NRC staff concludes that the risk to human health following 37 nuclear power plant shutdown would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 38 3.11.8 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 39 Impacts on human health from construction of a replacement power station would be similar to 40 impacts associated with the construction of any major industrial facility. Compliance with worker 41 protection rules, the use of personal protective equipment, training, and placement of 42 engineered barriers would limit those impacts on workers to acceptable levels.
| |
| | |
| 43 The human health impacts from the operation of a power station include public risk from 44 inhalation of gaseous emissions. Regulatory agencies, including EPA and State of South
| |
| | |
| 3-178 1 Carolina agencies, base air emission standards and requirements on human health impacts.
| |
| 2 These agencies also impose site-specific emission limits to protect human health.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.11.9 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 4 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 5 The construction impacts of the new nuclear alternative would include those identified in 6 Section 3.11.8 above. Because the NRC staff expects that the licensee would limit access to 7 active construction areas to only authorized individuals, the impacts on human health from the 8 construction of a two-unit advanced light-water reactor and a single-unit small modular reactor 9 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 10 The human health effects from the operation of the new nuclear alternative would be similar to 11 those of operating the existing Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3. The ALWRs and small modular 12 reactor designs would use the same type of fuel (i.e., form of the fuel, enrichment, burnup, and 13 fuel cladding) as those nuclear power plants considered in the NRC staffs evaluation in the LR 14 GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654). As such, their impacts would be similar to Oconee Station. As 15 presented in Section 3.11.6, impacts on human health from the operation of Oconee Station 16 would be SMALL, except for Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), for which the 17 impacts are UNCERTAIN. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human 18 health from the operation of the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 19 3.11.10 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 20 The construction impacts of the NGCC alternative would include those identified in 21 Section 3.11.8, Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts. Because the NRC staff 22 expects that the licensee would limit access to active construction areas to only authorized 23 individuals, the impacts on human health from the construction of an NGCC facility would be 24 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 25 The human health effects from the operation of the NGCC alternative would include those 26 identified in Section 3.11.8 as common to the operation of all replacement power alternatives.
| |
| 27 Health risk may be attributable to nitrogen oxide emissions that contribute to ozone formation 28 (NRC 2013-TN2654). Given the regulatory oversight exercised by the EPA and State agencies, 29 the NRC staff concludes that the human health impacts from the NGCC alternative would be 30 SMALL, except for Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), for which the impacts are 31 UNCERTAIN. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human health from the 32 operation of the NGCC alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.11.11 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 34 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 35 Impacts on human health from construction of the combination alternative would include those 36 identified in Section 3.11.8 as common to the construction of all replacement power alternatives.
| |
| 37 Because the NRC staff expects that the builder will limit access to the active construction area 38 to only authorized individuals, the impacts on human health from the construction of the 39 combination SMR, solar PV, offshore wind and demand-side management (DSM) alternative 40 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 41 The human health effects from the operation of the SMR would be similar to those of operating 42 the existing Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3. Small modular reactor designs would use the 43 same type of fuel (i.e., form of the fuel, enrichment, burnup, and fuel cladding) as those nuclear
| |
| | |
| 3-179 1 power plants considered in the NRC staffs evaluation in the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654). As 2 such, their impacts would be similar to Oconee Station. As presented in Section 3.11.9, the 3 Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), impacts for the SMR are UNCERTAIN.
| |
| 4 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on human health from the operation of the 5 SMR component would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 6 Solar PV panels are encased in heavy-duty glass or plastic. Therefore, there is little risk that the 7 small amounts of hazardous semiconductor material that they contain would be released into 8 the environment. In the event of a fire, hazardous PM could be released into the atmosphere.
| |
| 9 Given the short duration of fires and the high melting points of the materials found in the solar 10 PV panels, the impacts from inhalation are minimal. Also, the risk of fire at ground-mounted 11 solar installations is minimal because of precautions taken during site preparation, which include 12 removal of fuels and the lack of burnable materials contained in the solar PV panels. Another 13 potential risk associated with PV systems and fire is the potential for shock or electrocution from 14 contact with a high-voltage conductor. Proper procedures and clear marking of system 15 components should be used to provide emergency responders with appropriate warnings to 16 diminish the risk of shock or electrocution (Good Company 2011-TN8599). Solar PV panels do 17 not produce EMFs at levels considered harmful to human health, as established by the 18 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. These small EMFs diminish 19 significantly with distance and are indistinguishable from normal background levels within 20 several yards (Good Company 2011-TN8599). Based on this information, the NRC staff 21 concludes that the human health impacts from the operation of the solar PV component for the 22 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 23 Operational hazards at an offshore wind facility for the workforce include working at heights, 24 working near rotating mechanical or electrically energized equipment, and operating in extreme 25 weather. Adherence to safety standards and the use of appropriate protective equipment 26 through implementation of an OSHA-approved worker safety program would minimize 27 occupational hazards. Potential impacts on workers include ice thrown from rotor blades and 28 broken blades thrown as a result of mechanical failure. Adherence to proper worker safety 29 procedures and limiting public access to wind turbine sites would minimize the impacts from ice 30 throws and broken rotor blades. Potential impacts also include EMF exposure, aviation safety 31 hazards, and exposure to noise and vibration from the rotating blades. Impacts from EMF 32 exposure would be minimized by adherence to proper worker safety procedures and limiting 33 access to any components that could create an EMF. Aviation safety hazards would be 34 minimized by proper siting of the offshore wind turbine facilities and maintaining all proper safety 35 warning devices, such as indicator lights, for pilot visibility. Offshore installation of wind facilities 36 would preclude any potential human health effects from noise and vibration. Furthermore, the 37 NRC staff has identified no epidemiologic studies on noise and vibration from wind turbines that 38 would suggest any direct human health impact. Based on this information, the NRC staff 39 concludes that the human health impacts from the operation of the wind component for the 40 combination alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 41 The DSM programs use existing infrastructure and energy efficiency programs to provide 42 reduction in the use of electricity. Currently, Duke Energy states DSM accounts for only 50 MWe 43 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). These programs are already in place, so there are no additional 44 human health effects from DSM programs.
| |
| | |
| 3-180 1 Therefore, given the expected compliance with worker and environmental protection rules and 2 the use of personal protective equipment, training, and engineered barriers, the NRC staff 3 concludes that the potential human health impacts for the combination alternative would be 4 SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.12 Environmental Justice
| |
| | |
| 6 3.12.1 Background
| |
| | |
| 7 Under EO 12898 (59 FR 7629-TN1450), Federal agencies are responsible for identifying and 8 addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and 9 environmental effects of agency actions on minority and low-income populations. Independent 10 agencies, such as the NRC, are not bound by the terms of EO 12898 but are requested to 11 comply with the provisions of [the] order. In 2004, the Commission issued the agencys Policy 12 Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing 13 Actions (69 FR 52040-TN1009), which states: The Commission is committed to the general 14 goals set forth in EO 12898 and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process.
| |
| | |
| 15 The CEQ provides the following information in Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 16 National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997-TN452):
| |
| 17 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.
| |
| 18 Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer 19 fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse 20 health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death.
| |
| 21 Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 22 exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is 23 significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 24 the general population or for another appropriate comparison group (CEQ 1997-TN452).
| |
| 25 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects.
| |
| 26 A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as employed by NEPA) 27 refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a 28 low-income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on 29 the larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 30 economic, or social impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is 31 determined to be both harmful and significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing 32 cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically 33 dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian Tribes are 34 considered (CEQ 1997-TN452).
| |
| | |
| 35 This environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 36 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 37 could result from the continued operation of Oconee Station associated with the proposed 38 action (SLR) and alternatives to the proposed action. In assessing the impacts, the following 39 definitions of minority individuals, minority populations, and low-income population were used 40 (CEQ 1997-TN452):
| |
| 41 Minority Individuals 42 Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population groups:
| |
| 43 Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, 44 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races, meaning individuals who 45 identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races, for 46 example, White and Asian.
| |
| | |
| 3-181 1 Minority Populations 2 Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of an affected area 3 exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 4 meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or 5 other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.
| |
| 6 Low-income Population 7 Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the annual statistical 8 poverty thresholds from the Census Bureaus Current Population Reports, Series P60, on 9 Income and Poverty.
| |
| | |
| 10 In determining the location of minority and/or low-income populations, the NRC staff uses a 11 50 mi (80 km) radius from the facility as the geographic area to perform a comparative analysis.
| |
| 12 The 50 mi (80 km) radius is consistent with the impact analysis conducted for human health 13 impacts. The NRC staff compares the percentage of minority and/or low-income populations in 14 the 50 mi (80 km) geographic area to the percentage of minority and/or low-income populations 15 in each census block group to determine which block groups exceeds the percentage, thereby 16 identifying the location of these populations (NRC 2020-TN6399).
| |
| | |
| 17 Minority Population
| |
| | |
| 18 According to the USCBs 2020 Census data, there are a total of 1,106 block groups within a 19 50-mile (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site and approximately 26 percent of the 20 population residing within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee Station identified themselves as 21 minority individuals. The largest minority populations were Black or African American 22 (approximately 11 percent) and Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin of any race (approximately 23 8 percent).
| |
| | |
| 24 According to the CEQ definition, a minority population exists if the percentage of the minority 25 population of an area (e.g., census block group) exceeds 50 percent or is meaningfully greater 26 than the minority population percentage in the general population. The NRC staffs 27 environmental justice analysis applied the meaningfully greater threshold in identifying higher 28 concentrations of minority populations; with the meaningfully greater threshold being any 29 percentage greater than the minority population within 50 mi (80 km) radius of the site.
| |
| 30 Therefore, for the purposes of identifying higher concentrations of minority populations, census 31 block groups within the 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee Station were identified as minority 32 population block groups if the percentage of the minority population in the block group exceeded 33 26 percent, the percent of the minority population within the 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee 34 Station.
| |
| | |
| 35 Based on this analysis, there are 403 minority population blocks groups within a 50 mi (80 km) 36 radius of Oconee Station. Therefore, approximately 36 percent of block groups within a 50 mi 37 (80-km) radius of Oconee Station are minority population block groups. As shown in Figure 3-8, 38 high population minority block groups (race and ethnicity) are predominantly clustered east and 39 south of the Oconee Station site. Based on this analysis, Oconee Station is not located in a 40 minority population block group.
| |
| | |
| 3-182 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-8 Minority Block Groups within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius of Oconee Station, 3 South Carolina. Adapted from: USCB 2022-TN9013.
| |
| | |
| 3-183 1 Low-Income Population
| |
| | |
| 2 The U.S. Census Bureaus 2017-2021 American Community Survey data identifies 3 approximately 13 percent of individuals residing within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee 4 Station site as living below the Federal poverty threshold (USCB 2022-TN9013). The 5 2021 Federal poverty threshold was $26,500 for a family of four (86 FR 7732-TN9014).
| |
| | |
| 6 Figure 3-9 shows the location of predominantly low-income population block groups within a 7 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee Station. In accordance with NRC guidance (NRC 2020-8 TN6399), census block groups were considered low-income population block groups if the 9 percentage of individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold within the block groups 10 exceeded the percent of the individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold within 50 mi 11 (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site.
| |
| | |
| 12 Based on this analysis, there are 464 low-income population blocks groups within a 50 mi 13 (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site. Therefore, approximately 42 percent of the block 14 groups within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee Station are low-income population block 15 groups. As shown in Figure 3-9, the low-income population block groups are distributed 16 throughout within the 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site. Oconee Station is not 17 located in a low-income population block group.
| |
| | |
| 18 As discussed in Section 3.10.2 of this EIS, according to the USCBs 2017-2021 American 19 Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, people living in the two-county ROI had a median 20 household income less than the State average. Additionally, the percentage of individuals living 21 below the poverty level in Oconee and Pickens counties was higher than the percentage of 22 individuals living below the poverty level in the State of South Carolina. Adapted from USCB 23 (2022-TN9013).
| |
| | |
| 24 3.12.2 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 25 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 26 SLR on the environmental issues related to environmental justice in accordance with 27 Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03. Minority and Low-Income Populations
| |
| | |
| 28 The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal by: (1) identifying the 29 location of minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the continued operation 30 of the nuclear power plant during the license renewal term; (2) determining whether there would 31 be any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations and special 32 pathway receptors (groups or individuals with unique consumption practices and interactions 33 with the environment; and (3) determining whether any of the effects may be disproportionately 34 high and adverse.
| |
| | |
| 35 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 36 impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 37 when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 38 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 39 another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 40 impacts or risks of impacts on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 41 community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger 42 community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts.
| |
| | |
| 3-184 1
| |
| 2 Figure 3-9 Low-Income Block Groups within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius of Oconee 3 Station, South Carolina
| |
| | |
| 4 Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 show the location of predominantly minority or population block 5 groups residing within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site. This area of impact is 6 consistent with the 50 mi (80 km) impact analysis for public and occupational health and safety.
| |
| 7 This chapter of this EIS presents the assessment of environmental and human health impacts 8 for each resource area. The analyses of impacts for all environmental resource areas indicated 9 that the impact from SLR would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-185 1 Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations (including migrant workers or Native 2 Americans) would mostly consist of socioeconomic and radiological effects; however, radiation 3 doses from continued operations during the SLR term are expected to continue at current 4 levels, and they would remain within regulatory limits. Section 3.11.6.4 discusses the 5 environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur during the SLR term, which 6 include both design-basis and severe accidents. In both cases, the Commission has generically 7 determined that impacts associated with design-basis accidents are small because nuclear 8 power plants are designed and operated to withstand such accidents, and the 9 probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 10 Therefore, based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental 11 impacts presented in this chapter, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no 12 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 13 low-income populations from the continued operation of Oconee Station during the renewal 14 term.
| |
| | |
| 15 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife
| |
| | |
| 16 Because part of addressing environmental justice concerns associated with SLR, the NRC also 17 assessed the potential radiological risk to special population groups (such as migrant workers or 18 Native Americans) from exposure to radioactive material received through their unique 19 consumption practices and interactions with the environment. Such exposure could occur 20 through subsistence consumption of fish, wildlife, and native vegetation; contact with surface 21 waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the 22 skin; and inhalation of airborne radioactive material released from the nuclear power plant 23 during routine operation. The special pathway receptors analysis is an important part of the 24 environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 25 cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area.
| |
| | |
| 26 Section 4-4 of EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 27 Populations and Low-Income Populations, (59 FR 7629-TN1450) directs Federal agencies, 28 whenever practical and appropriate, to collect and analyze information about the consumption 29 patterns of populations that rely principally on fish and wildlife for subsistence and to 30 communicate the risks of these consumption patterns to the public. In this EIS, the NRC 31 considered whether there were any means for minority or low-income populations to be 32 disproportionately affected by examining impacts on American Indians, Hispanics, migrant 33 workers, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. Duke Energy conducted 34 desktop level reviews for articles or reports of subsistence populations in the vicinity of the 35 Oconee Station site and interviewed staff that lived in the proximity to Oconee Station that could 36 have knowledge of local subsistence populations (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Duke Energy 37 did not identify subsistence activity in the vicinity of Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2021-38 TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 39 The assessment of special pathways considered the levels of radiological contaminants in fish, 40 sediments, water, milk, and food products on or near Oconee Station. Radionuclides released 41 into the atmosphere may deposit on soil and vegetation and may therefore eventually be 42 incorporated into the human food chain. To assess the impact of Oconee Station operations to 43 humans from the ingestion pathway, Duke Energy collects and analyzes samples of air, water, 44 sediment, fish, vegetation, and milk, if available, for radioactivity as part of its ongoing, 45 comprehensive Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.
| |
| | |
| 3-186 1 To assess the impact of nuclear power plant operations on the environment, Duke Energy 2 collects samples annually from the environment and analyzes them for radioactivity. A plant-3 specific effect would be indicated if the radioactive material detected in a sample was larger or 4 higher than background levels. Two types of samples are collected. The first type, a control 5 sample, is collected from areas that are beyond the influence of the nuclear power plant or any 6 other nuclear facility. These control samples are used as reference data to determine normal 7 background levels of radiation in the environment. The second type of samples, indicator 8 samples, are collected near the nuclear power plant from areas where any radioactivity 9 contribution from the nuclear power plant will be at its highest concentration. These indicator 10 samples are then compared to the control samples to evaluate the contribution of nuclear power 11 plant operations to radiation or radioactivity levels in the environment. An effect would be 12 indicated if the radioactivity levels detected in an indicator sample were larger or higher than the 13 control sample or background.
| |
| | |
| 14 Duke Energy collected samples from the aquatic and terrestrial environmental in the vicinity of 15 Oconee Station in 2022 (Duke Energy 2023-TN9016). The aquatic pathway specific samples 16 include surface water samples, drinking water samples, fish, and sediment samples. The 17 terrestrial environment was evaluated by performing radiological analyses on milk and green 18 leaf vegetation samples. Terrestrial monitoring results for 2022 of broad lead vegetation and fish 19 were consistent with previous levels. Tritium was reported in surface water samples; however, 20 concentrations (range 1,830 to 15,400 pCi/L) were below the EPAs public drinking water 21 standard for tritium (20,000 pCi/L) (Duke Energy 2023-TN9016; 40 CFR 141.66-TN4456). A 5-22 year period provides a dataset that covers a broad range of activities that occur at a nuclear 23 power plant, such as refueling outages, routine operation, and maintenance that can affect the 24 generation and release of radioactive effluents into the environment. The NRC staff looked for 25 indications of adverse trends (i.e., increasing radioactivity levels) during that period. The data 26 show that there were no significant radiological impacts to the environment from operations at 27 Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 28 Based on the radiological environmental monitoring data from Oconee Station, the NRC staff 29 concludes that the special pathway receptor populations in the region are not expected to 30 experience disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts as a result of 31 subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, and wildlife.
| |
| | |
| 32 3.12.3 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 33 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not renew the operating licenses, and Oconee 34 Station Units 1, 2, and 3 would permanently shut down on or before the expiration of the current 35 renewed facility operating licenses. Impacts on minority and low-income populations would 36 depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenues lost by communities in the 37 immediate vicinity of the nuclear power plant after it ceases operations. Not renewing the 38 operating licenses and terminating reactor operations could have a noticeable impact on 39 socioeconomic conditions in the communities located near the Oconee Station site. The loss of 40 jobs and income could have an immediate socioeconomic impact. Some, but not all, of the 41 approximately 700 permanent workers could leave the area. In addition, the plant would 42 generate less tax revenue, which could reduce the availability of public services. This reduction 43 could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations that may have become 44 dependent on these services.
| |
| | |
| 3-187 1 3.12.4 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 2 The following discussions identify common impacts from the construction and operation of 3 replacement power facilities that could disproportionately affect minority and low-income 4 populations. The NRC staff cannot determine if any of the replacement power alternatives would 5 result in disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on 6 minority and low-income populations. This determination would depend on site location, plant 7 design, operational characteristics of the new facility, unique consumption practices and 8 interactions with the environment of nearby populations, and the location of predominantly 9 minority and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 10 Construction
| |
| | |
| 11 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the constructions of a new 12 replacement power plant would mostly consist of environmental (e.g., noise, dust, and traffic) 13 and socioeconomics effects (employment and housing impacts). Minority and low-income 14 migrant agricultural workers could be particularly vulnerable to noise impacts if working near the 15 construction site. However, noise impacts from construction would be short term and primarily 16 limited to onsite activities. Air emissions would result from increased vehicle traffic, construction 17 equipment, and fugitive dust from construction activities. These emissions would be temporary 18 and minor. Minority and low-income populations residing alongside access roads could be 19 affected by increased truck traffic and increased commuter vehicle traffic, especially during shift 20 changes. Increased demand for rental housing during construction could affect low-income 21 populations, which depends on the available housing stock.
| |
| | |
| 22 Operation
| |
| | |
| 23 Minority and low-income populations living near the replacement power site that rely on 24 subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife could be disproportionately affected by 25 replacement power alternatives. Emissions during power plant operations could 26 disproportionately affect nearby minority and low-income populations, depending on the 27 fuel-type used to generate replacement power.
| |
| | |
| 28 3.12.5 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 29 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 30 Construction
| |
| | |
| 31 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction of a new nuclear 32 alternative would include those common to all replacement power alternatives discussed in 33 Section 3.12.3. The small modular reactor portion of the new nuclear alternative would be 34 located at the Oconee Station site. The natural gas alternative would be located at the Oconee 35 Station site. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 show the location of predominantly minority and 36 low-income population block groups residing within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee 37 Station site. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be 38 affected by increased truck traffic and increased commuter vehicle traffic, especially during shift 39 changes. However, a 2020 land use survey within a 5 mi (8 km) radius from Oconee Station 40 identified few residents in the vicinity of the Oconee Station site, with the nearest resident 41 located more than 1 mi (1.6 km) away from the site, and nearby residences are not near site 42 access roads (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Noise would result from construction equipment, 43 site activities, and additional traffic. Migrant agricultural workers could be particularly vulnerable
| |
| | |
| 3-188 1 to noise impacts because of their outdoor presence. However, the NRC staff has determined 2 that noise would be temporary and not significant, and that noise levels would be lessened by 3 distance. Air emissions would result from increased vehicle traffic, construction equipment, and 4 fugitive dust from construction activities. These emissions would be temporary and minor (see 5 Section 3.3.7.1 of this EIS). Increased demand for rental housing during construction could 6 disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, as discussed in Section 3.10.4, 7 there are more than 14,000 housing units available in Oconee County and Pickens County.
| |
| | |
| 8 The ALWR portion of this alternative would be comprised of two ALWR units providing 9 2,234 MWe of generating capacity. The NRC evaluated the economic impacts from construction 10 of two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the W.S. Lee 11 Nuclear Station site in Section 4.5 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435: pp. 4-98 through 12 4-102). In that analysis, the staff considered all potentially significant pathways for human health 13 and welfare effects and determined the impact of each pathway for individuals within the 14 identified census block groups. The staff concluded in NUREG-2111 that there would be no 15 disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income populations as a 16 result from construction of two 2,234 MWe ALWRs. The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in 17 Section 4.5 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435: pp. 4-98 through 4-99) herein by reference.
| |
| | |
| 18 The NRC staff concludes that the construction of the new nuclear alternative would not likely 19 have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 20 and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 21 Operations
| |
| | |
| 22 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from operations of a new nuclear 23 alternative would include those common to all replacement power alternatives discussed in 24 Section 3.12.4. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations from operations of the 25 small modular reactor portion would mostly consist of environmental and radiological effects.
| |
| 26 However, radiation doses would be required to meet regulatory limits and the plant operator 27 would maintain a radiological environmental monitoring program similar to current operation of 28 the Oconee Station site.
| |
| | |
| 29 The ALWR portion of this alternative would be comprised of two ALWR units providing 30 2,234 MWe of generating capacity. The NRC evaluated the economic impacts from operations 31 of two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the W.S. Lee 32 Nuclear Station site in Section 5.5 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435: pp. 5-53 through 5-57).
| |
| 33 The staff concluded in NUREG-2111 that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse 34 impact on any minority or low-income populations as a result of operation of two ALWR units.
| |
| 35 The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Section 5.5 of NUREG-2111 (NRC 2013-TN6435:
| |
| 36 pp. 5-53 through 5-57) herein by reference.
| |
| | |
| 37 The NRC staff concludes that the operation of the new nuclear alternative would not likely have 38 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 39 low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 3-189 1 3.12.6 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 2 Construction
| |
| | |
| 3 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction of a natural gas 4 alternative would include those common to all replacement power alternatives discussed in 5 Section 3.12.4. The natural gas alternative would be located at the Oconee Station site.
| |
| 6 Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 show the location of predominantly minority and low-income 7 population block groups residing within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site.
| |
| 8 Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could be affected by 9 increased truck traffic and increased commuter vehicle traffic, especially during shift changes.
| |
| 10 However, a 2020 land use survey within a 5 mi (8- km) radius from Oconee Station identified 11 few residents in the vicinity of the Oconee Station site, with the nearest resident located more 12 than 1 mi (1.6 km) away from the site, and nearby residences situated away from site access 13 roads (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Noise would result from construction equipment, site 14 activities, and additional traffic. Migrant agricultural workers could be particularly vulnerable to 15 noise impacts because of their outdoor presence. However, the NRC staff has determined that 16 noise would be temporary and not significant, and that noise levels would be lessened by 17 distance. Air emissions would result from increased vehicle traffic, construction equipment, and 18 fugitive dust from construction activities. These emissions would be temporary and minor (see 19 Section 3.3.8.1 of this EIS). Increased demand for rental housing during construction could 20 disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, as discussed in Section 3.10.4, 21 there are more than 14,000 housing units available in Oconee County and Pickens County.
| |
| | |
| 22 The NRC staff concludes that the construction of the natural gas alternative would not likely 23 have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority 24 and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 25 Operations
| |
| | |
| 26 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 27 the natural gas alternative would include those discussed above in Section 3.12.4. As discussed 28 in Section 3.3.8.1, operation of the natural gas alternative can emit substantial amounts of air 29 emissions. However, the emissions would be noticeable but not destabilizing. The Oconee 30 Station site is not located in a low-income population block group (see Section 3.12). Therefore, 31 these effects are not likely to be high and adverse during plant operation.
| |
| | |
| 32 The NRC staff concludes that the operation of the natural gas alternative would not likely have 33 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 34 low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.12.7 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 36 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 37 Construction
| |
| | |
| 38 The new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would consist of three 400 MWe small 39 modular reactor units. Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the 40 construction of the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would be similar to those 41 discussed under the SMR portion (single 400 MWe small modular reactor unit) of the new 42 nuclear alternative in Section 3.12.5. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the construction of
| |
| | |
| 3-190 1 the new nuclear alternative would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human 2 health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 3 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction of solar facilities 4 would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, air emissions, 5 traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, the NRC staff has determined that air 6 quality and noise impacts associated with construction of the solar PV portion of the 7 combination alternative would be SMALL. Depending on the location of the solar facilities, 8 socioeconomic and transportation impacts could be noticeable, but not destabilizing.
| |
| 9 Construction of the solar PV portion of the combination alternative would not likely have 10 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 11 low-income populations, but this would depend on the exact location of the solar facilities.
| |
| | |
| 12 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction of offshore wind 13 facilities would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, air 14 emissions, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, the NRC staff has determined 15 that air quality, noise, socioeconomic, and transportation impacts associated with construction 16 of the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would be SMALL. Therefore, the NRC 17 staff concludes that the construction of the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative 18 would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 19 effects on minority and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 20 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the construction of the combination alternative would not 21 likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on 22 minority and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 23 Operations
| |
| | |
| 24 The new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would consist of three 400 MWe small 25 modular reactor units. Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the 26 operation of the new nuclear portion of the combination alternative would be similar to those 27 discussed under the SMR portion (single 400 MWe small modular reactor unit) of the new 28 nuclear alternative in Section 3.12.5. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the operation of 29 the new nuclear alternative would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human 30 health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 31 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the operation of solar facilities 32 would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, air emissions, 33 traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, the NRC staff has determined that air 34 quality, noise, and socioeconomic impacts associated with construction of the solar PV portion 35 of the combination alternative would be SMALL. However, depending on the location of the 36 solar facilities, transportation impacts could be noticeable, but not destabilizing. Therefore, 37 operations of the solar PV portion of the combination alternative would not likely have 38 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 39 low-income populations, but this would depend on the exact location of the solar facilities.
| |
| | |
| 40 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction of offshore wind 41 facilities would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, air 42 emissions, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). However, the NRC staff has determined 43 that air quality, noise, socioeconomic, and transportation impacts associated with operation of 44 the offshore wind portion of the combination alternative would be SMALL. Therefore, operations
| |
| | |
| 3-191 1 of the offshore wind facility portion of the combination alternative would not likely have 2 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 3 low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 4 Low-income populations could benefit from weatherization and insulation programs in a DSM 5 energy conservation program. This program could have a greater effect on low-income 6 populations than the general population, because low-income households generally experience 7 greater home energy burdens than the average household.
| |
| | |
| 8 Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the operations of the combination alternative would not 9 likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on 10 minority and low-income populations.
| |
| | |
| 11 3.13 Waste Management
| |
| | |
| 12 Like any operating nuclear power plant, Oconee Station will produce both radioactive and 13 nonradioactive waste during the SLR period. This section describes waste management and 14 pollution prevention at Oconee Station. The description of these waste management activities is 15 followed by the NRC staffs analysis of the potential impacts of waste management activities 16 from the proposed action (SLR) and alternatives to the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 17 3.13.1 Radioactive Waste
| |
| | |
| 18 As discussed in Section 2.1.4, Radioactive Waste Management Systems, of this EIS, Oconee 19 Station uses liquid, gaseous, and solid waste processing systems to collect and treat, as 20 needed, radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of nuclear power plant operations.
| |
| 21 Radioactive materials in liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents are reduced before being released 22 into the environment so that the resultant dose to members of the public from these effluents is 23 well within the NRC and EPA dose standards. Radionuclides that can be efficiently removed 24 from the liquid and gaseous effluents before release are converted to a solid waste form for 25 disposal in a licensed disposal facility.
| |
| | |
| 26 3.13.2 Nonradioactive Waste
| |
| | |
| 27 Waste minimization and pollution prevention are important elements of operations at all nuclear 28 power plants. Licensees are required to consider pollution prevention measures as dictated by 29 the Pollution Prevention Act (Public Law 101 5084 TN6607) and the Resource Conservation 30 and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (Public Law 94 580) (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 31 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the disposal of solid waste. The 32 SCDHEC is authorized by the EPA to implement the RCRA and regulate solid and hazardous 33 waste in South Carolina (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). As described in Section 2.1.5, 34 Nonradioactive Waste Management System, of this EIS, Oconee Station has a nonradioactive 35 waste management program to handle nonradioactive waste in accordance with Federal, State, 36 and corporate regulations and procedures. Oconee Station maintains a waste minimization 37 program that uses material control, process control, waste management, recycling, and 38 feedback to reduce waste.
| |
| | |
| 39 The Oconee Station SWPPP identifies potential sources of pollution that may affect the quality 40 of stormwater discharges from permitted outfalls. The SWPPP also describes BMPs for 41 reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges and assuring compliance with the sites NPDES
| |
| | |
| 3-192 1 permit (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Oconee Station also has an environmental management 2 system (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Procedures are in place to monitor areas within the site 3 that have the potential to discharge oil into or on navigable waters, in accordance with the 4 regulations in 40 CFR Part 112, Oil Pollution Prevention (TN1041). The Pollution 5 Incident/Hazardous Substance Spill Procedure identifies and describes the procedures, 6 materials, equipment, and facilities that Duke Energy uses to minimize the frequency and 7 severity of oil spills at Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 8 Oconee Station is subject to the EPA reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part 110, Discharge of 9 Oil, under CWA Section 311(b)(4) (TN8485). Under these regulations, Oconee Station must 10 report to the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center any discharges of oil if the quantity 11 may be harmful to the public health or welfare or to the environment. Based on the NRC staffs 12 review of Section 9.5.3.6 of the ER (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899, Appendix E) and a review of 13 records from 2014-2022, two spills were reported to the National Response Center. The spills 14 were attributed to Keowee Hydro operations not Oconee Station operations. In addition, the 15 applicant confirmed that no reportable spills have triggered this notification requirement since 16 the ER was written (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 17 Oconee Station is also subject to the reporting provisions of the SCDHEC 2017-TN9028 for 18 reporting the release of a regulated substance from an underground storage tank containing a 19 petroleum product or hazardous substance. Based on the NRC staffs review of 20 Section 9.5.13.6 of the ER (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899, Appendix E) and a review of records 21 from 2014-2020, no reportable spills under the reporting provisions of the SC R. 61-92.280.60 22 occurred. In addition, the applicant confirmed that there have been no reportable spills that 23 would trigger this notification requirement since the ER was written (Duke Energy 2023-24 TN8952).
| |
| | |
| 25 Oconee Station is also registered as an infectious waste generator and complies with the South 26 Carolina Infectious Waste Management Regulations, R 61-105 for management of the waste.
| |
| 27 The infectious waste is generated at the onsite medical facility and onsite procedures comply 28 with the bloodborne pathogens requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1030 (TN654).
| |
| | |
| 29 3.13.3 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 30 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of the Oconee Station 31 SLR on the environmental issues related to waste management in accordance with Commission 32 direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.13.3.1 Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal
| |
| | |
| 34 At Oconee Station, low-level radioactive waste is stored temporarily onsite before being shipped 35 offsite for treatment or disposal facilities (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Annual quantities of low-36 level radioactive waste generated at Oconee Station vary from year to year depending on the 37 number of maintenance activities undertaken. Due to the comprehensive regulatory controls in 38 place for the management of radioactive waste, Duke Energys compliance with these 39 regulations, and Duke Energys use of licensed treatment and disposal facilities, the impacts of 40 radioactive waste are expected to be SMALL during the SLR term. Also, there are no other 41 operating nuclear power plants, fuel-cycle facilities, or radiological waste treatment and disposal 42 facilities with a 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee Station. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 43 the environmental impacts from low-level waste storage and disposal due to continued nuclear 44 power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-193 1 3.13.3.2 Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
| |
| | |
| 2 As discussed in Section 2.1.4.5, Oconee Stations spent fuel is stored in a spent fuel pool at 3 each nuclear power plant and in an onsite ISFSI. The Oconee Station ISFSI is licensed under 4 the general license provided to nuclear power plant licensees under 10 CFR 72.210, General 5 license issued, (TN4884). The NRCs regulation and its oversight of onsite spent fuel storage 6 ensure that the increased volume in onsite storage from operation during the SLR term can be 7 safely accommodated with little environmental effect. The ISFSI safely stores spent fuel onsite 8 in licensed and approved dry cask storage containers.
| |
| | |
| 9 This issue was also considered for the NRC staffs environmental review of Oconee Stations 10 initial license renewal, and no new and significant information was found at that time (NRC 11 1999-TN8942). The NRC staff identified no information or situations that would result in different 12 impacts for this issue for the SLR term at Oconee Station. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 13 that the environmental impacts from onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel due to continued 14 nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 15 3.13.3.3 Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposal
| |
| | |
| 16 As related to the issue of offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 17 disposal, a history of the NRCs Waste Confidence activities is provided in NUREG-2157, 18 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NRC 19 2014-TN4117), Section 1.1, History of Waste Confidence. The management and ultimate 20 disposition of spent nuclear fuel is limited to the findings codified in the September 19, 2014, 21 Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Final Rule (79 FR 56238-TN4104) and associated 22 NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014-TN4117). The ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a potential 23 future geologic repository is a separate and independent licensing action that is outside the 24 regulatory scope of this site-specific review. Per 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) Subpart A, the 25 Commission concludes that the impacts presented in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014-TN4117) would 26 not be sufficiently large to require the conclusion, for any nuclear power plant, that the option of 27 extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated. Accordingly, while 28 the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the offsite radiological 29 impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered generic to 30 all nuclear power plants pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23 (TN250) and does not warrant a site-specific 31 analysis for the continued nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR 32 term.
| |
| | |
| 33 3.13.3.4 Mixed-Waste Storage and Disposal
| |
| | |
| 34 Mixed waste, regulated under RCRA (TN1281) and the AEA of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 35 2011 et seq.-TN663), is waste that is both radioactive and hazardous. Mixed waste is subject to 36 dual regulation: by the EPA or an authorized State for its hazardous component and by the NRC 37 or an agreement state for its radioactive component. Similar to hazardous waste, mixed waste is 38 generally accumulated onsite in designated areas as authorized under RCRA then shipped 39 offsite for treatment as appropriate and for disposal. Occupational exposures and any releases 40 from onsite treatment of these and any other types of wastes are considered when evaluating 41 compliance with the applicable Federal standards and regulations: for example, 10 CFR Part 20 42 (TN283), 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739), and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (TN249). Due to the 43 comprehensive regulatory controls in place for the management of mixed waste, Duke Energys 44 compliance with these regulations, and Duke Energys use of licensed treatment and disposal 45 facilities, the impacts of mixed waste are expected to be SMALL during the SLR term. The NRC
| |
| | |
| 3-194 1 staff identified no information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue 2 during the SLR term at Oconee Station. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, the 3 radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from the mixed waste storage and 4 disposal due to continued nuclear plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term 5 would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 6 3.13.3.5 Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal
| |
| | |
| 7 Like any other industrial facility, nuclear power plants generate wastes that are not 8 contaminated with either radionuclides or hazardous chemicals. Oconee Station has a 9 nonradioactive waste management system to handle its nonradioactive hazardous and 10 nonhazardous wastes. The waste is managed in accordance with Duke Energys procedures.
| |
| 11 Waste minimization and pollution prevention are important elements of operations at all nuclear 12 power plants. Licensees are required to consider pollution prevention measures as dictated by 13 the Pollution Prevention Act (Public Law 101-508; TN6607) and RCRA (Public Law 94-580; 14 TN1281). In addition, as discussed in Section 2.1.5, Oconee Station has a nonradioactive waste 15 management program to handle nonradioactive waste in accordance with Federal, State, and 16 corporate regulations and procedures. Oconee Station will continue to store and dispose of 17 nonradioactive hazardous and nonhazardous waste in accordance with EPA, State, and local 18 regulations in permitted disposal facilities. With respect to unplanned, nonradiological releases, 19 Duke Energy reported two sewage spills between 2021 and 2022 (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899).
| |
| 20 Duke Energy followed reporting requirements and reported the spills to SCDHEC. No other 21 accidental spills or releases of nonradioactive substances, including petroleum products, 22 occurred at Oconee Station over the past 5 years, or were any associated notices of violation 23 issued to Duke Energy for such releases (Duke Energy 2022-TN8899; Response to Requests 24 for Additional Information/Request for Confirmation of Information (Duke Energy 2023-TN8952).
| |
| 25 The NRC staffs review of available information and regulatory databases found no documented 26 instances of accidental spills of chemical or petroleum products to groundwater due to Oconee 27 Station operations that resulted in a regulatory action over the last 5 years. Due to the 28 comprehensive regulatory controls in place for the management of nonradioactive waste and 29 Duke Energys compliance with these regulations, the impacts of nonradioactive waste are 30 expected to be SMALL during the SLR term. The NRC staff identified no information or 31 situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for the SLR term at Oconee Station.
| |
| 32 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts from nonradioactive waste 33 storage and disposal due to continued nuclear plant operations at Oconee Station during the 34 SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.13.4 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 36 Under the no-action alternative, Oconee Station would cease operation at the end of the term of 37 the renewed facility operating licenses or sooner and enter decommissioning. After entering 38 decommissioning, the nuclear power plant would generate less spent nuclear fuel, emit less 39 gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents into the environment, and generate less low-level 40 radioactive and nonradioactive wastes. In addition, following shutdown, the variety of potential 41 accidents at the nuclear power plant (radiological and industrial) would be reduced to a limited 42 set associated with shutdown events and fuel handling and storage. Therefore, as radioactive 43 emissions to the environment decrease, and the likelihood and variety of accidents decrease 44 following shutdown and decommissioning, the NRC staff concludes that impacts resulting from 45 waste management from implementation of the no-action alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 3-195 1 3.13.5 Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts
| |
| | |
| 2 Impacts from waste management common to all analyzed replacement power alternatives 3 would be from construction-related nonradiological debris generated during construction 4 activities. This waste would be recycled or disposed of in approved landfills.
| |
| | |
| 5 3.13.6 New Nuclear (Advanced Light-Water Reactor and Small Modular Reactor) 6 Alternative
| |
| | |
| 7 Impacts from the waste generated during the construction of the new nuclear alternative would 8 include those identified in Section 3.13.5 above, as common to all replacement power 9 alternatives.
| |
| | |
| 10 During normal nuclear power plant operations, routine nuclear power plant maintenance and 11 cleaning activities would generate radioactive low-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, high-level 12 waste, and nonradioactive waste. Sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of this EIS discuss radioactive and 13 nonradioactive waste management at Oconee Station. ALWRs and small modular reactor 14 designs would use the same type of fuel (i.e., form of the fuel, enrichment, burnup, and fuel 15 cladding) as those nuclear power plants considered in the NRC staffs evaluation in the LR 16 GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654). As such, all wastes generated would be similar to those generated 17 at Oconee Station. According to the LR GEIS, the NRC does not expect the generation and 18 management of solid radioactive and nonradioactive waste to result in significant environmental 19 impacts. The NRC staff identified no information or situations that would result in different 20 impacts for this issue during the SLR term. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts 21 on waste from the operation of the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 22 3.13.7 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative
| |
| | |
| 23 Impacts from the waste generated during the construction of the natural gas combined-cycle 24 alternative would include those identified in Section 3.13.5 of this EIS as common to all 25 replacement power alternatives.
| |
| | |
| 26 Waste generation from natural gas technology would be minimal. The only significant waste 27 generated at a natural gas combined-cycle power plant would be spent selective catalytic 28 reduction catalyst (plants use selective catalytic reduction catalyst to control nitrogen oxide 29 emissions).
| |
| | |
| 30 The spent catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Other than the spent selective 31 catalytic reduction catalyst, waste generation at an operating natural gas fired plant would be 32 limited largely to typical operations and maintenance of nonhazardous waste. Based on this 33 information, the NRC staff concludes that the waste impacts for the natural gas combined-cycle 34 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.13.8 Combination Alternative (Solar PV, Offshore Wind, Small Modular Reactor, and 36 Demand-Side Management)
| |
| | |
| 37 Impacts from the waste generated during the construction of the combination alternative would 38 include those identified in Section 3.13.5 of this EIS as common to all replacement power 39 alternatives.
| |
| | |
| 3-196 1 During normal nuclear power plant operations, routine nuclear power plant maintenance and 2 cleaning activities would generate radioactive low-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, high-level 3 waste, and nonradioactive waste. Sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of this EIS discuss radioactive and 4 nonradioactive waste management, respectively, at Oconee Station. Small modular reactor 5 designs would use the same type of fuel (i.e., form of the fuel, enrichment, burnup, and fuel 6 cladding) as those nuclear power plants considered in the NRC staffs evaluation in the LR 7 GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), and as such, all wastes generated would be similar to those 8 generated at Oconee Station. According to the LR GEIS, the NRC does not expect the 9 generation and management of solid radioactive and nonradioactive waste to result in 10 significant environmental impacts. The NRC staff identified no information or situations that 11 would result in different impacts for this issue during the SLR term. Therefore, the NRC staff 12 concludes that the waste impacts for the new nuclear alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 13 The construction of the solar PV facilities would create sanitary and industrial waste, although it 14 would be of smaller quantity compared to the SMR. This waste could be recycled or shipped to 15 an offsite waste disposal facility. All the waste would be handled in accordance with appropriate 16 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) regulations. Impacts on waste 17 management resulting from the construction and operation of the solar PV facilities of the 18 combination alternative would be minimal, and of a smaller quantity, compared to the SMR. In 19 summary, the NRC staff concludes that the waste management impacts resulting from the 20 construction and operation of the PV facilities would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 21 During construction of offshore wind facilities as part of the combination alternative, waste 22 materials or the accidental release of fuels are expected to be negligible because of the very 23 limited amount of vessel traffic and construction activity that might occur with construction, 24 installation, operation, and decommissioning of offshore turbine generators. Therefore, the NRC 25 staff concludes that the waste management impacts would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 26 For the demand-side management component, there may be an increase in wastes generated 27 during installation or implementation of energy conservation measures, such as appropriate 28 disposal of old appliances, installation of control devices, and building modifications. New and 29 existing recycling programs would help minimize the amount of generated waste. The NRC staff 30 concludes that the impacts from the demand-side management portion of this alternative would 31 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 32 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the waste impacts for the combination 33 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 34 3.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 35 This section describes the impacts that the NRC staff considers common to all alternatives 36 discussed in this EIS, including the proposed action and replacement power alternatives. In 37 addition, the following sections discuss termination of operations, the decommissioning of a 38 power plant and potential replacement power facilities, and greenhouse gas emissions.
| |
| | |
| 39 3.14.1 Fuel Cycle
| |
| | |
| 40 This section describes the environmental impacts associated with the fuel cycles of both the 41 proposed action and all replacement power alternatives that are analyzed in detail in this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 3-197 1 3.14.1.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle
| |
| | |
| 2 The following sections address the site-specific environmental impacts of Oconee Station SLR 3 on the environmental issues identified in Table 3-1 that relate to the uranium fuel cycle.
| |
| | |
| 4 Offsite Radiological Impacts- Individual Impacts from Other Than the Disposal of Spent Fuel 5 and High-Level Waste
| |
| | |
| 6 The primary indicators of offsite radiological impacts on individuals who live near uranium fuel 7 cycle facilities are the concentrations of radionuclides in the effluents from the fuel cycle 8 facilities and the radiological doses received by a maximally exposed individual on the site 9 boundary or at some location away from the site boundary. The basis for establishing the 10 significance of individual effects is the comparison of the releases in the effluents and the 11 maximally exposed individual doses with the permissible levels in applicable regulations. The 12 analyses performed by the NRC in the preparation of Table S-3 in 10 CFR Part 51.51 (TN250) 13 indicate that if the facilities operate under a valid license issued by either the NRC or an 14 Agreement State, the individual effects will meet the applicable regulations. Based on these 15 considerations, the NRC has concluded that the impacts on individuals from radioactive 16 gaseous and liquid releases during the SLR term would remain at or below the NRCs 17 regulatory limits. Efforts needed to keep releases and doses ALARA will continue to apply to 18 fuel cycle related activities. The NRC staff identified no information or situations that would 19 result in different impacts for this issue for the SLR term at Oconee Station. Therefore, the NRC 20 staff concludes that offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle (individual effects from 21 sources other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) due to continued nuclear 22 plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 23 Offsite Radiological Impacts-Collective Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent Fuel and 24 High-Level Waste
| |
| | |
| 25 The focus of this issue is the collective radiological doses to and health impacts on the public 26 resulting from uranium fuel cycle facilities over the SLR term. The radiological doses received 27 by the public are calculated based on releases from the uranium fuel cycle facilities to the 28 environment, as provided in Table S-3 (TN250). These estimates were provided in the 1996 29 LR GEIS for the gaseous and liquid releases listed in Table S-3 as well as for radon-222 and 30 technetium-99 releases (Rn-222 and Tc-99), which are not listed in Table S-3. The population 31 dose commitments were normalized for each year of operation of the model nuclear power plant 32 (per reference reactor year).
| |
| | |
| 33 Based on the analyses provided in the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the estimated 34 involuntary 100- year dose commitment to the U.S. population resulting from the radioactive 35 gaseous releases from uranium fuel cycle facilities (excluding the nuclear power plants and 36 releases of Rn-222 and Tc-99) was estimated to be 400 person-rem (4 person-sievert [Sv]) per 37 reference reactor year. Similarly, the environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population 38 from the liquid releases was estimated to be 200 person-rem (2 person-Sv) per reference 39 reactor year. As a result, the total estimated involuntary 100 year dose commitment to the U.S.
| |
| 40 population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases listed in Table S-3 was estimated to be 41 600 person-rem (6 person-Sv) per reference reactor year (see Section 6.2.2 of the 1996 LR 42 GEIS; NRC 1996-TN288).
| |
| | |
| 43 The doses received by most members of the public would be so small that they would be 44 indistinguishable from the variations in natural background radiation. There are no regulatory
| |
| | |
| 3-198 1 limits applicable to collective doses to the public from fuel cycle facilities. All regulatory limits are 2 based on individual doses. All fuel cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the 3 applicable regulatory limits.
| |
| | |
| 4 Based on its consideration of the available information, the Commission concluded that these 5 impacts are acceptable in that they would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA 6 conclusion, for any nuclear power plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR 7 Part 54 (TN4878) should be eliminated. Accordingly, the Commission has not assigned a single 8 level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle. The NRC staff identified no 9 information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for the SLR term.
| |
| 10 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 11 (collective impacts from sources other than the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 12 waste) due to continued nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term 13 would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion that the option of Oconee Station 14 SLR should be eliminated.
| |
| | |
| 15 Nonradiological Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
| |
| | |
| 16 Nonradiological impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle as they relate to license renewal 17 are provided in Table S-3 (TN250). The significance of the environmental impacts associated 18 with land use, water use, fossil fuel use, and chemical effluents were evaluated in the LR GEIS 19 (NRC 2013-TN2654) based on several relative comparisons. The land requirements were 20 compared to those for a coal-fired power plant that could be built to replace the nuclear capacity 21 if the operating license is not renewed. Water requirements for the uranium fuel cycle were 22 compared to the annual requirements for a nuclear power plant. The amount of fossil fuel (coal 23 and natural gas) consumed to produce electrical energy and process heat during the various 24 phases of the uranium fuel cycle was compared to the amount of fossil fuel that would have 25 been used if the electrical output from the nuclear power plant were supplied by a coal-fired 26 plant. Similarly, the gaseous effluents SO2, nitric oxide (NO), hydrocarbons, CO, and other PM 27 released because of the coal-fired electrical energy used in the uranium fuel cycle were 28 compared with equivalent quantities of the same effluents that would be released from a 45 MW 29 electric coal-fired plant. It was noted that the impacts associated with uses of all resources 30 would be SMALL. Any impacts associated with nonradiological liquid releases from the fuel 31 cycle facilities would also be SMALL. The NRC staff identified no information or situations that 32 would result in different impacts for this issue for the SLR term at Oconee Station. Therefore, 33 the NRC staff concludes that the aggregate nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 34 due to continued nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would 35 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 36 Transportation
| |
| | |
| 37 The environmental impacts associated with the transportation of fuel and waste to and from one 38 model nuclear power plant as they relate to license renewal are addressed in Table S-4 (10 39 CFR Part 51-TN250). Table S-4 forms the basis for analysis of the environmental impacts of 40 transportation of fuel and waste when evaluating applications for nuclear power plant license 41 renewal. The applicability of Table S-4 to license renewal applications was extensively 42 evaluated in the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) and its Addendum 1 (NRC 1999-TN289).
| |
| 43 The environmental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste attributable to license 44 renewal were found to be SMALL when they are within the parameters identified in 45 10 CFR 51.52 (TN250). The NRC staff identified no information or situations that would result in 46 different impacts for this issue for the SLR term at Oconee Station and determined that Oconee
| |
| | |
| 3-199 1 Station is within the parameters identified in 10 CFR Part 51.52 (TN250). Therefore, the NRC 2 staff concludes that the transportation impacts of the uranium fuel cycle due to continued 3 nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 4 3.14.1.2 Replacement Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Cycles
| |
| | |
| 5 New Nuclear Energy Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 6 Uranium fuel cycle impacts for a nuclear power plant result from the initial extraction of fuel, 7 transport of fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of spent fuel. The 8 environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are referenced above in Section 3.14.1.1.
| |
| | |
| 9 Fossil Fuel Energy Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 10 Fuel cycle impacts for a fossil fuel-fired power plant result from the initial extraction of fuel, 11 cleaning and processing of fuel, transport of fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate 12 disposal of any solid wastes from fuel combustion. These impacts are discussed in more detail 13 in Section 4.12.1.2 of the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) and can generally include the following:
| |
| 14
| |
| * significant changes to land use and visual resources 15
| |
| * impacts to air quality, including release of criteria pollutants, fugitive dust, volatile organic 16 compounds, and methane into the atmosphere 17
| |
| * noise impacts 18
| |
| * geology and soil impacts caused by land disturbances and mining 19
| |
| * water resource impacts, including degradation of surface water and groundwater quality 20
| |
| * ecological impacts, including loss of habitat and wildlife disturbances 21
| |
| * historic and cultural resources impacts within the mine or pipeline footprint 22
| |
| * socioeconomic impacts from employment of both the mining workforce and service and 23 support industries 24
| |
| * environmental justice impacts 25
| |
| * health impacts to workers from exposure to airborne dust and methane gases 26
| |
| * generation of industrial wastes
| |
| | |
| 27 Renewable Energy Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 28 For renewable energy technologies that rely on the extraction of a fuel source (e.g., biomass),
| |
| 29 such alternatives may have fuel cycle impacts with some similarities to those associated with 30 the uranium fuel cycle. Renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, and 31 wave and ocean energy do not have a fuel cycle comparable to uranium fuel. This is because 32 the natural resource exists (i.e., they are not consumed or irreversibly committed) regardless of 33 any effort to use them for electricity production. Fuel cycle impacts for these renewable energy 34 technologies cannot be determined.
| |
| | |
| 3-200 1 3.14.2 Termination of Plant Operations and Decommissioning
| |
| | |
| 2 This section addresses the environmental impacts of Oconee Station SLR associated with the 3 termination of operations and the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant and replacement 4 power alternatives. All operating nuclear power plants will terminate operations and be 5 decommissioned at some point after the end of their operating life or after a decision is made to 6 cease operations. For the proposed action at Oconee Station, SLR would delay this eventuality 7 for an additional 20 years beyond the current license periods, to end in 2053 (Unit 1),
| |
| 8 2053 (Unit 2), and 2054 (Unit 3).
| |
| | |
| 9 3.14.2.1 Existing Nuclear Power Plant
| |
| | |
| 10 The decommissioning process begins when a licensee informs the NRC that it has permanently 11 ceased reactor operations, defueled, and intends to decommission the nuclear plant. The 12 licensee may also notify the NRC of the permanent cessation of reactor operations prior to the 13 end of the license term. Consequently, most nuclear plant activities and systems dedicated to 14 reactor operations would cease after reactor shutdown. The environmental impacts of 15 decommissioning a nuclear power plant are evaluated NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental 16 Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the 17 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (NRC 2002-TN665). Additionally, 18 Section 4.12.2.1 of the LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) summarizes the incremental 19 environmental impacts associated with nuclear power plant decommissioning activities. As 20 noted in Table 3-1, there is one Category 1 issue, Termination of Plant Operations and 21 Decommissioning, applicable to Oconee Station decommissioning following the SLR term. The 22 LR GEIS did not identify any site-specific (Category 2) decommissioning issues.
| |
| | |
| 23 Termination of Plant Operations and Decommissioning
| |
| | |
| 24 The NRC staff determined that license renewal would have a negligible effect on these impacts 25 of terminating operations and decommissioning on all resources. The NRC staff identified no 26 information or situations that would result in different environmental impacts for this issue for the 27 SLR term at Oconee Station. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the incremental 28 environmental impacts of termination of plant operations and decommissioning due to continued 29 nuclear power plant operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 30 3.14.2.2 Replacement Power Plants
| |
| | |
| 31 New Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 32 The environmental impacts from the termination of power plant operations and 33 decommissioning of a power generating facility are dependent on the facilitys decommissioning 34 plan. Decommissioning plans generally outline the actions needed to restore the site to a 35 condition equivalent in character and value to the site on which the facility was first constructed.
| |
| 36 General elements and requirements for a thermoelectric power plant decommissioning plan can 37 include the removal of structures below grade, the removal of all accumulated waste materials, 38 the removal of intake and discharge structures, and the cleanup and remediation of incidental 39 spills and leaks at the facility.
| |
| | |
| 3-201 1 The environmental consequences of decommissioning can generally include the following:
| |
| 2
| |
| * short-term impacts on air quality and noise from the deconstruction of facility structures 3
| |
| * short-term impacts on land use and visual resources 4
| |
| * long-term reestablishment of vegetation and wildlife communities 5
| |
| * socioeconomic impacts caused by decommissioning the workforce and the long-term loss of 6 jobs 7
| |
| * elimination of health and safety impacts on operating personnel and the general public
| |
| | |
| 8 These impacts are representative of those associated with decommissioning any thermoelectric 9 power generating facility.
| |
| | |
| 10 Activities that are unique to the termination of operations and decommissioning of a nuclear 11 power generating facility include the safe removal of the facility from service and the reduction 12 of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property under restricted conditions 13 or unrestricted use and termination of the license.
| |
| | |
| 14 Renewable Energy Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 15 Termination of power plant operation and decommissioning for renewable energy facilities 16 would generally be similar to the activities and impacts discussed for new nuclear and fossil fuel 17 alternatives above. Decommissioning would involve the removal of facility components and any 18 operational wastes and residues to restore sites to a condition equivalent in character and value 19 to the site on which the facility was first constructed. In other circumstances, supporting 20 infrastructure (e.g., buried utilities and pipelines) could be abandoned in place (NRC 2013-21 TN2654). The range of possible decommissioning considerations and impacts, depending on 22 the renewable energy alternative considered, are discussed in Section 4.12.2.2 of the LR GEIS 23 (see subsection, Renewable Alternatives) (NRC 2013-TN2654). The staff incorporates the 24 information in NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Section 4.12.2.2 (NRC 2013-TN2654: 4-227, 4-228),
| |
| 25 herein by reference.
| |
| | |
| 26 3.14.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
| |
| | |
| 27 The following sections discuss GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Section 3.14.3.1 28 discusses the observed changes in climate and potential future climate change during the SLR 29 term, based on climate model simulations under future global GHG emissions scenarios.
| |
| | |
| 30 3.14.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Project and Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 31 Gases found in the Earths atmosphere that trap heat and play a role in the Earths climate are 32 collectively termed GHGs. These GHGs include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water 33 vapor (H2O), and fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 34 hexafluoride. The Earths climate responds to changes in concentrations of GHGs in the 35 atmosphere because these gases affect the amount of energy absorbed and heat trapped by 36 the atmosphere. Increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere generally increase the 37 Earths surface temperature. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have 38 significantly increased since 1750 (IPCC 2013-TN7434, IPCC 2021-TN7435). In 2019, 39 atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (measured at 410 ppm) were higher than any time in at least 40 2 million years (IPCC 2023-TN8557). Long-lived GHGsCO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated 41 gasesare well mixed throughout the Earths atmosphere, and their impact on climate is long-
| |
| | |
| 3-202 1 lasting and cumulative in nature as a result of their long atmospheric lifetimes (EPA 2016-2 TN7561). Therefore, the extent and nature of climate change is not specific to where GHGs are 3 emitted. Carbon dioxide is of primary concern for global climate change because it is the 4 primary gas emitted as a result of human activities.
| |
| | |
| 5 The sixth assessment synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6 (IPCC) states that [i]t is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, 7 and land (IPCC 2023-TN8557). In 2019, global net GHG emissions were estimated to be 8 59+/-6.6 gigatons of CO2 equivalents (CO2eq), with the largest share in gross GHG emissions 9 being CO2 from fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes (IPCC 2023-TN8557). The EPA 10 has determined that GHGs may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and 11 to endanger public welfare.
| |
| | |
| 12 Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 13 The operation of Oconee Station results in both direct and indirect GHG emissions. Duke 14 Energy has calculated direct (i.e., stationary combustion sources) and indirect (i.e., workforce 15 commuting) GHG emission, which are provided in Table 3-24. Duke Energy does not maintain 16 an inventory of GHG emission resulting from visitors and delivery vehicles (Duke Energy 2021-17 TN8897). Fluorinated gas emissions from refrigerant sources and from electrical transmission 18 and distribution systems can result from leakage, servicing, repair, or disposal of sources. In 19 addition to being GHGs, chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are ozone -depleting 20 substances that are regulated by the Clean Air Act under (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; Clean Air 21 Act-TN1141) Title VI, Stratospheric Ozone Protection. Duke Energy maintains a program to 22 manage stationary refrigeration appliances at Oconee Station to recycle, recapture, and reduce 23 emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Therefore, Table 3-24 below does not account for 24 any potential emissions from stationary refrigeration sources at Oconee Station (Duke Energy 25 2021-TN8897).
| |
| 26 Table 3-24 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions(a) from Operation at Oconee Station 27 Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Year Onsite Combustion Source Workforce Commuting(b) Total 2020 600 5,290 5,890 2021 210 5,290 5,500 2022 265 5,290 5,560 Note: The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reported in metric tons and converted to short tons. All reported values are rounded. To convert tons per year, multiply by 0.90718. Expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq),
| |
| a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. The GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs during a period of time compared to carbon dioxide. CO2eq is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane is 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
| |
| (a) Onsite combustion sources include boiler and generators. Emissions calculated using actual fuel usage and 40 CFR Part 98 (TN2170) emission factors. Values are rounded up.
| |
| (b) Emissions account for 1,068 passenger vehicles per day based on Oconee Station permanent full-time employees and 495 contingent non-outage workers (1,117) and a 4.4 percent carpool rate. Values are rounded up.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2023-TN8952.
| |
| | |
| 3-203 1 No-Action Alternative
| |
| | |
| 2 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue subsequent renewed licenses, and 3 Oconee Station would permanently shut down on or before the expiration of the current 4 renewed licenses. At some point, all nuclear power plants will terminate operations and undergo 5 decommissioning. The decommissioning GEIS (NUREG-0586) (NRC 2002-TN665) considers 6 the environmental impacts of decommissioning. Therefore, the scope of impacts considered 7 under the no-action alternative includes the immediate impacts resulting from activities at 8 Oconee Station that would occur between nuclear power plant shutdown and the beginning of 9 decommissioning (i.e., activities and actions necessary to cease operation of Oconee Station).
| |
| 10 Facility operations would terminate at before the expiration of the current renewed licenses.
| |
| 11 When the facility stops operating, a reduction in GHG emissions from activities related to 12 nuclear power plant operation, such as the use of generators and employee vehicles would 13 occur. The NRC staff anticipates that GHG emissions for the no-action alternative would be less 14 than those presented in Table 3-24 which shows the estimated direct GHG emissions from 15 operation of Oconee Station and associated mobile emissions.
| |
| | |
| 16 New Nuclear Alternative (Small Modular Reactors)
| |
| | |
| 17 The LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) presents life-cycle GHG emissions associated with nuclear 18 power generation. As presented in Tables 4.12-4 through 4.12-6 of the LR GEIS, life-cycle GHG 19 emissions from nuclear power generation can range from 1 to 288 grams carbon equivalent per 20 kilowatt-hour (g Ceq/kWh). Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels to generate electricity.
| |
| 21 Sources of GHG emissions for the small modular reactor portion of the new nuclear alternative 22 would include diesel generators, boilers, and gas turbines, similar to existing sources at Oconee 23 Station (NRC 2019-TN6136). In NUREG-2226, the NRC estimated the total carbon footprint as 24 a result of operating two or more small modular reactors with a maximum total electrical output 25 of 800 MWe (NRC 2019-TN6136). In Section 5.7.1.2, of NUREG-2226 (p. 5-45) the NRC 26 estimated that the carbon footprint for operations for 40 years is 199,500 tons of CO2eq 27 (181,000 MT) or 4,990 tons of CO2eq annually (4,525 MT). Therefore, the NRC staff estimates 28 that operating a 400 MWe small modular reactor would emit approximately 2,500 tons of CO2eq 29 annually (2,270 MT). In NUREG-2111, the NRC estimated the total carbon footprint as a result 30 of operating two ALWR units with a total net electrical output capacity of 2,234 MWe at the 31 W.S. Lee Nuclear Station site (NRC 2013-TN6435). In Section 5.7.2.2 of NUREG-2111 32 (pp. 5-66 through 5-67), the NRC estimated that the carbon footprint for 40 years of operation of 33 two 2,234-MWe ALWRs would be 418,900 tons/year of CO2eq (380,000 MT) or 10,500 tons per 34 year of CO2eq (9,500-MT/year). The NRC staff incorporates the analysis in Section 5.7.2.2 of 35 NUREG-2111 (pp. 5-66 through 5-67) herein by reference. Therefore, operation of the new 36 nuclear alternative, which would consist of a 400 MWe small modular reactor and two ALWR 37 units providing 2,234 MWe of generating capacity, would emit 13,000 tons/year of CO2eq 38 (11,800 MT/year).
| |
| | |
| 39 Natural Gas Alternative (Natural Gas Combined-Cycle)
| |
| | |
| 40 The LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) presents life-cycle GHG emissions associated with natural 41 gas power generation. As presented in Table 4.12-5 of the LR GEIS, life-cycle GHG emissions 42 from natural gas can range from 120 to 930 g Ceq/kWh. Using emission factors developed by 43 the U.S. Department of Energys National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL 2019-TN7484),
| |
| 44 the NRC staff estimates that direct emissions from the operation of six 500 MWe natural gas 45 combined-cycle units would total 10.5 million tons (9.5 million MT) of CO2eq per year.
| |
| | |
| 3-204 1 Combination Alternative
| |
| | |
| 2 For the combination alternative, GHGs would primarily be emitted from the new nuclear portion.
| |
| 3 The NRC staff estimates that direct GHG emissions from the combination alternative would total 4 7,500 tons/year of CO2eq (6,800 MT/year).
| |
| | |
| 5 Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Action and Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 6 Table 3-25 below presents the direct GHG emissions from facility operations under the 7 proposed action of SLR and alternatives to the proposed action. The GHG emissions from the 8 natural gas combined-cycle alternative are several orders of magnitude greater than those from 9 continued operation of Oconee Station, the new nuclear alternative, or combination alternatives.
| |
| 10 If Oconee Stations generating capacity were to be replaced by the NGCC alternative, there 11 would be an increase in GHG emissions. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the continued 12 operation of Oconee Station (the proposed action) results in GHG emissions avoidance as 13 compared to the natural gas combined-cycle alternative. However, the proposed action, the 14 no-action alternative, the new nuclear alternative, and the combination alternative would have 15 similar and comparable GHG emissions. If Oconee Stations generating capacity were to be 16 replaced by either the new nuclear alternative or the combination alternative, there would be no 17 significant increase in GHG emissions.
| |
| | |
| 18 Table 3-25 Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Facility Operations Under the 19 Proposed Action and Alternatives Technology/Alternative CO2eq(a) (tons/year)
| |
| Proposed Action (Oconee Station SLR)(b) 600 No-Action Alternative(c) <600 New Nuclear 13,000 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle(d) 10.5 million Combination Alternative(e) 7,500 CO2eq = carbon dioxide equivalent; SLR = subsequent license renewal.
| |
| Note: All reported values are rounded. To convert tons per year to metric tons per year, multiply by 0.90718.
| |
| (a) CO2eq is a metric used to compare the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) based on their global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere. The GWP is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time compared to carbon dioxide. CO2eq is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP of methane is 21; therefore, 1 ton of methane emission is equivalent to 21 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
| |
| (b) GHG emissions include direct emissions from onsite combustion sources. Highest value presented in Table 3-24 was used.
| |
| (c) Emissions resulting from activities at Oconee Station that would occur between nuclear power plant shutdown and the beginning of decommissioning and assumed not to be greater than greenhouse gas emissions from operation at Oconee Station.
| |
| (d) Emissions from direct combustion of natural gas. GHG emissions estimated using emission factors developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOEs) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) (NETL 2019-TN7484).
| |
| (e) Emissions primarily from the new nuclear portion and scaled from 400-MWe small modular reactor (SMR) under the New Nuclear Alternative.
| |
| | |
| 20 3.14.3.2 Climate Change
| |
| | |
| 21 Climate change is the decades or longer change in climate measurements (e.g., temperature 22 and precipitation) that has been observed on a global, national, and regional level (IPCC 2007-23 TN7421; EPA 2016-TN7561; USGCRP 2014-TN3472). Climate change research indicates that 24 the cause of the Earths warming over the last 50 to 100 years is due to the buildup of GHGs in
| |
| | |
| 3-205 1 the atmosphere resulting from human activities IPCC 2013-TN7434, IPCC 2021-TN7435; IPCC 2 2023-TN8557; USGCRP 2014-TN3472, USGCRP 2017-TN5848, USGCRP 2018-TN5847).
| |
| | |
| 3 Observed Trends in Climate Change Indicators
| |
| | |
| 4 Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50 year period 5 over at least the last 2,000 years (IPCC 2023-TN8557). On a global level, from 1901 to 2016, 6 the average temperature has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) (USGCRP 2018-TN5847). Since 1901, 7 precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 in. (0.0.1 cm) per decade on a global level 8 (EPA 2022-TN9163). The USGCRP reports that from 1901 to 2016, average surface 9 temperatures have increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) across the contiguous United States (USGCRP 10 2018-TN5847). Since 1901, average annual precipitation has increased by 4 percent across the 11 United States (USGCRP 2018-TN5847). Observed climate change indicators across the United 12 States include increases in the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation, earlier onset of 13 spring snowmelt and runoff, rise of sea level and increased tidal flooding in coastal areas, an 14 increased occurrence of heat waves, and a decrease in the occurrence of cold waves. Since the 15 1980s, data show an increase in the length of the frost-free season (i.e., the period between the 16 last occurrence of 32°F (0°C) in the spring and first occurrence of 32°F (0°C) in the fall), across 17 the contiguous United States. Over the period 1991 through 2011, the average frost-free season 18 was 10 days longer (relative to the 1901 through 1960 time period) (USGCRP 2014-TN3472).
| |
| 19 Over just the past two decades, the number of high-temperature records observed in the United 20 States has far exceeded the number of low-temperature records (USGCRP 2018-TN5847).
| |
| 21 Since the 1980s, the intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes have 22 increased (USGCRP 2014-TN3472). The Southeast is one of the few places in the world where 23 there has not been an overall increase in daily maximum temperatures since 1900 (NOAA 24 2013-TN7424; USGCRP 2018-TN5847). However, since the early 1960s, the southeast has 25 been warming at a similar rate as the rest of the United States and has been accompanied by 26 an increase in the number of hot days with maximum temperatures higher than 95°F (35°C) in 27 the daytime and higher than 75°F (23.9°C) in the night-time (NOAA 2013-TN7424; USGCRP 28 2009-TN18, USGCRP 2014-TN3472, USGCRP 2018-TN5847). Average annual precipitation 29 data for the southeast region does not exhibit an increasing or decreasing trend overall for the 30 long-term period (1895-2011) (NOAA 2013-TN7424). Precipitation in the southeast region 31 varies considerably throughout the seasons, and average precipitation has generally increased 32 in the fall and decreased in the summer (NOAA 2013-TN7424; USGCRP 2009-TN18).
| |
| | |
| 33 The NRC staff used the NOAA Climate at a Glance tool to analyze temperature and 34 precipitation trends for the 1895-2021 period in South Carolinas Northwest Climate Division 35 (Climate Division No. 2). A trend analysis shows that the average annual temperature has 36 increased at a rate of 0.1°F (0.06°C) per decade, while annual precipitation has decreased at a 37 rate of 0.15 in. (38.1 cm) per decade (NOAA NCEI 2021-TN6902; NOAA NCEI 2021-TN6903).
| |
| | |
| 38 Climate Change Projections
| |
| | |
| 39 Future global GHG emission concentrations (emission scenarios) and climate models are 40 commonly used to project possible climate change. Climate models indicate that during the next 41 few decades, temperature increases will continue because of current GHG emission 42 concentrations in the atmosphere (USGCRP 2014-TN3472). This increase is because it takes 43 time for Earths climate system to respond to changes in GHG concentrations. If GHG 44 concentrations were to stabilize at current levels, this would still result in at least an additional 45 1.1°F (0.6°C) of warming over this century (USGCRP 2018-TN5847). During the longer term, 46 the magnitude of temperature increases and climate change effects will depend on future global
| |
| | |
| 3-206 1 GHG emissions (IPCC 2021-TN7435; USGCRP 2009-TN18, USGCRP 2014-TN3472, 2 USGCRP 2018-TN5847). Climate model simulations often use GHG emission scenarios to 3 represent possible future social, economic, technological, and demographic development that, 4 in turn, drive future emissions. Consequently, the GHG emission scenarios, their supporting 5 assumptions, and the projections of possible climate change effects entail substantial 6 uncertainty.
| |
| | |
| 7 The IPCC has generated various representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios 8 commonly used by climate modeling groups to project future climate conditions (IPCC 2000-9 TN7652, IPCC 2013-TN7434; USGCRP 2017-TN5848, USGCRP 2018-TN5847). For instance, 10 the A2 scenario is representative of a high-emission scenario under which GHG emissions 11 continue to rise during the 21st century from 40 gigatons (GT) of CO2eq per year in 2000 to 12 140 GT of CO2eq per year by 2100. The B1 scenario, on the other hand, is representative of a 13 low-emission scenario in which emissions rise from 40 GT of CO2eq per year in 2000, to 50 GT 14 of CO2eq per year mid-century before falling to 30 GT of CO2eq per year by 2100 (IPCC 2000-15 TN7652; USGCRP 2014-TN3472). In the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, four RCPs were 16 developed and are based on predicted changes in radiative forcing (a measure of the influence 17 that a factor, such as GHG emissions, has in changing the global balance of incoming and 18 outgoing energy) in the year 2100, relative to preindustrial conditions. The four RCPs are 19 numbered in accordance with the change in radiative forcing measured in watts per square 20 meter (W/m2) (i.e., +2.6 [very low], +4.5 [lower], +6.0 [mid-high], and +8.5 [higher]) (USGCRP 21 2018-TN5847). For example, RCP 2.6 is representative of a mitigation scenario aimed at 22 limiting the increase of global mean temperature to 1.1°F (2°C) (IPCC 2014-TN7651). The 23 RCP 8.5 reflects a continued increase in global emissions resulting in increased warming by 24 2100. The Fourth National Climate Assessment relies on the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 25 four RCPs (USGCRP 2018-TN5847). In the IPCC Working Group contribution to the Sixth 26 Assessment Report, five shared socioeconomic pathways are used and associated modeling 27 results as the basis for their climate change assessments (IPCC 2021-TN7435. These five 28 scenarios cover a range of greenhouse pathways and climate change mitigation.
| |
| | |
| 29 Because the effects of climate change can vary regionally, climate change information at the 30 regional and local scale is necessary to assess the impacts on the human environment for a 31 specific location. Therefore, the NRC staff considered the best available climate change studies 32 performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and partner agencies as 33 part of the staffs assessment of potential changes in climate indicators during the Oconee 34 Station SLR terms (2033-2053 for Units 1 and 2, and 2034-2054 for Unit 3). Reports from the 35 USGCRP and partner agencies provide projected changes in temperature precipitation patterns, 36 and other climate outcomes on a regional level. The results of these studies are summarized 37 below.
| |
| | |
| 38 As input to the Third National Climate Assessment report (USGCRP 2014-TN3472, NOAA 39 analyzed future regional climate change scenarios based on climate model simulations using 40 the high (A2) and low (B1) emission scenarios (NOAA 2013-TN7424). NOAAs climate model 41 simulations (for the period between 2021 and 2050) relative to the reference period (1971-42 1999), indicate the following. Annual mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.5-2.5°F 43 (0.83-1.3°C) across the majority of the southeast region under the low and high emission 44 modeled scenario, with South Carolina in the lower end of the range (NOAA 2013-45 TN7424: Fig. 26). For the period between 2041 and 2070, annual mean temperature is 46 projected to increase by 1.5-3.5°F (0.83-1.9°C) across the majority of the southeast region 47 under the low emission modeled scenario and by 2.5-4.5°F (1.4-2.5°C) under high emission 48 scenario.
| |
| | |
| 3-207 1 Newer regional projections for annual mean temperature are available from the Fourth National 2 Climate Assessment based on the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios for the mid-century (2036-3 2065) as compared to the average for 1976-2005. The modeling predicts increases of 3.4-4 4.3°F (1.9-2.4°C) across the Southeast region by mid-century (USGCRP 2017-TN5848:
| |
| 5 Table 6.4). Specific to the portion encompassing South Carolina, predicted annual temperature 6 increases range from 2-4°F (1.1-2.2°C) under the RCP 4.5 scenario and RCP 8.5 scenario 7 (USGCRP 2017-TN5848: Fig, 6.7).
| |
| | |
| 8 As for precipitation, the climate model simulations suggest spatial differences in annual mean 9 precipitation change across the southeast with some areas experiencing an increase and others 10 a decrease in precipitation, but generally models increase in the north and east and decreases 11 in the south and west parts of the region. For the period 2021-2050, a 0 to 3 percent increase in 12 annual mean precipitation is projected for a low-emission modeled scenario across South 13 Carolina; however, under a high-emission modeled scenario, models do not agree on the 14 change in precipitation across South Carolina. For the period 2041-2070, a 0 to 3 percent 15 increase in annual mean precipitation is projected for both a low- and high-emission modeled 16 scenario across South Carolina. The USGCRP predicts continued increases in the frequency 17 and intensity of heavy or extreme precipitation events across the United States, including across 18 the southeast region (USGCRP 2014-TN3472, USGCRP 2017-TN5848, USGCRP 2018-19 TN5847). For the southeast region, models predict a 9 percent average increase in extreme 20 precipitation (representing change in the 20 year return period amount for daily precipitation) 21 under the lower RCP 4.5 scenario and up to 12 percent under the higher RCP 8.5 scenario by 22 mid-century (USGCRP 2017-TN5848: Fig. 7.7).
| |
| | |
| 23 The effects of climate change on Oconee Station SSCs are outside the scope of the NRC staffs 24 license renewal environmental review. The environmental review documents the potential 25 effects from continued nuclear power plant operation on the environment. Site-specific 26 environmental conditions are considered when siting nuclear power plants. This includes the 27 consideration of meteorological and hydrologic siting criteria as set forth in 10 CFR Part 100, 28 Reactor Site Criteria (TN282). NRC regulations require that nuclear power plant SSCs 29 important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as flooding, 30 without loss of capability to perform safety functions. Further, nuclear power plants are required 31 to operate within technical safety specifications in accordance with the NRC operating license, 32 including coping with natural phenomena hazards. The NRC conducts safety reviews before 33 allowing licensees to make operational changes caused by changing environmental conditions.
| |
| 34 Additionally, the NRC evaluates nuclear power plant operating conditions and physical 35 infrastructures to ensure ongoing safe operations under the nuclear power plants initial and 36 renewed operating licenses through the NRCs Reactor Oversight Program. If new information 37 about changing environmental conditions (such as rising sea levels that threaten safe operating 38 conditions or challenge compliance with the nuclear power plants technical specifications) 39 becomes available, the NRC will evaluate the new information to determine if any safety-related 40 changes are needed at licensed nuclear power plants.
| |
| | |
| 41 Nonetheless, changes in climate could have broad implications for certain resource areas. As 42 discussed below, the NRC staff considers the impacts of climate change on environmental 43 resources that are incrementally affected by the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 44 Air Quality: Climate change can impact air quality as a result of changes in meteorological 45 conditions. The formation, transport, dispersion, and deposition of air pollutants depend, in part, 46 on weather conditions (IPCC 2007-TN7421). Ozone is particularly sensitive to climate change 47 (IPCC 2007-TN7421; EPA 2009-TN9068). Ozone is formed by the chemical reaction of nitrogen
| |
| | |
| 3-208 1 oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of heat and sunlight. Sunshine, high 2 temperatures, and air stagnation are favorable meteorological conditions for higher levels of 3 ozone (IPCC 2007-TN7421; EPA 2009-TN9068). The emission of ozone precursors also 4 depends on temperature, wind, and solar radiation (IPCC 2007-TN7421). According to the EPA, 5 both nitrogen oxide and biogenic volatile organic compound emissions are expected to be 6 higher in a warmer climate (EPA 2009-TN9068). Although surface temperatures are expected to 7 increase in the Southeast region of the United States, this may not necessarily result in an 8 increase in ozone. While some climate models project seasonal, short-term increases of ozone 9 concentrations during summer months in the Southeast United States (e.g., Wu et al. 2007-10 TN8566), others (e.g., Tao et al. 2007-TN8567; Nolte et al. 2018-TN8571; Meehl et al. 2018-11 TN8574) found differences in future changes in ozone for the southeast with decreases in 12 ozone concentrations under a low emission modeled scenario, increases under a high emission 13 modeled scenario, or decreases in ozone on heat wave days. Among modeled studies of 14 climate-related ozone changes, model simulations for the southeast region have the least 15 consensus. Therefore, the potential impact on air quality ozone levels in the vicinity of Oconee 16 Station caused by climate change is unknown.
| |
| | |
| 17 Water Quality: The USGCRP projects that water demand across South Carolina will increase by 18 25 to 50 percent by 2060, relative to 2005, based on combined changes in population, 19 socioeconomic conditions, and climate (USGCRP 2014-TN3472, Figure 3.11). Elevated surface 20 water temperatures can decrease the cooling efficiency of thermoelectric power generating 21 facilities and nuclear power plant capacity. Therefore, as intake water temperatures warm, the 22 volume of surface water needed for nuclear power plant cooling can increase or plant 23 efficiencies can decrease (USGCRP 2014-TN3472, USGCRP 2018-TN5847: Figure 4.1). Since 24 1958, heavy precipitation (i.e., the amount of annual precipitation falling in the heaviest 1 25 percent of events) has increased by an average of 27 percent across the southeast region 26 (USGCRP 2018-TN5847: Fig. 2.6). Observed increases in heavy precipitation events are 27 projected to continue across the southeast, including South Carolina. Increases in annual 28 precipitation and heavy precipitation events can result in greater runoff from the land while 29 increasing the potential for riverine flooding. In turn, these changes can result in the transport of 30 a higher sediment load and other contaminants to surface waters with potential degradation of 31 ambient water quality. Regulatory agencies would need to account for changes in water 32 availability in their water resources allocation and environmental permitting programs.
| |
| 33 Regardless of water use permitting constraints, nuclear power plant operators would have to 34 account for any changes in water temperature in operational practices and procedures.
| |
| | |
| 35 3.15 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 36 Actions considered in the cumulative effects (impacts) analysis include the proposed SLR action 37 when added to the environmental effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 38 actions. The analysis considers all actions including minor ones, because the effects of 39 individually minor actions may be significant when considered collectively over a period of time.
| |
| 40 The goal of the cumulative effects analysis is to identify potentially significant impacts. The 41 environmental effects of the proposed SLR action when combined with the effects of other 42 actions could result in a cumulative impact.
| |
| | |
| 43 The cumulative effects or impacts analysis only considers resources and environmental 44 conditions that could be affected by the proposed license renewal action, including the effects of 45 continued reactor operations during the SLR term and any refurbishment activities at a nuclear 46 power plant. In order for there to be a cumulative effect, the proposed action (SLR) must have
| |
| | |
| 3-209 1 an incremental new, additive, or increased physical effect or impact on the resource or 2 environmental condition beyond what is already occurring.
| |
| | |
| 3 For the purposes of analysis, past and present actions include all actions that have occurred 4 since the commencement of reactor operations up to the submittal of the SLR request. Older 5 actions are accounted for in baseline assessments presented in the affected environment 6 discussions in Sections 3.2 through 3.13. The timeframe for the consideration of reasonably 7 foreseeable future actions is the 20-year SLR term. Reasonably foreseeable future actions 8 include current and ongoing planned activities through the end of the period of extended 9 operation.
| |
| | |
| 10 The incremental effects of the proposed action (SLR) when added to the effects from past, 11 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and other actions (including trends such as 12 global climate change) result in the overall cumulative effect. A qualitative cumulative effects 13 analysis is conducted in instances where the incremental effects of the proposed action (SLR) 14 and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are uncertain or not well known.
| |
| | |
| 15 Information from Duke Energys ER (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897); responses to requests for 16 additional information; information from other Federal, State, and local agencies; scoping 17 comments; and information gathered during the environmental site audit at Oconee Station 18 were used to identify past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the cumulative 19 effects analysis.
| |
| | |
| 20 The following sections discuss the cumulative effects on the environmental near Oconee Station 21 when the incremental environmental effects of the proposed license renewal action are 22 compounded by the effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
| |
| 23 For the most part, environmental conditions near Oconee Station are not expected to change 24 appreciably during the SLR term beyond what is already being experienced. Consequently, no 25 cumulative impacts analysis was performed for the following resource areas: land use, noise, 26 geology and soils, terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and historic and cultural resources.
| |
| | |
| 27 Appendix E describes other actions, including new and continuing activities and specific projects 28 that were identified during this environmental review and considered in the analysis of potential 29 cumulative impacts.
| |
| | |
| 30 3.15.1 Air Quality
| |
| | |
| 31 The ROI in the cumulative air quality analysis consists of Oconee and Pickens Counties, where 32 the Oconee Station site is located, because air quality designations in South Carolina are made 33 at the County level. Duke Energy has not proposed any refurbishment related activities during 34 the SLR term. As a result, air emissions from the nuclear power plant during the SLR term 35 would be similar to those presented in Section 3.3. Consequently, cumulative changes to air 36 quality in Oconee and Pickens Counties would be the result of future projects and actions that 37 change present-day emissions within the counties, unrelated to the proposed action (SLR).
| |
| 38 Therefore, based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would 39 have no cumulative effect on air quality beyond what is already being experienced.
| |
| | |
| 40 Development activities identified in Appendix E could increase air emissions during their 41 respective construction periods, but those air emissions would be temporary and localized.
| |
| | |
| 3-210 1 Operation of existing facilities result in vehicular traffic and long-term air emissions. Fossil fuel 2 energy facilities (e.g., W.S. Lee Nuclear Station, John S. Rainey Generating Station) can be 3 significant sources of air emissions.
| |
| | |
| 4 3.15.2 Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 5 3.15.2.1 Surface Water Resources
| |
| | |
| 6 The description of the affected environment in Section 3.5.1, Surface Water Resources, 7 serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts assessment for surface water resources.
| |
| 8 Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 withdraw cooling water from Lake Keowee and discharges 9 return flows and comingled effluents back to the lake. As such, this cumulative impact review 10 focuses on those projects and activities where water uses or effluent discharges to Lake 11 Keowee, which is owned and managed by Duke Energy.
| |
| | |
| 12 Water Use Considerations
| |
| | |
| 13 With its once-through cooling system design (see Section 2.1.3), Oconee Station returns all but 14 a small fraction of the water withdrawn for condenser and auxiliary cooling back to Lake 15 Keowee. Duke Energy has not proposed to increase Oconee Stations surface water 16 withdrawals or consumptive water use during the SLR term. In addition, Oconee Stations 17 withdrawals from Lake Keowee are subject to the provisions of a Surface Water Withdrawal 18 Permit, issued by the SCDHEC, as described in Section 3.5.1.2. Duke Energy would need to 19 seek a permit modification from the State to increase Oconee Stations surface water 20 withdrawals or consumptive water use during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 21 Further, the SCDHECs surface water quantity permitting program (SCDHEC 2022-TN9069) 22 governs the registration and permitting of withdrawal and uses of surface water from within the 23 State of South Carolina and those surface waters shared with adjacent states. It applies to 24 entities withdrawing surface water in excess of 3 million gallons (11.4 million L) in any 1 month.
| |
| | |
| 25 Lake Keowee was created to provide cooling water for Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3 and to 26 operate Keowee Hydro Station, part of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project (see 27 Appendix E, Table E-1). Duke Energy operates the project, including Lake Keowee in 28 accordance with a license issued by FERC (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897) (see Section 3.2.1.1 of 29 this EIS).
| |
| | |
| 30 To manage the resources of the area and to ensure that Oconee Stations source of cooling 31 water is secure, Duke Energy manages development around the lake through a property use 32 permit process. This process covers construction or maintenance activities, such as installation 33 of residential docks, facilities construction, modification and maintenance of existing structures, 34 and modification or maintenance of existing shoreline stabilization. Similarly, Lake Jocassee, 35 located upstream of Oconee Station, which is also owned and operated by Duke Energy. The 36 spillway of the lake flows into the Keowee River and Lake Keowee. Duke Energy maintains a 37 shoreline management plan for both lakes that in part regulates where future construction 38 activities may be considered. Lake Hartwell is downstream from the Oconee Station facility 39 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Lake Hartwell reservoir is located south (downstream) of Oconee 40 Station and receives flow from Lake Keowee. Lake Hartwell is owned and managed by the 41 USACE (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897; USACE 2023-TN9070).
| |
| | |
| 3-211 1 The watershed of Lake Keowee provides raw water supply to three municipalities, including the 2 City of Greenville, the Town of Seneca, and the City of Walhalla (beginning in March 2021) and 3 takes its raw water supplies from Lake Keowee (see Appendix E, Table E-1). Greenvilles water 4 intake is located approximately 2 mi (3 km) north of Oconee Station on Lake Keowee. Senecas 5 intake is located approximately 7 mi (11 km) south of the nuclear power plant on the Little River 6 arm of Lake Keowee (Duke Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). The City of 7 Walhallas new intake is also located approximately 7 mi (11 km) south of Oconee Station on 8 Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 9 Any future conflicts regarding water availability within the watersheds of the Keowee-Toxaway 10 Hydroelectric Project would depend on the owners and operators of the permitted and licensed 11 facilities for resolution. These facilities are subject to the regulatory authority of the State of 12 South Carolina and other entities with jurisdiction over desired and beneficial uses of the 13 affected waters.
| |
| | |
| 14 No new or proposed projects (see Appendix E, Table E-1) with the potential to substantially 15 impact surface water withdrawals or consumptive water use within the watershed of Lake 16 Keowee where Oconee Station is located were identified during the review. Therefore, based on 17 this information, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no cumulative 18 effect on surface water use beyond what is already being experienced.
| |
| | |
| 19 Water Quality Considerations
| |
| | |
| 20 Ambient water quality within the waters of the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project is the 21 product of past and present activities (e.g., water withdrawals, effluent discharges, and 22 accidental spills and releases) associated with urban development, industrial and commercial 23 development, agricultural practices, and shoreline development.
| |
| | |
| 24 Future development and facility operational changes can result in water quality degradation if 25 those projects increase sediment loading and the discharge of other pollutants to nearby 26 surface water bodies, including Lake Keowee. As described above, the State, Duke Energy, 27 FERC, and the USACE have regulatory and planning processes in place to manage 28 development within the affected watersheds. Appendix E, Table E-1 lists a number of ongoing 29 and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact surface water quality in the 30 watersheds that drain to Lake Keowee.
| |
| | |
| 31 On an individual facility basis, Stateissued permits (i.e., the NPDES permit process in South 32 Carolina) under CWA Section 402 set limits on wastewater, stormwater associated with 33 construction and industrial activity, and other point source discharges. Specific to Oconee 34 Station, Duke Energys proposed implementation of thermal recapture uprates of 1.64 percent 35 for each nuclear unit, if approved by the NRC, could increase the temperature of cooling water 36 return flows to Lake Keowee. However, Duke Energy would still be required to meet the 37 temperature limits specified in Oconee Stations NPDES individual permit, as described in 38 Section 3.5.1.3.
| |
| | |
| 39 In summary, a substantial regulatory framework exists to address current and potential future 40 sources of water quality degradation within the watershed of the Keowee-Toxaway 41 Hydroelectric Project with respect to potential cumulative impacts on surface water quality.
| |
| 42 Therefore, based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would 43 have no cumulative effect on surface water quality beyond what is already being experienced.
| |
| | |
| 3-212 1 3.15.2.2 Groundwater Resources
| |
| | |
| 2 Section 3.5.2, Groundwater Resources, describes regional groundwater water systems and 3 water use. As discussed, onsite groundwater use includes groundwater withdrawn around the 4 nuclear power plants standby shutdown facility and operation of a groundwater remediation 5 system. Groundwater is withdrawn at an average rate of approximately 20 gpm (76 Lpm) from 6 the aquifer by the onsite drawdown system. The groundwater remediation system with one 7 recovery well began in February 2011. Between 2011 and 2016, just more than 25 million 8 gallons of groundwater (less than approximately 10 gpm (38 Lpm)) have been extracted from 9 the recovery well. This remedial system will cease operation as the tritium concentrations 10 continue to decrease and when the remedial objective is achieved. Onsite groundwater use is 11 not expected to increase significantly during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 12 As discussed in Section 3.5.3, the impact of current nuclear power plant operations and 13 groundwater withdrawals on the aquifer is considered to be SMALL and no new and significant 14 information was identified to indicate the possibility of groundwater use conflicts during the 15 renewal term. There are no known current or planned projects in addition to SLR requiring 16 groundwater withdrawals in the vicinity of Oconee Station that, if implemented, would potentially 17 cause an adverse impact on groundwater use and quality.
| |
| | |
| 18 Section 3.5.3 also addressed the impact of past and future operation of the Oconee Station 19 Units 1, 2, and 3 site on groundwater quality. Oconee Station has implemented a groundwater 20 protection program to identify and monitor leaks through the installed monitoring well network.
| |
| 21 The NRC has determined that the groundwater protection program is robust enough that 22 potential future releases into groundwater, while not expected, would likely be readily detected.
| |
| 23 In addition, there are currently no known water supply wells downgradient of Oconee Station 24 (within a 2 mi [3.2 km] radius). Therefore, during the period of continued operations, there is 25 unlikely significant impacts on the groundwater quality in onsite and offsite aquifers.
| |
| | |
| 26 Therefore, based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would 27 have no cumulative effect on groundwater use and quality beyond what is already being 28 experienced.
| |
| | |
| 29 3.15.3 Socioeconomics
| |
| | |
| 30 As discussed in Section 3.10.7 continued operation of Oconee Station during the SLR term 31 would have no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region beyond what is already being 32 experienced. Duke Energy has no planned activities at Oconee Station beyond continued 33 reactor operations and maintenance.
| |
| | |
| 34 Because Duke Energy has no plans to hire additional workers during the SLR term, overall 35 expenditures and employment levels at Oconee Station would remain unchanged with no new 36 or increased demand for housing and public services. Therefore, the only contributory effects 37 would come from reasonably foreseeable future planned operational activities at Oconee 38 Station and other planned offsite activities, unrelated to the proposed action (SLR). When 39 combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, the NRC staff 40 concludes that the proposed action would have no new or increased cumulative effect beyond 41 what is already being experienced.
| |
| | |
| 3-213 1 3.15.4 Human Health
| |
| | |
| 2 The NRC and EPA have established radiological dose limits to protect the public and workers 3 from both acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. These dose 4 limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283) and 40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Radiation 5 Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (TN739). As discussed in Section 3.11.6, 6 Human Health, of this EIS, the impacts on human health from continued nuclear power plant 7 operations during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 8 For the purposes of this cumulative impact analysis, the geographical area considered is the 9 area within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of Oconee Station. There are no other operational nuclear 10 power plants within this 50 mi (80 km) radius. As discussed in Section 2.1.4.4, Radioactive 11 Waste Storage, of this EIS, Duke Energy stores spent nuclear fuel from Oconee Station in a 12 storage pool and in an onsite ISFSI. Per the Oconee Station ER, the ISFSI may need to be 13 expanded during the SLR period of extended operation. If the ISFSI expansion were needed, it 14 is expected that there is enough land area available for expansion within the site boundary of 15 the existing facility (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 16 The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739) limit the dose to members of the public from 17 all sources in the nuclear fuel cycle, including nuclear power plants, fuel fabrication facilities, 18 waste disposal facilities, and transportation of fuel and waste. As discussed in Section 2.1.4.5 in 19 this EIS, Duke Energy has a radiological environmental monitoring program that measures 20 radiation and radioactive materials in the environment from Oconee Station, its ISFSI, and all 21 other sources. The NRC staff reviewed the radiological environmental monitoring results for the 22 5-year period from 2018 through 2022 as part of this cumulative impacts assessment (Duke 23 Energy 2019-TN8943, Duke Energy 2020-TN8944, Duke Energy 2021-TN8945, Duke Energy 24 2022-TN8946, Duke Energy 2023-TN8947). The review of Duke Energys data showed no 25 indication of an adverse trend in radioactivity levels in the environment from either Oconee 26 Station or the ISFSI. The data showed that there was no measurable impact on the environment 27 from operations at Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 28 Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant 29 cumulative radiological effect on human health resulting from the proposed action (SLR), in 30 combination with the cumulative effects from other sources. This conclusion is based on the 31 review of radiological environmental monitoring program data, radioactive effluent release data, 32 worker dose data; and the expectation that Oconee Station would continue to comply with 33 Federal radiation protection standards during the period of extended operation; and the 34 continued regulation of any future development or actions in the vicinity of Oconee Station by 35 the NRC and the State of South Carolina.
| |
| | |
| 36 3.15.5 Environmental Justice
| |
| | |
| 37 This cumulative impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionate and adverse human 38 health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from 39 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the continued operational 40 effects of Oconee Station during the SLR term. Everyone living near Oconee Station, including 41 minority and low-income populations, currently experience its operational effects. The NRC 42 addresses environmental justice by identifying the location of minority and low-income 43 populations, determining whether there would be any potential human health or environmental 44 effects, and whether any of the effects may be disproportionate and adverse to these 45 populations.
| |
| | |
| 3-214 1 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 2 impacts on human health. Disproportionate and adverse human health effects occur when the 3 risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population 4 exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 5 comparison group. Disproportionate environmental effects refer to impacts or risks of impacts in 6 the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that appreciably 7 exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include biological, 8 cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of these potential effects have been identified in 9 resource areas presented in preceding sections of this chapter. As previously discussed in this 10 chapter, the SLR impacts for all resource areas (e.g., land, air, water, and human health) would 11 be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 12 As discussed in Section 3.12.1, there would be no disproportionate and adverse human health 13 and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from the continued operation 14 of Oconee Station during the SLR term. Because Duke Energy has no plans to hire additional 15 workers during the SLR term, employment levels at Oconee Station would remain unchanged, 16 and there would be no additional demand for housing or increase in traffic. Based on this 17 information and the analysis of human health and environmental effects, it is not likely that there 18 would be any disproportionate and adverse contributory effects on minority and low-income 19 populations from the continued operation of Oconee Station during the SLR term beyond what 20 is already being experienced. Therefore, the only contributory effects would come from 21 reasonably foreseeable future planned activities at Oconee Station, and other reasonably 22 foreseeable future offsite activities, unrelated to the proposed action (SLR).
| |
| | |
| 23 When combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, the NRC staff 24 concludes that the proposed action (SLR) would not likely cause disproportionate and adverse 25 human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations near Oconee 26 Station.
| |
| | |
| 27 3.15.6 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
| |
| | |
| 28 This section considers the incremental waste management impacts of the SLR term when 29 added to the contributory effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 30 actions. In Section 3.13.3, Proposed Action, the potential waste management impacts from 31 continued operations at Oconee Station during the SLR term would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 32 As discussed in Sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, Duke Energy maintains waste management programs 33 for radioactive and nonradioactive waste generated at Oconee Station and is required to comply 34 with Federal and State permits and other regulatory waste management requirements. All 35 industrial facilities, including nuclear power plants and other facilities within a 50 mi (80 km) 36 radius of Oconee Station, are also required to comply with appropriate NRC, EPA, and State 37 requirements for the management of radioactive and nonradioactive waste. Current waste 38 management activities at Oconee Station would likely remain unchanged during the SLR term, 39 and continued compliance with Federal and State requirements for radioactive and 40 nonradioactive waste is expected.
| |
| | |
| 41 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action, including the continued 42 radioactive and nonradioactive waste generation during the SLR term, would have no 43 cumulative effect beyond what is already being experienced. This is based on Oconee Stations 44 expected continued compliance with Federal and State of South Carolina requirements for
| |
| | |
| 3-215 1 radioactive and nonradioactive waste management and the expected regulatory compliance of 2 other waste producers in the area.
| |
| | |
| 3 3.16 Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action
| |
| | |
| 4 This section describes the NRCs consideration of potentially unavoidable adverse 5 environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed action and 6 alternatives; the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance 7 and enhancement of long-term productivity; and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments 8 of resources.
| |
| | |
| 9 3.16.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
| |
| | |
| 10 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are impacts that would occur after implementation 11 of all workable mitigation measures. Carrying out any of the replacement energy alternatives 12 considered in this EIS, including the proposed action, would result in some unavoidable adverse 13 environmental impacts.
| |
| | |
| 14 Minor unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality would occur because of the emission and 15 release of various chemical and radiological constituents from nuclear power plant operations.
| |
| 16 Nonradiological emissions resulting from nuclear power plant operations are expected to comply 17 with Federal EPA and State emissions standards. Chemical and radiological emissions would 18 not exceed the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.
| |
| | |
| 19 Continued nuclear power plant operation would result in industrial wastewater discharges to 20 Lake Keowee containing small amounts of water treatment chemical additives and other 21 pollutants. Discharges are expected to comply with limits set in the NPDES permit.
| |
| | |
| 22 During nuclear power plant operations, workers and members of the public would face 23 unavoidable exposure to low levels of radiation as well as hazardous and toxic chemicals.
| |
| 24 Workers would be exposed to radiation and chemicals associated with routine nuclear power 25 plant operations and the handling of nuclear fuel and waste material. Workers would have 26 higher levels of exposure than members of the public, but doses would be administratively 27 controlled and would not exceed regulatory standards or administrative control limits. In 28 comparison, the alternatives involving the construction and operation of a nonnuclear power 29 generating facility would also result in unavoidable exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals, 30 for workers and the public.
| |
| | |
| 31 The generation of spent nuclear fuel and waste material, including low-level radioactive waste, 32 hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste, would be unavoidable. Hazardous and 33 nonhazardous wastes would be generated at some nonnuclear power generating facilities.
| |
| 34 Wastes generated during nuclear power plant operations would be collected, stored, and 35 shipped for suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal in accordance with applicable Federal and 36 State regulations. Because of the costs of handling these materials, the NRC expects that 37 nuclear power plant operators would optimize all waste management activities and operations in 38 a way that generates the smallest possible amount of waste.
| |
| | |
| 3-216 1 3.16.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term 2 Productivity
| |
| | |
| 3 The operation of power generating facilities would result in short-term uses of the environment, 4 as described in Sections 3.2 through 3.13 (see Sections titled, Proposed Action, No-Action, 5 and Replacement Power Alternatives: Common Impacts). Short term is the period of time that 6 continued power generating activities take place.
| |
| | |
| 7 Nuclear power plant operations require short-term use of the environment and commitment of 8 resources (e.g., land and energy), indefinitely or permanently. Certain short-term resource 9 commitments are substantially greater under most energy alternatives, including license 10 renewal, than under the no-action alternative because of the continued generation of electrical 11 power and the continued use of generating sites and associated infrastructure. During 12 operations, all energy alternatives require similar relationships to be sustained between local 13 short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 14 productivity.
| |
| | |
| 15 Air emissions from nuclear power plant operations introduce small amounts of radiological and 16 nonradiological emissions to the region around the nuclear power plant site. Over time, these 17 emissions would result in increased concentrations and exposure, but the NRC does not expect 18 that these emissions would impact air quality or radiation exposure to the extent that they would 19 impair public health and long-term productivity of the environment.
| |
| | |
| 20 Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during nuclear power plant 21 operations directly benefit local, regional, and state economies over the short term. Local 22 governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other required 23 services could enhance economic productivity over the long term.
| |
| | |
| 24 The management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste, hazardous 25 waste, and nonhazardous waste require an increase in energy and consume space at 26 treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet 27 waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land.
| |
| | |
| 28 Nuclear power plant facilities are committed to electricity production over the short term. After 29 these facilities are decommissioned and the area restored, the land could be available for other 30 future productive uses.
| |
| | |
| 31 3.16.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
| |
| | |
| 32 Resource commitments are irreversible when primary or secondary impacts limit the future 33 options for a resource. For example, the consumption or loss of nonrenewable resources is 34 irreversible. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources for a 35 period of time (e.g., for the duration of the action under consideration) that are neither 36 renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 37 resources for electrical power generation include the commitment of land, water, energy, raw 38 materials, and other natural and human-made resources required for nuclear power plant 39 operations. In general, the commitments of capital, energy, labor, and material resources are 40 also irreversible.
| |
| | |
| 41 The implementation of any of the replacement energy alternatives considered in this site-42 specific EIS would entail the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of energy, water,
| |
| | |
| 3-217 1 chemicals, andin some casesfossil fuels. These resources would be committed during the 2 SLR term and during the entire life cycle of the nuclear power plant, and they would be 3 unrecoverable.
| |
| | |
| 4 Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and nuclear power plant 5 operations and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuel would be 6 purchased from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water supply 7 systems or withdrawn from surface water or groundwater. Continued nuclear power plant 8 operation would result in continued consumptive water use from Lake Keowee, but the 9 withdrawn cooling water is returned to Lake Keowee through a once-through cooling system 10 and water loss is minimal. These resources are readily available, and the NRC does not expect 11 that the amounts required would deplete available supplies or exceed available system 12 capacities.
| |
| | |
| 3-218 1 4 CONCLUSION
| |
| | |
| 2 This EIS contains the NRC staffs environmental review of Duke Energys application to renew 3 the Oconee Station operating licenses for an additional 20 years, as required by 10 CFR Part 51 4 (TN250), Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 5 Functions. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 implement the National Environmental Policy Act 6 of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.-TN661). This chapter briefly summarizes the 7 environmental impacts of SLR, lists and compares the environmental impacts of alternatives to 8 SLR, and presents the NRC staffs preliminary conclusions and recommendation.
| |
| | |
| 9 4.1 Environmental Impacts of License Renewal
| |
| | |
| 10 After reviewing the site-specific environmental issues in this EIS and conducting an impacts 11 determination consistent with Commission direction in CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03, the NRC staff 12 concluded that issuing subsequent renewed licenses for the Oconee Station would have SMALL 13 environmental impacts. The NRC staff considered mitigation measures for each environmental 14 issue, as applicable, and concluded that no additional mitigation measure is warranted.
| |
| | |
| 15 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 16 In Chapter 3 of this EIS, the NRC considered the following alternatives to renewing the Oconee 17 Station operating licenses:
| |
| 18
| |
| * no-action 19
| |
| * new nuclear (advanced light-water reactor and a small modular reactor) 20
| |
| * natural gas-fired combined-cycle 21
| |
| * combination - small modular reactor, solar photovoltaic, offshore wind, and demand-side 22 management
| |
| | |
| 23 Based on the review presented in this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that the environmentally 24 preferred alternative is the proposed action. The NRC staff recommends that the subsequent 25 renewed operating licenses be issued for the Oconee Station. As shown in Table 2-2, all other 26 power-generation alternatives have environmental impacts that are greater than license 27 renewal, in addition to the environmental impacts inherent to new construction. To make up for 28 the lost power generation in case the NRC does not renew the Oconee Station operating 29 licenses (i.e., the no-action alternative), energy decisionmakers may implement one of the 30 replacement energy-generating alternatives discussed in Chapter 2, or a comparable 31 combination alternative capable of replacing the power generated by Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 32 4.3 Recommendation
| |
| | |
| 33 The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR 34 for Oconee Station are not so great that preserving the option of continued reactor operations 35 for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This preliminary recommendation 36 is based on the following:
| |
| 37
| |
| * Duke Energys environmental report, as supplemented 38
| |
| * consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental agencies 39
| |
| * the NRC staffs independent environmental review 40
| |
| * consideration of public comments received during the scoping processes
| |
| | |
| 4-1
| |
| | |
| 1 5 REFERENCES
| |
| | |
| 2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for 3 Protection Against Radiation. TN283.
| |
| | |
| 4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 5 Production and Utilization Facilities. TN249.
| |
| | |
| 6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. TN250.
| |
| | |
| 8 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 9 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants. TN4878.
| |
| | |
| 10 10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, "Licensing 11 Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 12 Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste. TN4884.
| |
| | |
| 13 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 14 Criteria. TN282.
| |
| | |
| 15 15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Part 16 930, "Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs. TN4475.
| |
| | |
| 17 18 CFR Part 157. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water 18 Resources, Part 157, "Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and for 19 Orders Permitting and Approving Abandonment Under Section of the Natural Gas Act. TN7483.
| |
| | |
| 20 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational 21 Safety and Health Standards. TN654.
| |
| | |
| 22 33 CFR Part 322. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 23 322, "Permits for Structures or Work in or Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States.
| |
| 24 TN4484.
| |
| | |
| 25 33 CFR Part 323. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 26 323, "Permits for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States.
| |
| 27 TN4827.
| |
| | |
| 28 33 CFR Part 328. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 29 328, Definition of Waters of the United States. TN1683.
| |
| | |
| 30 36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 31 Part 60, National Register of Historic Places. TN1682.
| |
| | |
| 32 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 33 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties. TN513.
| |
| | |
| 5-1 1 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 2 "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. TN1089.
| |
| | |
| 3 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 4 "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. TN1090.
| |
| | |
| 5 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Air Programs, Subchapter C, Protection 6 of Environment, Part 81, "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes. TN7226.
| |
| | |
| 7 40 CFR Part 98. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 98, 8 "Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting. TN2170.
| |
| | |
| 9 40 CFR Part 110. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 110, 10 "Discharge of Oil. TN8485.
| |
| | |
| 11 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, 12 "Oil Pollution Prevention. TN1041.
| |
| | |
| 13 40 CFR Part 121. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 121, 14 "State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit. TN6718.
| |
| | |
| 15 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 16 "EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
| |
| 17 TN2769.
| |
| | |
| 18 40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, 19 "Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. TN254.
| |
| | |
| 20 40 CFR Part 131. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 131, 21 "Water Quality Standards. TN4814.
| |
| | |
| 22 40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141, 23 "National Primary Drinking Water Standards. TN4456.
| |
| | |
| 24 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 25 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. TN739.
| |
| | |
| 26 40 CFR Part 1501. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1501, 27 "NEPA and Agency Planning. TN4876.
| |
| | |
| 28 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 29 "Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. TN4312.
| |
| | |
| 30 50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 600, 31 "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions. TN1342.
| |
| | |
| 5-2 1 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal Actions 2 To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
| |
| 3 Federal Register, Office of the President. TN1450.
| |
| | |
| 4 64 FR 6183. February 8, 1999. "Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999: Invasive Species.
| |
| 5 Federal Register, Office of the President. TN4477.
| |
| | |
| 6 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 7 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory 8 Commission. TN1009.
| |
| | |
| 9 70 FR 39104. July 6, 2005. Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available 10 Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations. Federal Register, Environmental Protection 11 Agency. TN8374.
| |
| | |
| 12 79 FR 48300. August 15, 2014. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemFinal 13 Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities 14 and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities. Federal Register, Environmental Protection 15 Agency. TN4488.
| |
| | |
| 16 79 FR 56238. September 19, 2014. "Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Rule, 17 Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN4104.
| |
| | |
| 18 80 FR 17974. April 2, 2015. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened 19 Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat With 4(d) RuleFinal Rule and Interim Rule 20 with Request for Comments. Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service. TN4216.
| |
| | |
| 21 81 FR 88609. December 8, 2016. Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive 22 Species. Executive Order 13751. Federal Register, Office of the President. TN8375.
| |
| | |
| 23 85 FR 42210. July 13, 2020. "Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule. Final Rule, 24 Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency. TN6394.
| |
| | |
| 25 85 FR 81813. December 17, 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month 26 Finding for the Monarch Butterfly. Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service. TN8590.
| |
| | |
| 27 86 FR 7732. February 1, 2021. "Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines. Federal 28 Register, Department of Health and Human Services. TN9014.
| |
| | |
| 29 86 FR 29541. 2021. "Notice of intention to reconsider and 17 revise the Clean Water Act 30 Section 401 Certification Rule. Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency. TN7623.
| |
| | |
| 31 86 FR 33784. June 25, 2023. "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Duke Energy; Oconee Nuclear 32 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN8900.
| |
| | |
| 33 86 FR 40662. July 28, 2021. "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Duke Energy; Oconee Nuclear 34 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN8901.
| |
| | |
| 5-3 1 86 FR 43684. August 10, 2021. "Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare 2 Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolina, LLC; Duke Energy; Oconee Nuclear 3 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN8902.
| |
| | |
| 4 87 FR 26152. May 3, 2022. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of 5 Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of 6 Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal 7 Register, Fish and Wildlife Service. TN8591.
| |
| | |
| 8 87 FR 35318. June 9, 2022. "Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification 9 Improvement Rule." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency. TN8543.
| |
| | |
| 10 87 FR 56381. September 14, 2022. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 11 Endangered Species Status for Tricolored Bat. Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 12 Service. TN8546.
| |
| | |
| 13 87 FR 77643. December 19, 2022. "Notice of Intent To Conduct a Supplemental Scoping 14 Process and Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; 15 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| 16 TN8903.
| |
| | |
| 17 88 FR 2645. January 27, 2023. "Notice of Intent to Conduct a Supplemental Scoping Process 18 and Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee 19 Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN9125.
| |
| | |
| 20 88 FR 66558. September 27, 2023. "Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification 21 Improvement Rule. Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TN9620.
| |
| | |
| 22 42 U.S.C. § 4332. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Section 102, 23 "Cooperation of Agencies; Reports; Availability of Information; Recommendations; International 24 and National Coordination of Efforts. TN4880.
| |
| | |
| 25 42 U.S.C. § 7410. Clean Air Act Section 110, "SIPs for National Primary and Secondary Air 26 Quality Standards. TN4851.
| |
| | |
| 27 42 U.S.C. § 7661a. U.S. Code Title The Public Health and Welfare, Section 7661a "Permit 28 programs. TN5268.
| |
| | |
| 29 ACOG (Appalachian Council of Government). 2022. 2045 Rural Long Range Transportation 30 Plan. Greenville, South Carolina. TN9039.
| |
| | |
| 31 Adam-Guillermin, C., T. Hertal-Aas, D. Oughton, L. Blanchard, F. Alonzo, O. Armant, and N.
| |
| 32 Horemans. 2018. "Radiosensitivity and transgenerational effects in non-human species. Annals 33 of the ICRP 47(3-4):327-341. https://doi:org/10.1177/0146645318756844. TN7972.
| |
| | |
| 34 Ardani, K. and R. Margolis. 2011. 2010 Solar Technologies Market Report Energy. U.S.
| |
| 35 Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 36 ADAMS Accession No. ML13225A126. TN2522.
| |
| | |
| 5-4 1 Army (U.S. Army). 2014. Biological Assessment on the Proposed Activities on Fort Drum 2 Military Installation, Fort Drum, New York (2015-2017) for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and 3 Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Fort Drum, New York. TN8512.
| |
| | |
| 4 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Public Law 112-239, as amended. TN663.
| |
| | |
| 5 AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 2020. U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact 6 Assessment. Washington, D.C. TN8355.
| |
| | |
| 7 AWT (Association of Water Technologies). 2019. Legionella 2019: A Position Statement and 8 Guidance Document. Association of Water Technologies, Rockville, Maryland. TN8518.
| |
| | |
| 9 Bagar, T.A., M.L. Hladik, and J.C. Daniels. 2020. Uptake and toxicity of clothianidin to 10 monarch butterflies from milkweed consumption. Peer J 8:e8669, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
| 11 TN8594.
| |
| | |
| 12 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq. TN1447.
| |
| | |
| 13 Barkley, S.W., and C. Perrin. 1971. The Effects of the Lake Catherine Steam Electric Plant 14 Effluent on the Distribution of Fishes in the Receiving Embayment. In Proceedings of the 15 Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish 16 Commissioners, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed June 13, 2022, at 17 https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/BARKLEY-384.pdf. TN7734.
| |
| | |
| 18 BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2019. Gemini Solar Project, Final Resource Management 19 Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Chapters 1 - 4. DOI-BLM-20 NV-S010-2018-0051-EIS, Washington D.C. TN8386.
| |
| | |
| 21 BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2021. "Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities: Table 2.
| |
| 22 Numbers of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and case types, 2020 23 [thousands]. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 24 https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/summ2_00_2020.htm. TN7691.
| |
| | |
| 25 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.) 2015. Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and 26 Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina 27 Revised Environmental Assessment. BOEM 2015-038, Washington, D.C. TN9066.
| |
| | |
| 28 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2015. Virginia Offshore Wind Technology 29 Advancement Project on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Virginia: Revised 30 Environmental Assessment. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2015-031, Washington, D.C. TN8399.
| |
| | |
| 31 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2018. Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Energy 32 Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM 2018-060, Washington, D.C. TN8428.
| |
| | |
| 33 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2020. "Carolina Long Bay. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 34 Accessed September 19, 2023, at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-35 activities/carolina-long-bay. TN8961.
| |
| | |
| 5-5 1 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2020. Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy 2 Project: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2020-3 025, Washington D.C. Accessed June 3, 2022, at 4 https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/Vineyard-Wind 5 Supplement-to-EIS.pdf. TN7494.
| |
| | |
| 6 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2021. Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and 7 Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina, Draft 8 Supplemental Environmental Assessment. Washington D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 9 https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-issuance-wind-ocs-activities-north-carolina-10 draft-supplemental-ea. TN7704.
| |
| | |
| 11 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2023. "North Carolina Activities, State 12 Overview and Leasing HIstory. Washington D.C. Available at 13 https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/north-carolina-activities. TN9102.
| |
| | |
| 14 BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Undated. Renewable Energy on the Outer 15 Continental Shelf: Ocean Wave Energy. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 16 https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Ocean-Wave-17 Energy.aspx. TN7696.
| |
| | |
| 18 Cada, G.F., J.A. Solomon, and J.M. Loar. 1981. Effects of Sublethal Entrainment Stresses on 19 the Vulnerability of Juvenile Bluegill Sunfish to Predation. ORNL/TM-7801. Oak Ridge National 20 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed June 13, 2022, at 21 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6484168. TN7733.
| |
| | |
| 22 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2016. Legionnaires Disease. CS267416-A, 23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. TN8519.
| |
| | |
| 24 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2021. Parasites - Naegleria fowleri -
| |
| 25 Primary Amebic Meningoencephalitis (PAM) - Amebic Encephalitis, General Information.
| |
| 26 Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 3, 2022, at 27 https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/general.html. TN7271.
| |
| | |
| 28 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2022. "Salmonella: Information for 29 Healthcare Professionals. Atlanta, Georgia. Available at 30 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/general/technical.html. TN8513.
| |
| | |
| 31 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the 32 National Environmental Policy Act. Washington D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML103430030.
| |
| 33 TN452.
| |
| | |
| 34 City of Pickens. Undated. Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Pickens Wastewater Treatment 35 Plant. Pickens, South Carolina. Accessed February 1, 2022, available at 36 https://www.cityofpickens.com/index.asp?SEC=61780E98-61CC-44D9-8E4C-37 53EA03B2C02E&Type=B_BASIC. TN9052.
| |
| | |
| 38 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. TN1141.
| |
| | |
| 5-6 1 Clemson Strom Thurmond Institute. 2012. Pickens County Water Supply. Clemson, South 2 Carolina. TN9050.
| |
| | |
| 3 Clemson University. 2022. Clemson Undergraduate Admission Statistics. Clemson, South 4 Carolina. Accessed September 26, 2023, available at 5 https://www.clemson.edu/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/admissions-statistics.html.
| |
| 6 TN9042.
| |
| | |
| 7 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. TN1243.
| |
| | |
| 8 Coutant, C.C. 1987. Thermal Preference: When Does an Asset Become a Liability?
| |
| 9 Environmental Biology of Fishes 18(3):161-72. DOI:10.1007/BF00000356. Cham, Switzerland.
| |
| 10 Accessed June 13, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00000356. TN7736.
| |
| | |
| 11 Dieter, C.A., M.A. Maupin, R.R. Caldwell, M.A. Harris, T.I. Ivahnenko, J.K. Lovelace, N.L.
| |
| 12 Barber, and K.S. Linsey. 2018. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015. USGS 13 Circular 1441, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed October 19, 2020, at 14 https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1441/circ1441.pdf. TN6681.
| |
| | |
| 15 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Volume 1 16 Department of Energy Loan Guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland for Construction and Startup 17 of the Topaz Solar Farm, San Luis Obispo County, California. DOE/EIS-0458, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 18 TN8387.
| |
| | |
| 19 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2019. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to 20 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. DOE-STD-1153-2019, Washington, D.C. Available at 21 https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/1100/1153-astd-2019/@@images/file.
| |
| 22 TN6817.
| |
| | |
| 23 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2021. Hydrogen Shot: An Introduction. Office of Energy 24 Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Office. Washington, 25 D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/hydrogen-shot-26 introduction. TN7693.
| |
| | |
| 27 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2022. "Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Office of 28 Nuclear Energy". Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-29 modular-reactors-smrs. TN7250.
| |
| | |
| 30 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated. Fuel Cell Basics: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 31 Technologies Office. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 32 https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-basics.TN7695.
| |
| | |
| 33 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated. Geothermal Basics: Geothermal. Washington, 34 D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-basics.
| |
| 35 TN7698.
| |
| | |
| 36 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated. "Wind Energy State Information. Washington, 37 D.C. Available at https://windexchange.energy.gov/states. TN8431.
| |
| | |
| 5-7 1 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2013. Annual Energy 2 Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2013), Washington, D.C. ADAMS 3 Accession No. ML13253A313. TN2590.
| |
| | |
| 4 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2015. Levelized Cost 5 and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015.
| |
| 6 Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 7 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_generation_2015.pdf. TN7717.
| |
| | |
| 8 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2015. Annual Energy 9 Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2015), Washington, D.C. ADAMS 10 Accession No. ML16172A121. TN4585.
| |
| | |
| 11 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. "Today in 12 Energy, Southern states lead growth in biomass electricity generation. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 13 Accessed September 19, 2023, at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26392.
| |
| 14 TN8963.
| |
| | |
| 15 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Association). 2020. Annual Energy 16 Outlook 2020, with projections to 2050. AEO2020. Washington, D.C. TN7376.
| |
| | |
| 17 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021. "South 18 Carolina State Energy Profile. Washington, D.C. Available at 19 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=SC. TN9101.
| |
| | |
| 20 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021. Today in 21 Energy: Less Electricity Was Generated by Coal than Nuclear in the United States in 2020.
| |
| 22 Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 23 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47196. TN7718.
| |
| | |
| 24 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022. Cost and 25 Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2021.
| |
| 26 Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 27 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf. TN7694.
| |
| | |
| 28 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022. Electric Power 29 Annual 2021. Washington, D.C. November. Washington, D.C. TN8958.
| |
| | |
| 30 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022. "North Carolina 31 State Energy Profile. Washington, D.C. Available at 32 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=VA. TN8955.
| |
| | |
| 33 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2023. Electric Power 34 Monthly with Data for August 2023, Table 6.07.B: Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators 35 Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels. Washington, D.C. TN8821.
| |
| | |
| 5-8 1 DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2023. "Electric Power 2 Monthly, Table 6.07B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil 3 Fuels. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 19, 2023, at 4 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b. TN8957.
| |
| | |
| 5 Donaldson, M., S. Cooke, D.A. Patterson, and J.S. MacDonald. 2008. "Cold shock and fish.
| |
| 6 Journal of Fish Biology 73(7):1491-1530. DOI:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02061.x. Hoboken, 7 New Jersey. Accessed June 6, 2022 at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02061.x.
| |
| 8 TN7515.
| |
| | |
| 9 Duke Energy. 2014. Keowee-Toxaway Project, FERC Project No. 2503, Shoreline Management 10 Plan. Charlotte, North Carolina. TN9131.
| |
| | |
| 11 Duke Energy. 2017. Letter from T.D. Ray, Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 12 Document Control Desk, dated May 15, 2017, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee 13 Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287, 2016 Annual 14 Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR). Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS 15 Accession No. ML17142A068. TN9157.
| |
| | |
| 16 Duke Energy. 2018. Environmental Handbook 2018. Charlotte, North Carolina. TN9691.
| |
| | |
| 17 Duke Energy. 2018. Letter from J. Dills, Plant Manager Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 18 Document Control Desk, dated May 15, 2018, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee 19 Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287, 2017 Annual 20 Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR). Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS 21 Accession No. ML18138A280. TN9158.
| |
| | |
| 22 Duke Energy. 2018. Letter from J.E. Burchfield, Jr., Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, to 23 NRC Document Control Desk, dated August 8, 2018, regarding "Response to Request for 24 Additional Information Related to Proposed Revisions to the Duke Energy Physical Security 25 Plan License Amendment Request No. 2018-01, Supplement 1." Seneca, South Carolina.
| |
| 26 ADAMS Accession No. ML18225A076. TN8965.
| |
| | |
| 27 Duke Energy. 2019. Letter from P.V. Fisk, Plant Manager Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 28 Document Control Desk, dated May 15, 2019, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee 29 Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287, 2018 Annual 30 Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR). Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS 31 Accession No. ML19136A181. TN9159.
| |
| | |
| 32 Duke Energy. 2019. Letter from P.V. Fisk, Plant Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 33 Document Control Desk, dated April 30, 2019, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Oconee 34 Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 2018 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release 35 Report (ARERR). Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML19121A608. TN8943.
| |
| | |
| 36 Duke Energy. 2020. Duke Energy Progress Integrated Resource Plan 2020. Charlotte, North 37 Carolina. TN9696.
| |
| | |
| 5-9 1 Duke Energy. 2020. Letter from M.C. Nolan, Vice President, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, Policy 2 & Emergency Preparedness, to NRC Document Control Desk; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 3 Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Docket Nos.
| |
| 4 50-325 and 50-324; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating 5 License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414; H. B. Robinson Steam 6 Electric Plant, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 Docket No. 50-261; 7 McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 8 and NPF-17 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 9 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Docket Nos. 50-269, 10 50-270 and 50-287; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Renewed Facility Operating 11 License No. NPF-63 Docket No. 50-400, dated April 28, 2020, regarding "Annual Radioactive 12 Effluent Release Report - 2019. Charlotte, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 13 ML20119A860. TN8944.
| |
| | |
| 14 Duke Energy. 2020. Letter from M.C. Nolan, Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk; 15 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos.
| |
| 16 DPR-71 and DPR-62 Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 17 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 18 50-414; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No.
| |
| 19 DPR-23 Docket No. 50-261; McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility 20 Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; Oconee Nuclear 21 Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and 22 DPR-55 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 23 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 Docket No. 50-400, dated April 28, 2020, 24 regarding "Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report - 2019. Seneca, South 25 Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML20119A859. TN9160.
| |
| | |
| 26 Duke Energy. 2020. Letter from P.V. Fisk, Plant Manager Oconee Nuclear Station, to D. Oberly, 27 SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management Division of Mining and Solid Waste Ground 28 Water Section, dated March 9, 2020, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station - Landfill Permit 29 #3373303-1601 2020 Annual Landfill Ground Water Monitoring Report. Seneca, South 30 Carolina. TN9151.
| |
| | |
| 31 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. 2020. Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3, Revision 28 to 32 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics. Charlotte, North 33 Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML20189A071. TN9103.
| |
| | |
| 5-10 1 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from M.C. Nolan, Vice President, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, Policy 2 & Emergency Preparedness, to NRC Document Control Desk; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 3 Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Docket Nos.
| |
| 4 50-325 and 50-324; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating 5 License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414; Shearon Harris Nuclear 6 Power Plant, Unit 1 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 Docket No. 50-400; 7 McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 8 and NPF-17 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 9 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Docket Nos. 50-269, 10 50-270 and 50-287; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating 11 License No. DPR-23 Docket No. 50-261, dated April 29, 2021, regarding "Annual Radioactive 12 Effluent Release Report - 2020. Charlotte, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 13 ML21119A230. TN8945.
| |
| | |
| 14 Duke Energy. 2021. Duke Energy Carolinas 2021 Update to 2020 Short-Term Action Plan, NC 15 REPS and CPRE Plan, Docket No. E-100, Sub 165. Charlotte, North Carolina. Available at 16 https://starw1.ncuc.net/NCUC/ViewFile.aspx?Id=eaf4cc8-2bbd-4a18-8edd-2f2d5c0b79dd.
| |
| 17 TN8962.
| |
| | |
| 18 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 19 Document Control Desk, dated June 7, 2021, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 20 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 21 50-287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Application for Subsequent 22 Renewed Operating Licenses. Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21158A193.
| |
| 23 TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 24 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 25 Document Control Desk, dated November 11, 2021, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 26 (Duke Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 27 50-270, 50-287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License 28 Renewal Application, Appendix E Environmental Report Supplement 1." Seneca, South 29 Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21328A163. TN8898.
| |
| | |
| 30 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from P.V. Fisk, Plant Manager Oconee Nuclear Station, to D. Oberly, 31 SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management Division of Mining and Solid Waste Ground 32 Water Section, dated March 9, 2021, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station - Landfill Permit 33 #3373303-1601 2021 Annual Landfill Ground Water Monitoring Report. Seneca, South 34 Carolina. TN9152.
| |
| | |
| 35 Duke Energy. 2022. "Duke Energy Expands Clean Energy Action Plan. Charlotte, North 36 Carolina. Accessed September 17, 2023, at https://news.duke-energy.com/releases/duke-37 energy-expands-clean-energy-action-plan. TN8951.
| |
| | |
| 5-11 1 Duke Energy. 2022. Letter from M.C. Nolan, Vice President, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, Policy 2 & Emergency Preparedness, to NRC Document Control Desk; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 3 Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Docket Nos.
| |
| 4 50-325 and 50-324; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating 5 License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414; Shearon Harris Nuclear 6 Power Plant, Unit 1 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 Docket No. 50-400; 7 McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 8 and NPF-17 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 9 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Docket Nos. 50-269, 10 50-270 and 50-287; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating 11 License No. DPR-23 Docket No. 50-261, dated April 27, 2022, regarding "Annual Radioactive 12 Effluent Release Report - 2021. Charlotte, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 13 ML22117A107. TN8946.
| |
| | |
| 14 Duke Energy. 2022. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 15 Document Control Desk, dated November 7, 2022, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 16 (Duke Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-17 270, 50-287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License 18 Renewal - Appendix E Environmental Report Supplement 2." Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS 19 Accession No. ML22311A036. TN8899.
| |
| | |
| 20 Duke Energy. 2022. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 21 Document Control Desk, dated January 7, 2022, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 22 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 50-23 287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License Renewal 24 Application, Appendix E Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), and Request 25 for Confirmation of Information (RCI)." Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 26 Ml22019A137. TN8948.
| |
| | |
| 27 Duke Energy. 2022. Letter from P.V. Fish, Plant Manager, to D. Oberly, SCDHEC Bureau of 28 Land Management, Division of Mining and Solid Waste Groundwater Section, dated March 9, 29 2022, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station - Landfill Permit #373303-1601 2022 Annual Landfill 30 Ground Water Monitoring Report. Seneca, South Carolina. TN9012.
| |
| | |
| 31 Duke Energy. 2022. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 32 Document Control Desk, dated June 29, 2022, regarding "Submittal of Updated Final Safety 33 Analysis Report (UFSAR) Revision 29, Technical Specifications Bases Revisions, Selected 34 Licensee Commitment Revisions, 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Summary Report, and 10 CFR 35 54.37 Update, and Notification of Commitment Changes. Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS 36 Accession No. ML22180A121. TN9000.
| |
| | |
| 5-12 1 Duke Energy. 2023. Letter from M.C. Nolan, Vice President, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, Policy 2 & Emergency Preparedness, to NRC Document Control Desk; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 3 Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Docket Nos.
| |
| 4 50-325 and 50-324; Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating 5 License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414; Shearon Harris Nuclear 6 Power Plant, Unit 1 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 Docket No. 50-400; 7 McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 8 and NPF-17 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 9 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Docket Nos. 50-269, 10 50-270 and 50-287; H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating 11 License No. DPR-23 Docket No. 50-261, dated April 24, 2023, regarding "Annual Radioactive 12 Effluent Release Report - 2022. Charlotte, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 13 ML23114A239. TN8947.
| |
| | |
| 14 Duke Energy. 2023. Letter from C.A. Fletcher II, General Manager (Acting), to NRC Document 15 Control Desk; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating 16 License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Catawba Nuclear Station, 17 Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and PNF-52 Docket Nos.
| |
| 18 50-413 and 50-414; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Renewed Facility Operating 19 License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; McGuire Nuclear Station, 20 Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 Docket Nos.
| |
| 21 50-369 and 50-370; Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Renewed Facility Operating 22 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-7 and DPR-55 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287; H. B.
| |
| 23 Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 Docket 24 No. 50-261, dated April 26, 2023, regarding "Annual Radiological Environmental Operating 25 Report - 2022. York, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23116A011. TN9016.
| |
| | |
| 26 Duke Energy. 2023. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 27 Document Control Desk, dated June 20, 2023, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 28 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 50-29 287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License Renewal 30 Application, Appendix E, Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), and Request 31 for Confirmation of Information (RCI)." Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 32 ML23171B108. TN8952.
| |
| | |
| 33 Duke Energy. 2023. Letter from S.M. Snider, Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, to 34 NRC Document Control Desk, dated October 12, 2023, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 35 (Duke Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-36 270, 50-287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License 37 Renewal Application, Appendix E, Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), and 38 Request for Confirmation of Information (RCI)." Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 39 ML23285A185. TN9227.
| |
| | |
| 40 ECU (Easley Combined Utilities). Undated. Sewer. Easley, South Carolina. Accessed 41 February 1, 2022, available at https://www.easleyutilities.com/sewer. TN9053.
| |
| | |
| 5-13 1 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2021. "State Electricity Profiles. Table 4. Electric 2 Power Industry Capability by Primary Energy Source, 1990 through 2019. Washington D.C.
| |
| 3 Available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/virginia/index.php. TN8378.
| |
| | |
| 4 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2021. "State Electricity Profiles. Table 5. Electric 5 Power Industry Generation by Primary Energy Source, 1990 through 2019. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 6 Available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state. TN8353.
| |
| | |
| 7 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2021. "Virginia State Profile and Energy 8 EstimatesAnalysis, Profile Overview. Washington, D.C. Available at 9 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VA. TN8354.
| |
| | |
| 10 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2022. "Virginia State Profile and Energy 11 Estimates -Analysis. Washington, D.C. Available at 12 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=VA. TN8352.
| |
| | |
| 13 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. TN1010.
| |
| | |
| 14 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 15 Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
| |
| 16 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12241A393. TN3941.
| |
| | |
| 17 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. "EPA Method 906.0: Tritium in Drinking 18 Water." Washington, D.C. TN8950.
| |
| | |
| 19 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk 20 Reference to Health and Welfare, Effects of Noise. EPA 350/9-82-106. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 21 TN7412.
| |
| | |
| 22 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/5 23 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 24 13, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/quality-criteria-water-25 1986.pdf. TN7726.
| |
| | |
| 26 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Assessment of the Impacts of Global 27 Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level 28 Ozone (An Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program). EPA/600/R-29 07/094F. Washington, D.C. TN9068.
| |
| | |
| 30 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Climate Change Indicators in the United 31 States 2016. Fourth Edition, EPA 430-R-16-004, Washington D.C. Accessed June 7, 2022, at 32 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/climate_indicators_2016.pdf.
| |
| 33 TN7561.
| |
| | |
| 34 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. "Sole Source Aquifers. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 35 Accessed June 30, 2023, at 36 https://services.arcgis.com/cJ9YHowT8TU7DUyn/arcgis/rest/services/Sole_Source_Aquifers_A 37 ugust_2019/FeatureServer. TN9022.
| |
| | |
| 5-14 1 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. "2020 National Emissions Inventory Data.
| |
| 2 Washington, D.C. Accessed September 20, 2023, at 3 https://awsedap.epa.gov/public/single/?appid=20230c40-026d-494e-903f-4 3f112761a208&sheet=5d3fdda7-14bc-4284-a9bb-cfd856b9348d&opt=ctxmenu,currsel.
| |
| 5 TN8975.
| |
| | |
| 6 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 7 (MATS). Washington D.C. Available at https://www.epa.gov/mats. TN8379.
| |
| | |
| 8 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. Letter from J.M. Gettle, Director Water 9 Division, to M. Marcus, Chief Bureau of Water, South Carolina Department of Health and 10 Environmental Control, dated December 23. 2020, regarding "Review of the South Carolina 11 Department of Health and Environmental Controls Final 2018 Clean Water Act section 303(d) 12 List of water quality limited segments. Atlanta, Georgia. TN9008.
| |
| | |
| 13 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS).
| |
| 14 Washington D.C. Accessed June 6, 2022 at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-15 ports/aquatic-nuisance-species-ans. TN7519.
| |
| | |
| 16 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. "Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and 17 Global Precipitation. Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.epa.gov/climate-18 indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation. TN9163.
| |
| | |
| 19 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. "ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance 20 History Online) Detailed Facility Report, Facility Summary, Duke Energy Oconee Nuclear 21 Station. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 27, 2023, at https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-22 facility-report?fid=110008561449. TN8953.
| |
| | |
| 23 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. "Energy Recovery from the Combustion of 24 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Washington, D.C. Available at 25 https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-waste-26 msw#EnergyRecovery. TN8443.
| |
| | |
| 27 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. "South Carolina 28 Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants.
| |
| 29 Washington, D.C. Accessed September 17, 2023, at 30 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_sc.html. TN8954.
| |
| | |
| 31 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2000. Technical Evaluation of the Utility of Intake 32 Approach Velocity as an Indicator of Potential Adverse Environmental Impact under Clean 33 Water Act Section 316(b). EPRI-1000731, Palo Alto, California. TN8459.
| |
| | |
| 34 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2011. Mapping and Assessment of the United States 35 Ocean Wave Energy Resource. 1024637, EPRI, Palto Alto, California. TN8442.
| |
| | |
| 36 Exo, K.M., O. Hüppop, and S. Garthe. 2003. Birds and offshore windfarms: a hot topic in 37 marine ecology. Wader Study Group Bulletin, (100): 50-53. TN8488.
| |
| | |
| 5-15 1 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq. TN708.
| |
| | |
| 2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). 33 3 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. TN662.
| |
| | |
| 4 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2017. "Flood Insurance Rate Map, Oconee 5 County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas, Panel 220 of 505, Map Number 6 45073C0220D." Washington, D.C. Accessed July 18, 2023, at 7 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=7812%20Rochester%20Hwy%2C%20Sene 8 ca%2C%20SC%2029672. TN8999.
| |
| | |
| 9 FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2016. Final Environmental Assessment for 10 Hydropower License, Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project - FERC Project No. 2503-154 11 South Carolina and North Carolina. Document Accession # 20160328-4002, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 12 TN8967.
| |
| | |
| 13 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Letter from R.L. Banks, Field Supervisor, to C.A.
| |
| 14 Carpenter, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 15 dated September 2, 1999, regarding Biological Assessment for License Renewal at Oconee 16 Nuclear Station TAC Nos. M99162, M99163, and M99164 FWS Log No. 4-6-99-318.
| |
| 17 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML15254A174. TN9002.
| |
| | |
| 18 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Letter from B.P. Cole, State Supervisor, to C.A.
| |
| 19 Carpenter, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 20 dated November 4, 1999, regarding Biological Assessment for License Renewal at Oconee 21 Nuclear Station, TAC Nos. M99162, M99163, and M99164 -318. Washington, D.C. ADAMS 22 Accession No. ML993240469. TN9003.
| |
| | |
| 23 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. "The Natural History of the River Herrings (Alosa 24 pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 25 ML070170584. TN9698.
| |
| | |
| 26 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan:
| |
| 27 First Revision. Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 28 ML14302A612. TN934.
| |
| | |
| 29 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Letter from S.E. Pruitt, Field Supervisor, to COL 30 M.J. Bennett, NGB Chief, Environmental Programs Division, dated October 21, 2010, regarding 31 Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Effects of Ongoing and Future Military and Land 32 Management Activities at the Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center in Bartholomew, 33 Brown, and Johnson Counties in Indiana on the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis 34 sodalist). Bloomington, Indiana. TN8537.
| |
| | |
| 35 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Letter from F. Clark, Acting Field Supervisor to D.J.
| |
| 36 Wrona, NRC, dated September 30, 2014, regarding "Threatened and endangered species 37 within the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Columbus, Ohio. ADAMS 38 Accession No. ML14296A559. TN7605.
| |
| | |
| 5-16 1 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule 2 for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. Midwest 3 Regional Office, Bloomington, Minnesota. TN7400.
| |
| | |
| 4 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. Guidance for Preparing a Biological Assessment.
| |
| 5 Midwest Ecological Services, Bloomington, Minnesota. TN5753.
| |
| | |
| 6 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2018. Letter from T.R. Chapman, Supervisor, New 7 England Field Office, to B. Beasley, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Materials 8 and License Renewal, dated September 20, 2018, regarding "Seabrook Station Unit 1 License 9 Renewal, Seabrook NH, TAILS: 2018-l-2970. Concord, New Hampshire. ADAMS Accession 10 No. ML18263A200. TN7610.
| |
| | |
| 11 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Letter from Virginia Ecological Services Field 12 Office, dated June 6, 2019, regarding "Updated list of threatened and endangered species that 13 may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project.
| |
| 14 Gloucester, Virginia. ADAMS Accession No. ML19157A113. TN7609.
| |
| | |
| 15 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2020. Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status 16 Assessment (SSA) Version 2.1. Washington, D.C. TN8593.
| |
| | |
| 17 FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 2021. Species Status Assessment (SSA) for Tricolored Bat 18 (Perimyotis subflavus) Version 1.1. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region, Hadley, 19 Massachusetts. TN8589.
| |
| | |
| 20 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023. Letter from the Virginia Ecological Services Field 21 Office, dated July 27, 2023, regarding List of Threatened and Endangered Species that May 22 Occur in Your Proposed Project Location or May Be Affected by Your Proposed Project.
| |
| 23 Charleston, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23208A097. TN9004.
| |
| | |
| 24 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.
| |
| 25 Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7 26 Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A801.
| |
| 27 TN1031.
| |
| | |
| 28 Gaddy, L.L. 2013. Botanical Resources Study Keowee-Toxaway Project (FERC Project No.
| |
| 29 2503). Terra Incognita, North Carolina. TN8969.
| |
| | |
| 30 Good Company. 2011. Health and Safety Concerns of Photovoltaic Solar Panels. Eugene, 31 Oregon. TN8599.
| |
| | |
| 32 Gray, R.H., T.L. Page, and M.G. Saroglia. 1983. Behavioral Response of Carp, Cyprinus 33 carpio, and Black Bullhead, Ictalurus melas, from Italy to Gas Supersaturated Water.
| |
| 34 Environmental Biology of Fishes 8:163-167. DOI:10.1007/BF00005183. Cham, Switzerland.
| |
| 35 Accessed June 13, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005183. TN7727.
| |
| | |
| 5-17 1 Griffith, G., J. Omernik, and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of South Carolina. U.S. Department 2 of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Indus 3 Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon. TN9270.
| |
| | |
| 4 Harned, D.A. and C.C. Daniel III. 1992. "The transition zone between bedrock and regolith:
| |
| 5 Conduit for contamination. In Proceedings of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont 6 of the Eastern United States, Charlotte, North Carolina, October 16-18, 1989. Clemson, South 7 Carolina. TN9019.
| |
| | |
| 8 Harrison, F.L. 1985. Effect of Physiochemical Form on Copper Availability to Aquatic 9 Organisms. In Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium. ASTM STP 10 854, pages 469-484. R.C. Bahner, ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 11 Pennsylvania. DOI: 10.1520/STP36284S. TN7579.
| |
| | |
| 12 Hathcock, C. 2019. Literature review on impacts to avian species from solar energy collection 13 and suggested mitigations. Department of Energy. TN8470.
| |
| | |
| 14 Horvath, G., G. Kriska, and B. Robertson. 2009. "Polarized Light Pollution: A New Kind of 15 Ecological Photopollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(6):317-325, 16 Washington, D.C. TN897.
| |
| | |
| 17 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and 18 Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series 19 332, Vienna, Austria. TN712.
| |
| | |
| 20 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 2023. "Small modular reactors: flexible and 21 affordable power generation. Vienna, Austria. Accessed September 19, 2023, 22 athttps://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors. TN8956.
| |
| | |
| 23 ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). 1998. "Guidelines for 24 Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 25 GHz). Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Accessed October 7, 2020, 26 at https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf. TN6591.
| |
| | |
| 27 ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2007. The 2007 28 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 29 Publication 103, Ann. ICRP, 37(2-4). Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Elsevier. Available at 30 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4. TN422.
| |
| | |
| 31 ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2008. "Environmental Protection -
| |
| 32 the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP Publication 108. Annals of the 33 ICRP 38(4-6). Ottawa, Canada. Accessed June 7, 2022 at 34 https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%20108. TN7530
| |
| | |
| 35 ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2009. "Environmental Protection:
| |
| 36 Transfer Parameters for Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP Publication 114. Annals of the 37 ICRP 39(6). DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2011.08.009. Ottawa, Canada. Accessed June 7, 2022 at 38 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2011.08.009. TN7531.
| |
| | |
| 5-18 1 IEA (International Energy Agency). 2007. Biomass for Power Generation and CHP. ETE03, IEA 2 Energy Technology Essentials, License CC BY 4.0. Paris, France. TN8436.
| |
| | |
| 3 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Summary for Policymakers, 4 Emissions Scenarios, A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Intergovernmental Panel on 5 Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed June 11, 2022, at 6 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf. TN7652.
| |
| | |
| 7 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 8 Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 9 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ADAMS No. ML112710385. Accessed May 10 23, 2022, at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf.
| |
| 11 TN7421.
| |
| | |
| 12 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The 13 Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 14 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 15 S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge 16 University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Accessed May 25, 2022, at 17 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. TN7434.
| |
| | |
| 18 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014, Synthesis 19 Report. Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://ar5-20 syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf. TN7651.
| |
| | |
| 21 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. "Climate Change 2021: The 22 Physical Science Basis. Accessed May 24, 2022, at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
| |
| 23 TN7435.
| |
| | |
| 24 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate 25 Change 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. TN8557.
| |
| | |
| 26 James, D.G. 2019. A Neonicotinoid Insecticide at a Rate Found in Nectar Reduces Longevity 27 but not Oogenesis in Monarch Butterflies, Danaus plexippus (L.). (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).
| |
| 28 Insects 10(9):276, Bethesda, Maryland. TN8595.
| |
| | |
| 29 Janes, D.E. 1978. Evaluation of Health and Environmental Effects of Extra-High-Voltage (EHV) 30 Transmission. 520179501, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation 31 Programs, Washington, D.C. TN7479.
| |
| | |
| 32 Krischik, V., M. Rogers, G. Gupta, and A. Varshney. 2015. Soil-Applied Imidacloprid 33 Translocates to Ornamental Flowers and Reduces Survival of Adult Coleomegilla maculata, 34 Harmonia axyridis, and Hippodamia convergens Lady Beetles, and Larval Danaus plexippus 35 and Vanessa cardui Butterflies. PLoS One 10(3):e0119133, San Francisco, California. TN8596.
| |
| | |
| 36 Krishnan, N., Y. Zhang, K.G. Bidne, R.L. Hellmich, J.R. Coats, and S.P. Bradbury. 2020.
| |
| 37 Assessing FieldScale Risks of Foliar Insecticide Applications to Monarch Butterfly (Danaus 38 plexippus) Larvae. Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 39(4):923-941. TN8597.
| |
| | |
| 5-19 1 Langford, T.E. 1983. Electricity Generation and the Ecology of Natural Waters. Liverpool 2 University Press, Liverpool, England. TN7676.
| |
| | |
| 3 Larson, A. 2020. "Innovative Byproduct-Hydrogen Fuel Cell Power Plant Completed. POWER.
| |
| 4 Rockville, Maryland. Available at https://www.powermag.com/innovative-byproduct-hydrogen-5 fuel-cell-power-plant-completed/. TN8401.
| |
| | |
| 6 Lee, J.M., V.L. Chartier, D.P. Hartmann, G.E. Lee, K.S. Pierce, F.L. Shon, R.D. Stearns, and 7 M.T. Zeckmeister. 1989. Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review.
| |
| 8 DOE/BP-945. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.
| |
| 9 June. Accessed June 1, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2172/5712107. TN7481
| |
| | |
| 10 LeGrand, H.E. 2004. A Master conceptual Model for Hydrogeological Site Characterization in 11 the Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina: a guidance manual. OCLC No.
| |
| 12 57172312, N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 13 Groundwater Section, Raleigh, North Carolina. TN9017.
| |
| | |
| 14 Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities 15 in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation (168): 201-209. TN8489.
| |
| | |
| 16 Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. 16 17 U.S.C. 1801 Note. Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3575. TN7841.
| |
| | |
| 18 Maize, K. 2019. Waste-to-Energy: A Niche Market in Decline? POWER, Rockville, Maryland.
| |
| 19 Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.powermag.com/waste-to-energy-a-niche-market-in-20 decline. TN7699.
| |
| | |
| 21 Mayhew, D.A., L.D. Jensen, D.F. Hanson, and P.H. Muessig. 2000. A comparative review of 22 entrainment survival studies at power plants in estuarine environments. Environmental Science 23 & Policy (3) Supplement 1: 295-301, Hunt Valley, Maryland. TN8458.
| |
| | |
| 24 Meehl, G.A., C. Tebaldi, S. Tilmes, J. Lamarque, S. Bates, A. Pendergrass, and D.
| |
| 25 Lombardozzi. 2018. Future heat waves and surface ozone. Environmental Research 26 Letters.13:064004, West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. TN8574.
| |
| | |
| 27 Michaels T., and K. Krishnan. 2019. Energy Recovery Council, 2018 Directory of Waste-to-28 Energy Facilities. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at 29 http://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ERC-2018-directory.pdf. TN7700.
| |
| | |
| 30 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. TN3331.
| |
| | |
| 31 Miller, M.W. 1983. "Biological Effects from Exposure to Transmission Line Electromagnetic 32 Fields. Right of Way 30(3):8-15, Gardena, California. TN1328.
| |
| | |
| 33 Moore, B.C., E. Martinez, J.M. Gay, and D.H. Rice. 2003. Survival of Salmonella enterica in 34 freshwater and sediments and transmission by the aquatic midge Chironomus tentans. Applied 35 and Environmental Microbiology69(8):4556-4560, Bethesda, Maryland. TN8515.
| |
| | |
| 5-20 1 Morris, J.E., C.C. Mischke, and R.L. Lane. 2005. "Culture and Propagation of Sunfish and Their
| |
| | |
| 2 Hybrids. American Fisheries Society, 46: 355-372. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. TN9697.
| |
| | |
| 3 Morrow, Jr., J.V., and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Habitat Requirements for Freshwater Fishes.
| |
| 4 EMRRP Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-06. U.S. Army Engineer Research 5 and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. TN7351.
| |
| | |
| 6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
| |
| 7 TN661.
| |
| | |
| 8 National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. TN4157.
| |
| | |
| 9 National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq. TN4482.
| |
| | |
| 10 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 1991. Effects of Ionizing 11 Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland. TN729.
| |
| | |
| 12 Nebeker, A.V., F.D. Baker, and S.L. Weitz. 1981. Survival and Adult Emergence of Aquatic 13 Insects in Air-Supersaturated Water. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 1(3):243-250. London, 14 England. DOI:10.1080/02705060.1981.9664039. Accessed June 13, 2022, at 15 https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.1981.9664039. TN7725.
| |
| | |
| 16 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2007. Industry Ground Water Protection InitiativeFinal 17 Guidance Document. NEI 07-07, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML091170588.
| |
| 18 TN1913.
| |
| | |
| 19 NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation). 2023. "Standards." Washington, D.C.
| |
| 20 Available at https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/Pages/default.aspx. TN9156.
| |
| | |
| 21 NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). 2019. Cost and Performance Baselined for 22 Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. NETL-PUB-23 22638, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. TN7484.
| |
| | |
| 24 NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 25 Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. NIH Publication 26 No 99-4493, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. ADAMS 27 Accession No. ML093240277. TN78.
| |
| | |
| 28 NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 2002. Electric and Magnetic 29 Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers. National Institutes of 30 Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML112660024.
| |
| 31 TN6560.
| |
| | |
| 32 NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1996. EMFs In The Workplace.
| |
| 33 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A339. TN6766.
| |
| | |
| 5-21 1 NMSA (National Marine Sanctuaries Act). 2000. "National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Title 16, 2 Chapter 32 § 1431 et seq. United States Code as amended by Public Law 106-513. Silver 3 Spring, M.D. Available at https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-4 prod/media/archive/library/national/nmsa.pdf. TN7197.
| |
| | |
| 5 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. Regional Climate Trends and 6 Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 2. Climate of the Southeast U.S.
| |
| 7 Technical Report NESDIS 142-2. Washington, D.C. TN7424.
| |
| | |
| 8 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022. "NOAA National Centers for 9 Environmental Information, State Climate Summaries, 2022, South Carolina. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 10 Available at https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/sc/. TN9132.
| |
| | |
| 11 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022. Local Climatological Data 12 Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Greer, South Carolina. Silver Spring, Maryland.
| |
| 13 TN9477.
| |
| | |
| 14 NOAA NCEI (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for 15 Environmental Information). 2021. "Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, Precipitation.
| |
| 16 Asheville, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21187A187. TN6902.
| |
| | |
| 17 NOAA NCEI (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for 18 Environmental Information). 2021. "Climate at a Glance: County Time Series, Temperature.
| |
| 19 Asheville, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21187A199. TN6903.
| |
| | |
| 20 NOAA NCEI (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for 21 Environmental Information). 2023. "Storm Events for Oconee and Pickens Counties, South 22 Carolina, Thunderstorm Wind, Flood, Tornado, and Hail. Silver Spring, Maryland. Available at 23 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=45%2CSOUTH+CAROLINA 24 . TN9148.
| |
| | |
| 25 Nolte, C.G., T.L. Spero, J.H. Bowden, M.S. Mallard, and P.D. Dolwick. 2018. The potential 26 effects of climate change on air quality across the conterminous US at 2030 under three 27 Representative Concentration Pathways. Atmos Chem Phys. 18(20):15471-15489. TN8571.
| |
| | |
| 28 NPS (National Park Service). 2010. Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work 29 Group (FLAG). Phase I Report-Revised (2010), Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR-30 2010/232. Hopkins, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML22118A305. TN7925.
| |
| | |
| 31 NPS (National Park Service). 2023. "National Register of Historic Places: Oconee and Pickens, 32 Counties." Washington, D.C. TN9230.
| |
| | |
| 33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 34 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 35 ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738. TN288.
| |
| | |
| 5-22 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Biological Assessment for Endangered and 2 Threatened Species Potentially Affected by the Continued Operation of the Oconee Nuclear 3 Station and Associated Power Transmission Lines. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 4 ML15254A173. TN8964.
| |
| | |
| 5 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 6 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Addendum to Main Report, NUREG-1437, Volume 1, 7 Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML040690720. TN289.
| |
| | |
| 8 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 9 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 2, Regarding the Oconee Nuclear Station, 10 Final Report. NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML003670637. TN8942.
| |
| | |
| 11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. "Final Generic Environmental Impact 12 Statement of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586). NUREG-0586, 13 Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023470327, 14 ML023500228. TN665.
| |
| | |
| 15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 16 Learned Task Force Final Report. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML083220312.
| |
| 17 TN1000.
| |
| | |
| 18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Memorandum from S. Sakai, General 19 Engineer, Reaction Inspection Branch Division of Inspection and Regional Support, to T. Reis, 20 Chief Reactor Inspection Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, dated October 21 12, 2007, regarding "Summary of September 27, 2007, Category 2 Public Meeting with the 22 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to Discuss the Industry's Implementation of the Ground Water 23 Protection Initiative. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML072830149. TN9033.
| |
| | |
| 24 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to R.W.
| |
| 25 Borchardt, dated April 2, 2009, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-08-0197 - Options to 26 Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007 27 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. SRM-SECY 28 0197, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML090920103. TN6651.
| |
| | |
| 29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Radiological Environmental Monitoring for 30 Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession 31 No. ML091310135. TN3802.
| |
| | |
| 32 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Memorandum from Chairman Jaczko to 33 Commissioners Svinicki, Apostolakis, Magwood, and Ostendorff, dated March 21, 2011, 34 regarding "NRC Actions Following the Events in Japan. COMGBJ-11-0002, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 35 TN7448.
| |
| | |
| 5-23 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. "In the Matter of All Power Reactor 2 Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in the Active or Deferred Status. Order 3 Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements For Mitigation Strategies For Beyond-Design-4 Basis External Events (Effective Immediately). 7590-01-P, EA-12-049, NRC-2012-0068, 5 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12056A045. TN7947.
| |
| | |
| 6 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from E. Leeds to All Power Reactor 7 Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, dated March 12, 8 2012, regarding "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 9 Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task 10 Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident. Washington, D.C. ADAMS 11 Accession No. ML12053A340. TN2198.
| |
| | |
| 12 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 13 Combined Licenses (COLs) for William States Lee III Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. NUREG-14 2111, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13340A005. TN6435.
| |
| | |
| 15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 16 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 17 Package Accession No. ML13107A023. TN2654.
| |
| | |
| 18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Email from B.A. Grange to U.S. Fish and 19 Wildlife Service, dated June 17, 2014, regarding "Davis Besse Operating License Renewal.
| |
| 20 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14168A616. TN7385.
| |
| | |
| 21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 22 for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Report, NUREG-2157, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 23 ADAMS Package Accession No. ML14198A440. TN4117.
| |
| | |
| 24 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis:
| |
| 25 Background Information. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14140A648. TN8997.
| |
| | |
| 26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. Biological Assessment on the Northern 27 Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Indian Point Nuclear 28 Generating Units 2 and 3, Proposed License Renewal. Docket Numbers 50-247 and 50-286, 29 Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML15161A086. TN7382.
| |
| | |
| 30 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 31 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 53 Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, 32 Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 53, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 33 Accession No. ML15075A438. TN5842.
| |
| | |
| 34 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018. Biological Evaluation of Impacts to Northern 35 Long-Eared Bat, Rufa Red Knot, Piping Plover, and Roseate Tern, Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 36 Proposed License Renewal to Operating License No. NPF-86. Docket No. 50-443, Rockville, 37 Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML18186A692. TN7381.
| |
| | |
| 5-24 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018. "Seismic Reviews at U.S. Nuclear Power 2 Plants." Backgrounder, June 2018, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML081620327.
| |
| 3 TN8998.
| |
| | |
| 4 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019. Environmental Impact Statement for an 5 Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site. NUREG-2226, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 6 ADAMS Package Accession ML19087A266. TN6136.
| |
| | |
| 7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 8 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 6, Second Renewal: Regarding Subsequent 9 License Renewal for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, 10 Supplement 6, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20071D538.
| |
| 11 TN7324.
| |
| | |
| 12 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Letter from R.J. Bernardo, Project Manager 13 Integrated Program Management and Beyond-Design-Basis Branch, to J.E. Burchfield, Jr., Site 14 Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated November 17, 2020, regarding Oconee Nuclear 15 Station Units 1, 2, and 3- Documentation of the Completion of Required Actions Taken in 16 Response to the Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 17 ADAMS Accession No. ML20304A369. TN8995.
| |
| | |
| 18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 19 Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues.
| |
| 20 LIC-203, Revision 4, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20016A379. TN6399.
| |
| | |
| 21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23: Second Renewal Regarding 23 Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for 24 Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 25 Accession No. ML21306A226. TN7293.
| |
| | |
| 26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Email from B. Arlene, to S. Quamme, dated 27 November 9, 2021, regarding "NRC Request for Concurrence with Endangered Species Act 28 Determination for Point Beach Subsequent License Renewal, Issuance of Draft Supplemental 29 Environmental Impact Statement, and Opportunity for Public Comment (Consultation Code:
| |
| 30 03E17000-2021-SLI-0702). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21307A152. TN9162.
| |
| | |
| 31 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Letter from L.J. Rakovan, Senior 32 Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Review License Renewal Branch Division of 33 Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 34 Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated November 23, 35 2021, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3 - Summary of the Environmental 36 Remote Audit Related to the Review of the Subsequent License Renewal Application (EPID 37 Number: L-2021-SLE-0002). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21323A113.
| |
| 38 TN8910.
| |
| | |
| 5-25 1 NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear 2 Generating Units 3 and 4). CLI-22-02, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 3 ML22055A496. TN8182.
| |
| | |
| 4 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Letter from L.J. Rakovan, Acting Chief 5 Environmental Review License Renewal Branch Division of Rulemaking, Environment, and 6 Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice 7 President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated January 10, 2022, regarding "Issuance of 8 Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission Staffs Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3, Subsequent 10 License Renewal Application (EPID No. L-2021-Sle-0002) (Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 And 50-11 287). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21357A040. TN8905.
| |
| | |
| 12 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 13 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2,and 3); Exelon Generating 14 Company, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3); Florida Power & Light Co.
| |
| 15 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4); Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC (Point 16 Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power 17 Station, Units 1 and 2). CLI-22-03, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession Nos.
| |
| 18 ML22055A521, ML22055A526, ML22055A527, ML22055A533, ML22055A554. TN8272.
| |
| | |
| 19 NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial 20 Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2020: Fifty-Third Annual Report. NUREG-0713, 21 Volume 42, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 22 ML22276A269. TN8530.
| |
| | |
| 23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. "2022-2023 Information Digest. NUREG-24 1350, Volume 34, Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-25 collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/index.html. TN9126.
| |
| | |
| 26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3 27 Subsequent License Renewal Application Requests for Confirmation of Information 28 Environmental Review. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23156A245. TN8934.
| |
| | |
| 29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Letter from L.J. Rakovan, Senior 30 Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Review License Renewal Branch Division of 31 Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 32 Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated April 5, 2023, 33 regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, And 3 - License Renewal Regulatory Audit 34 Regarding the Environmental Review of the Subsequent License Renewal Application 35 Supplement (EPID Number. L-2021-SLE-0002)." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 36 ML23075A073. TN8911.
| |
| | |
| 5-26 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from S.S. Koenick, Chief 2 Environmental Project Manager Branch 1 Division of Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial 3 Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President 4 Oconee Nuclear Station, dated February 1, 2024, regarding "Issuance of Environmental 5 Scoping Summary Report Associated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staffs 6 Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3, Subsequent License Renewal 7 Application (EPID Number: L-2021-SLE- 0002) (Docket Numbers: 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-8 287). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23304A138. TN9478.
| |
| | |
| 9 NRC and OSHA (Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Occupational Safety and Health 10 Administration). 2013. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 12 ADAMS Accession No. ML11354A432. TN8542.
| |
| | |
| 13 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2016. "Geothermal Power Generation Current 14 and Planned Nameplate Capacity (MW) by State. Golden, Colorado. Available at 15 https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/geothermal-capacity.jpg. TN8469.
| |
| | |
| 16 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2018. "Geospatial Data Science, Solar 17 Resource Maps and Data: Global Horizontal Irradiance. Washington, D.C. Available at 18 http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html. TN8350.
| |
| | |
| 19 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2020. "Electricity Annual Technology Baseline 20 (ATB) Data Download. Golden, Colorado. Available at https://atb-21 archive.nrel.gov/electricity/2020/data.php. TN8425.
| |
| | |
| 22 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2023. "Geospatial Data Science, Solar 23 Resource Data, Tools, and Maps. Golden, Colorado. TN8959.
| |
| | |
| 24 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Undated. Concentrating Solar Power.
| |
| 25 Golden, Colorado. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.nrel.gov/csp/index.html. TN7710.
| |
| | |
| 26 NuScale (NuScale Power LLC). 2022. "Minimizing Environmental Footprint: Mitigating the 27 Environmental Impacts of Electrical Generating Technology. Portland, OR. Available at 28 https://www.nuscalepower.com/environment/environmental-footprint. TN7327.
| |
| | |
| 29 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. TN4453.
| |
| | |
| 30 Oconee County. 2023. "Planning & Zoning, Overlay Districts. Walhalla, South Carolina.
| |
| 31 Available at https://oconeesc.com/planning-and-zoning-home/zoning-info/overlay-districts.
| |
| 32 TN9127.
| |
| | |
| 33 Oconee County. 2018. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 34 30, 2018. Walhalla, South Carolina. TN9061.
| |
| | |
| 35 Oconee County. 2019. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 36 30, 2019. Oconee County, South Carolina. TN9057.
| |
| | |
| 5-27 1 Oconee County. 2019. Oconee Country, SC Budget Document 2019-2020. Walhalla, South 2 Carolina. TN9047.
| |
| | |
| 3 Oconee County. 2020. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 4 30, 2020. Walhalla, South Carolina. TN9060.
| |
| | |
| 5 Oconee County. 2020. Oconee County, South Carolina Comprehensive Plan 2020. Walhalla, 6 South Carolina. TN9067.
| |
| | |
| 7 Oconee County. 2021. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 8 30, 2021. Walhalla, South Carolina. TN9059.
| |
| | |
| 9 Oconee County. 2021. Oconee Country Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Approved Annual Budget 06 10 2021. Walhalla, South Carolina. TN9055.
| |
| | |
| 11 Oconee County. 2022. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 12 30, 2022. Walhalla, South Carolina. TN9058.
| |
| | |
| 13 Oconee County. 2023. "Planning & Zoning, Comprehensive Plan 2020. Walhalla, South 14 Carolina. Available at https://oconeesc.com/planning-and-zoning-home/comprehensive-plan.
| |
| 15 TN9130.
| |
| | |
| 16 Orsted. Undated. Our Offshore Wind Projects in the U.S. Boston, Massachusetts. Accessed 17 June 12, 2022, at https://us.orsted.com/wind-projects. TN7705.
| |
| | |
| 18 Oscar, T.P. 2009. Predictive Model for Survival and Growth of Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 19 on Chicken Skin during Temperature Abuse. Journal of Food Protection 72(2):304-314.
| |
| 20 TN8514.
| |
| | |
| 21 Pardue, G.B. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Alewife and Blueback Herring. 82/10.58, 22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML090780615.
| |
| 23 TN9023.
| |
| | |
| 24 Parsons, J.W. and J.B. Kimsey. 1954. A Report on the Mississippi Threadfin Shad. The 25 Progressive Fish-Culturist 16(4):179-181, Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-26 8659(1954)16[179:AROTMT]2.0.CO;2. TN9020.
| |
| | |
| 27 Patel, S. 2018. The Big Picture: Energy Storage. POWER. Rockville, Maryland. Available at:
| |
| 28 https://www.powermag.com/the-big-picture-energy-storage-mandates/. TN8416.
| |
| | |
| 29 Pendleton South Carolina. Undated. Wastewater Treatment Facility. Pendleton, South 30 Carolina. Accessed February 1, 2022, available at https://townofpendleton.org/wastewater-31 treatment-facility/. TN9054.
| |
| | |
| 5-28 1 Petersen, M.D., A.M. Shumway, P.M. Powers, C.S. Mueller, M.P. Moschetti, A.D. Frankel, S.
| |
| 2 Rezaeian, D.E. McNamara, N. Luco, O.S. Boyd, K.S. Rukstales, K.S. Jaiswal, E.M. Thompson, 3 S.M. Hoover, B.S. Clayton, E.H. Field, and Y. Zeng. 2020. "The 2018 update of the US National 4 Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications. Earthquake Spectra 36(1):5-41, 5 Los Angeles, California. TN7281.
| |
| | |
| 6 PHAC (Public Health Agency of Canada). 2010. "Pathogen Safety Data Sheets: Infectious 7 Substances - Shigella spp. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Accessed September 7, 2023, at 8 https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/laboratory-biosafety-biosecurity/pathogen-9 safety-data-sheets-risk-assessment/shigella.html. TN8868.
| |
| | |
| 10 Pickens County. Undated. Public Service Commission. Pickens, South Carolina. Accessed 11 February 1, 2022, available at 12 https://www.co.pickens.sc.us/departments/public_works/public_service_commission/index.php.
| |
| 13 TN9051.
| |
| | |
| 14 Pickens County. 2022. OnePickens County: A Comprehensive Plan for Our Future. Pickens 15 County, South Carolina. TN9041.
| |
| | |
| 16 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq. TN6607.
| |
| | |
| 17 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C 6901 Note. Public Law 94-580, 90 18 Stat. 2795. TN1281.
| |
| | |
| 19 Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 20 Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, 978-1-57003-680-4. Columbia, South 21 Carolina. TN9015.
| |
| | |
| 22 Romberg, G.P., S.A. Spigarelli, W. Prepejchal, M.M. Thommes, J.W. Gibbons, and R.R.
| |
| 23 Sharitz. 1974. Fish Behavior at a Thermal Discharge into Lake Michigan. Thermal Ecology 24 Symposium. CONF-730505. Aiken, South Carolina. TN7891.
| |
| | |
| 25 SC Code 48-39. 2023. South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 48, Environmental Protection and 26 Conservation, Chapter 39, "Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands." Columbia, South Carolina.
| |
| 27 TN8966.
| |
| | |
| 28 SC Code 50-15-10. South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 50, Fish, Game, and Watercraft, 29 Chapter 15, "Nongame and Endangered Species. Columbia, South Carolina. TN9181.
| |
| | |
| 30 SC Code 61-101. South Carolina Code of Laws, Chapter 61, Department of Health and 31 Environmental Control, 61-101, "Water Quality Certification." Columbia, South Carolina.
| |
| 32 TN9011.
| |
| | |
| 33 SC Code 61-119. South Carolina Code of Laws, Chapter 61, Department of Health and 34 Environmental Control, 61-119, "Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting.
| |
| 35 Columbia, South Carolina. TN9007.
| |
| | |
| 5-29 1 SC Code 61-9.122. South Carolina Code of Laws, Chapter 61, Department of Health and 2 Environmental Control, 61-9.122, "The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
| |
| 3 Columbia, South Carolina. TN9010.
| |
| | |
| 4 SC Code 6-29. South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 6, Local Government - Provisions Applicable 5 to Special Purpose Districts and Other Political Subdivisions, Chapter 29, "South Carolina Local 6 Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994. Columbia, South Carolina.
| |
| 7 TN9129.
| |
| | |
| 8 SCDAH (South Carolina Department of Archives History). 2023. Native American Time Periods 9 and Artifact Sequence. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed February 18, 2022, at 10 https://scdah.sc.gov/historic-preservation/resources/native-american-heritage/native-american-11 time-periods-and-artifact. TN9005.
| |
| | |
| 12 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2012. Regulation 13 61-69, Classified Waters. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed March 27, 2021, at 14 https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/R.61-69_0.pdf. TN6987.
| |
| | |
| 15 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2014. Regulation 16 61-68, Water Classifications and Standards. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed March 27, 17 2021, at https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/R.61-68_0.pdf. TN6986.
| |
| | |
| 18 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2017. Regulation 19 61-92, Underground Storage Tank Control Regulations. Columbia, South Carolina. TN9028.
| |
| | |
| 20 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2019. "Critical 21 Area Permitting. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at https://scdhec.gov/environment/your-22 water-coast/ocean-coastal-resource-management-ocrm/critical-area-permitting. TN9264.
| |
| | |
| 23 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2019. "Stormwater 24 - Construction Activities. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 25 https://scdhec.gov/bow/stormwater/stormwater-construction-activities. TN9154.
| |
| | |
| 26 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2021. "Public 27 Water Supply Wells." Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 26, 2023, at https://sc-28 department-of-health-and-environmental-control-gis-sc-29 dhec.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/3c3bcbe4deb5477f9c2ba8138937598f_1/explore?location=33.68 30 7337%2C-79.100519%2C6.98. TN9030.
| |
| | |
| 31 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2022. "Industrial 32 Activities Associated with Stormwater Discharges." Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed 33 September 25, 2023, at https://scdhec.gov/bow/stormwater/industrial-activities-associated-34 stormwater-dischargese. TN9009.
| |
| | |
| 35 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2022. Regulation 36 61-119, Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting. Columbia, South Carolina.
| |
| 37 Available at https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/R.61-119.pdf. TN9069.
| |
| | |
| 5-30 1 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2023. "Lake 2 Keowee Fish Consumption Advisory. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 20, 3 2023, at https://scdhec.gov/bow/aquatic-science-programs/fish-consumption-advisories/lake-4 keowee-fish-consumption-advisory. T8971.
| |
| | |
| 5 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2023. "SC DHEC 6 Air Permit Search. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 20, 2023, at 7 https://apps.dhec.sc.gov/Environment/PermitCoverage. TN8970.
| |
| | |
| 8 SCDNR (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2015. Freshwater Fish - Species -
| |
| 9 Threadfin Shad. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 10 https://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/species/threadfinshad.html. TN9021.
| |
| | |
| 11 SCDNR (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2015. State Wildlife Action Plan 12 (SWAP). Columbia, South Carolina. Available at https://www.dnr.sc.gov/swap/index.html.
| |
| 13 TN9025.
| |
| | |
| 14 SCDNR (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2020. "South Carolina's Bald 15 Eagles - Nesting. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed November 17, 2023, at 16 https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/baldeagle/nesting.html. TN9271.
| |
| | |
| 17 SCDoT (South Carolina Department of Transportation). 2021. SCDOT 10 Year Plan Project 18 Information Resource. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 26, 2023, available at 19 https://www.scdot.org/projects/ten-year-plan.aspx. TN 9062.
| |
| | |
| 20 Schaub, A., J. Ostwald, and B.M. Siemers. 2008. "Foraging Bats Avoid Noise. The Journal of 21 Experimental Biology, 211:3174-3180. Cambridge, United Kingdom. TN8867.
| |
| | |
| 22 School District of Oconee County. 2022. Fast Facts. Walhalla, South Carolina. TN9046.
| |
| | |
| 23 SCORS (South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff). 2023. "South Carolina Energy Freedom 24 Act. Columbia, South Carolina. TN9100.
| |
| | |
| 25 Scott-Walton, B., K.M. Clark, B.R. Holt, D.C. Jones, S.D. Kaplan, J.S. Krebs, P. Polson, R.A.
| |
| 26 Shepherd, and J.R. Young. 1979. Potential Environmental Effects of 765-kV Transmission 27 Lines: Views Before the New York State Public Service Commission, Cases 26529 and 26559, 28 1976-1978. DOE/EV-0056, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 1, 29 2022, at: https://doi.org/10.2172/5766103. TN7480.
| |
| | |
| 30 SCSP (South Carolina State Parks). 2023. Keowee-Toxaway State Park. South Carolina 31 Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism. Available at 32 https://southcarolinaparks.com/keowee-toxaway. TN9026.
| |
| | |
| 33 SDCR (State of South Carolina Department of Revenue). 2018. SC Revenue Ruling #18-13, 34 Manufacturing Property-New Partial Property Tax Exemption (Property Tax). Columbia, South 35 Carolina. TN9056.
| |
| | |
| 5-31 1 SCDoE (South Carolina Department of Education). 2023. South Carolina District and School 2 Report Cards Learn about South Carolinas Schools and Districts. Columbia, South Carolina.
| |
| 3 Accessed September 26, 2023, available at https://screportcards.com/?y=2018. TN9064.
| |
| | |
| 4 SDPC (School District Pickens County). 2020. 2020 Report to the Community. Easley, South 5 Carolina. TN9048.
| |
| | |
| 6 SDPC (School District Pickens County). 2022. General Fund Budget FY 2022-2023, Third 7 Reading. Easley, South Carolina. TN9049.
| |
| | |
| 8 Sjollema, A.L., E.J. Gates, R.H. Hilderbrand, and J. Sherwell. 2014. Offshore Activity of Bats 9 along the Mid-Atlantic Coast. Northeastern Naturalist 21(2): 154-163, Steuben, Maine.
| |
| 10 TN8472.
| |
| | |
| 11 SNYPSC (State of New York Public Service Commission). 1978. Opinion No. 78-13, Opinion 12 and Order Determining Health and Safety Issues, Imposing Operating Conditions, and 13 Authorizing, in Case 26529, Operation Pursuant to Those Conditions. Power Authority of the 14 State of New York, Albany, New York. TN7478.
| |
| | |
| 15 Sullivan R.G., L.B. Kirchler, J. Cothren, and S.L. Winters. 2013. Offshore Wind Turbine Visibility 16 and Visual Impact Threshold Distances. DOI 10.1017/S1466046612000464. Argonne National 17 Laboratory. Lemont, Illinois. TN8444.
| |
| | |
| 18 Tao, Z., A. Williams, H. Huang, M. Caughey, and X. Liang. 2007. Sensitivity of U.S. surface 19 ozone to future emissions and climate changes. Journal of Geophysical Research Letters 20 34:L08811. TN8567.
| |
| | |
| 21 Todar, K. 2004. Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In Todars Online Textbook of Bacteriology.
| |
| 22 University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Bacteriology, Madison, Wisconsin. Accessed 23 June 12, 2022, at http://textbookofbacteriology.net/pseudomonas.html. TN7723.
| |
| | |
| 24 TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. HCM2000, 25 Washington, D.C. Available at:
| |
| 26 https://sjnavarro.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/highway_capacital_manual.pdf. TN9065.
| |
| | |
| 27 TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2013. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, License 28 Renewal Application, Appendix E, Applicants Environmental Report, Operating License 29 Renewal Stage. Chattanooga, Tennessee: TVA. January 7, 2013. ADAMS Nos. ML13024A012, 30 ML13024A013, ML13024A006, ML13024A007, ML13024A008, ML13024A009, and 31 ML13024A010. TN7899.
| |
| | |
| 32 Tyndall, R.L., K.S. Ironside, P.L. Metler, E.L. Tan, T.C. Hazen, and C.B. Fliermans. 1989.
| |
| 33 Effect of Thermal Additions on the Density and Distribution of Thermophilic Amoebae and 34 Pathogenic Naegleria fowleri in a Newly Created Cooling Lake. Applied and Environmental 35 Microbiology55(3):722-732, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML080970002. TN8598.
| |
| | |
| 5-32 1 UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). 2010.
| |
| 2 "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly 3 with Scientific Annexes. Volume 1: Sources. New York, New York. Available at 4 https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-5 reports/UNSCEAR_2008_Report_Vol.I-CORR.pdf. TN7974.
| |
| | |
| 6 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2014. Final Environmental Assessment New 7 Operating Agreement Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southeastern Power 8 Administration, and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. Washington, D.C. TN9153.
| |
| | |
| 9 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2023. "Hartwell Dam & Lake. Savannah, Georgia.
| |
| 10 Accessed September 27, 2023, available at https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions-11 and-Offices/Operations-Division/Hartwell-Dam-and-Lake/Introduction/. TN9070.
| |
| | |
| 12 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 1992. 1990 Census of Population: General Population 13 Characteristics. Report Number CP-1, Washington, D.C. Available at 14 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1992/dec/cp-1.html. TN9035.
| |
| | |
| 15 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2001. DP-1. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics.
| |
| 16 Report Number DP-1, Washington, D.C. Available at 17 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2001/dec/2kh.html. TN9036.
| |
| | |
| 18 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2012. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010.
| |
| 19 Report Number CPH-1, Washington, D.C. Available at 20 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/dec/cph-1.html. TN9037.
| |
| | |
| 21 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2020. Decennial Census, Total Population, Table P2: Urban and 22 Rural for Oconee County and Pickens County, South Carolina. Washington, D.C. Accessed 23 September 26, 2023, available at 24 https://data.census.gov/table?q=P2&g=050XX00US45073,45077. TN9040.
| |
| | |
| 25 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2021. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Data 26 Profiles, Table DP04: Selected Housing Characteristics for Oconee County and Pickens 27 County, South Carolina. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 26, 2023, available at 28 https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP04&g=050XX00US45073,45077&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP04.
| |
| 29 TN9045.
| |
| | |
| 30 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2021. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Data 31 Profiles, Table B25004: Vacancy Status for Oconee County and Pickens County, South 32 Carolina. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 26, 2023, available at 33 https://data.census.gov/table?q=B25004:+VACANCY+STATUS&g=050XX00US45073,45077&ti 34 d=ACSDT5Y2021.B25004. TN9043.
| |
| | |
| 5-33 1 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2022. American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates Data 2 Profiles, Table DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics for Oconee County and Pickens 3 County, South Carolina. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 26, 2023, available at 4 https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP03&g=040XX00US45_050XX00US45073,45077&tid=ACSD 5 P1Y2022.DP03. TN9034.
| |
| | |
| 6 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2022. Decennial Census, Total Population, Table P1: Race for 7 Oconee County and Pickens County, South Carolina. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 8 26, 2023, available at 9 https://data.census.gov/table?g=050XX00US45073,45077&y=2020&d=DEC+Redistricting+Data 10 +(PL+94-171)&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P1. TN9038.
| |
| | |
| 11 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2022. "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months, 5-12 Year Estimates, Table ID: C17002, All Block Groups: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia."
| |
| 13 Washington, D.C. Accessed at 14 https://data.census.gov/table?q=C17002&g=040XX00US13$1500000,37$1500000,45$1500000 15 . TN9013.
| |
| | |
| 16 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture.) 2019. 2017 Census of Agriculture, South Carolina 17 State and County Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series Part 40. AC-17-A-40, Washington, 18 D.C. TN9044.
| |
| | |
| 19 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023. Custom Soil Resource Report for Oconee 20 County Area, South Carolina, and Pickens County, South Carolina. Natural Resources 21 Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. TN9204.
| |
| | |
| 22 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in 23 the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University 24 Press, New York, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML100580077. TN18.
| |
| | |
| 25 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the 26 United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
| |
| 27 Yohe (eds.). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 28 ML14129A233. TN3472.
| |
| | |
| 29 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2017. Climate Science Special Report:
| |
| 30 Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume I. Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J.
| |
| 31 Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 32 ML19008A410. doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. TN5848.
| |
| | |
| 33 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in 34 the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume II. D.R. Reidmiller, C.W.
| |
| 35 Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.).
| |
| 36 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19008A414. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. TN5847.
| |
| | |
| 5-34 1 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alabama, 2 Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. HA 730-G. J.A. Miller (editor), Reston, Virginia. ADAMS 3 Accession No. ML100290484. TN6648.
| |
| | |
| 4 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature 5 Geothermal Resources of the United States. Fact Sheet 2008-3082, Menlo Park, California.
| |
| 6 Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf. TN7697.
| |
| | |
| 7 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2014. Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United 8 States National Seismic Hazard Maps. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1091, 9 Reston, Virginia. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1091/pdf/ofr2014-1091.pdf. TN6177.
| |
| | |
| 10 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019. 2014 Mineral Yearbook, South Carolina [Advance 11 Release]. Washington, D.C. TN9149.
| |
| | |
| 12 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2023. "Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS). Reston, 13 Virginia. Accessed September 21, 2023, at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/map-14 graded.html#home. TN8986.
| |
| | |
| 15 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2023. "Search Earthquake Catalog, Earthquake Hazards 16 Program. Latitude 34.79457, Longitude -82.8983, Reston, Virginia. Available at 17 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. TN8987.
| |
| | |
| 18 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2023. "USGS Groundwater Data for the Nation. Reston, 19 Virginia. Accessed September 26, 2023, at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw. TN9032.
| |
| | |
| 20 Varfalvy, L., R.D. Dallaire, P.S. Maruvada, and N. Rivest. 1985. Measurement and Statistical 21 Analysis of Ozone from HVDC and HVAC Transmission Lines. IEEE Transactions on Power 22 Apparatus and Systems PAS- 104(10): 2789 - 2797. DOI: 10.1109/TPAS.1985.319122.
| |
| 23 Piscataway, New Jersey. Accessed May 16, 2022, at 24 https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1985.319122. TN7364.
| |
| | |
| 25 Wachob, A., A.D. Park, and R. Newcome, Jr. 2009. South Carolina State Water Assessment, 26 Second Edition. Land, Water & Conservation Division South Carolina Department of Natural 27 Resources Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 26, 2023, at 28 https://hydrology.dnr.sc.gov/pdfs/assessment/SC_Water_Assessment_2.pdf. TN9029.
| |
| | |
| 29 Webster, D. 2013. Mammalian Survey for Keowee-Toxaway Relicensing Project (FERC Project 30 No. 2503). University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North Carolina. TN8968.
| |
| | |
| 31 Wu, S., L.J. Mickley, E.M. Leibensperger, D.J. Jacob, D. Rind, and D.G. Streets. 2007. Effects 32 of 2000-2050 global change on ozone air quality in the United States. Journal of Geophysical 33 Research 113:1-12, Washington, D.C. TN8566.
| |
| | |
| 34
| |
| | |
| 5-35
| |
| | |
| 1 6 LIST OF PREPARERS
| |
| | |
| 2 Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear Materials Safety 3 and Safeguards prepared this environmental impact statement with assistance from other NRC 4 organizations and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Table 6-1 identifies each 5 contributors name, affiliation, education and experience, and function or expertise.
| |
| | |
| 6 Table 6-1 List of Preparers Name Education and Experience Function or Expertise Beth Alferink, NRC MS Environmental Engineering Human Health, Uranium Fuel MS Nuclear Engineering Cycle, Radiological and BS Nuclear Engineering Nonradiological Waste 26 years of national laboratory, industry, and Management, Spent Nuclear Fuel, government experience including radiation Termination and Decommissioning detection and measurements, nuclear power plant emergency response, operations, health physics, decommissioning, shielding and criticality Briana Arlene, Masters Certification, National Environmental Aquatic Resources, Special Status NRC Policy Act (NEPA) Species and Habitats, Endangered BS Conservation Biology Species Act Section 7 18 years of experience in ecological impact Consultation, Essential Fish analysis, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Habitat Consultation consultations, and Essential Fish Habitat consultations Phyllis Clark, NRC MS Nuclear Engineering Radiological and Nonradiological MBA Business Administration Waste Management, Uranium Fuel BS Physics Cycle, Spent Nuclear Fuel, 40 years of industry and government Postulated Accidents experience, including nuclear power plant and production reactor operations, systems engineering, reactor engineering, fuels engineering, criticality, nuclear power plant emergency response, and project management Jerry Dozier, NRC MS Reliability Engineering Severe Accident Mitigation MBA Business Administration Alternative, Postulated Accidents BS Mechanical Engineering 31 years of experience including operations, reliability engineering, technical reviews, and NRC branch management Kevin Folk, NRC MS Environmental Biology Geologic Environment, Cooling BA Geoenvironmental Studies and Auxiliary Water Systems 33 years of experience in NEPA compliance; Surface Water Resources geologic, hydrologic, and water quality impacts analysis; utility infrastructure analysis, environmental regulatory compliance, and water supply and wastewater discharge permitting 7
| |
| | |
| 6-1 Table 6-1 List of Preparers (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Name Education and Experience Function or Expertise
| |
| | |
| Lifeng Guo, NRC PhD Hydrogeology Groundwater Resources, Geologic MS Geology Environment BS Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology Registered Professional Geologist Over 31 years of combined experience in hydrogeologic investigation, hydrogeochemical analysis, remediation, and impact analysis.
| |
| Robert Hoffman, BS Environmental Resource Management Replacement Power Alternatives, NRC 36 years of experience in NEPA compliance, Historic and Cultural Resources environmental impact assessment, alternatives identification and development, and energy facility siting Caroline Hsu, NRC BS Molecular Biology Terrestrial Ecology, Land Use, and BA English Literature Visual Resources 13 years of government experience Nancy Martinez, BS Earth and Environmental Science Air Quality, Meteorology and NRC AM Earth and Planetary Science Climatology, Noise, Greenhouse 10 years of experience in environmental impact Gases, Climate Change, Historic analysis and Cultural Resources Donald Palmrose, PhD Nuclear Engineering Human Health NRC MS Nuclear Engineering BS Nuclear Engineering 36 years of experience, including operations on U.S. Navy nuclear powered surface ships, technical and NEPA analyses, nuclear authorization basis support for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and NRC project management Leah Parks, NRC PhD Environmental Management Radiological and Nonradiological MS Environmental Engineering Waste Management, Spent BS Systems and Information Engineering Nuclear Fuel 17 years of academic and government experience including nuclear power plant operations, health physics, decommissioning, waste management, environmental impact analysis, and performance assessment Lance Rakovan, MS Nuclear Engineering Environmental Project Manager NRC BS Engineering Physics Project Management Professional; Over 26 years project management experience; 19 years of experience facilitating public NEPA interactions William Rautzen, MS Health Physics Human Health, Waste NRC BS Health Physics Management BS Industrial Hygiene 12 years of experience in environmental impact analysis
| |
| | |
| 6-2 Table 6-1 List of Preparers (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Name Education and Experience Function or Expertise Jeffrey Rikhoff, MRP Regional Environmental Planning Replacement Power Alternatives, NRC MS Development Economics Cumulative Effects BA English 44 years of combined industry and government experience in NEPA compliance for DOE Defense Programs/National Nuclear Security Administration and Nuclear Energy, U.S.
| |
| Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Interior; project management; socioeconomics and environmental justice impact analysis, historic and cultural resource impact assessments, consultation with American Indian tribes, and comprehensive land use and development planning studies Ted Smith, NRC MS Environmental Engineering Management Oversight BS Electrical Engineering 39 years of experience, including DOE Power Administration, support of site environmental management programs, and spent fuel management, oversight of U.S. Navy nuclear ship design, construction, and operation, NRC project management and management Dave Anderson, MS Forest Economics Socioeconomics PNNL BS Forest Resources 32 years of experience in NEPA planning, national and regional economic impact modeling, socioeconomics, and environmental justice impact analysis Rebecka Bence, MS Hydrogeology and Water Resource Groundwater Resources, PNNL Management Geologic Environment BS Earth and Environmental Science 5+ years in groundwater resource assessment and environmental impact evaluation, contaminated land risk assessment and remediation, and natural resource management and monitoring Teresa Carlon, BS Information Technology Reference Coordinator PNNL 30 years of experience as SharePoint administrator, project coordinator, and databases Caitlin Condon, PhD Radiation Health Physics Project Management PNNL BS Environmental Health 6 years of experience in health physics, NEPA environmental impact assessments, waste management, radionuclide dispersion and dosimetry modeling Susan Ennor, BA Journalism Production Editor PNNL 40 years of experience in document planning, editing, and production
| |
| | |
| 6-3 Table 6-1 List of Preparers (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Name Education and Experience Function or Expertise Tracy Fuentes, PhD Urban Design and Planning Land Use PNNL MS Plant Biology Terrestrial Resources BS Botany Over 15 years of experience, including NEPA planning; environmental impact analysis, environmental resource monitoring, data analysis, and research Dave Goodman, JD Law Land Use, Visual Resources, PNNL BS Economics Cumulative Impacts, NEPA 12 years of experience including NEPA Regulatory Analyst environmental impact assessments, ecological restoration, Endangered Species Act, land use and visual resources, and environmental law and policy Leah Hare, PNNL MS Geographic Information Science Deputy Project Management, BS Environmental Studies Nonradiological Waste, 10 years of experience in environmental Nonradiological Human Health, monitoring, regulatory compliance, project Cumulative Impacts management, and environmental assessment Kim Leigh, PNNL BS Environmental Science Nonradiological Waste 20 years of experience in NEPA compliance, project management and human health Philip Meyer, PhD Civil Engineering Groundwater Resources, PNNL MS Civil Engineering Geologic Environment BA Physics 30 years relevant experience in subsurface hydrology and contaminant transport, including 15 years of experience in groundwater resource assessment and environmental impacts analysis Ann Miracle, PNNL PhD Molecular Immunology Aquatic Resources, Terrestrial MS Molecular Genetics Resources BA Biology Over 15 years of experience in ecological impact analysis, Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations, and Essential Fish Habitat consultations Patrick Mirick, MS Fisheries Aquatic Resources PNNL BA Biology and Economics 15 years of experience in environmental assessments, policy and technical analysis for fisheries, and public outreach and engagement Jon Napier, PNNL PhD Radiation Health Physics Radiological Human Health, MS Health Physics Radiological Waste, Spent BS Environmental Science Nuclear Fuel Certified Health Physicist with 7 years of experience in health physics, nuclear materials inspections and licensing, and radiation safety.
| |
| | |
| 6-4 Table 6-1 List of Preparers (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Name Education and Experience Function or Expertise Harish Gadey, PhD Nuclear Engineering Spent Nuclear Fuel, Radiological PNNL MS Nuclear Engineering Waste, Radiological Human BS Mechanical Engineering health 8 years of experience in radiation detection, spent fuel management, and health physics Mike Parker, PNNL BA English Literature Production 25 years of experience copyediting, document design, and formatting and 20 years of experience in technical editing Rajiv Prasad, PhD Civil and Environmental Engineering Surface Water Resources PNNL MTech Civil Engineering BE Civil Engineering 25 years of experience in applying hydrologic principles to water resources engineering, hydrologic design, flooding assessments, environmental engineering, and impacts assessment including 15 years of experience in NEPA environmental assessments of surface water resources Kacoli Sen, PNNL PhD Cancer Biology Production Editor MS Zoology (Specialization Ecology)
| |
| BS Zoology Diploma in Environmental Law Over 6 years of document editing and production experience Kazi Tamaddun, PhD Civil and Environmental Engineering Surface Water Resources PNNL MS Civil Engineering 8 years of experience in hydrologic, hydraulic, ecosystem, and water systems modeling; hydro-climatology; climate change modeling and analysis Anita Waller, PNNL BA English Production Editor MA American Studies; 20 years of experience in reference management, developmental and copyediting, and document production Lin Zeng, PNNL PhD Environmental Science and Engineering Socioeconomics BE Civil Engineering 10 years of experience in socioeconomic analysis and environmental impact assessment BA = Bachelor of Arts; BE = Bachelor of Engineering; BS = Bachelor of Science; DOE = Department of Energy; MBA = Master of Business Administration; MRP = Master of Regional Planning; MS = Master of Science; NEPA =
| |
| National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; PhD = Doctor of Philosophy; PNNL = Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 6-5
| |
| | |
| 1 7 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS 2 TO WHOM THE NRC SENDS COPIES OF THIS EIS
| |
| | |
| Name Affiliation Steven M. Snider Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Tracy Watson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP Larry Long U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
| |
| Reid Nelson Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Elizabeth M. Johnson State Historic Preservation Office SC Department of Archives & History William Harris Catawba Indian Nation Dr. Wenonah G. Haire Catawba Indian Nation Chuck Hoskin, Jr Cherokee Nation Elizabeth Toombs Cherokee Nation Richard Sneed Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Russell Townsend Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Joe Bunch United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma David Hill Muscogee (Creek) Nation Corain Lowe-Zepeda Muscogee (Creek) Nation Mary Louise Worthy Piedmont American Indian Association Lower Eastern Cherokee Nation of SC (a) The NRC staff has listed the names of commenters during the scoping periods in the scoping summary reports (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML21357A040 (NRC 2022-TN8905) and ML23304A138 (NRC 2024-TN9478). The staff sent a copy of this EIS to those commenters who provided contact information. Appendix C, Consultation Correspondence, lists the correspondences to agencies and Tribes, including distribution of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 3
| |
| | |
| 7-1
| |
| | |
| 1 APPENDIX A 2
| |
| 3 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER 4 STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
| |
| | |
| 5 A.1 Comments Received During the First Scoping Period
| |
| | |
| 6 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff began the scoping process for the 7 environmental review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station) 8 subsequent license renewal (SLR) application in August 2021, in accordance with the National 9 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA-TN661). On 10 August 10, 2021, the NRC published a notice of intent in the Federal Register to conduct an 11 environmental scoping process for SLR of Oconee Station (86 FR 43684-TN8902). In its notice 12 of intent, the NRC staff requested that members of the public and stakeholders submit 13 comments on the environmental review for the Oconee Station SLR to the Federal Rulemaking 14 Website at Regulations.gov.
| |
| | |
| 15 The Oconee Station scoping process also included a public meeting that was held on 16 August 25, 2021. Because of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the public meeting took 17 the form of an online webinar that was accessible by phone and computer. To advertise this 18 public meeting, the NRC issued press releases, posted on NRC social media and on the NRC 19 public website, and purchased newspaper advertisements in The Journal - Upstate Today. In 20 addition to NRC staff, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) staff, local officials, and 21 members of the public participated in the public meeting. After the NRC staff presented the 22 prepared statements on the license renewal process, the staff opened the meeting for public 23 comments. Attendees made oral statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified 24 court reporter. A summary and a transcript of the public scoping meeting are available in the 25 NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under ADAMS 26 Accession No. ML21278A670. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at 27 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
| |
| | |
| 28 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the staff issued the Oconee Station Scoping Summary 29 Report, dated January 2022 (NRC 2022-TN8905). The report contains a summary of the 30 comments received during the scoping period grouped by subject area and significant issues of 31 concern that are in scope and considered as part of the environmental review.
| |
| | |
| 32 A.2 Comments Received During the Second Scoping Period
| |
| | |
| 33 Consistent with Commission direction, to prepare this environmental impact statement for 34 Oconee Station, NRC expanded the original scope of its efforts to review all applicable Category 35 1 (generic) issues listed in the 2013 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the purpose of 36 making site-specific findings (e.g., SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE) on those issues. The NRC 37 staff also reviewed all applicable Category 2 (site-specific) issues listed in the 2013 Generic 38 Environmental Impact Statement to address the new information. To support this expanded 39 scope, the NRC staff began a second scoping process in December 2020. On December 19, 40 2020, the NRC published a notice of intent in the Federal Register to conduct a second 41 environmental scoping process for SLR of Oconee Station (87 FR 77643-TN8903). The public 42 was asked to provide environmental scoping comments that fit within the two categories noted 43 above; comments that did not fit into the categories were not considered. At the conclusion of 44 the scoping period, the staff issued the Oconee Station Second Scoping Summary Report,
| |
| | |
| A-1 1 dated February 2024 (NRC 2024-TN9478). The report contains a summary of the comments 2 received during the second scoping period grouped by subject area and significant issues of 3 concern that are in scope and considered as part of the environmental review.
| |
| | |
| 4 A.3 References
| |
| | |
| 5 86 FR 43684. August 10, 2021. "Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare 6 Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolina, LLC; Duke Energy; Oconee Nuclear 7 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN8902.
| |
| | |
| 8 87 FR 77643. December 19, 2022. "Notice of Intent To Conduct a Supplemental Scoping 9 Process and Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; 10 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| 11 TN8903.
| |
| | |
| 12 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
| |
| 13 TN661.
| |
| | |
| 14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Letter from L.J. Rakovan, Acting Chief 15 Environmental Review License Renewal Branch Division of Rulemaking, Environment, and 16 Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice 17 President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated January 10, 2022, regarding "Issuance of 18 Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission Staffs Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3, Subsequent 20 License Renewal Application (EPID No. L-2021-Sle-0002) (Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 And 50-21 287). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21357A040. TN8905.
| |
| | |
| 22 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from S.S. Koenick, Chief 23 Environmental Project Manager Branch 1 Division of Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial 24 Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President 25 Oconee Nuclear Station, dated February 1, 2024, regarding "Issuance of Environmental 26 Scoping Summary Report Associated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staffs 27 Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3, Subsequent License Renewal 28 Application (EPID Number: L-2021-SLE- 0002) (Docket Numbers: 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-29 287). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23304A138. TN9478.
| |
| | |
| A-2 1 APPENDIX B 2
| |
| 3 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
| |
| | |
| 4 There are several Federal laws and regulations that affect environmental protection, health, 5 safety, compliance, and consultation at every U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
| |
| 6 licensed nuclear power plant. Some of these laws and regulations require permits by or 7 consultations with other Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local governments. Certain Federal 8 environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for enforcement and 9 implementation. Furthermore, States also have enacted laws to protect public health and safety 10 and the environment. It is NRC policy to make sure nuclear power plants are operated in a 11 manner that provides adequate protection of public health and safety and protection of the 12 environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and other 13 requirements, as appropriate.
| |
| | |
| 14 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.-TN663), authorizes 15 the NRC to enter into an agreement with any State that allows the State to assume regulatory 16 authority for certain activities (see 42 U.S.C. 2021). A State that enters into such an agreement 17 with the NRC is called an Agreement State. South Carolina is one such NRC Agreement State.
| |
| 18 In South Carolina, the Bureau of Radiological Health in the South Carolina Department of 19 Health and Environmental Control has regulatory responsibility over certain byproducts, 20 sources, and quantities of special nuclear materials that are not sufficient to form a nuclear 21 critical mass. The South Carolina Emergency Management Division provides response 22 capabilities to radiological accidents or emergencies at the commercial nuclear power plants in 23 and near the State of South Carolina.
| |
| | |
| 24 In addition to carrying out some Federal programs, State legislatures develop their own laws.
| |
| 25 State statutes can supplement, as well as implement, Federal laws for protection of air, surface 26 water, and groundwater. State legislation may address solid waste management programs, 27 locally rare or endangered species, and historic and cultural resources.
| |
| | |
| 28 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility to administer 29 the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.-TN662). The National Pollutant Discharge 30 Elimination System (NPDES) program addresses water pollution by regulating the discharge of 31 potential pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA, as administered by the EPA, 32 allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies, as long as the State 33 program is at least as stringent as the Federal program.
| |
| | |
| 34 The EPA has delegated the authority to issue NPDES permits to the State of South Carolina.
| |
| 35 The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control provides oversight for 36 public water supplies, provides permits to regulate the discharge of industrial and municipal 37 wastewatersincluding discharges to groundwaterand monitors State water resources for 38 water quality.
| |
| | |
| 39 B.1 Federal and State Requirements
| |
| | |
| 40 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station) is subject to various Federal and 41 State requirements. Table B-1 lists the principal Federal and State regulations and laws that are 42 used or mentioned in this supplemental environmental impact statement for Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| B-1 1 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements Current Operating License and License Renewal Atomic Energy Act, (42 U.S.C. 2011 The AEA of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization et seq.-TN663) Act (ERA) of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.-TN4466) give the NRC the licensing and regulatory authority for commercial nuclear energy use. They allow the NRC to establish dose and concentration limits for protection of workers and the public for activities under NRC jurisdiction. The NRC implements its responsibilities under the AEA through regulations set forth in Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
| |
| Archeological and Historic The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act establishes Preservation Act of 1974, as amended procedures for preserving historical and archaeological (54 U.S.C. § 312501 et seq.-TN4844) resources. Analysis of environmental compliance includes assessing the energy alternatives for possible impacts on prehistoric, historic, and traditional cultural resources.
| |
| Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended The Antiquities Act protects historic and prehistoric ruins, (54 U.S.C. §§ 320301-320303 and 18 monuments, and antiquities, including paleontological U.S.C. § 1866(b)-TN6602) resources, on federally controlled lands from appropriation, excavation, injury, and destruction without permission.
| |
| American Indian Religious Freedom The American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects Native Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. § 1996- Americans rights of freedom to believe, express, and exercise TN5281) traditional religions.
| |
| Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act makes it unlawful to of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. take, pursue, molest, or disturb bald and golden eagles, their
| |
| §§668-668d-TN1447) nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States. The U.S.
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), under the authority of the U.S.
| |
| Secretary of the Interior, may issue take permits to individuals, government agencies, or other organizations to authorize limited, non-purposeful disturbance of eagles, in the course of conducting lawful activities such as operating utilities or conducting scientific research.
| |
| Native American Graves Protection The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, in and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 part, establishes provisions for the treatment of inadvertent U.S.C. § 3001-TN1686) discoveries of Indian remains and cultural objects. When discoveries are made during ground-disturbing activities, the activity in the area must immediately stop, and reasonable protective efforts, proper notifications, and appropriate disposition of the discovered items must be pursued.
| |
| Comprehensive Environmental The CERCLA includes an emergency response program to Response, Compensation, and Liability respond to releases of hazardous substances to the Act (CERCLA) as amended by the environment. Releases of source, byproduct, or special nuclear Superfund Amendments and material from a nuclear incident are excluded from CERCLA Reauthorization Act (42 U.S.C. §9601 requirements if the releases are subject to the financial et seq.-TN6592) protection requirements of the AEA. CERCLA is intended to provide a response to, and cleanup of, environmental problems that are not covered adequately by the permit programs of the many other environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act (CAA); CWA; Safe Drinking Water Act, Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. §1401et seq.-
| |
| TN4479); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA);
| |
| | |
| B-2 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements
| |
| | |
| and AEA. Under Section120 of CERCLA, each department, agency, and instrumentality (e.g., a municipality) of the United States is subject to, and must comply with, CERCLA in the same manner as any nongovernmental entity (except for requirements for bonding, insurance, financial responsibility, or applicable time period). Under CERCLA, the EPA would have the authority to regulate hazardous substances at a facility in the event of a release or a substantial threat of a release of those materials. Releases greater than reportable quantities would be reported to the National Response Center.
| |
| Assessment of alternatives for environmental compliance includes consideration of whether hazardous substances, in reportable quantity amounts, could be present at nuclear power plants during the license renewal term.
| |
| Emergency Planning and Community The EPCRA, which is an amendment to the CERCLA (42 Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.-TN6592), establishes the requirements (42 U.S.C. §11001 etseq.-TN6603) for Federal, State, and local governments; Tribes; and industry (also known as SARA Title III) regarding emergency planning and Community Right-to-Know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The Community Right-to-Know provisions increase the publics knowledge of and access to information about chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities working with facilities can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. The EPCRA requires emergency planning and notice to communities and government agencies concerning the presence and release of specific chemicals. The EPA implements the EPCRA under regulations found in 40CFRPart 355 (TN5493), Part 370 (TN6612), and Part 372 (TN6613).
| |
| Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 The Pollution Prevention Act establishes a national policy for U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.-TN6607) waste management and pollution control that focuses first on source reduction, then on environmental issues, safe recycling, treatment, and disposal.
| |
| National Environmental Policy Act The NEPA requires Federal agencies to integrate of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.- environmental values into their decision-making process by TN661) considering the environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. The NEPA establishes policy, sets goals (in Section101), and provides means (in Section102) for carrying out the policy.
| |
| Section102(2) contains provisions that force actions to make sure Federal agencies follow the letter and spirit of the act. For major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section102(2)(c) of the NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that includes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and other specified information. This environmental impact statement has been prepared in accordance with NEPA requirements and NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51-TN250) for implementing the NEPA to assure compliance with Section102(2).
| |
| 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283) Regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, establish standards for protection against
| |
| | |
| B-3 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the NRC. These regulations are issued under the AEA, as amended, and the ERA, as amended. The purpose of these regulations is to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation) does not exceed the standards for protection against radiation prescribed in the regulations in this part.
| |
| 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249) Regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, are NRC regulations issued under the AEA, as amended, and Title II of the ERA of 1974 to provide for the licensing of production and utilization facilities, including power reactors.
| |
| 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) Regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, contain the NRC regulations that implement NEPA.
| |
| 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878) The NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, govern the issuance of renewed operating licenses and renewed combined licenses for nuclear power plants licensed under Sections 103 or 104b of the AEA, as amended, and Title II of the ERA of 1974. The regulations focus on managing adverse effects of aging. The rule is intended to make sure that important systems, structures, and components will continue to perform their intended functions during the period of extended operation.
| |
| Air Quality Protection Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.- The CAA is intended to protect and enhance the quality of the TN1141) Nations air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. The CAA establishes regulations to ensure maintenance of air quality standards and authorizes individual States to manage permits.
| |
| Section 118 of the CAA requires each Federal agency, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants, to comply with all Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air pollution.
| |
| Section 109 of the CAA directs the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The EPA has identified and set NAAQSs for the following criteria pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Section 111 of the CAA requires the establishment of national performance standards for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants. Section 160 of the CAA requires that specific emission increases must be evaluated before permit approval to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Section 112 requires specific standards for release of hazardous air
| |
| | |
| B-4 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements pollutants (including radionuclides). These standards are implemented through plans developed by each State and approved by the EPA. The CAA requires sources to meet standards and obtain permits to satisfy those standards.
| |
| Nuclear power plants may be required to comply with the CAA Title V, Sections 501-507, for sources subject to new source performance standards or sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The EPA regulates the emissions of air pollutants using 40 CFR Parts 50-99 (TN5264).
| |
| Occupational Safety and Health Act of The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) establishes 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.- standards to enhance safe and healthy working conditions in TN4453) places of employment throughout the United States. The Act is administered and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a U.S. Department of Labor agency.
| |
| Employers who fail to comply with OSHA standards can be penalized by the Federal Government. The act allows States to develop and enforce OSHA standards if such programs have been approved by the U.S. Secretary of Labor.
| |
| Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. The Noise Control Act delegates the responsibility of noise
| |
| § 4901 et seq.-TN4294) control to State and local governments. Commercial facilities are required to comply with Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements regarding noise control. Section 4 of the Noise Control Act directs Federal agencies to carry out programs in their jurisdictions to the fullest extent consistent with their authority and in a manner that furthers a national policy of promoting an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare.
| |
| Water Resources Protection Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et The CWA (formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) seq.-TN662) was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations water. The act requires all branches of the Federal Government with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters to comply with Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements.
| |
| As authorized by the CWA, the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES program requires all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States to obtain a NPDES permit. An NPDES permit is developed with two levels of controls: (1) technology-based limits and (2) water quality-based limits. NPDES permit terms may not exceed 5 years, and the applicant must reapply at least 180 days prior to the permit expiration date. A nuclear power plant may also participate in the NPDES General Permit for Industrial Stormwater due to stormwater runoff from industrial or commercial facilities to waters of the United States. The EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly implement the NPDES program, but the EPA
| |
| | |
| B-5 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements has authorized many States to implement all or parts of the National program.
| |
| Section 316(a) of the CWA addresses thermal effects and requires that facilities operate under effluent limitations that assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that cooling-water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best technology available for minimizing impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms.
| |
| These sections of the CWA are implemented and enforced through the NPDES program.
| |
| Section 401 of the CWA requires States to certify that the permitted discharge would comply with all limitations necessary to meet established State water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedule of compliance. Under this section, the EPA or a delegated State agency has the authority to review and approve, condition, or deny all permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to waters of the State, including wetlands. CWA Section 401 [33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)] states: No license or permit shall be granted until the certification required by this section has been obtained or has been waived as provided in the preceding sentence. No license or permit shall be granted if certification has been denied by the State, interstate agency, or the Administrator, as the case may be.
| |
| Therefore, the NRC cannot issue its license without a Section 401 Certification or an NRC determination that a waiver has occurred, in accordance with 40 CFR 121.9(c) (TN6718). In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(aa) (TN249), conditions in the Section 401 Certification become a condition of the NRCs license.
| |
| The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for enforcement of CWA wetland requirements (33 CFR Part 320-TN424). A Section 404 permit would need to be obtained from the USACE before implementing any action, such as earthmoving activities and certain erosion controls, which could disturb wetlands. Federal and State permits/certifications are obtained using the same form and permit applications for activities affecting waterways and wetlands and are reviewed by the USACE in consultation with the FWS, the Soil Conservation Service, the EPA, and the delegated State agency.
| |
| Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Congress enacted the CZMA in 1972 to address the increasing (CZMA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 pressures of over-development on the nations coastal et seq.-TN1243) resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the act. The CZMA encourages States to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. Participation by States is voluntary. To
| |
| | |
| B-6 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements encourage States to participate, the CZMA makes Federal financial assistance available to any coastal State or territory, including those on the Great Lakes that are willing to develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management program.
| |
| Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA requires that applicants for Federal licenses who conduct activities in a coastal zone provide certification that the proposed activity complies with the policies of the States coastal zone program. The NRC cannot issue its license without CZMA compliance by the applicant.
| |
| Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted to protect U.S.C. § 300(f) et seq.-TN1337) the quality of public water supplies and sources of drinking water and establishes minimum national standards for public water supply systems in the form of maximum contaminant levels for pollutants, including radionuclides. Other programs established by the SDWA include the Sole Source Aquifer Program, the Wellhead Protection Program, and the Underground Injection Control Program. In addition, the SDWA protects underground sources of drinking water from releases and spills of contaminants.
| |
| If a nuclear power plant is located within an area designated as a sole source aquifer pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the SDWA, the supplemental EIS would be subject to review by the EPA. If the EPA review raises concerns that nuclear power plant operations are not protective of groundwater quality, specific mitigation recommendations or additional pollution prevention requirements may be required.
| |
| Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.)
| |
| Section 10 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.- requires USACE authorization in order to protect navigable TN660) waters during the development of harbors and other construction and excavation. Section 10 of the act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. That section provides that the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the USACE Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army through the USACE. Activities requiring Section 10 permits include structures (e.g., piers, wharves, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines) and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling, or other modifications to the navigable waters of the United States.
| |
| Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act created the National Wild and (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.-TN1811) Scenic Rivers System that was established to protect the environmental values of free-flowing streams from degradation by impacting activities, including water resources projects.
| |
| South Carolina Regulation (SCR) 61-9, Implements the NPDES Program under the CWA.
| |
| Water Pollution Control Permits (TN9121)
| |
| | |
| B-7 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements South Carolina Regulation (SCR) 61- Implements the South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 49-4-10 119, Surface Water Withdrawal, et seq. The South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use and Reporting Permitting, Use, and Reporting Act and establishes a system (TN9069) and rules for permitting and registering the withdrawal and use of surface water from within the State of South Carolina and those surface water shared with adjacent states.
| |
| Waste Management and Pollution Prevention Resource Conservation and Recovery The RCRA requires the EPA to define and identify hazardous Act, (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.-TN1281) waste; establish standards for its transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. Section 3006 (42 U.S.C. 6926) allows States to establish and administer these permit programs with EPA approval. The EPA regulations implementing the RCRA are found in 40 CFR Parts 260-283 (TN6617). Regulations imposed on a generator or on a treatment, storage, and/or disposal facility vary according to the type and quantity of material or waste generated, treated, stored, and/or disposed. The method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal also affects the extent and complexity of the requirements.
| |
| Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for the research and U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.-TN740) development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and low-level radioactive waste. Title I includes provisions for disposal and storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Subtitle A of Title I delineates requirements for site characterization and construction of the repository and participation of States and other local governments in the selection process. Subtitles B, C, and D of Title I deal with specific issues for interim storage, monitored retrievable storage, and low-level radioactive waste.
| |
| Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act amended the AEA Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. to improve the procedures for the implementation of compacts
| |
| §2021b et seq.-TN6606) providing for the establishment and operation of regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. It also allows Congress to grant consent for certain inter-State compacts.
| |
| The amended Act sets forth the responsibilities for disposal of low-level waste by States or inter-State compacts. The act states the amount of waste that certain low-level waste recipients can receive over a set period of time. The amount of low-level radioactive waste generated by both pressurized and boiling water reactor types is allocated over a transition period until a local waste facility becomes operational.
| |
| Hazardous Materials Transportation The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulates the Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. §5101 intrastate and interstate transportation of hazardous material et seq.-TN6605) (including radioactive material). According to the act, States may regulate the transport of hazardous material as long as their regulation is consistent with the act or U.S.Department of Transportation regulations provided in 49CFR Parts 171-177 (TN5466). Other regulations regarding packaging for transportation of radionuclides are contained in 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I.
| |
| | |
| B-8 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements Protected Species Endangered Species Act, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted to prevent the 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.-TN1010 further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore those species and their critical habitats. Section 7, Interagency Cooperation, of the act requires Federal agencies to consult with the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on Federal actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats.
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires Federal 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§661- agencies that construct, license, or permit water resource 666e-TN4467) development projects to consult with the FWS (or NMFS, when applicable) and State wildlife resource agencies for any project that involves an impoundment of more than 10 ac (4 ha),
| |
| diversion, channel deepening, or other water body modification regarding the impacts of that action on fish and wildlife and any mitigative measures to reduce adverse impacts.
| |
| Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 amended, by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act U.S.C. §136 etseq.-TN4535) and subsequent amendments, requires the registration of all new pesticides with the EPA before they are used in the United States.
| |
| Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act provides Federal 1980 (16 U.S.C. §2901 et seq.- technical and financial assistance to States for the development TN6604) of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act conservation plans identify significant problems that may adversely affect nongame fish and wildlife species and their habitats and appropriate conservation actions to protect the identified species. The act also encourages Federal agencies to conserve and promote the conservation of nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats.
| |
| Magnuson-Stevens Fishery The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Conservation and Management Act Management Act, as amended, governs marine fisheries (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.-TN7841) management in Federal waters. The act created eight regional fishery management councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch. Under Section 305 of the act, Federal agencies are required to consult with the NMFS for any Federal actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitat.
| |
| National Marine Sanctuaries Act of The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) establishes 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1431 provisions for the designation and protection of marine areas et seq.-TN7197) that have special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate national marine sanctuaries and establish the National Marine Sanctuary System. Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations Office of National Marine Sanctuaries when their proposed actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource.
| |
| Toxic Substances Control Act (15 The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.-TN4454) manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of certain
| |
| | |
| B-9 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements chemicals not regulated by RCRA or other statutes, including asbestos-containing material and polychlorinated biphenyls.
| |
| Any TSCA-regulated waste removed from structures (e.g.,
| |
| polychlorinated biphenyls-contaminated capacitors or asbestos) or discovered during the implementation phase (e.g.,
| |
| contaminated media) would be managed in compliance with the TSCA. EPAs implementing regulations can be found in 40 CFR Part 761 (TN6610).
| |
| Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is intended to protect birds that amended (16 U.S.C. §703 et seq.- have common migration patterns between the UnitedStates TN3331) and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The Act stipulates that, except as permitted by regulations, it is unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill any migratory bird.
| |
| Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 The Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted to protect and (16 U.S.C. §1361 et seq.-TN4478) manage marine mammals and to prevent marine mammal populations from declining beyond the point where they ceased to be significant functioning elements of the ecosystems of which they are a part. The primary authority for implementing the act belongs to the FWS and the NMFS. The FWS manages walruses, polar bears, sea otters, dugongs, marine otters, and the West Indian, Amazonian, and West African manatees. The NMFS manages whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. The two agencies may issue permits under Section 104 (16 U.S.C.
| |
| 1374) to persons, including Federal agencies, that authorize the taking or importing of specific species of marine mammals.
| |
| After the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce approves a States program, the State can take responsibility for managing one or more marine mammals. The act also established a Marine Mammal Commission whose duties include reviewing laws and international conventions related to marine mammals, studying the condition of these mammals, and recommending steps to Federal officials (e.g., listing a species as endangered) that should be taken to protect marine mammals. Federal agencies are directed by Section 205 (16 U.S.C. 1405) to cooperate with the commission by permitting it to use their facilities or services.
| |
| Environmental Standards for Uranium These regulations establish maximum doses to the body or Fuel Cycle (40 CFR Part 190, Subpart organs of members of the public because of normal operational B-TN739) releases from uranium fuel cycle activities, including uranium enrichment. These regulations were promulgated by the EPA under the authority of the AEA, as amended, and have been incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations in 10CFR 20.1301(e) (TN283).
| |
| Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources National Historic Preservation Act, The National Historic Preservation Act was enacted to create a (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.-TN4157) national historic preservation program, including the National (formerly 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 of the act requires Federal agencies to account for the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
| |
| | |
| B-10 Table B-1 Federal and State Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Law or Regulation Requirements regulations implementing Section 106 of the act are found in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties (TN513).
| |
| The regulations call for public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including involvement from Indian Tribes and other interested members of the public, as applicable.
| |
| ac = acers; AEA = Atomic Energy Act; CAA = Clean Air Act; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; CFR = U.S. Code of Federal Regulations; CWA = Clean Water Act; CZMA = Coastal Zone Management Act; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ERA = Energy Reorganization Act; EPCRA =
| |
| Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; ha = hectares; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NMSA = National Marine Sanctuaries Act; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Act; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; SCR = South Carolina Regulation; SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; SDWA = Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974; TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act; USACE = United States Army Corp of Engineers.
| |
| | |
| 1 B.2 Operating Permits and Other Requirements
| |
| | |
| 2 Table B-2 lists the permits and licenses issued by Federal, State, and local authorities for 3 operational activities at Oconee Station, as identified in Chapter 9 of Duke Energys 4 environmental report.
| |
| | |
| 5 Table B-2 Operating Permits and Other Requirements
| |
| | |
| Responsible Permit Agency Number Expiration Date Authorized Activity Operating license NRC DPR-38, DPR-47, 02/06/2033, Operation of Oconee and DPR-55 10/6/2033, and Station 07/19/2034 Independent Spent NRC SNM-2503 01/31/2050 Operation of a dry Fuel Storage storage ISFSI under a Installation (ISFSI) site-specific license Authorization ISFSI NRC N/A 07/19/2034 Operation of a dry storage ISFSI under the Oconee Station licenses Low-Level Atlantic N/A N/A Atlantic Interstate does Radioactive Waste Compact not require import or Interstate permit Commission export permits Keowee-Toxaway Federal Energy 2503-154 08/31/2046 Operate Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Project Regulatory Project license Commission Operating USACE N/A 08/31/2046 Agrees to a new critical agreement reservoir elevation for Lake Keowee 6
| |
| | |
| B-11 Table B-2 Operating Permits and Other Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Responsible Permit Agency Number Expiration Date Authorized Activity Migratory Bird FWS MB00257 03/31/2025 Authorization to collect, Special Purpose Version 1 transport and possess Utility remains of migratory birds Hazardous waste U.S. 051922550025E 06/30/2023 Hazardous materials transportation/ Department of shipments shipment registration Transportation; Registration EPA SCD043979822 12/31/2023 Hazardous waste generator registration Federal Coastal South Carolina N/A N/A Oconee Station is not Zone Management Department of located in the South Act permit and Health and Carolina coastal zone reporting Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
| |
| Surface water SCDHEC 37PN001 10/29/2043 Surface water withdrawal permit withdrawal from Lake Keowee Coastal plain SCDHEC N/A N/A Oconee Station is not groundwater located in the coastal withdrawal permit plain and is not required to permit and report groundwater withdrawals Air permit SCDHEC CM-1820-0041 12/31/2027 Operation of auxiliary boiler Small-quantity SCDHEC DHEC 2701 form Annual submittal Annual SQG declaration hazardous waste generator (SQG) annual declaration Class 2 landfill post-SCDHEC 373303-1601 01/11/2038 Post-closure permit for closure permit closed and capped onsite landfill Registration SCDHEC Registration 07/31/2023 Operation of 11174 and 11843 underground storage tanks NPDES permit SCDHEC SC0000515 9/30/2013. Discharge of Because of wastewaters to surface submittal of a water timely renewal application, the permit is administratively extended and remains in effect until a final permit decision is made on the renewal.
| |
| | |
| B-12 Table B-2 Operating Permits and Other Requirements (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Responsible Permit Agency Number Expiration Date Authorized Activity NPDES permit for SCDHEC SCG160000 03/31/2021 Discharge to surface discharges from Facility Coverage waters from pesticide pesticide application No. SCG16006 application NPDES permit for SCDHEC SCR100000 12/31/2017. This Discharge of stormwater construction general permit activities remains in effect until the subsequent general permit becomes effective.
| |
| NPDES for industrial SCDHEC SCR000000 06/30/2027 Discharge of industrial activities Facility Coverage stormwater No. SCR000074 Operation of a SCDHEC Permit Coverage 01/04/2017. This Notification of satellite satellite sewer No. SSS000909 general permit sewer owner system remains in effect until the subsequent general permit becomes effective.
| |
| Migratory Bird SCDNR MB-4-20 12/31/2023 State authorization depredation permit associated with FWS MB000257-0 permit Environmental SCDHEC 37756001 and 03/05/2024 Certifies testing methods laboratory 37761001 certification Registration SCDHEC SC37-0051G 03/31/2026 Registers Oconee Station as a generator of infectious waste License for asbestos SCDHEC 8045 01/12/2024 Licenses for asbestos abatement abatement activities South Carolina SCDHEC 0020-39-20-X 12/31/2023 Transport of radioactive radioactive waste waste within South transport permit Carolina Radioactive waste Tennessee T-SC007-L23 12/31/2023 Shipment of radioactive license-for-delivery Department of material within Environmental Tennessee Control Significant industrial Oconee Joint IW-000003 03/31/2024 Discharge of industrial wastewater Regional Sewer wastewater into discharge permit Authority treatment facility ISFSI = independent spent fuel storage installation; MB = migratory birds; N/A = not applicable; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; SQG = Small Quantity Generators; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
| |
| Source: Duke Energy 2021-TN8897.
| |
| | |
| B-13 1 B.3 References
| |
| | |
| 2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for 3 Protection Against Radiation. TN283.
| |
| | |
| 4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 5 Production and Utilization Facilities. TN249.
| |
| | |
| 6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. TN250.
| |
| | |
| 8 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 9 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants. TN4878.
| |
| | |
| 10 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 11 320, "General Regulatory Policies. TN424.
| |
| | |
| 12 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 13 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties. TN513.
| |
| | |
| 14 40 CFR Parts 50-99. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 15 Subchapter C, Parts 50-99, "Air Programs. TN5264.
| |
| | |
| 16 40 CFR Part 121. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 121, 17 "State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit. TN6718.
| |
| | |
| 18 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 19 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations. TN739.
| |
| | |
| 20 40 CFR Parts 260-283. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Parts 21 260-283, EPA Regulations Implementing RCRA. TN6617.
| |
| | |
| 22 40 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 302, 23 Emergency Planning and Notification. TN5493.
| |
| | |
| 24 40 CFR Part 370. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 370, 25 "Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-To-Know. TN6612.
| |
| | |
| 26 40 CFR Part 372. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 372, 27 "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know. TN6613.
| |
| | |
| 28 40 CFR Part 761. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 761, 29 "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and 30 Use Prohibitions. TN6610.
| |
| | |
| 31 49 CFR Parts 171-177. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Subchapter C, 32 "Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177). TN5466.
| |
| | |
| 33 American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 1996 et seq. TN5281.
| |
| | |
| B-14 1 Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 320301-320303 and 18 U.S.C. § 1866(b).
| |
| 2 TN6602.
| |
| | |
| 3 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 312501 et seq.
| |
| 4 TN4844.
| |
| | |
| 5 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Public Law 112-239, as amended. TN663.
| |
| | |
| 6 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq. TN1447.
| |
| | |
| 7 Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. TN1141.
| |
| | |
| 8 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. TN1243.
| |
| | |
| 9 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended. 42 10 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. TN6592.
| |
| | |
| 11 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 12 Document Control Desk, dated June 7, 2021, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 13 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 50-14 287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Application for Subsequent 15 Renewed Operating Licenses. Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21158A193.
| |
| 16 TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 17 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.
| |
| 18 TN6603.
| |
| | |
| 19 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. TN1010.
| |
| | |
| 20 Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. TN4466.
| |
| | |
| 21 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.
| |
| 22 TN4535.
| |
| | |
| 23 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). 33 24 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. TN662.
| |
| | |
| 25 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. 16 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq. TN6604.
| |
| | |
| 26 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq. TN4467.
| |
| | |
| 27 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. TN6605.
| |
| | |
| 28 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. 42 U.S.C. § 2021b et seq. Public Law 96-573.
| |
| 29 TN6606.
| |
| | |
| 30 Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. 16 31 U.S.C. 1801 Note. Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3575. TN7841.
| |
| | |
| 32 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. TN4478.
| |
| | |
| B-15 1 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. § 1401 et 2 seq. TN4479.
| |
| | |
| 3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. TN3331.
| |
| | |
| 4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
| |
| 5 TN661.
| |
| | |
| 6 National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. TN4157.
| |
| | |
| 7 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. TN1686.
| |
| | |
| 8 NMSA (National Marine Sanctuaries Act). 2000. "National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Title 16, 9 Chapter 32 § 1431 et seq. United States Code as amended by Public Law 106-513. Silver 10 Spring, M.D. Available at https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-11 prod/media/archive/library/national/nmsa.pdf. TN7197.
| |
| | |
| 12 Noise Control Act of 1972. 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq. TN4294.
| |
| | |
| 13 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq. TN740.
| |
| | |
| 14 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. TN4453.
| |
| | |
| 15 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq. TN6607.
| |
| | |
| 16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 42 U.S.C 6901 Note. Public Law 94-580, 90 17 Stat. 2795. TN1281.
| |
| | |
| 18 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. TN660.
| |
| | |
| 19 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. TN1337.
| |
| | |
| 20 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2019. Regulation 21 61-9, Water Pollution Control Permits. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 22 https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/Regulations/R.61-9.pdf. TN9121.
| |
| | |
| 23 SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 2022. Regulation 24 61-119, Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting. Columbia, South Carolina.
| |
| 25 Available at https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/R.61-119.pdf. TN9069.
| |
| | |
| 26 Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. TN4454.
| |
| | |
| 27 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq. TN1811.
| |
| | |
| B-16 1 APPENDIX C 2
| |
| 3 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE
| |
| | |
| 4 C.1 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
| |
| | |
| 5 As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the 6 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; TN1010), as part 7 of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency. In this case, the proposed 8 agency action is whether to issue subsequent renewed facility operating licenses for the 9 continued operation of Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station). The 10 proposed action would authorize Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) to operate 11 Oconee Station for an additional 20 years beyond the current renewed operating license term.
| |
| 12 Under Section 7 of the ESA, the NRC must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13 (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services [collectively] or 14 Service [individually]), as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed action is not likely to 15 jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the 16 destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
| |
| | |
| 17 C.1.1 Federal Agency Obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
| |
| | |
| 18 The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA Section 7 at Title 50 of the Code of Federal 19 Regulations Part 402 (50 CFR Part 402-TN4312) describe the consultation process that Federal 20 agencies must follow in support of agency actions. As part of this process, the Federal agency 21 shall either request that the Services: (1) provide a list of any listed or proposed species or 22 designated or proposed critical habitats that may be present in the action area or (2) request 23 that the Services concur with a list of species and critical habitats that the Federal agency has 24 created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If any such species or critical habitats may be present, the Federal 25 agency prepares a biological assessment to evaluate the potential effects of the action and 26 determine whether the species or critical habitats are likely to be adversely affected by the 27 action (50 CFR 402.12(a); 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)-TN4459).
| |
| | |
| 28 Biological assessments are required for any agency action that is a major construction activity 29 (50 CFR 402.12(b)) (TN4312). A major construction activity is a construction project or other 30 undertaking having construction-type impacts that is a major Federal action significantly 31 affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 32 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) (51 FR 19926-TN7600). Federal agencies 33 may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA Section 7 and to prepare a 34 biological assessment, if required, in conjunction with the interagency cooperation procedures 35 required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)) (TN4312). In such cases, the 36 Federal agency should include the results of ESA Section 7 consultation(s) in the NEPA 37 document (50 CFR 402.06(b)).
| |
| | |
| 38 C.1.2 Biological Evaluation
| |
| | |
| 39 Subsequent license renewal (SLR) does not require the preparation of a biological assessment 40 because it is not a major construction activity. Nonetheless, the NRC staff must consider the 41 impacts of its actions on federally listed species and designated critical habitats. In cases where 42 the staff finds that subsequent license renewal may affect ESA-protected species or habitats, 43 ESA Section 7 requires the NRC to consult with the relevant Service(s).
| |
| | |
| C-1 1 To support such consultations, the NRC staff has incorporated its analysis of the potential 2 impacts of the proposed subsequent license renewal into Section 3.8 of this environmental 3 impact statement (EIS). The NRC staff refers to its ESA analysis as a biological evaluation.
| |
| | |
| 4 The NRC staff structured its evaluation in accordance with the Services suggested biological 5 assessment contents described at 50 CFR 402.12(f) (TN4312). Section 3.8.1 of this EIS 6 describes the action area as well as the ESA-protected species and habitats potentially present 7 in the action area. Section 3.8.4 assesses the potential effects of the proposed Oconee Station 8 SLR on the ESA-protected species and habitats present in the action area and contains the 9 NRCs effect determinations for each of those species and habitat. This section also addresses 10 cumulative effects. Finally, Sections 3.8.5 through 3.8.9 address the potential effects of the 11 no-action alternative and power replacement alternatives. The results of the NRC staffs 12 analysis are summarized below in Table C-1.
| |
| | |
| 13 Table C-1 Effect Determinations for Federally Listed Species Under U.S. Fish and 14 Wildlife Service Jurisdiction for Oconee Station Subsequent License 15 Renewal
| |
| | |
| Potentially Federal Present in the Effect FWS Concurrence Species Status(a) Action Area? Determination(b) Date(c)
| |
| | |
| monarch butterfly FC Yes NLAA N/A Indiana bat FE No NE N/A northern long-eared bat FE No NE TBD tricolored bat FPE Yes NLAA N/A bog turtle FT No NE N/A persistent trillium FE No NE N/A small whorled pogonia FT No NE N/A smooth coneflower FT No NE N/A dwarf-flowered heartleaf FT No NE N/A mountain sweet pitcher-plant FE No NE N/A (a) Indicates protection status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). FC = candidate for Federal listing; FE =
| |
| federally endangered; FPE = proposed for federal listing as endangered; FT = federally threatened.
| |
| (b) The NRC staff makes its effect determinations for federally listed species in accordance with the language and definitions specified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
| |
| Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998-TN1031). NLAA = may affect but is not likely to adversely affect; NE = no effect.
| |
| (c) The ESA does not require Federal agencies to seek FWS concurrence for no effect determinations or for conclusions regarding effects on candidate species. N/A = not applicable; TBD = to be determined; the NRC will seek the FWSs concurrence following the issuance of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 16 C.1.3 Chronology of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
| |
| | |
| 17 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
| |
| | |
| 18 Following issuance of this EIS, the NRC staff will seek the FWSs concurrence for the species 19 for which the NRC determined that the Oconee Station SLR may affect but is not likely to 20 adversely affect (see Table C-1) in accordance with 50 CFR 402.13(c) (TN4312). Table C-2 lists 21 the correspondence between the NRC and the FWS pursuant to ESA Section 7 that has 22 transpired to date.
| |
| | |
| C-2 1 Table C-2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Correspondence with the 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Date Description Accession No.(a)
| |
| | |
| Nov 18, 2019 T.D. McCoy (FWS) to J.E. Burchfield, Jr. (Duke Energy), ML21158A193 Determination that there are no federally listed species or designated critical habitats within 6 mi of the Oconee Station site Jan 11, 2022 South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office (FWS) to ML22011A082 B. Arlene (NRC), Updated list of threatened and endangered species for the proposed Oconee Station SLR July 27, 2023 South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office (FWS) to ML23208A097 B. Arlene (NRC), Updated list of threatened and endangered species for the proposed Oconee Station SLR ADAMS = Agencywide Documents Access and Management System; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC = Duke Energy; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| (a) Access these documents through the NRCs ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
| |
| | |
| 3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service
| |
| | |
| 4 As discussed in Section 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.4.2 of this EIS, no federally listed species or critical 5 habitats under NMFS s jurisdiction occur within the action area. Therefore, the NRC staff did 6 not engage the NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7 for the proposed Oconee Station SLR.
| |
| | |
| 7 C.2 Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
| |
| | |
| 8 The NRC must comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 9 of 1996 (MSA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.-TN7841), for any actions authorized, 10 funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely 11 affect any essential fish habitat (EFH) identified under the MSA. In Sections 3.8.2 and 3.8.4.4 of 12 this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that the NMFS has not designated any EFH under the 13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in Lake Keowee and that the 14 proposed Oconee Station SLR would have no effect on EFH. Thus, the Magnuson-Stevens 15 Fishery Conservation and Management Act does not require the NRC to consult with the NMFS 16 for the proposed action.
| |
| | |
| 17 C.3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act Consultation
| |
| | |
| 18 The National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.-TN7197),
| |
| 19 authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and protect areas of the marine 20 environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, 21 historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities as national 22 marine sanctuaries. Under Section 304(d) of the act, Federal agencies must consult with the 23 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations Office of National Marine Sanctuaries if a 24 Federal action is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resources.
| |
| | |
| 25 In Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4.5 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that no coastal or marine 26 waters or Great Lakes occur near Oconee Station and that the Oconee Station SLR would have 27 no effect on sanctuary resources. Thus, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act does not require
| |
| | |
| C-3 1 the NRC to consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the proposed 2 action.
| |
| | |
| 3 C.4 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation
| |
| | |
| 4 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.)
| |
| 5 (NHPA), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic 6 properties and consult with applicable State and Federal agencies, Tribal groups, individuals, 7 and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking before taking action. Historic 8 properties are defined as resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of 9 Historic Places. The historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA) is outlined 10 in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 36 CFR Part 800, 11 Protection of Historic Properties (TN513). In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), Use of the 12 NEPA Process for Section 106 Purposes, the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to 13 comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA.
| |
| | |
| 14 Table C-3 lists the chronology of consultation and consultation documents related to the NRCs 15 NHPA Section 106 review of the Oconee Station SLR. The NRC staff is required to consult with 16 the noted agencies and organizations in accordance with the above discussion.
| |
| | |
| 17 Table C-3 National Historic Preservation Act Correspondence
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Date Sender and Recipient Description Accession No.(a)
| |
| | |
| 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to R. Nelson, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A609 Director, Office of Federal Concerning the Environmental Agency Programs, Advisory Review of Oconee Nuclear Council on Historic Preservation Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to E. Johnson, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A617 Director, Historical Services, D-Concerning the Environmental SHPO, South Carolina Review of Oconee Nuclear Department of Archives and Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, History Subsequent License Renewal Application 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to W. Harris, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A610 Chief, Catawba Indian Nation Concerning the Environmental Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A610 C. Hoskin, Jr., Principal Chief, Concerning the Environmental Cherokee Nation Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 18
| |
| | |
| C-4 Table C-3 National Historic Preservation Act Correspondence (Continued)
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Date Sender and Recipient Description Accession No.(a) 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to R. Sneed, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A610 Principal Chief, Eastern Band of Concerning the Environmental Cherokee Indians Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to D. Hill, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A610 Principal Chief, Muscogee Concerning the Environmental (Creek) Nation Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to J. Bunch, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A610 Chief, United Keetoowah Band Concerning the Environmental of Cherokee Indians in Review of Oconee Nuclear Oklahoma Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 8/23/2021 R. Elliott (NRC) to M.L. Worthy, Request for Scoping Comments ML21232A624 Chief, Piedmont American Concerning the Environmental Indian Association, Lower Review of Oconee Nuclear Eastern Cherokee Nation of Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, South Carolina Subsequent License Renewal Application 9/20/2021 E. Johnson, Director, Historical Response to NRC Request for ML22056A134 Services, D-SHPO, State Scoping Comments Concerning Historic Preservation Office, the Environmental Review of South Carolina Department of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Archives and History, to R. Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent Hoffman (NRC) License Renewal Application
| |
| | |
| 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to R. Nelson, Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A133 Director, Office of Federal Concerning the Environmental Agency Programs, Advisory Review of Oconee Nuclear Council on Historic Preservation Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Supplement 3/15/2023 E. Johnson, Director, Historical Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A140 Services, D-SHPO, State Concerning the Environmental Historic Preservation Office, Review of Oconee Nuclear South Carolina Department of Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Archives and History, to R. Subsequent License Renewal Hoffman (NRC) Application Site-Specific Supplement
| |
| | |
| C-5 Table C-3 National Historic Preservation Act Correspondence (Continued)
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Date Sender and Recipient Description Accession No.(a) 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to W. Harris, Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A135 Chief, Catawba Indian Nation Concerning the Environmental Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Supplement 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A135 C. Hoskin, Jr., Principal Chief, Concerning the Environmental Cherokee Nation Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Supplement 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to R. Sneed, Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A135 Principal Chief, Eastern Band of Concerning the Environmental Cherokee Indians Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Supplement 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to D. Hill, Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A135 Principal Chief, Muscogee Concerning the Environmental (Creek) Nation Review of Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Supplement 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to J. Bunch, Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A135 Chief, United Keetoowah Band Concerning the Environmental of Cherokee Indians in Review of Oconee Nuclear Oklahoma Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Supplement 3/15/2023 T. Smith (NRC) to M.L Worthy, Request for Scoping Comments ML23045A143 Piedmont American Indian Concerning the Environmental Association, Lower Eastern Review of Oconee Nuclear Cherokee Nation of South Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Carolina Subsequent License Renewal Application Site-Specific Supplement ADAMS = Agencywide Documents Access and Management System; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer.
| |
| (a) Access these documents through the NRCs ADAMS at https://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
| |
| | |
| 1 C.5 References
| |
| | |
| 2 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 3 Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties. TN513.
| |
| | |
| 4 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 5 Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. TN4312.
| |
| | |
| C-6 1 51 FR 19926. 1986. Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 2 amended. Final Rule, Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine 3 Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. TN7600.
| |
| | |
| 4 16 U.S.C. § 1536. Endangered Species Act, Section 7, Interagency Cooperation. TN4459.
| |
| | |
| 5 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. TN1010.
| |
| | |
| 6 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.
| |
| 7 Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7 8 Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A801.
| |
| 9 TN1031.
| |
| | |
| 10 Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. 16 11 U.S.C. 1801 Note. Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3575. TN7841.
| |
| | |
| 12 NMSA (National Marine Sanctuaries Act). 2000. National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Title 16, 13 Chapter 32 § 1431 et seq. United States Code as amended by Public Law 106-513. Silver 14 Spring, M.D. Available at https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-15 prod/media/archive/library/national/nmsa.pdf. TN7197.
| |
| | |
| C-7
| |
| | |
| 1 APPENDIX D 2
| |
| 3 CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE
| |
| | |
| 4 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear 5 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and external parties as part of the agencys environmental 6 review of the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station) subsequent license 7 renewal application. This appendix does not include consultation correspondence or comments 8 received during the scoping process. For a list and discussion of consultation correspondence, 9 see Appendix C of this environmental impact statement. For scoping comments, see Appendix 10 A of this environmental impact statement and the NRCs Scoping Summary Report 11 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] Accession 12 No. ML21357A089; NRC 2022-TN8905) and Second Summary Report (ML23304A138; NRC 13 2024-TN9478). All documents are available electronically from the NRCs Public Electronic 14 Reading Room found at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain 15 access to ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the NRCs public documents. The 16 ADAMS accession number for each document is included in the following table.
| |
| | |
| 17 D.1 Environmental Review Correspondence
| |
| | |
| 18 Table D-1 lists the environmental review correspondence, by date, beginning with the request 19 by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) for subsequent renewal of the operating license 20 for Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 21 Table D-1 Environmental Review Correspondence
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Accession No. or Federal Date Correspondence Description Register Citing 06/07/2021 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3-Application for ML21158A193 Subsequent Renewed Operating Licenses 07/22/2021 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, ML21194A245 and 3-Determination of Acceptability and Sufficiency for Docketing, Proposed Review Schedule, and Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Duke Energy Carolinas Application for Subsequent License Renewal 07/28/2021 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Duke Energy; Oconee Nuclear 86 FR 40662 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 07/22/2021 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, ML21189A139 and 3-Subsequent License Renewal Application Online Reference Portal 08/05/2021 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, ML21208A410 and 3-Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process 08/09/2021 Public Meeting Announcement: Environmental Scoping Meeting ML21221A217 Related to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 22
| |
| | |
| D-1 Table D-1 Environmental Review Correspondence (Continued)
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Accession No. or Federal Date Correspondence Description Register Citing 08/10/2021 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare 86 FR 43684 Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Duke Energy; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 09/06/2021 August 25, 2021, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, ML21235A045 Subsequent License Renewal Application Public Environmental Scoping Meeting Presentation 09/21/2021 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, ML21263A031 and 3-License Renewal Regulatory Audit Regarding the Environmental Review of the Subsequent License Renewal Application 11/02/2021 August 25, 2021, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 ML21278A670 Subsequent License Renewal Application Public Environmental Scoping Meeting Summary and Transcript 11/23/2021 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, ML21323A066 and 3-Subsequent License Renewal Environmental Review Requests for Additional and Subsequent Information 12/01/2021 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, ML21335A285 and 3 - Subsequent License Renewal Environmental Review Requests for Additional and Subsequent Information -
| |
| Supplemental Letter 01/07/2022 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License ML22019A137 Renewal Application, Appendix E, Responses to Requests for Additional Information and Requests for Confirmation of Information 01/10/2022 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, ML21357A040 and 3-Subsequent License Renewal Environmental Scoping Report 11/07/2022 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License ML22311A036 Renewal - Appendix E Environmental Report Supplement 2.
| |
| 01/12/2023 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License ML22363A394 Renewal-Environmental Report Supplement - Proposed Review Schedule 01/17/2023 Notice of Intent to Conduct a Supplemental Scoping Process 88 FR 2645 and Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
| |
| 04/05/2023 Letter to Steven M. Snider - Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, ML23075A073 And 3 - License Renewal Regulatory Audit Regarding the Environmental Review of the Subsequent License Renewal Application Supplement 06/20/2023 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Subsequent License ML23171B108 Renewal Application, Appendix E, Responses to Requests for Additional Information and Requests for Confirmation of Information
| |
| | |
| D-2 Table D-1 Environmental Review Correspondence (Continued)
| |
| | |
| ADAMS Accession No. or Federal Date Correspondence Description Register Citing 10/06/2023 Letter to Steven M. Snider -Revised Schedule for the ML23269A110 Environmental Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Subsequent License Renewal Application 10/12/2023 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Subsequent License ML23285A185 Renewal Application, Appendix E, Responses to Requests for Additional Information and Requests for Confirmation of Information
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| | |
| D-3
| |
| | |
| 1 APPENDIX E 2
| |
| 3 PROJECTS AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
| |
| | |
| 5 E.1 Overview
| |
| | |
| 6 Table E-1 identifies other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and actions 7 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considered when analyzing potential 8 cumulative environmental impacts related to the continued operation of the Oconee Nuclear 9 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station) for an additional 20 years. The staff generally 10 considered projects and actions within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the Oconee Station site. The 11 staffs analysis of potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action (subsequent 12 license renewal) is presented in Section 3.15 of this environmental impact statement. However, 13 because of the uniqueness of each environmental resource area evaluated and its associated 14 geographic area of analysis, Section 3.15 does not consider or explicitly evaluate every project 15 and action listed in Table E-1.
| |
| | |
| 16 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts 17 Analysis
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Onsite Facilities/Projects Bad Creek Pump Ongoing project to Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2021-Storage Hydro upgrade the Bad completed by TN8897 Station Creek pump March 2024.
| |
| storage hydro station.
| |
| Bullet Trap System Installation of a Onsite Completed in Duke Energy 2021-bullet trap system November 2022. TN8897, Duke within the footprint Energy 2023-of the existing TN8952 Oconee Station firing range.
| |
| Chemical Project to add two Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2023-Treatment Pond additional liners completed October TN8952 Liner Upgrade with an interstitial 2023.
| |
| space for leak detection to Chemical Treatment Ponds 1 and 2.
| |
| 18
| |
| | |
| E-1 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Complex Abandonment of Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2023-Administrative 500-gal (1,893-L) completed by June TN8952 Building (formerly tank used to collect 2023.
| |
| known as CMD- used oil from oil-South) water separator.
| |
| Underground Existing drains Storage Tank have been capped, Abandonment and tank is no longer needed.
| |
| Communications Construction of a Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2023-Tower Project new completed by TN8952 communications February 2024.
| |
| tower that will provide a paging base for the site and location for Security IAC and South Carolina Highway Control Repeater.
| |
| ISFSI Phase X Project to add more Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2023-spent fuel storage completed by TN8952 for the site. March 2026.
| |
| Keowee Hydro Installation of a Onsite Completed in Duke Energy 2023-Dam Watercraft watercraft barrier December 2020. TN8952 Barrier below Keowee Hydro Dam.
| |
| Maintenance Planned project for Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2021-Training Facility the replacement of completed by TN8897, Duke stormwater drain a 582-ft (177-m) December 2023. Energy 2023-line replacement segment of existing TN8952 Maintenance Training Facility stormwater drain line, and the removal of approximately 0.8 ac (0.32 ha) of trees within transmission right of ways that travel between the 230 kV switchyard and Keowee hydro as part of right of way maintenance.
| |
| | |
| E-2 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Outdoor Employee Project will involve Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2023-Recreation Area pouring a concrete completed by TN8952 Project pad for two August 2023.
| |
| pickleball courts for recreational use.
| |
| Project will disturb 0.12 ac (0.05 ha) of existing gravel parking lot and will be used only by employees.
| |
| Plant Drinking Planned project for Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2021-Water Upgrade the relocation of a completed by TN8897, Duke Project potable water line December 2023. Energy 2023-totaling TN8952 approximately 7,500 ft (2,286 m) and stretching from the intersection of Hwy 183 and 130 past the site security check point, and along the site entrance road to the Oconee Station garage.
| |
| Relay House Ongoing project for Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2021-Project addition of a new completed by TN8897, Duke relay house and a December 2024. Energy 2023-2,200-ft (671-m) TN8952 cable tray within the 230 kV switchyard.
| |
| Security Towers Installation of five Onsite Completed in Duke Energy 2023-Project new security December 2020. TN8952 towers on the project site.
| |
| Thermal Margin Ongoing project for Onsite Scheduled to be Duke Energy 2021-Recapture implementation of completed by TN8897 Implementation Oconee Station January 2024.
| |
| Project thermal margin recapture uprates of 15 MWe for the three units.
| |
| | |
| E-3 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Fossil Fuel Energy Facilities Georgia Biomass Power Carnesville, Operational https://designergrp.
| |
| Renewable Power- Plant will produce Georgia, com/case-Franklin Power 65 MW of power approximately study/franklin-Plant using a stoker 37 mi (60 km) west power-plant/
| |
| grate boiler and condensing turbine utilizing locally available wood fuel.
| |
| Rainey Generating Combined cycle Iva, South Operational https://www.flipsnac Station (977 MW) natural gas-fuel oil Carolina, k.com/santeecooper turbine power plant approximately /2021-fingertip-32 mi (51 km) facts/full-view.html south Renewable Energy Facilities Clemson University 15 MW combined Clemson, South Operational https://nccleantech.
| |
| Central Power and heat and power Carolina, ncsu.edu/2021/03/0 Steam Facility plant owned and approximately 8 mi 1/duke-energy-operated by Duke (13 km) southeast combined-heat-and-Energy. power-system-powering-the-tigers-pack-on-clemson-universitys-campus/
| |
| Keowee-Toxaway Project consists of Pickens County, Operational https://dms.psc.sc.g Hydroelectric two hydroelectric South Carolina ov/Attachments/Mat Project developments: ter/db1b7381-8809-Keowee Hydro 403c-bcb3-Facility and ccebdda19598 Jocassee Pumped Storage Facility.
| |
| The project provides 868 MW of power.
| |
| Bad Creek Hydro Hydroelectric Salem, South Operational, https://badcreekpu generating facility Carolina, upgrade scheduled mpedstorage.com/;
| |
| operated by Duke approximately for completion in Duke Energy 2023-Energys. Turbines 16 mi (26 km) March 2024. TN8952 and generators can north produce up to 1,400 MW.
| |
| Upgrade project will provide 280 MWe in generation and 236 MWe in pumping storage.
| |
| | |
| E-4 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Bluebird Solar Proposed 100 MW Pendleton, South Application https://www.klickitat Farm solar energy Carolina, submitted in 2021 county.org/1096/Sol facility. approximately to construct a solar ar-Projects 16 mi (26 km) facility within a southeast 1,728 ac area.
| |
| Georgia Power 6 MW Clarksville, Operational https://hydroreform.
| |
| Hydroelectric Georgia, org/hydro-Power Dam: Burton approximately project/burton-p-37 mi (60 km) west 2354/
| |
| | |
| https://www.georgia power.com/compan y/energy-industry/generating-plants.html Georgia Power 4.8 MW Lakemont, Operational https://hydroreform.
| |
| Hydroelectric Georgia, org/hydro-Power Dam: approximately project/nacoochee-Nacoochee 35 mi (56 km) west p-2354/
| |
| Georgia Power 16 MW Lakemont, Operational https://hydroreform.
| |
| Hydroelectric Georgia, org/hydro-Power Dam: approximately project/terrora-p-Terrora 29 mi (47 km) west 2354/
| |
| Georgia Power 72 MW Tallulah Falls, Operational https://hydroreform.
| |
| Hydroelectric Georgia, org/hydro-Power Dam: approximately project/tallulah-falls-Tallulah Falls 28 mi (45 km) W p-2354/
| |
| Georgia Power 44.8 MW Tallulah River, Operational https://hydroreform.
| |
| Hydroelectric Georgia, org/hydro-Power Dam: approximately project/tugalo-p-Tugalo 27 mi (43 km) west 2354/
| |
| Georgia Power 22.5 MW Toccoa, Georgia, Operational https://hydroreform.
| |
| Hydroelectric approximately org/hydro-Power Dam: Yonah 24 mi (39 km) west project/yonah-p-2354/
| |
| Mining and Manufacturing Facilities Baxter Engineering, Westminster, South Operational https://www.baxtere Manufacturing design and Carolina, nt.com/
| |
| development, approximately injection molding 11 mi (18 km) company. southwest
| |
| | |
| E-5 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source CRM Provides custom Seneca, South Operational http://crmglobalman Manufacturing production of Carolina, ufacturing.com/
| |
| carbon steel, approximately stainless steel, 10 mi (16 km) exotics, plastics, south and alloy components.
| |
| Greenfield Manufacturing and Seneca, South Operational https://www.gfii.com Industries supply of cutting Carolina, /
| |
| tools. approximately 6.5 mi (10 km) south Horton Holding Engine cooling Westminster, South Operational Duke Energy 2023-manufacturing Carolina, TN8952 plant. approximately 12 mi (19 km) southwest Lift Technologies Supplies mobile Westminster, South Operational https://www.lift-material handling Carolina, tek.com/
| |
| equipment. approximately Capable of in- 12 mi (19 km) house fabrication, southwest machining, and painting.
| |
| Oconee County Quarry operations. Walhalla, South Operational https://oconeesc.co Rock Quarry Carolina, m/departments/rock approximately -quarry 12 mi (19 km) west Plastic Products Thermoplastic, Seneca, South Operational https://www.plasticp Co. metal, and ceramic Carolina, roductsco.com/
| |
| injection molder approximately 9 mi (15 km) south Pmi2 Inc Machining and Seneca, South Operational https://pmi2sc.com/
| |
| fabrication, Carolina, welding, laser approximately marking, painting, 8.5 mi (14 km) polishing, heat south treating.
| |
| U.S. Waffle Frozen food Liberty, South Operational Duke Energy 2023-Company processing facility. Carolina, TN8952 approximately 12 mi (19 km) east
| |
| | |
| E-6 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Landfills Anderson County Solid waste landfill Anderson, South Operational https://www.wastec Landfill and biogas Carolina, onnections.com/and powered approximately erson-landfill/how-generating station, 28 mi (45 km) trash-becomes-which has the southeast energy/
| |
| capacity to produce 3.2 MW.
| |
| Macon County Solid waste landfill. Franklin, North Operational https://maconnc.org Landfill Carolina, /solid-waste-approximately rules.html 40 mi (64 km) northwest Pickens County Solid waste landfill. Liberty, South Operational https://www.co.pick Landfill Carolina, ens.sc.us/departme approximately nts/solid_waste/inde 13.5 mi (22 km) x.php east Oconee County Construction and Seneca, South Operational https://oconeesc.co Landfill Demolition landfill. Carolina, m/solid-waste-home approximately 10 mi (16 km) south Parks and Recreation Sites High Falls County 46 ac (19 ha) park Seneca, South Operational https://www.reserve Park with camping on Carolina, america.com/explor Lake Keowee. approximately 2 mi e/high-falls-county-(3 km) west park/OCSC/920012/
| |
| overview Keowee Toxaway 1,000 ac (404 ha) Sunset, South Operational https://southcarolina State Park park with camping, Carolina, parks.com/keowee-cabins, hiking, and approximately toxaway lakes. 11 mi (18 km) north Chau Ram County County park with Westminster, South Operational https://visitoconeesc Park over 400 ac Carolina, .com/destination-(162 ha) of approximately oconee-south-woodlands, hiking, 16 mi (26 km) carolina-chau-ram-camping, and southwest county-park/
| |
| waterfalls.
| |
| Oconee State Park 1,165 acre (471 ha) Mountain Rest, Operational https://southcarolina state park with South Carolina, parks.com/oconee camping, cabins, approximately and swimming. 13 mi (21 km) NW
| |
| | |
| E-7 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Clemson 17,500 ac Central, South Operational https://www.clemso Experimental (7,082 ha) Carolina, n.edu/public/experi Forest dedicated to approximately 5 mi mental-forest/
| |
| education, (8 km) southeast research, and demonstration.
| |
| South Cove County 15 ac (6 ha) Seneca, South Operational https://www.reserve Park peninsula offering Carolina, america.com/explor 86 campsites with approximately 7 mi e/south-cove-water and (12 km) southwest county-electricity on each park/OCSC/920013/
| |
| site with 41 sites on overview the waterfront.
| |
| Various private - - Operational -
| |
| marinas and campgrounds surrounding Lake Keowee Water Supply and Treatment Facilities Westminster Water City of Westminster Westminster, South Operational https://www.westmi draws water from Carolina, nstersc.org/utilities the Chauga River approximately and treats 15 mi (25 km) wastewater at the southwest Countys Coneross Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant with a capacity to treat 7 mgd.
| |
| Oconee Joint Wastewater Seneca, South Operational https://www.ojrsa.or Regional Sewer Treatment Facility Carolina, g/
| |
| Authority that can process approximately 5.0 mgd. 11.5 mi (19 km) south Pendleton- Wastewater Pendleton, South Operational https://townofpendle Clemson Waste Treatment Facility Carolina, ton.org/wastewater-Treatment that can process approximately treatment-facility/
| |
| 2.0 mgd. 12 mi (19 km) southeast Anderson Regional Supplies surface Anderson, South Operational https://arjwater.com/
| |
| Joint Water System water from Lake Carolina, Hartwell Reservoir approximately with a capacity of 18.5 mi (30 km) 45 mgd. southeast
| |
| | |
| E-8 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Walhalla Water Water treatment Walhalla, South Operational Duke Energy 2023-Treatment Plant plant that can Carolina, TN8952 process 4 mgd. approximately 11.5 mi (19 km) west Anderson County County wastewater Anderson, South Operational https://www.anders Wastewater treatment plant. Carolina, oncountysc.org/dep Treatment Plant: Serves the corridor approximately artments-a-Six & Twenty of highway 81N 18 mi (29 km) z/wastewater/
| |
| and I-85. southeast Greenville Water Water treatment Greenville, South Operational https://www.greenvil System plant rated at Carolina, lewater.com/water-75 mgd. approximately resources/greenville 28 mi (45 km) east -water-treatment-plants Witty Adkins Water treatment Six Mile, South Operational https://www.greenvil plant rated at Carolina, lewater.com/water-60 mgd. approximately 3 mi resources/greenville (5 km) north -water-treatment-plants City of Pickens 250 million gallon Pickens, South Operational https://www.cityofpi Water Treatment reservoir on the Carolina, ckens.com/watertre Plant and water North Folk of approximately atmentplant distribution system Twelve Mile Creek. 12 mi (19 km)
| |
| Water Treatment northeast Plant has a pumping capacity of 4 mgd.
| |
| Pickens 0.95 mgd average Pickens, South Operational https://www.cityofpi Wastewater flow extended Carolina, ckens.com/index.as Treatment Plant aeration tertiary approximately p?SEC=61780E98-plant. 12 mi (19 km) NE 61CC-44D9-8E4C-53EA03B2C02E Seneca Water Draws water from Seneca, South Operational https://seneca.sc.us Treatment Plant Lake Keowee and Carolina, /seneca-light-and-treated at the approximately water-home/water-treatment plant. 6.5 mi (10 km) treatment-plant Pumping capacity south is 20 mgd.
| |
| Transportation Facilities Oconee County Public airport with Seneca, South Operational https://oconeecount Regional Airport single runway. Carolina, yairport.com/
| |
| approximately 8 mi (13 km) southwest
| |
| | |
| E-9 Table E-1 Projects and Actions NRC Staff Considered in the Oconee Station Impacts Analysis (Continued)
| |
| | |
| Summary of Location (Relative Project Name Project to Oconee) Status Source Pickens County Public airport with Liberty, South Operational https://www.co.pick Airport single runway. Carolina, ens.sc.us/departme approximately nts/airport/index.ph 11 mi (18 km) east p Greenville- Public airport with Greer, South Operational https://gspairport.co Spartanburg single runway. Carolina, m/
| |
| International Airport approximately 39 mi (63 km) east Asheville Regional Public airport with Fletcher, North Operational https://flyavl.com/ab Airport single runway. Carolina, out-the-approximately airport/general-info 49 mi (79 km) north Anderson Regional Public airport with Anderson, South Operational https://www.anders Airport two runways. Carolina, oncountysc.org/wor approximately k-live/for-22.5 mi (36 km) businesses/airport/
| |
| southeast ER = environmental report; Oconee Station = Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; ISFSI = independent spent fuel storage installation.
| |
| No table entry has been denoted by -.
| |
| | |
| 1 E.2 References
| |
| | |
| 2 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 3 Document Control Desk, dated June 7, 2021, regarding Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 4 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 50-5 287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Application for Subsequent 6 Renewed Operating Licenses. Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21158A193.
| |
| 7 TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 8 Duke Energy. 2023. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 9 Document Control Desk, dated June 20, 2023, regarding Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 10 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 50-11 287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License Renewal 12 Application, Appendix E, Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), and Request 13 for Confirmation of Information (RCI). Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 14 ML23171B108. TN8952.
| |
| | |
| E-10 1 APPENDIX F 2
| |
| 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
| |
| | |
| 4 This appendix describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that may occur at 5 Oconee Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station) during the subsequent license 6 renewal (SLR) period. The term accident refers to any unintentional event outside the normal 7 nuclear power plant operational envelope that could result in either (1) an unplanned release of 8 radioactive materials into the environment or (2) the potential for an unplanned release of 9 radioactive materials into the environment. Postulated accidents include design-basis accidents 10 and severe accidents (e.g., those involving core damage).
| |
| | |
| 11 The NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 12 Plants (LR GEIS) (NRC 1996-TN288, NRC 2013-TN2654), evaluates in detail the following two 13 classes of postulated accidents as they relate to license renewal. The LR GEIS conclusions are 14 codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental 15 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions:
| |
| 16
| |
| * Design-Basis Accidents (DBAs): Postulated accidents that a nuclear facility must be 17 designed and built to withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components 18 necessary to ensure public health and safety.
| |
| 19
| |
| * Severe Accidents: Postulated accidents that are more severe than DBAs because they 20 could result in substantial damage to the reactor core, with or without serious offsite 21 consequences.
| |
| 22 This environmental impact statement (EIS) considers the impacts of SLR issues applicable to 23 Oconee Station on a site-specific basis. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff 24 prepared this EIS in accordance with CLI-22-03 (NRC 2022-TN8272), that references CLI 25 02 (NRC 2022-TN8182).
| |
| | |
| 26 This appendix describes (1) the NRC staffs evaluation of new and significant information 27 related to design-basis accidents at Oconee Station, (2) the staffs evaluation of new and 28 significant information for postulated severe accidents at Oconee Station, and (3) the staffs 29 evaluation of new and significant information related to the Oconee Station severe accident 30 mitigation alternative (SAMA) evaluation performed during initial license renewal. The NRC staff 31 conducted this site-specific new and significant evaluation to verify that the environmental 32 impacts of DBAs and the probability-weighted consequences of postulated severe accidents for 33 Oconee Station continue to be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 34 F.1 Background
| |
| | |
| 35 Although this EIS documents the NRC staffs review of a subsequent license renewal 36 application (SLRA), it is helpful to keep in mind that long before any license renewal actions, an 37 operating reactor has already completed the NRC licensing process for the original 40-year 38 operating license. To receive a license to operate a nuclear power reactor, an applicant must 39 submit to the NRC an operating license application that includes, among many other 40 requirements, a safety analysis report. The applicants safety analysis report presents the 41 design criteria and design information for the proposed reactor and includes comprehensive 42 data on the proposed site. The applicants safety analysis report also describes various DBAs 43 and the safety features designed to prevent or mitigate their impacts. The NRC staff reviews the 44 operating license application to determine if the nuclear power plants designincluding designs
| |
| | |
| F-1 1 for preventing or mitigating accidentsmeets the NRCs regulations and requirements. At the 2 conclusion of that review, an operating license would be issued only if the NRC finds, in part, 3 reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the license can be conducted without 4 endangering the health and safety of the public and that the activities will be conducted in 5 accordance with the NRC regulations.
| |
| | |
| 6 F.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents
| |
| | |
| 7 DBAs are postulated accidents that a nuclear power plant must be designed and built to 8 withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components necessary to ensure public 9 health and safety. Planning for DBAs ensures that the proposed nuclear power plant can 10 withstand normal transients (e.g., rapid changes in the reactor coolant system temperature or 11 pressure, or rapid changes in reactor power), as well as a broad spectrum of postulated 12 accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. Many of these DBAs 13 may occur but are unlikely to occur even once during the life of the nuclear power plant; 14 nevertheless, carefully evaluating each DBA is crucial to establishing the design basis for the 15 preventive and mitigative safety systems of the proposed nuclear power plant. 10 CFR Part 50, 16 Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (TN249), and 10 CFR Part 100, 17 Reactor Site Criteria (TN282), describe the NRCs acceptance criteria for DBAs.
| |
| | |
| 18 Before the NRC will issue an operating license for a new nuclear power plant, the applicant 19 must demonstrate the ability of its proposed reactor to withstand all DBAs. The applicant and 20 the NRC staff evaluate the environmental impacts of DBAs for the hypothetical individual 21 exposed to the maximum postulated amount of radiation (maximum exposed individual member 22 of the public). The results of these evaluations of DBAs are found in the reactors original 23 licensing documents, such as the applicants final safety analysis report, the NRC staffs safety 24 evaluation report, and the NRC staffs final environmental impact statement. The consequences 25 of DBAs are evaluated for the hypothetical maximum exposed individual; changes in the nuclear 26 power plant environment over time will not affect these evaluations. Once the NRC issues the 27 operating license for the new reactor, the licensee is required to maintain the acceptable design 28 and performance criteria (which includes withstanding DBAs) throughout the operating life of the 29 nuclear power plant, including any license renewal periods of extended operation.
| |
| | |
| 30 Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29(a) (TN4878), license renewal applicants are required to manage the 31 effects of aging and perform any required time-limited aging analyses (as further described in 32 the regulation), such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the 33 renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the plants current licensing 34 basis (CLB), and any changes made to the plants CLB to comply with Section 54.29 are in 35 accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., TN663) 36 and the Commissions regulations. Under the NRCs rules in 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for 37 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plans, applicants for initial license renewal 38 and SLR must take adequate steps to account for aging during the period of extended operation 39 either by updating time-limited aging analyses or implementing appropriate aging management 40 plans. Based on these activities, the NRC expects that operation during an initial license 41 renewal or SLR term would continue to provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided 42 during the initial operating license period of operations. Further, as provided in the statement of 43 considerations for Part 54, considerable experience has demonstrated that the NRCs 44 regulatory process, including the performance-based requirements of the maintenance rule, 45 provide adequate assurance that degradation due to the aging of structures, systems, and 46 components that perform active safety functions will be appropriately managed to ensure their 47 continued functionality during the period of extended operation.
| |
| | |
| F-2 1 In addition, the staff notes that in the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC reexamined the information from 2 the 1996 LR GEIS regarding design-basis accidents and concluded that this information is still 3 valid. The NRC found that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of SMALL 4 significance for all nuclear plants. This conclusion was reached because the plants were 5 designed to successfully withstand these accidents, and a licensee is required to maintain the 6 plant within acceptable design and performance criteria, including during the license renewal 7 term. It also stated that the environmental impacts during a license renewal term should not 8 differ significantly from those calculated for the design-basis accident assessments conducted 9 as part of the initial plant licensing process. Impacts from design-basis accident would not be 10 affected by changes in plant environment because such impacts (1) are based on calculated 11 radioactive releases that are not expected to change, (2) are not affected by plant environment 12 because they are evaluated for the hypothetical maximally exposed individual, and (3) have 13 been previously determined to be acceptable (NRC 1996-TN288, NRC 2013-TN2654). For SLR 14 of Oconee Station, the NRC staff finds that the same considerations apply.
| |
| | |
| 15 In its environmental report (ER) for the Oconee Station SLRA, as supplemented, Duke Energy 16 did not identify any new and significant information related to design-basis accidents at Oconee 17 Station (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897, Duke Energy 2022-TN8899). In addition, the NRC staff did 18 not identify any new and significant information related to design-basis accidents during its 19 independent review of Duke Energys ER, as supplemented, through the scoping process, or in 20 its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 21 environmental impacts related to DBAs at Oconee Station during the SLR period would be 22 SMALL. In this regard, the staff notes that Oconee Station was designed to successfully 23 withstand design-basis accidents. Because of the requirements for Oconee Station to maintain 24 the licensing basis and implement appropriate aging management programs during the SLR 25 term, the environmental impacts during the SLR term are not expected to differ significantly from 26 those calculated for design-basis accidents as part of the initial plant licensing process. Based 27 on the discussion above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of design-basis accidents 28 during the SLR term for Oconee Station would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 29 F.1.2 Design-Basis Accidents and Oconee Station License Renewal
| |
| | |
| 30 Consistent with Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS)-2014-06, Consideration of Current Operating 31 Issues and Licensing Actions in License Renewal, (NRC 2014-TN7851), DBAs are a part of the 32 CLB of the nuclear power plant as defined at 10 CFR 54.3(a), Current licensing basis (CLB),
| |
| 33 (TN4878).The NRC requires licensees to maintain the CLB of the nuclear power plant under the 34 current operating license, as well as during any license renewal period. Therefore, under the 35 provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, Matters not subject to a renewal review, DBAs are not subject to 36 review under the safety aspects of license renewal.
| |
| | |
| 37 In Section 4.15.1.2.1, Design-Basis Accidents, of its ER, Duke Energy summarized the 38 site-specific requirements needed to operate a nuclear power facility, such as the Oconee 39 Station safety analysis report (Duke Energy 2020-TN9001). The Oconee Station safety analysis 40 report presents the design criteria and design information for Oconee Station. The Oconee 41 Station safety analysis report also discusses various hypothetical DBAs and the safety features 42 designed to prevent and mitigate accidents. A number of the postulated accidents are not 43 expected to occur during the life of the plant but are evaluated to establish the design basis for 44 the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The acceptance criteria for DBAs are 45 described in 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100. The NRC has reviewed Oconees design 46 basis on several occasions following the issuance of the initial operating licenses.
| |
| | |
| F-3 1 For example, Duke Energy determined the consequences for a hypothetical maximum exposed 2 individual, which was evaluated by the NRC staff in 2004 (NRC 2004-TN9164). The NRC staff 3 determined that the radiological consequences estimated by Duke Energy for the Oconee 4 Station (various DBAs) would comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67, Accident source 5 term, and the guidelines of RG 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating 6 design-basis accidents at Nuclear Reactors, and were, therefore, acceptable (NRC 2004-7 TN9164).
| |
| | |
| 8 Another example of NRCs review of Oconee Station design-basis is its review of external 9 hazards information for all operating power reactors, including Oconee, as ordered by the 10 Commission following the Fukushima accident. On November 17, 2020, the NRC staff 11 completed its review for Oconee Station and concluded that no further regulatory actions were 12 needed to ensure adequate protection or compliance with regulatory requirements, including 13 site-specific external hazards information, re-confirming the acceptability of Oconee Stations 14 design basis (NRC 2020-TN8995).
| |
| | |
| 15 For the SLRA, Duke Energy evaluated the systems, structures, and components and conducted 16 time-limited aging analyses of Oconee Station to ensure that systems, structures, and 17 components remain capable of performing their functions consistent with existing plant design 18 and performance criteria specified in the Oconee licensing basis. Duke Energy indicated that 19 the current design and performance criteria will be maintained during the subsequent period of 20 extended operation (SPEO) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 21 The environmental impacts during a license renewal term do not differ significantly from those 22 calculated for the DBA assessments conducted as part of the initial plant licensing process.
| |
| 23 Impacts from DBAs are not affected by changes in plant environment because such impacts 24 (1) are based on calculated radioactive releases that are not expected to change; (2) are not 25 affected by plant environment because they are evaluated for the hypothetical maximally 26 exposed individual; and (3) have been previously determined acceptable (NRC 1996-TN288; 27 NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 28 Under the NRCs License Renewal (LR) rules in 10 CFR Part 54 (TN4878), Requirements for 29 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, applicants for initial license renewal 30 (LR) and SLR must take adequate steps to account for aging during the period of extended 31 operation either through updating time-limited aging analyses or implementing aging 32 management plans. Based on these activities, the NRC staff expects that operation during an 33 initial license renewal or SLR term would continue to provide an equivalent level of safety as 34 during the current operating period. Furthermore, as provided in the statement of considerations 35 for Part 54, the Commission stated that considerable experience has demonstrated that its 36 regulatory process, including the performance-based requirements of the maintenance rule 37 (10 CFR 50.65 [TN249], 64 FR 38551-TN7847, provide adequate assurance that degradation 38 due to aging of structures, systems, and components that perform active safety functions will be 39 appropriately managed to ensure their continued functionality during the period of extended 40 operation. Furthermore, although the definition of CLB in 10 CFR Part 54 is broad and 41 encompasses various aspects of the NRC regulatory process (e.g., operation and design 42 requirements), the Commission concluded that a specific focus on functionality is appropriate for 43 performing the license renewal review. Reasonable assurance that the function of important 44 structures, systems, and components will be maintained throughout the renewal period, 45 combined with the rules stipulation that all aspects of a plants CLB (e.g., technical 46 specifications) and the NRCs regulatory process carry forward into the renewal period, support 47 a conclusion that the CLB (which represents an acceptable level of safety) will be maintained.
| |
| | |
| F-4 1 Functional capability is the principal emphasis for much of the CLB and is the focus of the 2 maintenance rule and other regulatory requirements to ensure that aging issues are 3 appropriately managed in the current license term. The LR rule assures this management into 4 any subsequent term.
| |
| | |
| 5 As stated in Section 5.3.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288), the NRC staff assessed the 6 environmental impacts from DBAs in individual nuclear power plant-specific EISs at the time of 7 the initial license application review. The environmental impacts of design-basis accidents and 8 severe accidents are assessed in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of the 1996 LR GEIS, respectively.
| |
| 9 Because licensees are required to maintain the plant within acceptable design and performance 10 criteria consistent with the current licensing basis, regardless of initial license renewal or SLR 11 term, these impacts are not expected to change. Specifically, 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3) (TN4878) 12 requires a license renewal application, for either the initial license renewal or SLR term, to 13 demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed [for structures and 14 components identified in 10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)] so that the intended function(s) will be maintained 15 consistent with the [current licensing basis] for the period of extended operation. Furthermore, 16 10 CFR 54.29(a)(1) requires that a renewed license may be issued if the Commission, in part, 17 finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to managing 18 the effects of aging during the period of extended operation such that there is reasonable 19 assurance that activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in 20 accordance with the current licensing basis.
| |
| | |
| 21 In its ER for the Oconee SLR application, Duke Energy did not identify any new and significant 22 information related to DBAs at Oconee (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897 and Duke Energy 2022-23 TN8899). The NRC staff also did not identify any new and significant information related to 24 DBAs during its independent review of Duke Energys ER, through the scoping process, or in its 25 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 26 environmental impacts related to DBAs at Oconee Station during the SLR period is SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 27 Duke Energy stated, and the NRC staff confirmed, that impacts due to DBAs are SMALL. The 28 environmental impacts of DBAs are SMALL for Oconee Station because the plant was designed 29 to successfully withstand these accidents. Because of the requirements for Oconee Station to 30 maintain the licensing basis and implement aging management programs during the SLR term, 31 the environmental impacts during the SLR term are not expected to differ significantly from 32 those calculated for the DBA assessments conducted as part of the initial plant licensing 33 process. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no environmental impacts related to 34 DBAs at Oconee Station during the SLR period beyond those already discussed generically for 35 all nuclear power plants in the LR GEIS. In accordance with the Commissions decisions in CLI-36 22-02 and CLI-22-03, the NRC staff has evaluated the applicable Category 1 issue conclusions 37 from the LR GEIS on a site-specific basis for Oconee Station SLR. Based on this evaluation, 38 and based on the discussion above, the NRC staff concludes that impacts regarding DBAs with 39 respect to an SLR term for Oconee Station are SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 40 F.1.3 Severe Accidents
| |
| | |
| 41 Severe accidents are postulated accidents that are more severe than DBAs because severe 42 accidents can result in substantial damage to the reactor core, with or without serious offsite 43 consequences. Severe accidents can entail multiple failures of equipment or functions.
| |
| | |
| F-5 1 F.1.4 Severe Accidents and License Renewal
| |
| | |
| 2 Chapter 5 of the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) conservatively predicted the environmental 3 impacts of postulated severe accidents that may occur during the period of extended operations 4 at nuclear power plants, including Oconee Station. Since that time, the NRC staffs prediction 5 has been confirmed to be conservative by a plant-specific SAMA evaluation (which includes the 6 Oconee Station Level 3 PRA that determines probability-weighted consequences or population 7 dose risk) at Oconee Station which is in the Oconee Station initial license renewal application 8 (NRC 1998-TN8991).
| |
| | |
| 9 In the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC considered impacts of severe accidents including:
| |
| 10
| |
| * dose and health effects of accidents 11
| |
| * economic impacts of accidents 12
| |
| * effect of uncertainties on the results
| |
| | |
| 13 The NRC staff calculated these estimated impacts by studying the risk analysis of severe 14 accidents as reported in the EISs and/or final EISs that the NRC staff had prepared in support of 15 each nuclear power plants original reactor operating license review. When the NRC staff 16 prepared the 1996 LR GEIS, 28 nuclear power plant sites (44 units) had EISs or final EISs that 17 contained a severe accident analysis. To assess the impacts of severe accidents from the 18 airborne pathway, representing the most likely pathway for significant doses to the public, the 19 1996 LR GEIS relied on severe accident analyses provided in the plant-specific EISs where 20 available. Table 5-1 in the 1996 LR GEIS lists the 28 nuclear power plants, representing 21 44 units, that included severe accident analyses in their plant-specific EISs. These plant-specific 22 EISs used plant-specific meteorology, land topography, population distributions, and offsite 23 emergency response parameters, along with generic or plant-specific source terms, to calculate 24 offsite health and economic impacts. The offsite health effects included those from airborne 25 releases of radioactive material and contamination of surface water and groundwater. The 1996 26 LR GEIS assessed the environmental impacts of severe accidents during the license renewal 27 period for several nuclear power plants by using the results of existing analyses and site-28 specific information to make conservative predictions. The 1996 LR GEIS Table 5.6 values for 29 the predicted early and latent fatalities and dose estimates per reactor-year for Oconee Station 30 in the middle year of the LR period, which were used in the consequence analysis to determine 31 that the impacts are SMALL, are provided in Table F-1 below.
| |
| | |
| 32 Table F-1 Predicted Early and Latent Fatalities and Dose Estimates per Reactor-Year 33 for Oconee Station at the Middle Year of the License Renewal Period Nuclear Non-Normalized Predicted Non-Normalized Predicted Power Predicted UCB Total Early Latent Total Fatalities/RY Total Dose (person-rem/RY)
| |
| Plant Fatalities/RY (95% UCB) (95% UCB) (95% UCB)
| |
| Oconee 1.1 x 10-2 1.0 x 10-1 1311 Nuclear Station rem = roentgen equivalent(s) man; RY = reactor year; UCB = Upper-Confidence Bound.
| |
| | |
| 34 For its severe accident environmental impact analysis for each nuclear power plant, the 1996 35 LR GEIS used very conservative 95th-percentile upper-confidence bound (UCB) estimates for 36 environmental impact whenever available. When dealing with risk assessment, use of 95th 37 percentile values provides a more conservative estimate than 50th percentile or mean values.
| |
| 38 Using the 95th percentile value reduces the likelihood of underestimating risk. This 95th
| |
| | |
| F-6 1 percentile approach provides conservatism to cover uncertainties, as described in 2 Section 5.3.3.2.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288). The 1996 LR GEIS concluded 3 that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents, as related to LR, are SMALL 4 compared to other risks to which the populations surrounding nuclear power plants are routinely 5 exposed. Since issuing the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRCs understanding of severe accident risk has 6 continued to evolve.
| |
| | |
| 7 During Oconee Stations initial license renewal, a site-specific Level 3 PRA analysis was 8 performed to (1) determine the site-specific population dose risk or probability-weighted 9 consequences to the environment, and (2) determine the cost effectiveness of mitigation 10 alternatives that might reduce the risk. The Oconee Station SAMA analysis used a full-scope, 11 Level 3 PRA with analysis of both the internal and external event Level 1 PRAs as well as the 12 Level 2 PRA. This examination identified the most likely severe accident sequences, both 13 internally and externally induced, with quantitative perspectives on their likelihood and fission 14 product release potential. The update provides a relatively current profile of the severe accident 15 risk for Oconee Station characterized by (1) core damage frequency (CDF) (i.e., the risk of core 16 damage severe accidents which could release substantial fission products using Level 1 PRA) 17 and (2) person-rem risk (or population dose risk) (i.e., the risk of release of significant fission 18 products offsite given a core damage accident using Level 2 and 3 PRA).
| |
| | |
| 19 The staff documented its initial license renewal review in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental 20 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 2, Regarding the Oconee 21 Nuclear Station (NRC 1999-TN8942). For the Oconee Station SLR, the NRC staff considered 22 any new and significant information that might alter the conclusions of that analysis, as 23 discussed below.
| |
| | |
| 24 The 1996 LR GEIS used the environmental impact information from the 28 plant-specific EISs 25 and a metric called the exposure index (EI) to (1) scale up the radiological impact of severe 26 accidents on the population due to demographic changes from the time the original EIS was 27 done until the year representing the mid-license renewal period and (2) estimate the severe 28 accident environmental impacts for the other plants (for which EISs did not include a 29 quantitative assessment of severe accidents). The EI method uses the projected population 30 distribution around each nuclear power plant site at the middle of its license renewal period and 31 meteorology data for each site to provide a measure of the degree to which the population 32 would be exposed to the release of radioactive material resulting from a severe accident 33 (i.e., the EI method weights the population in each of 16 sectors around a nuclear power plant 34 by the fraction of time the wind blows in that direction on an annual basis). The EI metric also 35 was used to project economic impacts at the mid-year of the license renewal period. A more 36 detailed description of the EI method is contained in Appendix G of the 1996 LR GEIS. The 37 plant-specific EISs (which are a function of population and wind direction), in conjunction with 38 the plant-specific total probability-weighed consequences or risk values from the Final EISs, 39 were used to predict the 95 percent UCB consequences for 74 nuclear power plants (including 40 Oconee Station), representing 118 units, from atmospheric releases due to severe accidents.
| |
| 41 Predicted 95 percent UCB values were developed for (1) early fatalities per reactor-year, (2) 42 latent fatalities per reactor-year, and (3) total population dose per reactor-year. The results of 43 this assessment for each plant, for each of these impact metrics, are provided in 1996 LR GEIS 44 Table 5.10, Table 5.11, and Table 5.6, respectively. These results from the 1996 LR GEIS are 45 repeated in Table F.1 for Oconee Station in the columns titled Predicted Total Early 46 Fatalities/RY (95 % UCB), Non-normalized Predicted Latent Total Fatalities/RY (95% UCB),
| |
| 47 and Non-normalized Predicted Total Dose (person-rem/RY) (95% UCB), respectively. In 48 Section 5.5.2.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the generic analysis
| |
| | |
| F-7 1 summarized in the 1996 LR GEIS applies to all plants and that the probability-weighted 2 consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground 3 water, and societal and economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance for all 4 plants.
| |
| | |
| 5 The SAMA analysis with Oconee Station Level 3 PRA performed for Oconee Station at the time 6 of initial LR (NRC 1998-TN8991) sought to identify mitigation alternatives that have the potential 7 to reduce severe accident risk and to determine if implementation of the mitigation was 8 potentially cost-beneficial. Similar to the 1996 LR GEIS, the consequence analysis software that 9 was used for the Oconee Station Level 3 PRA in the SAMA analysis was the MELCOR Accident 10 Consequence Code System (MACCS) code (SNL 2021-TN7810).1 As such, the initial LR 11 application for Oconee Station included a more recent plant-specific estimate of the total 12 population dose risk (PDR) due to severe accidents, which is an update of the non-normalized 13 predicted total dose (person-rem/RY) (95 percent UCB) consequences provided in the 1996 LR 14 GEIS. This included plant-specific updated core damage frequencies for internal and external 15 event hazards, plant-specific updated analyses of containment performance under severe 16 accident conditions, and updated consequence analyses using plant-specific information about 17 radionuclide source terms, radionuclide releases, projected population distribution during the 18 license renewal period, meteorological data, and emergency response.
| |
| | |
| 19 The total population dose risk value of 5 person-rem/RY calculated by Duke Energy in the 20 Oconee Station Level 3 PRA analysis performed during initial license renewal is orders of 21 magnitude less than the corresponding predicted or estimated 95 percent UCB value of 1311 22 person-rem/RY presented by NRC in the 1996 LR GEIS. Specifically, the predicted 95 percent 23 UCB population dose value from the 1996 LR GEIS population is higher by a factor of 266. The 24 1996 LR GEIS 95 percent UCB predicted values for early fatalities and latent fatalities were 25 derived from the estimated radiological doses to the population. Therefore, the NRC staff 26 concludes that the 1996 LR GEIS predicted 95 percent UCB results for early fatalities and latent 27 fatalities are conservative based on the updated information from the license renewal SAMA 28 analyses regarding population dose risk and the state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis 29 (SOARCA) results (NRC 2012-TN3092). The Oconee Station-specific license renewal 30 calculated values for population dose risk demonstrated the magnitude of conservatism used in 31 the 1996 LR GEIS predicted values, both from the standpoint of reduced consequences using 32 more recent plant-specific information and the conservatism built into the 1996 LR GEIS 33 methodology and reinforced the conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences due to 34 severe accidents are SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 35 In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC staff evaluated the NRCs severe accident environmental impact 36 assessments in 1996 LR GEIS considering new information that might affect the evaluation and 37 confirmed that the determination regarding probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 38 releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and socioeconomic 39 impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants (NRC 2013-TN2654, Appendix E). This 40 EIS for Oconee Station evaluates new information regarding severe accidents using a similar 41 approach to the 2013 LR GEIS and considers whether the new information would, collectively, 42 change the conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences of a severe accident at 43 Oconee Station are small. As explained below, while several factors at Oconee Station may 44 result in modest increases in severe accident risk, other new information regarding these factors
| |
| | |
| 1 MACCS was developed at and continues to be maintained by Sandia National Laboratories for the NRC. It is used to model estimates of the health risks and economic impacts of offsite radiological releases from potential severe accidents at nuclear facilities.
| |
| | |
| F-8 1 suggests that the risk of severe accidents may be, on average, substantially lower than 2 previously estimated. As a result, the following NRC staff review and independent analysis 3 overall further supports the findings from the 1996 and 2013 LR GEIS that the probability-4 weighted impacts of severe accidents would be SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 5 F.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
| |
| | |
| 6 During initial license renewal, applicants consider the environmental impacts of severe 7 accidents, their probability and frequency of occurrence (using Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 8 PRA), and potential means to mitigate those accidents (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 9 F.2.1 Oconee Station Initial License Renewal SAMA Analysis with Oconee Station 10 Level 3 PRA Results Submitted in 1998
| |
| | |
| 11 As part of its initial license renewal application submitted in 1998, Duke Energys ER included 12 an analysis of SAMAs including the Oconee Station Level 3 PRA results (NRC 1998-TN8991).
| |
| 13 Duke Energy based this SAMA analysis on (1) the Oconee Station PRA for total accident 14 frequency, CDF, and containment large early release frequency (LERF); and (2) a supplemental 15 analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts for risk determination. The Oconee 16 Station PRA included a Level 1 analysis to determine the CDF from internally initiated events 17 and a Level 2 analysis to determine containment performance during severe accidents. The 18 offsite consequences and economic impacts analyses (Level 3 PRA) used site-specific data for 19 meteorology, population, and evacuation modeling to determine the offsite risk impacts on the 20 surrounding environment and the public. Inputs for the latter analysis included projected 21 population distribution (based on 1990 census data, projected out to 2030 for Oconee Station),2 22 emergency response evacuation modeling, and economic data.
| |
| | |
| 23 In its 1998 ER, Duke Energy started with a listing of the top 100 cut sets (severe accident 24 sequences) on internal initiators and the top 100 cut sets from the external initiators ranked by 25 contribution to total core damage. Duke Energy then performed a qualitative screening of those 26 SAMAs, eliminating SAMAs that were not applicable to Oconee Station or had already been 27 implemented at Oconee Station. Several of the SAMAs were qualitatively screened, leaving 28 16 SAMAs subject to the final quantitative evaluation process. The 16 remaining SAMAs are 29 listed in Table 6-1 of Attachment K of the 1998 Duke ER (NRC 1998-TN8991). Ultimately, Duke 30 Energy concluded that there were no potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs associated with the 31 initial Oconee Station license renewal (NRC 1998-TN8991).
| |
| | |
| 32 As part of its review of the initial Oconee Station license renewal application, the NRC staff 33 reviewed Duke Energys 1998 SAMA analysis for Oconee Station, as documented in 34 Supplement 2 to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1999-TN8942). Chapter 5 of Supplement 2 to 35 NUREG-1437 contains the NRC staffs evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of 36 nuclear power plant accidents and examines each SAMA (individually and, in some cases, in 37 combination) to determine the SAMAs individual risk reduction potential. The NRC staff then 38 compared this potential risk reduction against the cost of implementing the SAMA to quantify the 39 SAMAs cost-benefit value.
| |
| | |
| 40 The value-impact results for the 16 SAMAs are presented in Tables 5-5 and 5-6 of the Oconee 41 Station LR ER. All of the SAMAs had a negative net value, even when bounding risk reduction
| |
| | |
| 2 In contrast, as discussed in the population sensitivity later in this EIS, Duke Energys ER for SLR used projected population values for the year 2054 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| F-9 1 benefits are assumed. In Section 5.2.7 of NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, the NRC staff 2 concluded that Duke Energy used a systematic process for identifying potential design 3 improvements for Oconee Station and that the set of potential design improvements identified 4 by Duke Energy is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. Based on its review 5 of SAMAs for Oconee Station, the NRC staff concluded that none of the candidate SAMAs 6 were cost beneficial. Both the conditional probability of an early release of fission products 7 and the total offsite risk at Oconee Station were already quite small (less than 4 percent and 8 5 person-rem per year, respectively). Given the low residual level of risk and the large cost of 9 enhancements necessary to substantially reduce risk, cost-beneficial enhancements that can 10 significantly reduce risk were unlikely. The margins in the analysis were considered ample to 11 cover uncertainties in risk and cost estimates given that, in general, estimates for these factors 12 were conservatively evaluated (NRC 1999-TN8942).
| |
| | |
| 13 F.2.2 Subsequent License Renewal Application and New and Significant Information 14 as it Relates to the Probability-Weighted Consequences of Severe Accidents
| |
| | |
| 15 Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, 2013 LR GEIS, and completion of the Oconee Station 16 LR SAMA analyses, new information and developments in plant operation and accident analysis 17 have unfolded that could affect the assumptions made in these previous analyses. The Oconee 18 Station new information and developments are evaluated specifically for Oconee Station similar 19 to the grouping approach for all plants used in the 2013 LR GEIS. These changes are grouped 20 into the following areas and are each covered in this appendix:
| |
| 21
| |
| * internal event risk 22
| |
| * external event risk 23
| |
| * updates in the quantification of accident source terms 24
| |
| * increases in licensed reactor power levels, i.e., power uprates 25
| |
| * increases in fuel burnup levels 26
| |
| * consideration of reactor accidents at low power and shutdown conditions 27
| |
| * consideration of accidents in Spent Fuel Pools 28
| |
| * the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report on the risk of fatal cancers 29 posed by exposure to radiation
| |
| | |
| 30 Sections discussing uncertainties, SAMAs, and conclusions are also provided. Below, the NRC 31 staff summarizes possible areas of new and significant information and assesses Duke 32 Energys conclusions.
| |
| | |
| 33 F.3 Evaluation of New Information Concerning Probability-Weighted 34 Consequences of a Severe Accident at Oconee Station
| |
| | |
| 35 The 2013 LR GEIS considers developments in nuclear power plant operation and accident 36 analysis that could have changed the assumptions made in the 1996 LR GEIS concerning 37 severe accident consequences. The 2013 LR GEIS confirmed the determination in the 1996 LR 38 GEIS that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all nuclear 39 power plants. Appendix E in the 2013 LR GEIS provides the NRC staffs evaluation of the 40 environmental impacts of postulated accidents. Table E-19, Summary of Conclusions, of the 41 2013 LR GEIS shows the developments that the NRC staff considered, as well as the staffs 42 conclusions. Consideration of the items listed in Table E-19 of the 2013 LR GEIS was the basis
| |
| | |
| F-10 1 for the NRC staffs overall determination in the 2013 LR GEIS that the probability-weighted 2 consequences of severe accidents remain SMALL for all nuclear power plants.
| |
| | |
| 3 For issues that are applicable to Oconee Station, the discussion below follows the format of the 4 generic new and significant analysis approach that was used for all plants in the 2013 LR GEIS 5 using Oconee Station site-specific information for the SPEO. The site-specific analysis 6 evaluates the impact of any relevant new site-specific information on the environmental 7 consequences of continued plant operation during the SPEO for Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 8 For the Oconee Station SLR, the NRC staff confirmed that there is no new and significant 9 information that would change the 2013 LR GEIS conclusions on the probability-weighted 10 consequences of severe accidents. The NRC staff evaluated Duke Energys information related 11 to the 2013 LR GEIS, Table E-19, Summary of Conclusions, during the Oconee Station audit 12 (NRC 2021-TN8910), during the scoping process, and through the evaluation of other available 13 information. The results of that review follow.
| |
| | |
| 14 F.3.1 New Internal Events Information (Section E.3.1 of the 2013 LR GEIS) 15 The Oconee Station internal events CDF in the initial license renewal SAMA was 2.6 x 10-5/year 16 (NRC 1998-TN8991). The Oconee Station internal events CDF provided in the Oconee Station 17 SLR ER is approximately 2.4 x 10-5/year (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Specifically, the current 18 internal events CDF of 2.4 x 10-5/year is approximately 8 percent lower than the internal events 19 CDF of 2.6 x 10-5/year from the initial license renewal SAMA analysis and Oconee Station Level 20 3 PRA analysis.
| |
| | |
| 21 The impacts from the 1996 LR GEIS were based on the original license EISs for the 28 nuclear 22 power plant sites listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS. Oconee Station is not one of the 23 original nuclear power plant sites; however, a comparison with the original internal event CDF 24 values that the 1996 LR GEIS was based on can be made. The Oconee Station internal events 25 CDF provided in the ER (2.4 x 10-5/year) is below the mean value (8.4 x 10-5/yr), median value 26 (4.8 x 10-5/yr), and below the range of the original pressurized water reactor (PWR) internal 27 events CDFs (3.5 x 10-4/yr to 4.4 x 10-5/yr) values on which the 1996 LR GEIS was based 28 (see Table E-1 of the 2013 LR GEIS). This represents Oconee Stations relatively lower value 29 for internal event CDFs in comparison to the mean, median and maximum value of internal 30 events of other PWRs by a factor of 3.5, 2, and 14, respectively, as represented below in 31 Table F-2.
| |
| | |
| 32 Additional comparisons can be made of the estimated total population dose from severe 33 accidents initiated by internal events, which were estimated in both the 1996 LR GEIS (referred 34 to as the expected total population dose - non-normalized) and in the Oconee Station license 35 renewal Level 3 PRA analyses. These comparisons are shown in Table F-3 below. The data in 36 these tables show that the Oconee Station plant-specific population dose risk calculated in the 37 Oconee Station Level 3 PRA analyses is significantly less (by a factor of 266) than the expected 38 value estimated for Oconee Station in the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 39 Thus, the population dose risk of severe accidents is significantly less for Oconee Station than 40 that used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 41
| |
| | |
| F-11 1 Table F-2 Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event (Full Power) Core Damage 2 Frequency Comparison
| |
| | |
| Nuclear Power 1996 LR GEIS Estimated SAMA Internal Event Plant CDF(a) IPE CDF(b) CDF(c)
| |
| Oconee Nuclear N/A 2.3 x 10-5/yr(d) 2.6 x 10-5/yr(d)
| |
| Station PWR Mean value 8.4 x 10-5/yr 5.9 x 10-5/yr 2.2 x 10-5/yr PWR Median value 4.8 x 10-5/yr 4.9 x 10-5/yr 1.7 x 10-5/yr CDF = core damage frequency; IPE = individual plant examination; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; N/A = not applicable.
| |
| (a) The estimated CDF was obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact containment sequences.
| |
| (b) Data were obtained from NRC 1997-TN7812, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| (c) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| (d) The internal events initiated CDF value includes contribution from internal flooding events.
| |
| | |
| 3 Table F-3 Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event (Full Power) Population Dose 4 Risk Comparison 1996 LR GEIS Estimated Expected Total Population Dose - Non-normalized SAMA PDR (person-Nuclear Power Plant (person-rem/reactor-year)(a) rem/reactor-year)(b)
| |
| Oconee Nuclear Station 1311 5 Other Mean value 986 31.3 Other Median value 175 16.0 LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
| |
| (a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996-TN288.
| |
| (b) The SAMA PDR was obtained from the Oconee plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437.
| |
| | |
| 5 From Oconee Stations 1998 ER, the annual person-rem risk result calculated for the 50 mi 6 population was 5 whole body person-rem. In general, the population dose risk values calculated 7 for Oconee Station are relatively low in comparison to other plants (NRC 2023 - TN7802).
| |
| | |
| 8 The CDF level from the Oconee Station license renewal Level 1 internal event PRA analyses 9 is lower than the range of PWR internal event accident frequencies that was used to form the 10 basis for the environmental impacts in the 1996 LR GEIS. The internal event CDF for Oconee 11 Station has further decreased since the time of the Oconee Station LR SAMA analysis. These 12 results demonstrate the conservatism in the 1996 LR GEIS values, both from the standpoint of 13 reduced population dose risk from more recent estimates and the conservatism built into the 14 1996 LR GEIS methodology.
| |
| | |
| 15 During the review of Oconee Station historical changes in CDF values during an audit for this 16 EIS (NRC 2021 - TN9716), the staff noted that increases in the CDF as a result of PRA updates 17 were sometimes due to changes in PRA modeling or methodology and not due to physical 18 changes in plant design or operation. For example, after Duke Energy submitted the Oconee 19 Station initial license renewal application ER in 1998 and after the NRC staff issued its 20 corresponding SAMA review in its 1999 SEIS, several changes had been implemented at 21 Oconee Station that are risk beneficial but may not be fully credited in the PRA. This includes 22 safety improvements as a result of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force recommendations 23 and other plant-specific programs (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| F-12 1 A number of physical plant improvements that may benefit risk have been implemented at 2 Oconee Station since the initial license renewal. The Oconee Station ER listed the following:
| |
| 3
| |
| * upgraded Oconee Station Unit 1 Westinghouse Reactor Coolant Pump seals to a low 4 leakage seal design 5
| |
| * replaced the station Auxiliary Service Water system (pump and power system) with the 6 Protected Service Water System, which provides enhanced capability to restore steam 7 generator cooling, Reactor Coolant System makeup, and Reactor Coolant Pump seal 8 injection 9
| |
| * installed backup alternating current power connection for the Safe Shutdown Facility (SSF) 10 from Protected Service Water switchgear 11
| |
| * upgraded the west penetration room masonry walls to withstand tornado wind and 12 differential pressure 13
| |
| * added Borated Water Storage Tank tornado missile protection 14
| |
| * installed additional tornado missile protection for SSF cabling for portions of west 15 penetration room and SSF cable trench 16
| |
| * installed reliable Spent Fuel Pool instrumentation in response to NRC Order EA-12-051 17
| |
| * implemented diverse and flexible coping strategies features and capabilities in response to 18 NRC Order EA-12-049 19
| |
| * enhanced external flood protection for post-Fukushima response 20
| |
| * improved closure capability of valve HP-5 to isolate containment following a seismic event 21 (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897)
| |
| | |
| 22 Changes in PRA methodology (e.g., more conservative calculations for treatment of 23 dependency between human actions) also have increased the value of CDF in a manner that 24 could potentially diminish the impact and real benefits from demonstrable plant safety 25 improvements (i.e., implemented diverse and flexible coping strategies features and capabilities 26 in response to NRC Order EA-12-049) (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). Considering plant 27 improvements to reduce internal events risk and the conservative population dose risk values 28 used in the 1996 LR GEIS (as discussed in uncertainties section below), the offsite 29 consequences of severe accidents initiated by internal events at Oconee Station during the 30 subsequent period of extended operation would not exceed the impacts predicted in the 1996 31 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 32 Therefore, considering the CDF reduction in Oconee Stations risk profile and the information 33 evaluated in Table F-3, the NRC staff concludes that the offsite probability-weighted 34 consequences of severe accidents initiated by internal events during the SLR term at Oconee 35 Station would not exceed the impacts predicted in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS. The NRC staff 36 identified no new and significant information regarding internal events during its review of Duke 37 Energys ER, during the SAMA audit, through the scoping process, or through the evaluation of 38 other available information. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that no new and significant 39 information exists for Oconee Station during the SLR term concerning offsite probability-40 weighted consequences of severe accidents initiated by internal events that would alter the 41 conclusions reached in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS. For these issues, the LR GEIS predicted 42 that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents would be SMALL for all nuclear 43 power plants.
| |
| | |
| F-13 1 F.3.2 External Events Information (Section E.3.2 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 2 The 1996 LR GEIS included a qualitative assessment of the environmental impacts of accidents 3 initiated by external events (see Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS [NRC 1996-TN288]). The 4 purpose of this section is to consider updated information regarding the contribution to CDF 5 from accidents initiated by external events and potential external event impacts. The sources of 6 information used in this external events assessment are the 1998 Oconee Station SAMA 7 analyses provided in the Oconee Station license renewal ER and the plant-specific 8 supplemental EIS to NUREG-1437. The license renewal SAMA analyses submitted and 9 reviewed by the NRC staff explicitly considers the impact of external events in the assessment 10 of SAMAs.
| |
| | |
| 11 The 2013 LR GEIS expanded the scope of the evaluation in the 1996 LR GEIS and used more 12 recent technical information that included both internally and externally initiated event core 13 damage frequencies. Section E.3.2.3 of the 2013 LR GEIS concluded that the CDFs from 14 severe accidents initiated by external events, as quantified in NUREG-1150, Severe Accident 15 Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1990-TN525), and other 16 sources documented in the LR GEIS, are comparable to CDFs from accidents initiated by 17 internal events, but lower than the CDFs that formed the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 18 As with the previous section that addressed updated information with regard to internal events 19 risk, the evaluation contained in this section compares the CDFs that formed the basis for the 20 1996 LR GEIS, and population dose risk values directly from the 1996 LR GEIS, with the more 21 recent Oconee Station values provided in the Oconee SLR ER.
| |
| | |
| 22 The total plant CDF (referred to as the All Hazards CDF) from the SAMA analyses is the 23 summation of the CDFs for internally initiated events, including internal flood events, and 24 external events. Duke Energy provided the base case CDF values used to evaluate SAMAs 25 in Table 4.15-2 of the Oconee Station SLR ER, as supplemented. The sum of the external 26 events CDF (1 x 10-4 per reactor-year); fire, seismic, high winds, and external flooding CDFs 27 (5.14 x 10-5 per reactor-year, 3.27 x 10-5 per reactor-year, 1.59 x 10-5 per reactor-year, and 28 2.47 x 10-7 per reactor-year, respectively), is greater than the current Oconee Station internal 29 event CDF (2.41 x 10-5 per reactor-year), but lower than the range of PWR internal event CDFs 30 (4.4 x 10-5 to 3.5 x 10-4 per reactor-year) that formed the basis of the 1996 LR GEIS to 31 conservatively estimate probability-weighted, offsite consequences from airborne, surface 32 water, and groundwater pathways, as well as the resulting economic impacts from such 33 pathways. Because Oconee Stations fire, seismic, high winds, and external flood PRA models 34 have been developed since the time of the initial license renewal, these models were 35 considered new information by Duke Energy and were used in the quantitative PRA calculation 36 to evaluate SAMAs potential for significance, as demonstrated in Table 4.15-2 of the ER and 37 reviewed in the SAMA section of this EIS below.
| |
| | |
| 38 Data in Table F-4 and Table F-5 show that after accounting for the Oconee Station CDF 39 contribution from all hazards, the total plant CDF is within the range of values used in the 1996 40 LR GEIS, which only considered internal events.
| |
| | |
| F-14 1 Table F-4 Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards (Full Power) Core Damage 2 Frequency Comparison Nuclear Power Plant 1996 LR GEIS Estimated CDF(a) SAMA All Hazards CDF(b)
| |
| Oconee Nuclear Station N/A 8.90 x 10-5 /yr Indian Point 2 3.5 x 10-4 /yr 6.7 x 10-5 /yr Mean value 8.4 x 10-5 /yr 5.1 x 10-5 /yr Median value 4.8 x 10-4 /yr 4.5 x 10-5 /yr CDF = core damage frequency; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
| |
| (a) Data were obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact containment sequences.
| |
| (b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437. Where applicable, the SAMA PDR was adjusted using the external events multiplier.
| |
| Source: NRC 2022-TN7857, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| | |
| 3 Regarding the current ER, as supplemented, Duke Energy provided the overall hazard 4 contribution to CDF for Oconee Station, as shown in Table F-5.
| |
| | |
| 5 Table F-5 Oconee Nuclear Station Hazard Contribution to Core Damage Frequency Oconee Nuclear Station SLRA CDF Percent of Combined CDF Int. Events CDF 2.41 x 10-5/yr 19.12%
| |
| Int. Flood CDF 1.58 x 10-6/yr 1.26%
| |
| High Winds CDF 1.59 x 10-5/yr 12.60%
| |
| Ext. Flood CDF 2.47 x 10-7/yr 0.20%
| |
| Fire CDF 5.14 x 10-5/yr 40.83%
| |
| Seismic CDF 3.27 x 10-5/yr 26.02%
| |
| Combined CDF 1.26 x 10-4/yr 100.02%
| |
| CDF = core damage frequency; SLRA = subsequent license renewal application.
| |
| | |
| 6 As provided in Table F-4, the Oconee Station All Hazards CDF is less than the highest 7 estimated Internal Events CDF from the 1996 LR GEIS (Indian Point 2). Accordingly, the 8 likelihood of an accident that leads to core damage, including accounting for the contribution 9 from external events, is less for Oconee Station than the highest estimated Internal Events CDF 10 used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| 11 Although the Combined CDF (All Hazards) increased to 1.26 x 10-4 per reactor-year, the 12 Oconee Station All Hazards CDF is still less than the highest estimated internal events CDF 13 (Indian Point 2 is 3.5 x 10-4 per reactor-year) used in the 1996 LR GEIS. Accordingly, the 14 likelihood of an accident that leads to core damage, including accounting for the contribution 15 from external events, is less for Oconee Station than the highest estimated internal events CDF 16 from the values which were used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 17 In the current Oconee Station ER, as supplemented, Duke Energy indicated that these PRA 18 models reflected the most up-to-date understanding of plant risk at the time of analysis. The 19 staff determined that this approach is sufficient to evaluate new and significant information 20 related to SAMAs because use of the models reflected the most up-to-date understanding of 21 plant risk at the time of the analysis, consistent with NEI 17-04, Model SLR New and Significant 22 Assessment Approach for SAMA.
| |
| | |
| F-15 1 Additional comparisons can be made of the estimated total population dose risk from severe 2 accidents initiated by internal and external events (as estimated in the license renewal SAMA 3 analyses), with the estimated total population dose risk from severe accidents initiated by only 4 internal events (as estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS). For this comparison, the NRC staff used 5 the 95 percent UCB population dose risk estimates from the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 6 The Oconee Station SAMA analysis performed during initial license renewal used a full-scope, 7 Level 3 PRA with analysis of both the internal and external events. This examination identified 8 the most likely severe accident sequences, both internally and externally induced, with 9 quantitative perspectives on their likelihood and fission product release potential. The Level 3 10 PRA provided an updated profile of the severe accident risk for Oconee Station compared to the 11 1996 LR GEIS characterized by (1) CDF (i.e., the risk of core damage severe accidents which 12 could release substantial fission products) and (2) person-rem risk (or population dose risk) 13 (i.e., the risk of release of significant fission products offsite given a core damage accident).
| |
| | |
| 14 As provided in the 1998 ER, the Oconee Station annual person-rem risk result for the 50 mi 15 population is 5 whole body person-rem. In general, the population dose risk measures 16 calculated for Oconee Station show relatively low risk of environmental impacts compared to 17 other nuclear power plants (NRC 2023-TN7802).
| |
| | |
| 18 Data in Table F-6 show that the estimated population dose risk in the Oconee Station Level 3 19 analyses, accounting for the risk from all hazards, is significantly less than the 95 percent 20 UCB estimate for Oconee Station in the 1996 LR GEIS. Specifically, as shown in Table F-6, 21 the Oconee Station SAMA analyses is more than a factor of 266 less than the corresponding 22 95 percent UCB estimates for Oconee Station. As shown in Table F-6, the 1996 LR GEIS 23 estimated Oconee Station population dose risk (1,311) was near half the mean PWR population 24 dose risk values calculated for other plants (2,294), and near the median for PWR plants 25 (1,222).
| |
| | |
| 26 Table F-6 Oconee All Hazards (full power) Population Dose Risk Comparison 1996 LR GEIS Estimated Predicted Total Population Dose - Non-normalized 95% SAMA All Hazards PDR Nuclear Power Plant UCB (person-rem/reactor-year)(a) (person-rem/reactor-year)(b)
| |
| Oconee Nuclear Station 1,311 5 PWR Mean value 2,294 89.8 PWR Median value 1,222 34.0 LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; UCB = upper-confidence bound.
| |
| (a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996-TN288.
| |
| (b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437 and multiplied by the external events multiplier from the same plant-specific Supplemental EIS to NUREG-1437, if applicable (NRC 2022-TN7857).
| |
| Source: NRC 2022-TN7857, unless otherwise.
| |
| | |
| 27 Accordingly, based on the Oconee Station license renewal Level 3 PRA analyses, the risk of 28 severe accidents that result in core damage, considering accidents initiated by all hazards, is 29 significantly less for Oconee Station than that used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 30 On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued a request under 10 CFR 50.54(f) (TN249), as part of 31 implementing lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima, that, among other things, 32 requested licensees to reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites using present-day
| |
| | |
| F-16 1 methodologies and guidance to develop a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (SNL 1982-2 TN7749). Duke Energy submitted its seismic PRA (SPRA) on December 21, 2018 (Duke 3 Energy 2018-TN8992). The NRC staff reviewed Duke Energys SPRA (NRC 2019-TN8994) and 4 concluded:
| |
| 5 Based on the staffs review of the Oconee submittal against the endorsed SPID 6 [Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details] guidance, the NRC staff concludes 7 that the licensee responded appropriately to Enclosure 1, Item (8) of the 50.54(f) letter.
| |
| 8 Additionally, the staffs review concluded that the SPRA is of sufficient technical 9 adequacy to support Phase 2 regulatory decision-making in accordance with the intent of 10 the 50.54(f) letter. Based on the results and risk insights of the SPRA submittal, the NRC 11 staff also concludes that no further response or regulatory actions associated with NTTF 12 [Near-Term Task Force] Recommendation 2.1 Seismic are required. The staff notes 13 that this conclusion is dependent on the completion of the planned modifications, as 14 described in the SPRA submittal.
| |
| | |
| 15 A {{letter dated|date=September 18, 2019|text=letter dated September 18, 2019}}, provides the regulatory commitments to specific actions 16 which Oconee Station planned to implement. (Duke Energy 2020-TN9001).
| |
| | |
| 17 In a {{letter dated|date=November 17, 2020|text=November 17, 2020, letter}} regarding the assessment of Oconee Stations completion of 18 required actions taken in response to the lessons learned from Fukushima, the NRC staff 19 acknowledged and documented that the actions required by the NRC in orders issued following 20 the accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station had been completed for Oconee Station 21 and stated that the NRC would continue to provide oversight of Oconee Stations safety 22 enhancements through the NRCs reactor oversight process (NRC 2020-TN8995). In addition, 23 the letter acknowledged and documented that Duke Energy had provided the information 24 requested in the NRCs March 12, 2012, request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) 25 (TN249), related to the lessons learned from that accident. Completing these actions and 26 providing the requested information, implemented the safety enhancements mandated by the 27 NRC based on the lessons learned from the accident.
| |
| | |
| 28 In conclusion, there was an 8 percent decrease in the Oconee Station internal events CDF 29 since its initial ER. Duke Energy provided commitments or implemented the safety 30 enhancements mandated by the NRC based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima 31 accident. Furthermore, the sum of the Oconee Station external events CDFs was within the 32 range of PWR internal event CDFs that formed the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS. Therefore, the 33 NRC staff concludes that the probability-weighted offsite consequences of severe accidents 34 initiated by external events during the SLR term would not exceed the probability-weighted 35 consequences predicted in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS. For these issues, the 1996 and 2013 36 LR GEIS predicted that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents would be 37 SMALL for all nuclear plants. The NRC staff identified no new and significant information 38 regarding external events during its review of Duke Energys ER, during the SAMA audit, 39 through the scoping process, or through the evaluation of other available information. Thus, 40 the NRC staff finds Duke Energys conclusion acceptable that no new and significant 41 information exists for Oconee Station concerning offsite probability-weighted consequences of 42 severe accidents initiated by external events that would alter the conclusions that for Oconee 43 Station, the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open 44 bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 45 accidents remains SMALL for the SLR period. Further details regarding the Oconee fire and 46 seismic PRA are described below.
| |
| | |
| F-17 1 F.3.2.1 Fire Events
| |
| | |
| 2 Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC and nuclear industry have developed updated 3 PRA standards and guidance (i.e., methods, tools, and data) for the development of quality fire 4 PRA models. The updated guidance was published as NUREG/CR-6850 and Electric Power 5 Research Institute (EPRI) Report 1011989, EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear 6 Power Facilities, (EPRI/NRC 2005-TN7823, EPRI/NRC 2005-TN7824), and has subsequently 7 been enhanced by numerous additional reports about specific fire PRAs and fire modeling 8 topics. The documented methods are intended to support applications of fire PRAs in risk-9 informed regulatory applications. Subsequently, fire PRAs have been developed for most 10 nuclear power plants using these updated guidance documents. Regulatory Guide 1.200, 11 Revision 3 (NRC 2020-TN7806), describes one approach acceptable to the NRC staff for 12 demonstrating the acceptability of PRA models for risk-informed activities.
| |
| | |
| 13 In recent years, many nuclear plant licensees (including Duke Energy for Oconee Station) have 14 submitted risk-informed license amendment requests for their plants to the NRC, in which risk 15 results and risk insights from fire PRAs have been included. In addition, since about 2010, many 16 of the SAMA analyses for license renewal applications have included risk results and insights 17 from their newly developed fire PRAs. Table F-7 provides the mean and median for the plant-18 specific fire core damage frequency (FCDFs) obtained from fire PRAs (FPRAs) summarized in 19 various risk-informed license amendment requests. Statistical results are calculated from 20 approximately three-fourths of the current nuclear reactor operating fleet. The mean and median 21 FPRA values reported are from NRC-approved NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard for 22 Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition (NRC 2022-23 TN7857). Probabilistic health consequences, such as population dose risk, are not available 24 because this information is not used in the NRC staff assessment of risk-informed license 25 amendment requests. Table F-7 also compares the Oconee Station FPRA FCDF to the FCDF 26 used in the 1998 license renewal SAMA analyses.
| |
| | |
| 27 Table F-7 Fire (Full Power) Core Damage Frequency Comparison Nuclear Power Plant SAMA FCDF(a) FPRA FCDF(b)
| |
| Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 4.5 x 10-6/yr 6.0 x 10-5/yr Oconee Nuclear Station 3 4.5 x 10-6/yr 6.1 x 10-5/yr Mean value 1.8 x 10-5/yr 4.5 x 10-5/yr Median value 9.4 x 10-5/yr 4.6 x 10-5/yr FCDF = fire core damage frequency; FPRA = fire probabilistic risk assessment; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
| |
| (a) Data were obtained or compiled from applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| (b) Data were obtained or compiled from risk-informed license amendment requests.
| |
| Source: NRC 2022-TN7857, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| | |
| 28 The result in Table F-7 show that the Oconee Station FPRA FCDF value is higher by a factor of 29 14 than in the corresponding license renewal SAMA FCDF analyses. The NRC staff notes that 30 this increase in CDF is consistent for approximately 80 percent of plants for which both values 31 are available in the analysis completed and detailed in Table E.3-10 of the draft 2023 LR GEIS 32 (NRC 2022-TN7857) (NRC 2023c).
| |
| | |
| 33 The Oconee Station Level 3 PRA population dose risk calculated during initial license renewal 34 included the contribution from severe accidents due to internally initiated events, which also
| |
| | |
| F-18 1 generally included events initiated by internal flooding. Accounting for externally initiated events 2 by using the best available information at the time, the Oconee Station external events multiplier 3 was calculated explicitly based on the Individual Plant Examination - External Events (IPEEE).
| |
| 4 The use of external events multipliers was later included in the methodology provided in Nuclear 5 Energy Institute (NEI) 05-01 (NEI 2005-TN1978), which was endorsed by the NRC staff (2013-6 TN4791). The external events multiplier is the ratio of the total plant core damage frequency 7 (CDF) (both internally initiated and externally initiated) to the CDF for internally initiated events.
| |
| 8 This ratio then is multiplied by the estimated population dose risk for internally initiated events to 9 develop the estimate of the total plant population dose risk that was used in the Oconee Station 10 1998 Level 3 PRA analysis. The external event multiplier for the Oconee Station was calculated 11 to be 3.4 during initial license renewal. The NRC staff found that considering the substantial 12 Oconee Station population dose risk reduction from the predicted 95 percent UCB population 13 dose value from the 1996 LR GEIS population dose risk (reduction in population dose risk by a 14 factor of 266), higher external event multipliers using the more recent higher Oconee Station 15 external event PRA values would not change the conclusions in the 1996 LR GEIS. Thus, 16 given the significant margin between the cumulative population dose risk results from the 17 Oconee Station license renewal SAMA analyses and the cumulative 95th percentile UCB 18 population dose risk results from the 1996 LR GEIS (factor of 266), the Oconee SLR ER 19 FCDFs do not challenge the 95th percentile estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 20 In February 2002, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NRC issued Order EA 21 026, Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures, (NRC 2002-22 TN7864), which modified current operating licenses for commercial power reactor facilities to 23 require compliance with specified interim safeguards and security compensatory measures.
| |
| 24 The Order required licensees to adopt mitigation strategies using readily available resources to 25 maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and Spent Fuel Pool cooling capabilities to cope 26 with the loss of large areas of the facility due to large fires and explosions from any cause, 27 including from both design-basis and beyond-design-basis events. By August 2007, all 28 operating power reactor licensees had implemented the guidance via commitments and in new 29 conditions of their operating licenses. By December 2008, the NRC staff had completed 30 licensing reviews and onsite inspections to verify implementation of the licensee actions as 31 documented by NRC staff in Chronological History: The Evolution of Mitigating Measures For 32 Large Fire and Explosions (NRC 2010-TN7760).
| |
| | |
| 33 Additionally, licensees (including Duke Energy for Oconee Station) have submitted license 34 amendment requests to transition the plant-specific fire protection programs from 10 CFR 35 50.48(a) and (b) to 10 CFR 50.48(c) (TN249), NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard for 36 Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition (NFPA 2022-37 TN7849). In addition to developing FPRAs that were necessary to support this transition, 38 which are all represented in the mean and median values in Table F-7 (NRC 2022-TN7857),
| |
| 39 many of these licensees committed to making plant modifications to reduce the risk of fires.
| |
| 40 For Oconee Station, impacts of plant changes that are included in the plant risk models are 41 reflected in the model results (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897).
| |
| | |
| 42 Given the significant margin between the cumulative population dose risk results from the 43 license renewal SAMA analyses and the cumulative 95th percentile UCB population dose 44 risk results (factor of 266) from the 1996 LR GEIS, the reevaluated Oconee Station FCDF 45 does not challenge the 95th percentile estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS. Furthermore, plant 46 modifications have been made to reduce fire risk and to cope with the loss of large areas of the 47 plant due to large fires and explosions at Oconee Station. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that
| |
| | |
| F-19 1 the new information from the Oconee Station FPRAs is not significant for the purposes of the 2 probability-weighted consequences to the environment.
| |
| | |
| 3 F.3.2.2 Seismic Events
| |
| | |
| 4 In response to the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami that 5 initiated severe reactor accidents at three units of the Fukushima nuclear power plant that 6 resulted in major fuel melting, the NRC issued information requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f) 7 (NRC 2012-TN7762). With respect to seismic design, licensees were requested to reevaluate 8 the seismic hazards at their sites relative to present-day NRC requirements and guidance (NRC 9 2012-TN7762).
| |
| | |
| 10 As further background, prior to the Fukushima accident, the results of NRC staff analyses had 11 determined that the probability of exceeding the safe shutdown earthquake at some currently 12 operating sites in the Central and Eastern United States is higher than previously understood 13 and that, therefore, further study was warranted. As a result, NRC staff concluded that the issue 14 of increased seismic hazard estimates in the Central and Eastern United States should be 15 examined under the NRCs Generic Issues Program. Generic Issue (GI)-199 was established 16 on June 9, 2005 (NRC 2005-TN7786). The initial screening analysis for GI-199 suggested that 17 estimates of the seismic hazard for some currently operating plants in the Central and Eastern 18 United States have increased. The NRC staff completed the initial screening analysis of GI-199 19 and concluded that GI-199 should proceed to the safety/risk assessment stage of the Generic 20 Issues Program. For the GI-199 safety/risk assessment, the NRC staff evaluated the potential 21 risk significance of the updated seismic hazards on seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) 22 estimates. The changes in the SCDF estimate in the safety/risk assessment for some plants lie 23 in the range of 10 x 10-4 per year to 10 x 10-4 per year, which met the numerical risk criterion for 24 an issue to continue to the regulatory assessment stage of the Generic Issues Program. After 25 the Fukushima accident, resolution of GI-199 was subsumed into NTTF Recommendation 2.1.
| |
| | |
| 26 To implement NTTF Recommendation 2.1, the NRC staff used the general process developed 27 for GI-199. This process asked each licensee (including Duke Energy for Oconee Station) to 28 provide information about the current hazard and potential risk posed by seismic events using a 29 progressive screening approach. This screening approach is defined in EPRI Report 1025287 30 (EPRI 2012-TN7751), which is endorsed by the NRC staff (2013-TN7765). In the first phase of 31 this screening approach, a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed for each nuclear power 32 plant site, which included development of new plant-specific seismic hazard curves using up-to-33 date models representing seismic sources, ground motion equations, and site amplification.
| |
| 34 For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum was developed. This spectrum 35 provides an estimate of the structural response of plant structures (i.e., the magnitude of 36 building shaking or movement) to ground motion caused by plant-specific postulated 37 earthquakes. The Ground Motion Response Spectrum estimate was then compared to the plant 38 design-basis safe shutdown earthquake. If the amount by which the Ground Motion Response 39 Spectrum exceeds the safe shutdown earthquake in the 1 to 10 hertz3 frequency range of the 40 response spectrum and/or peak spectral acceleration was considered significant by the NRC 41 staff, then performance of a detailed seismic risk evaluation was necessary. Furthermore, if 42 these considerations were determined to not be significant, additional consideration was given 43 to a general estimate of the plants SCDF and on insights related to the conditional containment 44 failure probability for the plants specific type of containment. If either of these considerations
| |
| | |
| 3 This response spectrum frequency range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety.
| |
| | |
| F-20 1 was considered significant by the NRC staff, then performance of a detailed seismic risk 2 evaluation was necessary. Based on the licensee seismic hazard reevaluation submittals 3 provided in response to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 that addressed each of these 4 considerations, the NRC issued a final determination of which nuclear power plants were 5 required to perform a full power seismic PRA (NRC 2015-TN7856).
| |
| | |
| 6 On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued a request under 10 CFR 50.54(f), as part of implementing 7 lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima, that, among other things, requested licensees 8 to reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites using present-day methodologies and guidance 9 to develop a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (SNL 1982-TN7749). Duke Energy submitted 10 its SPRA on December 21, 2018 (Duke Energy 2018-TN8992). The NRC staff reviewed Duke 11 Energys SPRA (NRC 2019-TN8994) and concluded the following:
| |
| 12 Based on the staffs review of the Oconee submittal against the endorsed SPID 13 guidance, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee responded appropriately to 14 Enclosure 1, Item (8) of the 50.54(f) letter. Additionally, the staffs review concluded that 15 the SPRA is of sufficient technical adequacy to support Phase 2 regulatory decision-16 making in accordance with the intent of the 50.54(f) letter. Based on the results and risk 17 insights of the SPRA submittal, the NRC staff also concludes that no further response or 18 regulatory actions associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic are required.
| |
| 19 The staff notes that this conclusion is dependent on the completion of the planned 20 modifications, as described in the SPRA submittal.
| |
| | |
| 21 A {{letter dated|date=September 18, 2019|text=letter dated September 18, 2019}}, provides the regulatory commitments to specific actions 22 which Oconee Station plans to implement (Duke Energy 2020-TN9001).
| |
| | |
| 23 Table E.3-11 of the 2023 draft LR GEIS (NRC 2023) provides the updated plant-specific SCDFs 24 obtained predominantly from these SPRAs. Each of the SPRAs reported in the table of the 2023 25 draft LR GEIS was independently peer reviewed in accordance with NRC guidance (see, for 26 example, NRC 2020-TN7806). Probabilistic health consequences, such as population dose risk, 27 are not available because this information was not requested in the response to NTTF 28 Recommendation 2.1. Table E.3-11 of the 2023 draft LR GEIS also compares these updated 29 SCDFs (including Oconee Station) to those used in the license renewal SAMA analyses where 30 available. The results in Table E.3-11 show that the SCDF values are higher for the SPRAs 31 (including Oconee Station) than in the corresponding license renewal SAMA analyses for about 32 two-thirds of the plants for which both values are available (NRC 2023-TN9172).
| |
| | |
| 33 The results in Table F-8 show that the Oconee Station SPRA SCDF value is higher (less than a 34 factor of 2) than in the corresponding SAMA SCDF. This increase in CDF is consistent with the 35 2023 draft LR GEIS that a higher SCDF value was identified in about 80 percent of the plants 36 for which both values are available (Table E.3-10). The Oconee Station SPRA SCDF was near 37 double the mean of the other plants SPRA SCDF but within the range of all plants (NRC 2022-38 TN7857). Given the significant margin between the cumulative population dose risk results from 39 the Oconee Station SAMA and the cumulative 95th percentile UCB population dose risk results 40 (factor of 266) from the 1996 LR GEIS, the reevaluated Oconee Station SCDF does not 41 challenge the 95th percentile estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 42 Based on its review of each of the SPRA reports submitted in response to the Fukushima NTTF 43 Recommendation 2.1, the NRC staff determined in each case that no further response or 44 regulatory actions, including the need for additional strategies to mitigate seismic events, were 45 necessary with regard to seismic risk.
| |
| | |
| F-21 1 Table F-8 Seismic (Full Power) Core Damage Frequency Comparison Nuclear Power Plant SAMA SCDF(a) SPRA SCDF(b)
| |
| Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, 3 3.9 x 10-5/yr 5.7 x 10-5/yr Mean value 1.7 x 10-5/yr 3.0 x 10-5/yr Median value 7.35 x 10-5/yr 1.7 x 10-5/yr SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; SCDF = seismic core damage frequency; SPRA = seismic probabilistic risk assessment.
| |
| (a) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| (b) Data were obtained from the applicable licensee-submitted seismic PRA report and NRC staff evaluation, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| Source: NRC 2022-TN7857, unless otherwise noted.
| |
| | |
| 2 The recent SOARCA studies (published 2012-2022) add to the NRC staffs updated 3 understanding of the consequences that may result from seismic initiators. These studies 4 provided no new analysis of quantifying CDFs but did analyze the conditional consequences.
| |
| 5 In other words, the studies modeled the consequences if a challenging seismic initiating event 6 were to occur. SOARCA analyzed three operating U.S. nuclear plants: (1) Peach Bottom Atomic 7 Power Station in Pennsylvania, (2) Surry Power Station in Virginia, and (3) Sequoyah Nuclear 8 Power Plant in Tennessee. Peach Bottom is a General Electric-designed boiling water reactor 9 with Mark I containment, Surry is a Westinghouse-designed PWR with large dry containment, 10 and Sequoyah is a Westinghouse-designed PWR with ice condenser containment. For Peach 11 Bottom, Surry, and Sequoyah, the team modeled loss of all alternating current electrical power 12 or station blackout scenarios caused by earthquakes more severe than anticipated in the 13 plants designin other words, beyond-design-basis earthquakes. The SOARCA reports 14 present results of an earthquake and station blackout in terms of individual latent cancer fatality 15 risk and early (or prompt) fatality risk. In summary, the mitigated scenarios show essentially 16 zero risk of early fatalities from radiation exposure and result in very small risk of a long-term 17 cancer fatality (NRC 2012-TN3092). As indicated in the SOARCA report:
| |
| | |
| 18 The individual early fatality risk from SOARCA scenarios is essentially zero. Individual 19 LCF [latent cancer fatality] risk from the selected specific, important scenarios is 20 thousands of times lower than the NRC Safety Goal and millions of times lower than the 21 general cancer fatality risk in the United States from all causes, even assuming the LNT 22 [linear no-threshold] dose-response model. Using a dose-response model that truncates 23 annual doses below normal background levels (including medical exposures) results in a 24 further reduction to the LCF [latent cancer fatality] risk (by a factor of 100 for smaller 25 releases and a factor of 3 for larger releases). LCF [latent cancer fatality] risk 26 calculations are generally dominated by long-term exposure to small annual doses 27 (about 500 mrem per year) corresponding to evacuees returning to their homes after the 28 accident and being exposed to residual radiation over a long period of time. (NRC 2012-29 TN3092)
| |
| | |
| 30 The unmitigated scenarios from SOARCA result in essentially zero risk (1E-14) of early fatality 31 for an individual. Although these unmitigated scenarios result in core damage and release of 32 radioactive material to the environment, the release is often delayed, which allows the 33 population to take protective actions (including evacuation and sheltering). Therefore, the public 34 would not be exposed to concentrations of radioactive material in excess of NRC regulatory 35 limits. This result holds even when uncertainties are consideredall three uncertainty analyses 36 continued to show extremely low risk of early fatalities. For the unmitigated scenarios, the 37 individual risk of a long-term cancer fatality is calculated to be very small, regardless of which 38 distance interval (e.g., 0-10 mi, 0-20 mi, 0-50 mi) is considered. This result holds even when 39 uncertainties are considered (NRC 2022-TN7922).
| |
| | |
| F-22 1 Even though the reevaluated Oconee Station SPRA SCDF for SLR is higher than the Oconee 2 Station SPRA SCDF value during initial license renewal, this increase does not challenge the 3 95th percentile UCB for population dose estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS. Given the 4 significant margin between the cumulative population dose risk results from the Oconee Station 5 Level 3 PRA analysis and the cumulative 95th percentile Oconee Station UCB population dose 6 risk results (factor of 266) from the 1996 LR GEIS, the reevaluated Oconee Station SCDF does 7 not challenge the 95th percentile estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS. Thus, the NRC staff 8 concludes that the new information from the Oconee Station SPRA is not significant for the 9 purposes of the probability-weighted consequences to the environment.
| |
| | |
| 10 F.3.3 New Source Term Information (Section E.3.3 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 11 The source term, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, refers to the magnitude and mix of the 12 radionuclides released from the fuel (expressed as fractions of the fission product inventory in 13 the fuel), as well as their physical and chemical form, and the timing of their release following 14 an accident. The 2013 LR GEIS concludes that, in most cases, more recent estimates give 15 significantly lower release frequencies and release fractions than was assumed in the 1996 16 LR GEIS. Thus, the probability weighted consequences of radioactive materials released during 17 severe accidents, used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted release 18 consequences), are higher than the environmental impacts using more recent source term 19 information.
| |
| | |
| 20 The predicted early and latent fatalities and dose estimates per reactor-year for Oconee Station 21 are provided in Table 5.6 of the 1996 LR GEIS. The very conservatively predicted latent total 22 fatalities/RY (95 percent UCB) were determined to be 1.00 x 10-1 in the 1996 LR GEIS. In the 23 Oconee Station initial license renewal ER, the total CDF (a surrogate for the individual latent 24 cancer fatality risk) was calculated to be 8.90 x 10-5 (over a factor of 1,000 improvement).
| |
| 25 Similarly, for consequences the very conservatively predicted population dose/RY (95 percent 26 UCB) was determined to be 1311 person-rem/RY (95 percent UCB) in the 1996 LR GEIS. In the 27 Oconee Station initial license renewal ER, Duke Energy calculated the population dose risk to 28 be 5 person-rem/RY (a factor of 266 improvement).
| |
| | |
| 29 Although not a physical change to Oconee Station or to the explicit Oconee Station PRA 30 modeling, Volume 2 of NUREG-7110, SOARCA, was published in August 2013 (NRC 2013c).
| |
| 31 This analysis updated the NRC staffs severe accident studies of the Surry Power Station 32 (e.g., NUREG-1150, NRC 1990-TN525), incorporating state-of-the-art analyses to evaluate 33 offsite risk. The conclusions of the SOARCA analysis were that the calculated risks of public 34 health consequences from severe accidents modeled in SOARCA are very small and [t]he 35 unmitigated versions of the scenarios analyzed in SOARCA have lower risk of early fatalities 36 than calculated in the 1982 Siting Study SST1 [siting source term] case. SOARCAs analyses 37 show essentially zero risk of early fatalities. As stated in SOARCA, [t]he actual risk of a prompt 38 fatality (cf., Table 7-13), using current best-estimate practices for calculating source terms, is 39 about five orders of magnitude lower than using the SST1 source term would imply (cf., Table 7-40 13 and Table 7-18). Included in the SOARCA state-of-the-art analyses are evaluations of 41 steam generator tube ruptures, demonstrating that their offsite consequences are less than 42 previously modeled. The SOARCA analysis was not a complete analysis of all scenarios in the 43 PRA, but it is sufficient to support the conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences 44 from a severe accident would be very small. While Oconee Station is not an identical design as 45 Surry, both are PWRs with large, dry containments, and the general conclusions of lower offsite 46 consequences from the SOARCA apply to Oconee Station as well.
| |
| | |
| F-23 1 More recent source term information indicates that the timing from dominant severe accident 2 sequences, as quantified in the state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis (NRC 2012-3 TN3092), is much later than the analysis forming the basis of the 1996 LR GEIS. In most cases, 4 the release frequencies and release fractions are significantly lower for the more recent 5 estimate. Furthermore, while the SOARCAs were focused on the most risk-significant accident 6 scenarios and did not evaluate all scenarios, the SOARCA offsite consequence calculations for 7 the three sites evaluated are generally smaller than reported in earlier studies. Specifically, the 8 SOARCA results show essentially zero early fatality risk for the three sites and show a very low 9 individual risk of cancer fatalities for the populations close to the nuclear power plants (i.e., well 10 below the NRC Safety Goal of two long-term cancer fatalities annually in a population of one 11 million individuals) (NRC 2012-TN3092). Thus, the environmental impacts estimated using the 12 more recent and realistic source term information are expected to be much lower than the 13 impacts used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted consequences).
| |
| | |
| 14 For the reasons described above, more recent source term (timing and magnitude) at Oconee 15 Station has significantly smaller effects than had been quantified in the 1996 LR GEIS and would 16 be expected to be smaller than that calculated during the initial license renewal Oconee Station 17 SAMA analysis in 1998. For the Oconee Station SAMA new and significant evaluation 18 (described in ER Section 4.15.3 and evaluated in Section F.5 below), SAMAs were evaluated 19 for impact on CDF and source term category group frequencies if they were implemented. None 20 of the SAMAs evaluated in the Oconee Station ER were found to reduce source term category 21 group frequency by at least 50 percent. Therefore, the offsite consequences of severe accidents 22 initiated by the new source term during the SLR term would not exceed the impacts predicted in 23 the LR GEIS. For these issues, the LR GEIS predicts that the offsite probability-weighted 24 consequences of severe accidents would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants. The NRC staff 25 identified no new and significant information regarding the source term during its review of Duke 26 Energys ER, through the SAMA audit, during the scoping process, or through the evaluation of 27 other available information. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that no new and significant 28 information exists for Oconee Station concerning the source term that would alter the 29 conclusions reached in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 30 F.3.4 Power Uprate Information (Section E.3.4 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 31 Operating at a higher reactor power level results in a larger fission product radionuclide 32 inventory in the core than if the reactor were operating at a lower power level. In the event of an 33 accident, the larger radionuclide inventory in the core would result in a larger source term. If the 34 accident is severe, the release of radioactive materials from this larger source term could result 35 in higher doses to offsite populations.
| |
| | |
| 36 LERF represents the frequency of event sequences that could result in early fatalities. The 37 impact of a power uprate on early fatalities can be measured by considering the impact of the 38 uprate on the LERF calculated value. To this end, Table E-14 of the 2013 LR GEIS presents the 39 change in LERF calculated by each licensee that has been granted a power uprate of greater 40 than 10 percent. Table E-14 shows that the increase in LERF ranges from a minimal impact to 41 an increase of about 30 percent (with a mean of 10.5 percent). The 2013 LR GEIS, 42 Section E.3.4.3, Conclusion, determined that a power uprate will result in a small to (in some 43 cases) moderate increase in the environmental impacts from a postulated accident. However, 44 taken in combination with the other information presented in the 2013 LR GEIS, the increases 45 would be bounded by the 95-percent UCB values in Table 5.10 and Table 5.11 of the 1996 LR 46 GEIS. Combined with the other information presented in the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC staff 47 concluded that effects of such increases on risk and environmental impacts of severe accidents
| |
| | |
| F-24 1 would be bounded by the 1996 LR GEIS, which used the 95 percent UCB values as the basis 2 for estimating offsite consequences.
| |
| | |
| 3 Duke Energy indicated that at the time of the Oconee Station SLR submittal, no power uprate 4 has been implemented at Oconee Station. Therefore, there is no new information affecting the 5 probability-weighted consequences related to power uprates.
| |
| | |
| 6 Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the offsite consequences from the power uprate would not 7 exceed the consequences predicted in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS. The NRC staff has identified 8 no new and significant information regarding power uprates during its review of Duke Energys 9 ER, through the SAMA audit, during the scoping process, or through the evaluation of other 10 available information. Thus, the staff concludes using plant-specific information that no new and 11 significant information exists for Oconee Station concerning offsite probability-weighted 12 consequences due to power uprates during the SLR term that would alter the conclusions 13 reached in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 14 F.3.5 Higher Fuel Burnup Information (Section E.3.5 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 15 According to the 2013 LR GEIS, increased peak fuel burnup from 42 to 75 gigawatt days per 16 metric ton uranium (GWd/MTU) for PWRs, and 60 to 75 GWd/MTU for boiling water reactors, 17 results in small-to-moderate increases (up to 38 percent) in population dose in the event of a 18 severe accident. However, taken in combination with the other information presented in the 19 2013 LR GEIS, the increases would be bounded by the 95-percent UCB values in Table 5.10 20 and Table 5.11 of the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 21 To allow for more efficient use of the fuel and longer operating cycles, there has been continued 22 movement toward higher fuel burnup. The purpose of Section E.3.5 of the 2013 LR GEIS was to 23 account for the effect of current and possible future increased fuel burnup on postulated 24 accidents. Future peak burnups considered were 62 GWd/MTU for PWRs and 70 GWd/MTU for 25 boiling water reactors.
| |
| | |
| 26 In the ER, Duke Energy indicated that the average burnup level of the peak rod is not planned 27 to exceed 62 GWd/MTU during the proposed SLR operating term. Therefore, the offsite 28 consequences from higher fuel burnup would not exceed the consequences predicted in the 29 2013 LR GEIS. For these issues, the 2013 LR GEIS predicted that the probability-weighted 30 consequences would be small for all nuclear power plants. The NRC staff identified no new 31 and significant information regarding higher fuel burnup during its review of Duke Energys ER, 32 through the SAMA audit, during the scoping process, or through the evaluation of other 33 available information. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that no new and significant information 34 exists for Oconee Station concerning offsite consequences due to higher fuel burnup that would 35 alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 LR GEIS. Thus, the staff concludes, using 36 plant-specific information, that no new and significant information exists for Oconee Station 37 concerning offsite probability-weighted consequences due to higher fuel burnup that would alter 38 the conclusions reached in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 39 F.3.6 Low Power and Reactor Shutdown Event Information (Section E.3.6 of the 2013 40 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 41 The 2013 LR GEIS states the environmental impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown 42 conditions are generally comparable to those from accidents at full power when comparing the 43 values in NUREG/CR-6143, Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents During Low Power and 44 Shutdown Operations at Grand Gulf, Unit 1 (NRC 1995-TN8976), and NUREG/CR-6144,
| |
| | |
| F-25 1 Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents During Low Power and Shutdown Operations at 2 Surry, Unit 1 (BNL 1995-TN7776), with the values in NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risks:
| |
| 3 An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1990-TN525). The 2013 LR GEIS 4 further indicates that although the impacts for low power and shutdown conditions could be 5 somewhat greater than for full power (for certain metrics), the 1996 LR GEISs very 6 conservative estimates of the environmental impact of severe accidents (using 95th percentile 7 UCBs) bound the potential impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown with margin.
| |
| | |
| 8 In NUREG-1150 and NUREG/CR-6144, Surry was evaluated for low power and reactor 9 shutdown event information, but Oconee Station is a similarly designed nuclear power plant 10 (i.e., they are Westinghouse PWRs with large containments); thus, the NRC staff concludes that 11 there are likely to be no significant nuclear power plant configurations in low power and 12 shutdown conditions likely to distinguish Oconee Station from the evaluated nuclear power 13 plants. Thus, the staff assumed that the environmental impact of Oconee Station from accidents 14 at low power and shutdown conditions are generally comparable to those from accidents at full 15 power, which is consistent with the assumptions made in the 2013 and 1996 LR GEISs.
| |
| | |
| 16 Additionally, as discussed in SECY-97-168, Issuance for Public Comment of Proposed 17 Rulemaking Package for Shutdown and Fuel Storage Pool Operation (NRC 1997-TN7621),
| |
| 18 industry initiatives taken during the early 1990s also have contributed to the improved safety of 19 low power and shutdown operations for all nuclear power plants. Promulgation of 10 CFR 20 50.65(a)(4) to require licensees to assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from 21 the proposed maintenance activities, and industrys implementation of NUMARC 93-01 22 Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants 23 (NRC endorsed in RG 1.160) have further enhanced the NRC staffs ability to oversee licensee 24 activities related to shutdown risk. The NRC staff concludes that the information from an 25 Oconee Station low power and shutdown PRA is not significant for the purpose of the 26 determination of this environmental impact, that low power and shutdown risk is effectively 27 managed by NRC required maintenance rule programs, and that, therefore, low power and 28 shutdown risk is not expected to challenge the 1996 LR GEIS 95 percent UCB risk metrics 29 during the SLR time period.
| |
| | |
| 30 Therefore, the offsite probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents, considering low 31 power and reactor shutdown events, are consistent with the conclusions in the 1996 and 2013 32 LR GEISs. For these issues, the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs predict that the probability-weighted 33 consequences of severe accidents would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants. The NRC staff 34 identified no new and significant information regarding low power and reactor shutdown events 35 during its review of the Duke Energy ER, through the NRC staffs SAMA audit, during the 36 scoping process, or through the evaluation of other available information. Thus, the staff 37 concludes that no new and significant information exists for Oconee Station concerning low 38 power and reactor shutdown events that would alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 LR 39 GEIS or the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 40 F.3.7 Spent Fuel Pool Accident Information (Section E.3.7 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 41 The 2013 LR GEIS concludes that the environmental impacts from accidents involving spent 42 fuel pools, as quantified in NUREG-1738, Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at 43 Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2001-TN5235), can be comparable to those from 44 reactor accidents at full power (as estimated in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990-TN525)). The 2013 45 LR GEIS further indicates that subsequent analyses performed, and mitigative measures 46 employed since 2001, have further lowered the risk of accidents involving spent fuel pools. In 47 addition, the LR GEIS notes that even the conservative estimates from NUREG-1738 (published
| |
| | |
| F-26 1 in 2001) are much lower than the impacts from full power reactor accidents estimated in the 2 1996 LR GEIS. Therefore, the 2013 LR GEIS concludes, the environmental impacts stated in 3 the 1996 LR GEIS bound the impact from spent fuel pool accidents for all nuclear power plants.
| |
| 4 For these issues, the LR GEIS predicts that the impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear power 5 plants. There are no spent fuel configurations that would distinguish Oconee Station from the 6 evaluated nuclear power plants such that the assumptions in the 2013 and 1996 LR GEISs 7 would not apply. Consistent with NUREG-1738, the impacts of accidents in Spent Fuel Pools at 8 Oconee Station is comparable to or lower than those from reactor accidents and are bounded 9 by the 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 10 In addition, two orders were issued by the NRC in March 2012, Mitigating Strategies (EA 11 049) and Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (EA-12-051). Duke Energy implemented both of 12 these orders at Oconee Station in 2016 and 2017, respectively (NRC 2017-TN8996). Mitigation 13 strategies implemented after September 11, 2001, and diverse and flexible coping strategies, 14 provide additional resources to maintain Spent Fuel Pool water inventory and risk reduction.
| |
| | |
| 15 The NRC staff identified no new and significant information regarding Spent Fuel Pool accidents 16 during its review of Duke Energys ER, through the SAMA audit, during the scoping process, or 17 through the evaluation of other available information. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that no 18 new and significant information exists for Oconee Station during the SLR term concerning the 19 probability-weighted consequences of Spent Fuel Pool accidents that would alter the 20 conclusions reached in the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs.
| |
| | |
| 21 F.3.8 Use of Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII Risk Coefficients 22 (Section E.3.8 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 23 In 2005, the NRC staff completed a review of the National Academy of Sciences report, Health 24 Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII The NRC staff documented 25 its findings in SECY-05-0202, Staff Review of the National Academies Study of the Health 26 Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) (NRC 2005-TN4513). The 27 SECY paper states that the NRC staff agrees with the BEIR VII reports major conclusion 28 namely, the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, 29 no-threshold, dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the 30 development of cancer in humans. The BEIR VII conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis on 31 radiation exposure and human cancer that the NRC uses to develop its standards of radiological 32 protection. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the conclusions of the BEIR VII report 33 do not warrant any change in the NRCs radiation protection standards and regulations because 34 the NRCs standards are adequately protective of public health and safety and will continue to 35 apply during Oconee Stations SLR term. This general topic is discussed further in the NRCs 36 2007 denial of Petition for Rulemaking (PRM)-51-11 (72 FR 71083-TN7789), in which the NRC 37 stated that it finds no need to modify the 1996 LR GEIS considering the BEIR VII report. For 38 these issues, the LR GEIS predicts that the impacts of using the BEIR VII risk coefficients would 39 be SMALL for all nuclear power plants.
| |
| | |
| 40 The NRC staff identified no new and significant information regarding the risk coefficient used in 41 the BEIR VII report during its review of Duke Energys ER, through the SAMA audit, during the 42 scoping process, or through the evaluation of other available information. Thus, the staff 43 concludes that no new and significant information exists for Oconee Station concerning the 44 biological effects of ionizing radiation that would alter the conclusions reached in the 1996 or 45 2013 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| F-27 1 F.3.9 Uncertainties (Section E.3.9 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 2 Section 5.3.3 in the 1996 LR GEIS provides a discussion of the uncertainties associated with 3 the analysis in the LR GEIS and in the individual nuclear power plant EISs used to estimate 4 the environmental impacts of severe accidents. The 1996 LR GEIS used 95th percentile UCB 5 estimates when available for its estimates of the environmental impacts of severe accidents.
| |
| 6 This approach provides conservatism to cover uncertainties, as described in Section 5.3.3.2.2 of 7 the 1996 LR GEIS. Many of these same uncertainties also apply to the analysis used in the 8 2013 LR GEIS update. As discussed in Sections E.3.1 through E.3.8 of the 2013 LR GEIS, the 9 LR GEIS update used more recent information to supplement the estimate of environmental 10 impacts contained in the 1996 LR GEIS. In effect, the assessments contained in Sections E.3.1 11 through E.3.8 of the 2013 LR GEIS provided additional information and insights into certain 12 areas of uncertainty associated with the 1996 LR GEIS. However, as provided in the 2013 LR 13 GEIS, the impact and magnitude of uncertainties, as estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS, bound the 14 uncertainties introduced by the new information and considerations addressed in the 2013 LR 15 GEIS. Accordingly, in the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the reduction in 16 environmental impacts resulting from the use of new information (because the 1996 GEIS 17 analysis) outweighs any increases in impact resulting from the new information. As a result, the 18 findings in the 1996 LR GEIS remained valid. The NRC staff identified no new and significant 19 information regarding uncertainties during its review of Duke Energys ER, the SAMA audit, the 20 scoping process, or the evaluation of other available information. Accordingly, the NRC staff 21 concludes that no new and significant information exists for Oconee Station concerning 22 uncertainties that would alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 or 1996 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 23 F.4 Sensitivity Regarding Population
| |
| | |
| 24 A sensitivity analysis is performed to determine the influence of the factor on the probability-25 weighted consequences. Section E.3.9.2 of Appendix E to the 2013 LR GEIS provides a 26 sensitivity analysis regarding the impact of population increases on offsite dose and economic 27 consequences. In Section E.3.9.2, the 2013 LR GEIS states the following:
| |
| | |
| 28 The 1996 GEIS estimated impacts at the mid-year of each plants license renewal period 29 (i.e., 2030 to 2050). To adjust the impacts estimated in the NUREGs and NUREG/CRs to 30 the mid-year of the assessed plants license renewal period, the information 31 (i.e., exposure indexes [EIs]) in the 1996 GEIS can be used. The Els adjust a plants 32 airborne and economic impacts from the year 2001 to its mid-year license renewal period 33 based on population increases. These adjustments result in anywhere from a 5 to a 34 30 percent increase in impacts, depending upon the plant being assessed. Given the 35 range of uncertainty in these types of analyses, a 5 to 30 percent change is not 36 considered significant. Therefore, the effect of increased population around the plant 37 does not generally result in significant increases in impacts.
| |
| | |
| 38 In the SLR ER, Duke Energy extrapolated the population within the 50-mile radius to the year 39 2054. Duke Energy projected the total population for the year 2054 to be 3,454,092. Based on 40 2010-2054 population projections, an annual growth rate of approximately 0.92 percent is 41 anticipated for the combined permanent population in the 29 counties entirely or partially within 42 a 50-mile radius of Oconee Station. A 20-year population increase based on this annual growth 43 rate is approximately 19 percent, which is within the 1996 and 2013 LR GEIS range of 5 to 44 30 percent change which the LR GEIS concludes does not generally result in significant 45 increases in impacts.
| |
| | |
| 46 As can be seen from the data in Tables 5.10 and 5.11 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the estimated risk 47 of early and latent fatalities from individual postulated nuclear power plant accidents is SMALL,
| |
| | |
| F-28 1 using very conservative 95th-percentile, UCB estimates for environmental impact. Furthermore, 2 as discussed in Section E.3.3 of the 2013 LR GEIS and in Section F.3.3 of this EIS, more recent 3 estimates give significantly lower release frequencies and release fractions for the source term 4 than was assumed in the 1996 LR GEIS. The Oconee Station-specific analyses performed in 5 the initial Oconee Station LR ER estimated the total population dose within the 50-mile 6 boundary to be only 5 person-rem per reactor-year. The 2013 LR GEIS states that a 7 comparison of population dose from newer assessments illustrates a reduction in impact by a 8 factor of 5 to 100 when compared to older assessments, and an additional factor of 2 to 4 due to 9 the conservatism built into the 1996 LR GEIS values. Similarly, for Oconee Station 10 consequences, the very conservatively predicted population dose per reactor-year (95 percent 11 UCB) was determined to be 1311 person-rem per reactor-year (95 percent UCB) in the 1996 LR 12 GEIS. In the Oconee Station initial license renewal ER, the population dose was calculated to 13 be only 5 person-rem per reactor-year. The effect of this reduction in total dose impact (over 14 three orders of magnitude improvement) far exceeds the effect of a population increase. The 15 NRC staff concludes that the overall effect of projected increased population around Oconee 16 Station during the SLR period of extended operation does not result in significant increases in 17 impacts. Thus, the staff concludes, using plant-specific information, that no new and significant 18 information exists for Oconee Station concerning population increases that would alter the 19 conclusions reached in the 1996 or 2013 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 20 F.4.1 Additional Sensitivity as it Relates to Population Dose Risk and the Jocassee 21 Dam SAMA
| |
| | |
| 22 On February 3, 2023, the staff received a comment regarding Federal Register Notice: 87 FR 23 77643 [TN8903] (NRC 2024-TN9478). One of the comments stated that:
| |
| | |
| 24 the likelihood of a core melt accident caused by a random failure of the Jocassee 25 Dam, which lies twelve miles above Oconee [Station], is 2E-4 per year which is 30 times 26 higher than presented in Dukes Environmental Report. [See Technical Basis for 27 Allowing Oconee to Remain in Operation through November 2010, August 12, 2009 28 (NRC 2009-TN9173)]. This new and significant information demonstrates that Duke 29 [Energy] erred by concluding that operation of Oconee [Station] for an additional license 30 term will have no significant environmental impacts. (NRC 2024-TN9478)
| |
| | |
| 31 The scoping comment further requested that:
| |
| | |
| 32 if the NRC revises its accident risk analysis to take into account all current and 33 relevant information, the estimated risk of an accident will substantially increase, thereby 34 changing the cost-benefit analysis for mitigation measures to make mitigation more cost-35 effective. In light of this new information, the EIS should address the cost-effectiveness of 36 mitigation measures for reduction of accident risk. For instance, the EIS should address 37 the costs and benefits of safety upgrades... (NRC 2024-TN9478)
| |
| | |
| 38 The following sensitivity is performed by NRC staff to address this scoping comment. This 39 sensitivity also addresses issues of uncertainty in the Oconee Station and staff analysis.
| |
| | |
| 40 The Oconee Station SAMA evaluated a SAMA potential improvement to increase the height of 41 the Safe Shutdown Facility flood barrier to address the PRA sequence relating to a random 42 failure of Jocassee Dam exceeding the 5 ft (1.5 m) Safe Shutdown Facility (SSF) flood barrier.
| |
| 43 The contribution of this sequence to the annual total population dose risk is 0.08 person-rem per 44 reactor-year. The population dose risk calculated in the Oconee Station Level 3 PRA analysis 45 considers many more PRA sequences than the single sequence relating to the Jocassee Dam.
| |
| 46 Thus, increasing the annual total population dose risk by 30 is conservative and considers
| |
| | |
| F-29 1 multiple sequences and Oconee Station-specific PRAs being in error. With this conservative 2 sensitivity multiplier of 30, the total population dose risk calculated would only increase by 2.4 3 (0.08 x 30). The Oconee Station SAMA total population dose risk was calculated to be 5 in the 4 1998 Oconee Station SAMA, and this conservative sensitivity would only bring the Oconee 5 Station total population dose risk to approximately 7.4; thus, there is substantial margin to the 6 1996 Oconee predicted value for the total population dose risk of 1,311. A similar calculation 7 was performed by the NRC staff for all of the 1998 SAMAs and all had substantial margin to the 8 1996 GEIS predicted values. This sensitivity also bounds other questions of increases in 9 individual Oconee Station hazard CDFs mentioned earlier.
| |
| | |
| 10 Regarding cost and SAMA benefit (worth) of a potential improvement, the 1998 worth of the 11 averted risk of the increase in height of the Jocassee dam is only $1,800 dollars. Eighteen 12 hundred dollars multiplied by 30 brings the 1998 Averted Risk value up to $54,000. The 1998 13 cost of increasing the height of the SSF flood barrier is $500,000. Thus, the staff continues to 14 find that the SAMA to increase the height of the SSF flood level is not cost effective. Table F-9 15 summarizes the results of the NRC staffs sensitivity and analysis.
| |
| | |
| 16 The staff concludes that the overall effect of an increase by 30 times of the total population dose 17 risk during the SLR period of extended operation does not result in significant environmental 18 impacts. Thus, the staff concludes that no new and significant information exists for Oconee 19 Station concerning uncertainty that would alter the conclusions reached in the 1996 or 2013 LR 20 GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 21 Table F-9 Sensitivity Regarding Jocassee Dam Failure Sequence SAMA Potential Annual Total 1998 Worth of 1998 Cost of Analysis Sequence Improvement PDR Averted Risk Alternative Original Random failure Increase the 0.08 1,800 500,000 of Jocassee height of the Dam exceeds SSF flood 5 ft (1.5 m) SSF barrier flood barrier Original with - - 2.4 54,000 500,000 Sensitivity: 30 times increase in total PDR and worth of averted risk PDR = population dose risk; SSF = Safe Shutdown Facility.
| |
| No table entry has been denoted by -
| |
| | |
| 22 F.4.2 Summary and Conclusion (Section E.5 of the 2013 LR GEIS)
| |
| | |
| 23 The 2013 LR GEIS categorizes sources of new information by their potential effect on the 24 best-estimate environmental impacts associated with postulated severe accidents. These 25 effects can: (1) decrease the environmental impact associated with severe accidents; (2) not 26 affect the environmental impact associated with severe accidents; or (3) increase the 27 environmental impact associated with severe accidents.
| |
| | |
| 28 New information regarding Oconee Station was evaluated in the above sections. No new and 29 significant information regarding Oconee Station was identified that was above the values 30 previously evaluated in the 1996 LR GEIS. Thus, there was no new and significant information
| |
| | |
| F-30 1 that would significantly increase the environmental impact associated with severe accidents.
| |
| 2 The reduction in risk due to a better understanding of the Oconee Station source term alone 3 provided a substantial decrease in the calculated environmental impact (consequences) by 4 several orders of magnitude than was calculated in the 1996 LR GEIS. Given the new and 5 updated information, the reduction in estimated environmental impacts from the use of new 6 internal event and source term information outweighs any increases from the consideration of 7 external events, future power uprates, higher fuel burnup, low power and shutdown risk, and 8 Spent Fuel Pool risk. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the probability-weighted consequences 9 of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and 10 societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 11 The Commission considers ways to mitigate severe accidents at a given site more than just in 12 the one-time SAMA analysis associated with a license renewal application. Other areas of new 13 information relating to the Oconee Station severe accident risk, severe accident environmental 14 impact assessment, and cost-beneficial SAMAs are described below. These areas of new 15 information demonstrate additional conservatism in the evaluations in the LR GEIS and Duke 16 Energys ER, because they result in further reductions in the impact of a severe accident.
| |
| | |
| 17 F.5 Other New Information Related to NRC Efforts to Reduce Severe Accident 18 Risk Following Publication of the 1996 LR GEIS
| |
| | |
| 19 The Commission has considered and adopted various regulatory requirements for mitigating 20 severe accident risks at reactor sites through a variety of NRC programs. For example, in 1996, 21 when it promulgated Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of 22 Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), Environmental 23 Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, the Commission explained 24 in a Federal Register notice:
| |
| 25 The Commission has considered containment improvements for all plants pursuant to its 26 Containment Performance Improvement programand the Commission has additional 27 ongoing regulatory programs whereby licensees search for individual plant vulnerabilities 28 to severe accidents and consider cost-beneficial improvements (Final rule, 29 Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 FR 30 28467-TN4491 (June 5, 1996)).
| |
| | |
| 31 These additional ongoing regulatory programs that the Commission mentioned include the 32 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) and the IPEEE program, which consider potential 33 improvements to reduce the frequency or consequences of severe accidents on a nuclear 34 power plant-specific basis and essentially constitute a broad search for severe accident 35 mitigation alternatives. Further, in the same rule, the Commission observed that the IPEs 36 resulted in a number of plant procedural or programmatic improvements and some plant 37 modifications that will further reduce the risk of severe accidents (61 FR 28481-TN8474) 38 (Federal Register notices are accessible and searchable at https://www.federalregister.gov).
| |
| 39 Based on these and other considerations, the Commission stated its belief that it is unlikely that 40 any site-specific consideration of SAMAs for license renewal will identify major plant design 41 changes or modifications that will prove to be cost-beneficial for reducing severe accident 42 frequency or consequences. The Commission noted that it may review and possibly reclassify 43 the issue of severe accident mitigation as a Category 1 issue upon the conclusion of its 44 IPE/IPEEE program but deemed it appropriate to consider SAMAs for nuclear power plants for 45 which it had not done so previously, pending further rulemaking on this issue.
| |
| | |
| F-31 1 The Commission reaffirmed its SAMA-related conclusions in Table B-1 of Appendix B to 2 Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51-TN250) and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), Postconstruction 3 environmental reports, in Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 4 and 2), CLI-13-07, (October 31, 2013). In addition, the Commission observed that it had 5 promulgated those regulations because it had determined that one SAMA analysis would 6 uncover most cost-beneficial measures to mitigate both the risk and the effects of severe 7 accidents, thus satisfying our obligations under NEPA (NRC 2013-TN7766).
| |
| | |
| 8 The NRC has continued to address severe accident-related issues since the agency published 9 the LR GEIS in 1996. Combined NRC and licensee efforts have reduced risks from accidents 10 beyond those accidents that were considered in the 1996 LR GEIS. The 2013 LR GEIS 11 describes many of those efforts (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 12 The NRC staff describes several efforts to reduce severe accident risk (i.e., CDF and LERF) 13 following publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, in the following sections. Each of these initiatives 14 applies to all reactors, including Oconee Station. These are areas of new information that 15 reinforce the conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are 16 SMALL for all nuclear power plants, as stated in the 2013 LR GEIS, and further reduce the 17 likelihood of finding a cost-beneficial SAMA that would substantially reduce the severe accident 18 risk at Oconee Station during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 19 F.5.1 Requirements Regarding Loss of Large Areas of the Nuclear Power Plant 20 Caused by Fire or Explosions
| |
| | |
| 21 As discussed on page E-7 of the 2013 LR GEIS, following the terrorist attacks of 22 September 11, 2001, the NRC conducted a comprehensive review of the agencys security 23 program and made further enhancements to security at a wide range of NRC-regulated 24 facilities. These enhancements included significant reinforcement of the defense capabilities 25 for nuclear facilities, better control of sensitive information, enhancements in emergency 26 preparedness, and implementation of mitigating strategies to deal with postulated events 27 potentially causing loss of large areas of the nuclear power plant due to explosions or fires, 28 including those that an aircraft impact might create.
| |
| | |
| 29 For example, the Commission issued Order EA-02-026, Order for Interim Safeguards and 30 Security Compensatory Measures (NRC 2002-TN7825) to provide interim safeguards and 31 security compensatory measures, which ultimately led to the promulgation of a new regulation in 32 10 CFR Part 50.54(hh) (TN249). This regulation requires commercial power reactor licensees to 33 prepare for a loss of large areas of the facility due to large fires and explosions from any cause, 34 including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts. The regulation in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) provided 35 that licensees must adopt guidance and strategies to maintain or restore core cooling, 36 containment, and Spent Fuel Pool cooling capabilities under circumstances associated with the 37 loss of large areas of the nuclear power plant due to explosion or fire (NRC 2013-TN2654). The 38 requirements formerly in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) have been moved to 10 CFR 50.155, Mitigation 39 of beyond-design-basis events.
| |
| | |
| 40 The NRC requirements pertaining to nuclear power plant security are subject to NRC oversight 41 on an ongoing basis under a nuclear power plants current operating license and are beyond the 42 scope of license renewal. As discussed in Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC 43 addresses security-related events using deterministic criteria in 10 CFR Part 73, Physical 44 Protection of Plants and Materials, rather than by risk assessments or SAMAs (TN423).
| |
| | |
| F-32 1 Accordingly, actions taken by Duke Energy to comply with those regulatory requirements have 2 further contributed to the mitigation of severe accidents at Oconee Station.
| |
| | |
| 3 In sum, the new information regarding actions that Duke Energy has taken as a result of 4 regulatory actions to prepare for potential loss of large areas of the nuclear power plant due 5 to fire or explosions has further contributed to the mitigation of severe accidents at Oconee 6 Station. Thus, this information does not alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 LR GEIS 7 regarding the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents for Oconee Station SLR.
| |
| | |
| 8 F.5.2 State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis
| |
| | |
| 9 The NRC has completed a SOARCA study for Surry. Surry, like Oconee Station, is a PWR 10 with large dry containment. (NRC 2013-TN4593). The Surry SOARCA analyses indicate that 11 successful implementation of existing mitigation measures can prevent reactor core damage or 12 delay or reduce offsite releases of radioactive material. All SOARCA scenarios, even when 13 unmitigated, progress more slowly and release much less radioactive material than the potential 14 releases cited in the 1982 Siting Study, NUREG/CR-2239, Technical Guidance for Siting 15 Criteria Development (SNL 1982-TN7749). As a result, the calculated risks of public health 16 consequences of severe accidents modeled in SOARCA are very small.
| |
| | |
| 17 This new independent information regarding the SOARCA projects findings supports the staffs 18 findings that the probability-weighted consequences of a severe accident for Oconee Station 19 SLR is SMALL.
| |
| | |
| 20 F.5.3 Fukushima-Related Activities
| |
| | |
| 21 As discussed in Section E.2.1 of the 2013 LR GEIS, on March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake 22 off the east coast of the main island of Honshu, Japan, produced a tsunami that struck the 23 coastal town of Okuma in Fukushima Prefecture. The resulting flooding damaged the six-unit 24 Fukushima nuclear power plant, causing the failure of safety systems needed to maintain 25 cooling water flow to the reactors. Because of the loss of cooling, the fuel overheated, and there 26 was a partial meltdown of fuel in three of the reactors. Damage to the systems and structures 27 containing reactor fuel resulted in the release of radioactive material to the surrounding 28 environment (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 29 Additional discussion specific to Duke Energys response to earthquakes, including Duke 30 Energys performance of a seismic PRA at Oconee Station, is available above in Section F.3.2 31 and Section 3.4.4 of this EIS.
| |
| | |
| 32 In summary, the Commission has imposed additional safety requirements on operating reactors, 33 including Oconee Station, following the Fukushima accident. The new regulatory actions 34 contributed to mitigations of severe accident risk at Oconee Station. These regulatory actions 35 with resulting mitigations further support the NRC staff determination above that the probability 36 weighted consequences of a severe accident are SMALL at Oconee Station during the SLR 37 term. The NRC staff further concludes that there is no new and significant information related to 38 the regulatory actions described above that would alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 LR 39 GEIS or Duke Energys previous SAMA analysis for Oconee Station during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| F-33 1 F.5.4 Probability-Weighted Consequences Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 2 In sum, the new information related to NRC efforts to reduce severe accident risk described 3 above contribute to safety, as do safety improvements not related to license renewal, including 4 the NRC and industry response to generic safety issues (NRC 2011-TN7816). Thus, the 5 performance and safety record of nuclear power plants operating in the United States, including 6 Oconee Station, would continue to be maintained in the SLR period. (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 7 As discussed above, the NRC and the nuclear industry have addressed and continue to 8 address numerous severe accident-related issues since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS 9 and the 1998 Oconee Station SAMA analysis. These actions reinforce the conclusion that the 10 probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, 11 releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are SMALL 12 for all nuclear power plants, as stated in the 2013 LR GEIS, and further reduce the likelihood of 13 finding a cost-beneficial SAMA that would substantially reduce the severe accident risk at 14 Oconee Station during the SLR term.
| |
| | |
| 15 F.6 Evaluation of New and Significant Information Pertaining to SAMAs Using 16 NEI 17-04, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for 17 SAMA
| |
| | |
| 18 In its assessment of new and significant information related to SAMAs in its Oconee Station 19 SLR application, Duke Energy used the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance document, 20 NEI 17-04, Revision 1, Model SLR [Subsequent License Renewal] New and Significant 21 Assessment Approach for SAMA (NEI 2019-TN6815). On December 11, 2019, the NRC staff 22 endorsed NEI 17-04, Revision 1, for use by license renewal applicants (NRC 2019-TN7805).
| |
| 23 The NEI developed a model approach for license renewal applicants to use in assessing the 24 significance of new information, of which the applicant is aware, that relates to a prior SAMA 25 analysis that was performed in support of the issuance of an initial license, renewed license, or 26 combined license. NEI 17-04 provides a tiered approach that entails a three-stage screening 27 process for the evaluation of new information.
| |
| | |
| 28 In its evaluation of the significance of new information, the NRC staff considers that new 29 information is significant if it provides a seriously different picture of the impacts of the Federal 30 action under consideration. Thus, for mitigation alternatives such as SAMAs, new information is 31 significant if it indicates that a mitigation alternative would substantially reduce an impact of the 32 Federal action on the environment. Consequently, with respect to SAMAs, new information may 33 be significant if it indicates a given potentially cost-beneficial SAMA would substantially reduce 34 the impacts of a severe accident or the probability or risk of a severe accident occurring (NRC 35 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 36 In general, the NEI 17-04 methodology (NEI 2017-TN8338) does not consider a potential SAMA 37 to be significant unless it reduces by at least 50 percent the maximum benefit as defined in 38 Section 4.5, Total Cost of Severe Accident Risk/Maximum Benefit, of NEI 05-01, Revision A, 39 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Guidance Document. NEI 05-01 is 40 endorsed in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1 (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 41 NEI 17-04, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for SAMA, describes a 42 three-stage process for determining whether there is any new and significant information 43 relevant to a previous SAMA analysis.
| |
| | |
| F-34 1
| |
| * Stage 1: The SLR applicant uses PRA risk insights and/or risk model quantifications 2 to estimate the percent reduction in the maximum benefit associated with (1) all 3 unimplemented Phase 2 SAMAs for the analyzed nuclear power plant and (2) those 4 SAMAs identified as potentially cost beneficial for other U.S. nuclear power plants and 5 that are applicable to the analyzed nuclear power plant. If one or more of those SAMAs 6 are shown to reduce the maximum benefit by 50 percent or more, the applicant must 7 complete Stage 2. Applicants that demonstrate through the Stage 1 screening process that 8 there is no potentially significant new information are not required to perform the Stage 2 or 9 Stage 3 assessments.
| |
| 10
| |
| * Stage 2: The SLR applicant develops updated averted cost-risk estimates for implementing 11 those SAMAs. If the Stage 2 assessment confirms that one or more SAMAs reduce the 12 maximum benefit by 50 percent or more, then the applicant must complete Stage 3.
| |
| 13
| |
| * Stage 3: The SLR applicant performs a cost-benefit analysis for the potentially significant 14 SAMAs identified in Stage 2.
| |
| | |
| 15 Upon completion of the Stage 1 screening process, Duke Energy determined that there is no 16 potentially significant new information affecting the Oconee Station SAMA analysis; thus, it did 17 not perform the Stage 2 or Stage 3 assessments. The following sections summarize Duke 18 Energys application of the NEI 17-04 methodology to Oconee Station SAMAs.
| |
| | |
| 19 F.6.1 Data Collection
| |
| | |
| 20 NEI 17-04 Section 3.1, Data Collection, explains that the initial step of the assessment process 21 is to identify the new information relevant to the SAMA analysis and to collect and develop 22 those elements of information that will be used to support the assessment. The guidance 23 document states that each applicant should collect, develop, and document the information 24 elements corresponding to the stage or stages of the SAMA analysis performed for the site.
| |
| 25 For the Oconee Station SLR, the NRC staff reviewed the onsite information during an audit at 26 NRC headquarters and concluded that Duke Energy considered appropriate information (NRC 27 2021-TN9716).
| |
| | |
| 28 F.6.2 Stage 1 Assessment
| |
| | |
| 29 Section E4.15.3, Methodology for Evaluation of New and Significant SAMAs, of Duke Energys 30 SLR ER describes the process used to identify any potentially new and significant SAMAs from 31 the 1998 SAMA analysis (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897). In Stage 1 of the process, Duke Energy 32 used PRA risk insights and/or risk model quantifications to estimate the percent reduction in the 33 maximum benefit associated with the following two types of SAMAs:
| |
| 34 1. all unimplemented Phase 2 SAMAs for Oconee Station 35 2. those SAMAs identified as potentially cost-beneficial for other U.S. nuclear power plants and 36 that are applicable to Oconee Station (Duke Energy 2021-TN8897)
| |
| | |
| 37 F.6.3 Duke Energys Evaluation of Unimplemented Oconee Phase 2 SAMAs
| |
| | |
| 38 In 1998, Duke Energy submitted an application for initial operating license renewal (NRC 1998-39 TN8991), which the NRC approved in 2000. Duke Energy re-examined its initial license 40 renewal SAMA analysis and the Oconee Station PRA in the Oconee Station SLR ER. The 41 purpose was to determine if there was any new and significant information regarding the SAMA 42 analyses that were performed to support issuance of the initial renewed operating licenses for
| |
| | |
| F-35 1 Oconee Station. Duke Energy re-evaluated the 16 SAMAs that were considered Phase 2 in 2 connection with initial license renewal, using the NEI 17-04 process.
| |
| | |
| 3 The list of SAMAs collected was evaluated qualitatively to screen any that are not applicable to 4 Oconee Station or already exist at Oconee Station. The remaining SAMAs then were grouped 5 (if similar) based on similarities in mitigation equipment or risk reduction benefits, and all were 6 evaluated for the impact they have on the Oconee Station CDF and source-term category 7 frequencies if implemented. In addition, Duke Energy applied two other screening criteria to 8 eliminate SAMAs that have excessive cost. First, SAMAs were screened if they were found to 9 reduce the Oconee Station maximum benefit by greater than 50 percent in the initial Oconee 10 Station license renewal but also if they were found not to be cost effective because of high cost 11 in the first license renewal. Second, SAMAs related to creating a containment vent were 12 screened because this nuclear power plant modification has been evaluated industrywide and 13 explicitly found to be ineffective in terms of cost in Westinghouse large/dry containments. If any 14 of the SAMAs were found to reduce the total CDF or at least one consequential source term 15 category frequency by at least 50 percent, then the SAMA was retained for a Stage 2 16 assessment (Level 3 PRA evaluation of the reduction in maximum benefit). As discussed below, 17 all SAMAs were screened as not significant without the need to proceed to the Stage 2 18 assessment or Level 3 PRA evaluation.
| |
| 19 F.6.4 Duke Energys Evaluation of SAMAs Identified as Potentially Cost-Beneficial at 20 Other U.S. Nuclear Power Plants and Which Are Applicable to Oconee Station
| |
| | |
| 21 Duke Energy reviewed the supplemental EISs of nuclear power plants with a similar design to 22 Oconee Station (PWRs with large/dry containments), to identify 283 potentially cost-beneficial 23 SAMAs from other nuclear power plants. This large list of industry SAMAs was qualitatively 24 screened by Duke Energy using criteria that a potential SAMA is either not applicable to the 25 Oconee Station design or the SAMA has already been implemented at Oconee Station.
| |
| 26 Duke Energy grouped the remaining SAMAs based on similarities in mitigation equipment or 27 risk reduction benefits. Thus, Duke Energy evaluated 16 Oconee Station-specific SAMAs and 28 283 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified at similarly designed nuclear power plants 29 (industry SAMAs) for a total of 299 SAMAs.
| |
| | |
| 30 Section E4.15.4 of Duke Energys SLR ER provides the Oconee Station evaluation using the 31 methodology in NEI 17-04, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for SAMA.
| |
| 32 The industry SAMAs that were not qualitatively screened were then merged with the Oconee 33 Station-specific SAMAs collected from initial license renewal, with similar SAMAs grouped for 34 further analysis. The combined SAMA list was then quantitatively screened to determine if the 35 CDF or any source term category frequency would be reduced at least 50 percent if the SAMA 36 was implemented. Table E4.15-1 of the ER presents the 45 industry SAMAs that were not 37 qualitatively screened out, combined with the 10 Oconee Station-specific SAMAs selected for 38 further evaluation. Table E4.15-2 presents the quantitative screening results from the bounding 39 SAMA evaluations. As seen in Table E4.15-2, none of the bounding quantitative screening 40 evaluations resulted in a reduction of total CDF, total LERF, or total large release frequency 41 greater than 50 percent. Because Duke Energys Stage 1 analysis demonstrated that none of 42 the SAMAs considered for quantitative evaluation would reduce the Oconee Station maximum 43 benefit by 50 percent or greater, Duke Energy concluded that no new and significant information 44 relevant to the original SAMA analysis for Oconee Station exists, and no further analysis is 45 needed.
| |
| | |
| 46 The NRC staff reviewed Oconee Stations plant-specific information and its SAMA Stage 1 47 process during an in-office audit at NRC headquarters (NRC 2020-TN8995). The staff found
| |
| | |
| F-36 1 that Duke Energy had used a methodical and reasonable approach to identify any SAMAs that 2 might reduce the maximum benefit by at least 50 percent and therefore could be considered 3 potentially significant. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that Duke Energy properly concluded, in 4 accordance with the NEI 17-04 guidance, that it did not need to conduct a Stage 2 assessment.
| |
| | |
| 5 F.6.5 Other New Information
| |
| | |
| 6 As discussed in Duke Energys SLR application ER and in NEI 17-04, there are some inputs to 7 the SAMA analysis that are expected to change or to potentially change for all nuclear power 8 plants. Examples of these inputs are described below:
| |
| 9
| |
| * updated Level 3 PRA model consequence results, which may be impacted by multiple 10 inputs, including, but not limited to, the following:
| |
| 11 - population, as projected within a 50 mi (80 km) radius of the nuclear power plant 12 - value of farm and nonfarm wealth 13 - core inventory (e.g., due to power uprate) 14 - evacuation timing and speed 15 - Level 3 PRA methodology updates 16 - cost-benefit methodology updates
| |
| | |
| 17 In addition, other changes that could be considered new information may be dependent on 18 nuclear power plant activities or site-specific changes. These types of changes (listed in NEI 17-19 04) include the following:
| |
| 20
| |
| * identification of a new hazard (e.g., a fault that was not previously analyzed in the seismic 21 analysis) 22 - updated nuclear power plant risk model (e.g., a fire PRA that replaces the IPEEE 23 analysis) 24
| |
| * impacts of nuclear power plant changes that are included in the nuclear power plant risk 25 models will be reflected in the model results and do not need to be assessed separately 26
| |
| * nonmodeled modifications to the nuclear power plant 27 - modifications determined to have no risk impact need not be included (e.g., replacement 28 of the condenser vacuum pumps), unless they impact specific input to SAMA (e.g., new 29 low-pressure turbine in the power conversion system that results in a greater net 30 electrical output)
| |
| | |
| 31 The NRC-endorsed NEI methodology described in NEI 17-04 (NRC 2019-TN7805) uses 32 maximum benefit to determine if SAMA-related information is new and significant. Maximum 33 benefit is defined in Section 4.5 of NEI 05-01, Revision A, Severe Accident Mitigation 34 Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Guidance Document (NEI 2005-TN1978), as the benefit a SAMA 35 could achieve if it eliminated all risk. The total offsite dose and total economic impact are the 36 baseline risk measures from which the maximum benefit is calculated. The methodology in 37 NEI 17-04 considers a cost-beneficial SAMA to be potentially significant if it reduces the 38 maximum benefit by at least 50 percent. The criterion of exceeding a 50 percent reduction in the 39 maximum benefit correlates with significance determinations in the American Society of 40 Mechanical Engineers and American Nuclear Society PRA standard (cited in RG 1.200) 41 (ASME/ANS 2009-TN6220; NRC 2009-TN6211), NUMARC 93-01, Industry Guideline for 42 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants (NRC endorsed in 43 RG 1.160) (NEI 2018-TN7758; NRC 2018-TN7799) and NEI 00-04, 10 CFR 50.69 SSC
| |
| | |
| F-37 1 Categorization Guideline (endorsed in RG 1.201) (NEI 2005-TN8340; NRC 2006-TN6279),
| |
| 2 which the NRC has cited or endorsed. It is also a reasonable quantification of the qualitative 3 criteria that new information is significant if it presents a seriously different picture of the impacts 4 of the Federal action under consideration, requiring a supplement (NUREG-0386, United States 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Practice and Procedure Digest: Commission, Appeal 6 Board, and Licensing Board Decisions [NRC 2009-TN8377]). Furthermore, it is consistent with 7 the criteria that the NRC staff accepted in the Limerick Generating Station license renewal final 8 supplemental EIS (NRC 2014-TN7328). The NRC-endorsed approach in NEI 17-04 was used 9 by Duke Energy for SAMAs to determine whether new information related to SAMAs could be 10 significant (i.e., a potentially cost-beneficial SAMA could substantially reduce the probability or 11 consequences (risk) of a severe accident occurring. The implication of this statement is that 12 significance is not solely related to whether a SAMA is cost-beneficial (which may be affected 13 by economic factors, increases in population, etc.), but it also depends on a SAMAs potential to 14 significantly reduce risk to the public.
| |
| | |
| 15 F.6.6 Conclusion
| |
| | |
| 16 The NRC staff reviewed Duke Energys new and significant information regarding severe 17 accidents and SAMAs at Oconee Station during the SLR period and finds Duke Energys 18 analysis and methods to be reasonable. As described above, Duke Energy evaluated a total of 19 299 SAMAs for Oconee Station SLR and did not find any SAMAs that would reduce the 20 maximum benefit by 50 percent or more. Based on its review of Duke Energys evaluation, the 21 NRC staff concludes that the methods and results used were reasonable. Based on Oconee 22 Stations Stage 1 qualitative and quantitative screening results, Duke Energy demonstrated that 23 none of the nuclear power plant-specific and industry SAMAs that it considered constitute new 24 and significant information in that none changed the conclusion of Oconee Stations previous 25 SAMA analysis. Further, the NRC staff did not otherwise identify any new and significant 26 information that would alter the conclusions reached in the previous SAMA analysis for Oconee 27 Station. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there is no new and significant information that 28 would alter the conclusions of the SAMA analysis performed for Oconee Stations initial license 29 renewal.
| |
| | |
| 30 In addition, given the relatively low residual risk at Oconee Station, the decrease in internal-31 event CDF from the previous SAMA analysis, and the fact that no potentially cost-beneficial 32 SAMAs were identified during Oconee Stations initial license renewal review, the NRC staff 33 considers it unlikely that Duke Energy would have found any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 34 for SLR. Further, Duke Energys implementation of actions to satisfy the NRCs orders and 35 regulatory requirements regarding beyond-design-basis events after the September 2001, 36 terrorist attacks and the March 2011 Fukushima events, including Duke Energys performance 37 of a seismic PRA, as well as the conservative assumptions used in earlier severe accident 38 studies and SAMA analyses, also make it unlikely that Duke Energy would have found any 39 potentially significant cost-beneficial SAMAs during its SLR review. For all the reasons stated 40 above, the NRC staff concludes that Duke Energy reached reasonable SAMA conclusions in its 41 SLR ER and that there is no new and significant information regarding any potentially cost-42 beneficial SAMA that would substantially reduce the risks of a severe accident at Oconee 43 Station.
| |
| | |
| 44 F.7 References
| |
| | |
| 45 Note: All NUREG reports listed in Appendix F are available electronically from the NRCs public 46 website found at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/index.html. From this
| |
| | |
| F-38 1 site, the public can gain access to NRCs collection of technical reports by using the technical 2 report numbers (e.g., NUREG-xxxx or NUREG/CR-xxxx).
| |
| | |
| 3 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 4 Production and Utilization Facilities. TN249.
| |
| | |
| 5 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 6 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. TN250.
| |
| | |
| 7 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 8 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants. TN4878.
| |
| | |
| 9 10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, "Physical Protection of 10 Plants and Materials. TN423.
| |
| | |
| 11 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 12 Criteria. TN282.
| |
| | |
| 13 61 FR 28467. June 5, 1996. "Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 14 Operating Licenses. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN4491.
| |
| | |
| 15 61 FR 28481. December 18, 1996. "Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 16 Operating Licenses. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN8474.
| |
| | |
| 17 64 FR 38551. July 19, 1999. "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power 18 Plants. Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN7847.
| |
| | |
| 19 72 FR 71083. December 14, 2007. "Sally Shaw; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking." Federal 20 Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN7789.
| |
| | |
| 21 87 FR 77643. December 19, 2022. "Notice of Intent To Conduct a Supplemental Scoping 22 Process and Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; 23 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |
| 24 TN8903.
| |
| | |
| 25 ASME/ANS (American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American Nuclear Society). 2009.
| |
| 26 Addenda to ASME/ANS RA-S-2008, Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency 27 Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications. ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009, 28 Washington, D.C. TN6220.
| |
| | |
| 29 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Public Law 112-239, as amended. TN663.
| |
| | |
| 30 BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory). 1995. Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents During 31 Low Power and Shutdown Operations at Surry, Unit 1, Analysis of Core Damage Frequency 32 from Internal Fires During Mid-Loop Operations, Main Report. NUREG/CR-6144, BNL-NUREG-33 52399, Volume 3, Part 1. Upton, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML18151A227. TN7776.
| |
| | |
| 34 Duke Energy. 2018. Letter from J.E. Burchfield, Jr., Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, to 35 NRC Document Control Desk, dated December 21, 2018, regarding Oconee Nuclear Station 36 Units 1,2, and 3- Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) Response to March 12, 2012 37 Request for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 Seismic of the Near-Term Task Force
| |
| | |
| F-39 1 Related to the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Seneca, South Carolina.
| |
| 2 ADAMS Accession No. ML19004A127. TN8992.
| |
| | |
| 3 Duke Energy. 2020. Letter from J.E. Burchfield, Jr., Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, to 4 NRC Document Control Desk, dated June 29, 2020, regarding Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 5 2, and 3- Staff Review of Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Associated with Reevaluated 6 Seismic Hazard Implementation of the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic 7 (EPID No. L-2018-JLD-0173). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20189A066.
| |
| 8 TN9001.
| |
| | |
| 9 Duke Energy. 2021. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 10 Document Control Desk, dated June 7, 2021, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke 11 Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270, 50-12 287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Application for Subsequent 13 Renewed Operating Licenses. Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML21158A193.
| |
| 14 TN8897.
| |
| | |
| 15 Duke Energy. 2022. Letter from S.M. Snider, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, to NRC 16 Document Control Desk, dated November 7, 2022, regarding "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 17 (Duke Energy) Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-18 270, 50-287 Renewed License Numbers DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Subsequent License 19 Renewal - Appendix E Environmental Report Supplement 2." Seneca, South Carolina. ADAMS 20 Accession No. ML22311A036. TN8899.
| |
| | |
| 21 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2012. Seismic Evaluation Guidance - Screening, 22 Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term 23 Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. Report 1025287, Palo Alto, California. ADAMS 24 Accession No. ML12333A170. TN7751.
| |
| | |
| 25 EPRI/NRC (Electric Power Research Institute/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005.
| |
| 26 EPRI/NRC-RES, Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, Volume 1: Summary and 27 Overview. EPRI - 1011989, NUREG/CR-6850, Final Report, Rockville, Maryland. TN7823.
| |
| | |
| 28 EPRI/NRC (Electric Power Research Institute/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005.
| |
| 29 EPRI/NRC-RES, Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, Volume 2: Detailed 30 Methodology. EPRI - 1011989, NUREG/CR-6850, Final Report, Rockville, Maryland. TN7824.
| |
| | |
| 31 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2005. 10 CFR 50.69 SC Categorization Guideline. NEI 00-04, 32 Revision 0, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML052910035. TN8340.
| |
| | |
| 33 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis 34 Guidance Document. NEI-05-01, Revision A, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 35 ML060530203. TN1978.
| |
| | |
| 36 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2017. Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for 37 SAMA. NEI 17-04, Rev 0, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17181A470. TN8338.
| |
| | |
| 38 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2018. Letter from S.J. Vaughn, Senior Project Manager, Risk 39 and Technical Support, to C. Miller, Director, Division of Inspection and Regional Support Office 40 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated April 27, 2018, regarding Submittal of NUMARC 93-01, 41 Rev 4F, Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power
| |
| | |
| F-40 1 Plants for NRC Endorsement. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18120A069.
| |
| 2 TN7758.
| |
| | |
| 3 NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2019. Letter from C. Earls, Senior Director Regulatory Affairs, to 4 R. Elliott, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear 5 Material, Safety, and Safeguards, dated November 12, 2019, regarding "NRC Review and 6 Endorsement of NEI 17-04, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for SAMA, 7 Revision 1." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19316C713. TN6815.
| |
| | |
| 8 NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2022. "NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard 9 for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants. Quincy, Massachusetts.
| |
| 10 Accessed June 23, 2022, at https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-11 standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=805TN7849. TN7849.
| |
| | |
| 12 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for 13 Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 14 ML040140729. TN525.
| |
| | |
| 15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1995. Memorandum from M.A. Cunningham, 16 Chief Probabilistic Risk Analysis Branch, to J.C. McKnight, Document Control Branch, Division 17 of Information Support Services, dated November 22, 1993, regarding Placement of Research 18 Reports in the Public Document Room. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 19 ML20058E812. TN8976.
| |
| | |
| 20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 22 ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738. TN288.
| |
| | |
| 23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997. Individual Plant Examination Program:
| |
| 24 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plater Performance. Volume 1, Part 1 Final Summary 25 Report and Volume 2, Parts 2-5, Final Report, NUREG-1560, Washington D.C. TN7812.
| |
| | |
| 26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997. Memorandum from L.J. Callan to The 27 Commissioners, dated July 30, 1997, regarding "Issuance for Public Comment of Proposed 28 Rulemaking Package for Shutdown and Fuel Storage Pool Operation. SECY-97-168, 29 Washington, D.C. TN7621.
| |
| | |
| 30 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1998. Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2 & 3-31 License Renewal Application. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 22, 2023, at 32 https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oconee.html#top.
| |
| 33 TN8991.
| |
| | |
| 34 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 2, Regarding the Oconee Nuclear Station, 36 Final Report. NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML003670637. TN8942.
| |
| | |
| 37 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2001. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool 38 Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1738, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 39 ADAMS Accession No. ML010430066. TN5235.
| |
| | |
| F-41 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. "In the Matter of All Operating Power 2 Reactor Licensees. Order Modifying Licenses (Effective Immediately). 7590-01-P, EA-02-026, 3 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML020520754. TN7864.
| |
| | |
| 4 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Memorandum from S.J. Collins, Director, 5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to M. Kansler, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating 6 Officer, dated February 25, 2002, regarding "Safeguards Information - Issuance of Order for 7 Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures for - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 8 Unit No. 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML020490027. TN7825.
| |
| | |
| 9 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. Letter from L.N. Olshan, Senior Project 10 Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate II, to R.A. Jones, Vice President Oconee Nuclear 11 Station, dated June 1, 2004, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Re: Issuance 12 of Amendments (TAC NOS. MB3537, MB3538, AND MB3539). Washington, D.C. ADAMS 13 Accession No. ML041540124. TN9164.
| |
| | |
| 14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005. Memorandum from F. Eltawila, Director 15 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, to M.E. Mayfield, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 16 Regulation, dated June 9, 2005, regarding "Generic Issue 199, Implications of Updated 17 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States. Washington, 18 D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML051600272. TN7786.
| |
| | |
| 19 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005. Policy Issue: Staff Review of the National 20 Academies Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR 21 VII). SECY-05-0202, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML052640532. TN4513.
| |
| | |
| 22 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, 23 Systems, and Components in Nuclear Power Plants According to Their Safety Significance.
| |
| 24 Regulatory Guide 1.201, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML061090627. TN6279.
| |
| | |
| 25 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. An Approach for Determining the Technical 26 Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. Regulatory 27 Guide 1.200, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML090410014. TN6211.
| |
| | |
| 28 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Memorandum from M.A. Cunningham, 29 Director Division of Risk Assessment, P.L. Hiland, Director Division of Engineering, J.G. Giitter, 30 Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, to B.A. Boger Associate Director for Operating 31 Reactor Oversight & Licensing, V.M. McCree, Deputy Regional Administrator of Operations, 32 M.G. Evans, Acting Associate Director for Engineering and Safety Systems, dated August 12, 33 2009, regarding "Technical Basis for Allowing Oconee Nuclear Station to Remain in Operation 34 through November 2010." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML090570117. TN9173.
| |
| | |
| 35 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. United States Nuclear Regulatory 36 Commission Staff Practice and Procedure Digest, Commission, Appeal Board and Licensing 37 Board Decisions, July 1972 - December 2006. NUREG-0386, Washington D.C. Accession No.
| |
| 38 ML091310522. TN8376.
| |
| | |
| 39 NRC (U.S. Regulatory Commission). 2010. The Evolution of Mitigating Measures for Large Fire 40 and Explosions, A Chronological History From September 11, 2001 Through October 7, 2009.
| |
| 41 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML092990417. TN7760.
| |
| | |
| F-42 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. "Resolution of Generic Safety Issues 2 (Formerly entitled "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues") (NUREG-0933, Main Report with 3 Supplements 1-35). Washington, D.C. Accessed June 15, 2022, at 4 https://www.nrc.gov/sr0933/index.html. TN7816.
| |
| | |
| 5 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from NRC to All Power Reactor 6 Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status dated March 12, 7 2012, regarding Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 8 Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task 9 Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident. Washington, D.C. ADAMS 10 Accession No. ML12056A046. TN7762.
| |
| | |
| 11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence 12 Analyses (SOARCA) Report. NUREG-1935, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 13 ML12332A057. TN3092.
| |
| | |
| 14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. "In the Matter of Exelon Generation 15 Company, LLC (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2). CLI-13-02, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 16 ADAMS Accession No. ML13304B417. TN7766.
| |
| | |
| 17 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 19 Package Accession No. ML13107A023. TN2654.
| |
| | |
| 20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Letter from D.L. Skeen to NRC dated 21 February 15, 2013, regarding Electric Power Research Institute; Seismic Evaluation Guidance.
| |
| 22 NRC-0213-0038, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML12324A198. TN7765.
| |
| | |
| 23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Preparation of Environmental Reports for 24 Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, 25 Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13067A354. TN4791.
| |
| | |
| 26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence 27 Analyses Project Volume 2: Surry Integrated Analysis. NUREG/CR-7110, Volume 2, Revision 28 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13240A242. TN4593.
| |
| | |
| 29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. "Consideration of Current Operating Issues 30 and Licensing Actions in License Renewal. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2014-06, 31 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13177A325. TN7851.
| |
| | |
| 32 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 33 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 49: Regarding Limerick Generating Station, 34 Units 1 and 2, Chapters 1 to 12, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 49, Volumes 1 and 2, 35 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14238A284, ML14238A290. TN7328.
| |
| | |
| 36 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. Letter from W.M. Dean to All Power Reactor 37 Licensees, dated October 27, 2015, regarding "Final Determination of Licensee Seismic 38 Probabilistic Risk Assessments under the Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the 39 Code of Federal Regulations (50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 Seismic of the Near-40 Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 41 ADAMS Accession No. ML15194A015. TN7856.
| |
| | |
| F-43 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017. Letter from T. Brown, Acting Chief Orders 2 Management Branch, to T.D. Ray, Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated August 30, 3 2017, regarding Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, And 3- Safety Evaluation Regarding 4 Implementation of Mitigating Strategies and Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Related to 5 Orders EA-12-049 And EA-12-051 (CAC Nos. MF0782, MF0783, MF0784, MF0785, MF0786, 6 and MF0787). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17202U791. TN8996.
| |
| | |
| 7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018. Monitoring the Effectiveness of 8 Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.160, Revision 4, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 9 ADAMS Accession No. ML18220B281. TN7799.
| |
| | |
| 10 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019. Letter from A. Bradford to C. Earls, Nuclear 11 Energy Institute, dated December 11, 2019, regarding Interim endorsement of NEI 17-04, 12 Model SLR [subsequent or second license renewal] new and significant assessment approach 13 for SAMA, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19323E740. TN7805.
| |
| | |
| 14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019. Letter from G.F. Suber, Deputy Director 15 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, to J.E. Burchfield, Jr., Site Vice President Oconee 16 Nuclear Station, dated November 29, 2019, regarding Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 17 3- Staff Review of Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Associated with Reevaluated Seismic 18 Hazard Implementation of the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPID No.
| |
| 19 L-2018-JLD-0173). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19267A022. TN8994.
| |
| | |
| 20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk 21 Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3, 22 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20238B871. TN7806.
| |
| | |
| 23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Letter from R.J. Bernardo, Project Manager 24 Integrated Program Management and Beyond-Design-Basis Branch, to J.E. Burchfield, Jr., Site 25 Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated November 17, 2020, regarding Oconee Nuclear 26 Station Units 1, 2, and 3- Documentation of the Completion of Required Actions Taken in 27 Response to the Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 28 ADAMS Accession No. ML20304A369. TN8995.
| |
| | |
| 29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Letter from L.J. Rakovan, Senior 30 Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Review License Renewal Branch Division of 31 Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 32 Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station, dated November 23, 33 2021, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3 - Summary of the Environmental 34 Remote Audit Related to the Review of the Subsequent License Renewal Application (EPID 35 Number: L-2021-SLE-0002). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21323A113.
| |
| 36 TN8910.
| |
| | |
| 37 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Letter from L.J. Rakovan, Senior 38 Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Review License Renewal Branch, Division of 39 Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 40 Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station, dated September 21, 41 2021, regarding "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 - License Renewal Regulatory Audit 42 Regarding The Environmental Review of the Subsequent License Renewal Application (EPID 43 NO. L-2021-SLE-0002). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21263A031. TN9716.
| |
| | |
| F-44 1 NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear 2 Generating Units 3 and 4). CLI-22-02, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 3 ML22055A496. TN8182.
| |
| | |
| 4 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 5 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2,and 3); Exelon Generating 6 Company, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3); Florida Power & Light Co.
| |
| 7 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4); Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC (Point 8 Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2); Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power 9 Station, Units 1 and 2). CLI-22-03, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession Nos.
| |
| 10 ML22055A521, ML22055A526, ML22055A527, ML22055A533, ML22055A554. TN8272.
| |
| | |
| 11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Sources of Information Used in Appendix E, 12 License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement. NUREG-1437, Revision 2, 13 Washington, D.C. June. ADAMS Accession No. ML22201A061. TN7857.
| |
| | |
| 14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence 15 Analyses (SOARCA) Project, Uncertainty Analysis of the Unmitigated Short-Term Station 16 Blackout of the Surry Power Station. NUREG/CR-7262. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession 17 No. ML22194A066. TN7922.
| |
| | |
| 18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 19 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Revision 2, 20 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML23011A063. TN7802.
| |
| | |
| 21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. From P.K. Holahan, Director Subsequent 22 License Renewal Directorate Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, to Y. Malave, 23 T Holahan, B. Rogers, L. Gibson, S. Talley, B. Anderson, B. Venkataraman, J. Davis, K. Folk, 24 and J. Rikhoff, dated March 6, 2023, regarding "Issuance of Proposed Rule and Notice of 25 Availability of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 26 Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Draft Revision 2) (STC-23-012). Washington, D.C. ADAMS 27 Accession No. ML23065A249. TN9172.
| |
| | |
| 28 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from S.S. Koenick, Chief 29 Environmental Project Manager Branch 1 Division of Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial 30 Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to S.M. Snider, Site Vice President 31 Oconee Nuclear Station, dated February 1, 2024, regarding "Issuance of Environmental 32 Scoping Summary Report Associated with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staffs 33 Review of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3, Subsequent License Renewal 34 Application (EPID Number: L-2021-SLE- 0002) (Docket Numbers: 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-35 287). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23304A138. TN9478.
| |
| | |
| 36 SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 1982. Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development.
| |
| 37 NUREG/CR-2239, SAND81-1549, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 38 ML072320420. TN7749.
| |
| | |
| 39 SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 2021. MACCS Theory Manual. SAND2021-11535, 40 Albuquerque, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML22118B153. TN7810.
| |
| | |
| F-45
| |
| | |
| 1 APPENDIX G 2
| |
| 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND IMPACT FINDINGS CONTAINED IN 4 THE PROPOSED RULE, 10 CFR PART 51, ENVIRONMENTAL 5 PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND 6 RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
| |
| | |
| 7 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) staff prepared this site-8 specific environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the environmental impacts of 9 subsequent license renewal (SLR) for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee) by 10 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy). The NRC staff prepared this site-specific EIS in 11 accordance with the Commissions decisions in Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)- CLI-22-03 12 (TN8272), that references CLI-22-02 (TN8182), both dated February 24, 2022.
| |
| | |
| 13 On March 3, 2023, the NRC published a draft rule (88 FR 13329-TN8601) proposing to amend 14 its environmental protection regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 15 (10 CFR Part 51) (TN250). Specifically, the proposed rule would update the NRCs 2013 16 findings concerning the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear 17 power plant. The technical basis for the proposed rule would be provided by Revision 2 to 18 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 19 Plants (the 2023 LR GEIS; NRC 2023-TN7802), which would update NUREG-1437, Revision 1 20 (the 2013 LR GEIS NRC 2013-TN2654), which, in turn, was an update of NUREG-1437, 21 Revision 0 (the 1996 LR GEIS; NRC 1996-TN288). The 2023 LR GEIS (NRC 2023-TN7802) 22 would support the proposed revised list of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 23 amended (NEPA), issues and associated environmental impact findings for license renewal to 24 be contained in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250). The 2023 LR 25 GEIS and proposed rule (NRC 2023-TN7802) reflect lessons learned and knowledge gained 26 from the NRCs conducting of environmental reviews for initial license renewal and subsequent 27 license renewal (SLR) since 2013.
| |
| | |
| 28 The 2023 proposed rule would redefine the number and scope of the environmental issues that 29 must be addressed by the NRC during license renewal environmental reviews. The proposed 30 rule identifies 80 environmental impact issues, 20 of which would require plant-specific analysis.
| |
| 31 The proposed rule would reclassify some previously site-specific (Category 2) issues as generic 32 (Category 1) issues and would consolidate other issues. It would also add new Category 1 and 33 Category 2 issues to Table B-1. These proposed changes are summarized as follows.
| |
| 34
| |
| * One Category 2 issue, Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites),
| |
| 35 and a related Category 1 issue, Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt 36 marshes), would be consolidated into a single Category 2 issue, Groundwater quality 37 degradation (plants with cooling ponds).
| |
| 38
| |
| * Two related Category 1 issues, Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) and 39 Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and 40 eutrophication, and the thermal effluent component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from 41 predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, would 42 be consolidated into a single Category 1 issue, Infrequently reported effects of thermal 43 effluents.
| |
| | |
| G-1 1
| |
| * One Category 2 issue, Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with 2 once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds), and the impingement component of the 3 Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 4 exposed to sublethal stresses, would be consolidated into a single Category 2 issue, 5 Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through 6 cooling systems or cooling ponds).
| |
| 7
| |
| * One Category 1 issue, Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with 8 cooling towers), and the impingement component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from 9 predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, would 10 be consolidated into a single Category 1 issue, Impingement mortality and entrainment of 11 aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).
| |
| 12
| |
| * One Category 2 issue, Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish 13 habitat, would be divided into three Category 2 issues: (1) Endangered Species Act:
| |
| 14 federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction; 15 (2) Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National 16 Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction; and (3) Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish 17 habitat.
| |
| 18
| |
| * Two new Category 2 issues, National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources and 19 Climate change impacts on environmental resources, would be added.
| |
| 20
| |
| * One Category 2 issue, Severe accidents, would be changed to a Category 1 issue.
| |
| 21
| |
| * One new Category 1 issue, Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change, would be added.
| |
| 22
| |
| * Several issue titles and findings would be revised to clarify their intended meanings.
| |
| | |
| 23 Finalization and publication of the 2023 LR GEIS and the proposed rule (NRC 2023-TN7802) is 24 expected to occur in or about August 2024. Upon being finalized, under the NRCs 25 environmental protection regulations, the NRC staff would have to consider and analyze in its 26 license renewal environmental reviews the potential significant impacts associated with the new 27 Category 2 issues and, to the extent that there is any new and significant information, the 28 potential significant impacts associated with the new Category 1 issues. To account for the 29 proposed rule and 2023 LR GEIS and the possibility of their finalization in 2024, the NRC staff 30 analyzes in this appendix, on a site-specific basis, their new and revised environmental issues 31 as they may apply to the SLR for Oconee. Table G-1 lists the new and revised environmental 32 issues that would apply to Oconee SLR. The sections that follow discuss how the NRC staff 33 addressed each of these new and revised issues in this site-specific EIS and explains how this 34 site-specific EIS covers the issues in the proposed rule and 2023 LR GEIS.
| |
| | |
| 35 Table G-1 New and Revised 10 CFR Part 51 License Renewal Environmental Issues 2023 LR GEIS Issue Section Category Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents 4.6.1.2 1 Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with 4.6.1.2 2 once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
| |
| Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats 4.6.1.3.1 2 under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats 4.6.1.3.2 2 under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction 36
| |
| | |
| G-2 1 Table G-1 New and Revised 10 CFR Part 51 License Renewal Environmental Issues 2 (Continued)
| |
| | |
| 2023 LR GEIS Issue Section Category Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat 4.6.1.3.3 2 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources 4.6.1.3.4 2 Severe accidents 4.9.1.2.1 1 Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change 4.12.1 1 Climate change impacts on environmental resources 4.12.3 2 CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; LR GEIS = License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
| |
| Source: 10 CFR Part 51-TN250; 2023 LR GEIS (NRC 2023-TN7802).
| |
| | |
| 3 G.1 Infrequently Reported Effects of Thermal Effluents
| |
| | |
| 4 The draft rule proposes to combine two Category 1 issues, Infrequently reported thermal 5 impacts (all plants) and Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas 6 supersaturation, and eutrophication, and the thermal effluent component of the Category 1 7 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal 8 stresses, into one Category 1 issue, Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents. This 9 issue pertains to interrelated and infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents, including 10 cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of aquatic insects, and 11 proliferated growth of aquatic nuisance species, as well as the effects of thermal effluents on 12 dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication. This issue also considers sublethal 13 stresses associated with thermal effluents that can increase the susceptibility of exposed 14 organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease. These changes do not introduce any new 15 environmental issues; rather, the proposed rule would reorganize existing issues. The changes 16 are fully summarized and explained in Section 4.6.1.2 of the 2023 LR GEIS and in the proposed 17 rule (NRC 2023-TN7802).
| |
| | |
| 18 Sections 3.7.4.4, 3.7.4.5, and 3.7.4.11 of this site-specific EIS analyze infrequently reported 19 effects of thermal effluents for Oconee SLR and conclude that the impacts would be SMALL.
| |
| 20 Therefore, the environmental issue of infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents is 21 addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 22 G.2 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with 23 Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)
| |
| | |
| 24 The draft rule proposes to combine the Category 2 issue, Impingement and entrainment of 25 aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds), and the 26 impingement component of the Category 1 issue, Losses from predation, parasitism, and 27 disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses, into one Category 2 issue, 28 Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling 29 systems or cooling ponds). This issue pertains to impingement mortality and entrainment of 30 finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems and cooling 31 ponds during the license renewal term (either initial license renewal or SLR). This includes 32 plants with helper cooling towers that are seasonally operated to reduce thermal load to the 33 receiving water body, reduce entrainment during peak spawning periods, or reduce 34 consumptive water use during periods of low river flow.
| |
| | |
| G-3 1 In the 2023 LR GEIS (NRC 2023-TN7802), the NRC renamed this issue to specify impingement 2 mortality, rather than simply impingement. This change is consistent with the U.S.
| |
| 3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2014 Clean Water Act Section 316(b) (TN662) 4 regulations and the EPAs assessment that impingement reduction technology is available, 5 feasible, and has been demonstrated to be effective. Additionally, the EPA 2014 Clean Water 6 Act Section 316(b) regulations establish best technology available standards for impingement 7 mortality based on the fact that survival is a more appropriate metric for determining 8 environmental impact rather than simply looking at total impingement. Therefore, the 2023 LR 9 GEIS (NRC 2023-TN7802) also consolidates the impingement component of the Losses from 10 predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses issue for 11 plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds into this issue.
| |
| | |
| 12 Section 3.7.4.1 of this site-specific EIS analyzes the impacts of impingement and entrainment 13 for Oconee SLR. The analysis considers the components of the proposed revision to this issue, 14 impingement mortality, and the impingement component of losses from predation, parasitism, 15 and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses. In this section, the NRC staff 16 concludes that impingement and entrainment during the SLR term would be of SMALL 17 significance on the aquatic organisms in Lake Keowee. Therefore, the environmental issue of 18 impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling 19 systems or cooling ponds) is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 20 G.3 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats 21 Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction
| |
| | |
| 22 The draft rule proposes to divide the Category 2 issue, Threatened, endangered, and protected 23 species and essential fish habitat, into three separate Category 2 issues for clarity and 24 consistency with the separate Federal statues and interagency consultation requirements that 25 the NRC must consider with respect to federally protected ecological resources. When 26 combined, however, the scope of the three issues is the same as the scope of the former 27 Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat issue discussed in 28 the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| | |
| 29 The first of the three issues, Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical 30 habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction, concerns the potential effects of continued 31 nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on 32 federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act 33 (ESA, TN1010) and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
| |
| | |
| 34 Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.4 of this site-specific EIS addresses the impacts of Oconee SLR on 35 federally listed species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction. The NRC staff determined 36 that Oconee SLR may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the tricolored bat, a species 37 proposed for listing, and the monarch butterfly, a candidate species. Appendix C.1 describes the 38 staffs ESA consultation with the FWS. Therefore, the environmental issue of Endangered 39 Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 40 jurisdiction is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 41 G.4 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats 42 Under National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction
| |
| | |
| 43 As explained in the previous section, the draft rule proposes to divide the Category 2 issue, 44 Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat, into three separate
| |
| | |
| G-4 1 Category 2 issues. The second of the three issues, Endangered Species Act: federally listed 2 species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction, concerns the 3 potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during the 4 license renewal term on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the ESA 5 and under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
| |
| | |
| 6 Section 3.8.1 and 3.8.4 of this site-specific EIS find that no federally listed species or critical 7 habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction occur within the action area.
| |
| 8 Accordingly, the NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on federally 9 listed species or habitats under this agencys jurisdiction. Therefore, the environmental issue of 10 Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine 11 Fisheries Service jurisdiction is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 12 G.5 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat
| |
| | |
| 13 As explained above, the draft rule proposes to divide the Category 2 issue, Threatened, 14 endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat, into three separate Category 2 15 issues. The third of the three issues, Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat, concerns 16 the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any refurbishment during 17 the license renewal term on essential fish habitat protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 18 (MSA, TN7841).
| |
| | |
| 19 Section 3.8.2 and 3.8.5 of this site-specific EIS find that no essential fish habitat occurs within 20 the affected area. Accordingly, the NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would have no 21 effect on essential fish habitat. Therefore, the environmental issue of Magnuson-Stevens Act:
| |
| 22 essential fish habitat is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 23 G.6 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources
| |
| | |
| 24 The draft rule proposes to add a new Category 2 issue, National Marine Sanctuaries Act:
| |
| 25 sanctuary resources, to evaluate the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant 26 operation and any refurbishment during the license renewal term on sanctuary resources 27 protected under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.-TN7197).
| |
| | |
| 28 Under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 29 Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries designates and manages the National 30 Marine Sanctuary System. Marine sanctuaries may occur near nuclear power plants located on 31 or near marine waters as well as the Great Lakes.
| |
| | |
| 32 Section 3.8.3 and 3.8.6 of this site-specific EIS find that no National Marine Sanctuaries occur 33 within the affected area. Accordingly, the NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would 34 have no effect on sanctuary resources. Therefore, the environmental issue of National Marine 35 Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 36 G.7 Severe Accidents
| |
| | |
| 37 With respect to postulated accidents, the draft rule proposes to amend Table B-1 in Appendix B 38 to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) by reclassifying the Category 2 Severe accidents 39 issue as a Category 1 issue. In the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654), the issue of severe 40 accidents was classified as a Category 2 issue to the extent that only alternatives to mitigate 41 severe accidents must be considered for all nuclear power plants where the licensee had not
| |
| | |
| G-5 1 previously performed a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis for the plant. In 2 the 2023 LR GEIS (NRC 2023-TN7802), the NRC notes that this issue will be resolved 3 generically for the vast majority, if not all, expected license renewal applicants because the 4 applicants who will likely reference the LR GEIS have previously completed a SAMA analysis.
| |
| | |
| 5 As discussed in Appendix F of this site-specific EIS, an analysis of SAMAs was performed for 6 Oconee and evaluated by the NRC staff at the time of initial license renewal (TN8942). In 7 Section 3.11.6.9 and Appendix F of this site-specific EIS, the NRC staff evaluated the 8 significance of new information related to the plant-specific SAMA analysis. Therefore, the 9 environmental issue of severe accidents is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 10 G.8 Greenhouse Gas Impacts on Climate Change
| |
| | |
| 11 With respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, the draft rule proposes 12 to amend Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) by adding a new 13 Category 1 issue Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change. This new issue has an impact 14 level of SMALL. This new issue considers GHG impacts on climate change from routine 15 operations of nuclear power plants and construction vehicles and other motorized equipment 16 used during refurbishment activities. GHG emissions from routine operations of nuclear power 17 plants are typically very minor because such plants, by their very nature, do not normally 18 combust fossil fuels to generate electricity. However, nuclear power plant operations do have 19 some GHG emission sources, including diesel generators, pumps, diesel engines, boilers, 20 refrigeration systems, and electrical transmission and distribution systems, as well as mobile 21 sources (e.g., worker vehicles and delivery vehicles). GHG emissions from construction vehicles 22 and other motorized equipment for refurbishment activities would be intermittent and temporary, 23 restricted to the refurbishment period. GHG emissions from continued operations and 24 refurbishment activities are minor.
| |
| | |
| 25 The issue of GHG impacts on climate change associated with nuclear power plant operations 26 was not identified as either a generic or plant-specific issue in the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-27 TN288) or the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654). In the 2013 LR GEIS, however, the NRC 28 staff presented GHG emission factors associated with the nuclear power life cycle. Following 29 the issuance of CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009-TN6406), the NRC began to evaluate the effects of GHG 30 emissions in plant-specific environmental reviews for license renewal applications. Accordingly, 31 Section 3.14 of this site-specific EIS evaluates GHG emissions associated with the operation of 32 Oconee during the SLR term. Table 3-24 of this site-specific EIS presents quantified annual 33 GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources at Oconee for the 2020-2022 time period.
| |
| 34 Oconees direct GHG emissions result from onsite combustion sources and indirect GHG 35 emissions include those from workforce commuting.
| |
| | |
| 36 Duke Energy has no plans to conduct major refurbishment during the Oconee SLR term, and 37 therefore, no GHG emissions from refurbishment or increases in GHG emissions from routine 38 operations at Oconee are anticipated. The NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts 39 on climate change beyond the impacts discussed in the 2023 LR GEIS (NRC 2023-TN7802) 40 and in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 of the proposed rule (88 FR 41 13329-TN8601). Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that GHG impacts on 42 climate change for Oconee during the SLR term are SMALL. Therefore, the environmental issue 43 of greenhouse gas impacts on climate change is addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| G-6 1 G.9 Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources
| |
| | |
| 2 With respect to climate change, the draft rule proposes to amend Table B-1 in Appendix B to 3 Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) by adding the new Category 2 issue Climate change 4 impacts on environmental resources. This new issue considers the additive effects of climate 5 change on environmental resources that may also be directly affected by continued operations 6 and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The effects of climate change can vary 7 regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess 8 trends and the impacts on the human environment for a specific location. The impacts of climate 9 change on environmental resources during the license renewal term are location-specific and 10 cannot be evaluated generically.
| |
| | |
| 11 The issue of climate change impacts was not identified as either a generic or plant-specific 12 issue in the 1996 LR GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288) or the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654).
| |
| 13 However, the 2013 LR GEIS described the environmental impacts that could occur on 14 resources areas (air quality, water resources, etc.) that may also be affected by LR. In plant-15 specific initial license renewal and SLR environmental reviews prepared since the development 16 of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC staff has considered projected differences in climate changes in 17 the United States and climate change impacts on the resource areas that could be incrementally 18 affected by the proposed action as part of its cumulative impacts analysis. Accordingly, 19 Section 3.14.3.2 of this site-specific EIS discusses the observed changes in climate and the 20 potential future climate change across the Southeast region of the United States during the 21 Oconee SLR term based on climate model simulations under future global GHG emissions 22 scenarios. The NRC staff considered regional projected climate changes from numerous climate 23 assessment reports, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program (SGCRP 2009-TN18; 24 USGCRP 2014-TN3472, USGCRP 2017-TN5848, USGCRP 2018-TN5847), the 25 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2000-TN7652, IPCC 2007-TN7421, IPCC 26 2013-TN7434, IPCC 2021-TN7435, IPCC 2023-TN8557), the EPA (EPA 2016-TN7561, EPA 27 2022-TN9163), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2013-28 TN7424). Furthermore, in Section 3.14.3.2 of this site-specific EIS, the NRC staff evaluated the 29 impacts from climate change on environmental resources (e.g., air quality and water resources) 30 that are incremental affected by the proposed action. Therefore, this issue, Climate change 31 impacts on environmental resources, has been addressed in this site-specific EIS.
| |
| | |
| 32 G.10 References
| |
| | |
| 33 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 34 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. TN250.
| |
| | |
| 35 88 FR 13329. March 3, 2023. Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses-36 Environmental Review. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TN8601.
| |
| | |
| 37 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. TN1010.
| |
| | |
| 38 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Climate Change Indicators in the United 39 States 2016. Fourth Edition, EPA 430-R-16-004, Washington D.C. Accessed June 7, 2022, at 40 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/climate_indicators_2016.pdf.
| |
| 41 TN7561.
| |
| | |
| G-7 1 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. "Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and 2 Global Precipitation. Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.epa.gov/climate-3 indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation. TN9163.
| |
| | |
| 4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). 33 5 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. TN662.
| |
| | |
| 6 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Summary for Policymakers, 7 Emissions Scenarios, A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Intergovernmental Panel on 8 Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed June 11, 2022, at 9 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf. TN7652.
| |
| | |
| 10 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 11 Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ADAMS No. ML112710385. Accessed May 23, 13 2022, at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf. TN7421.
| |
| | |
| 14 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical 15 Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 17 S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge 18 University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Accessed May 25, 2022, at 19 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. TN7434.
| |
| | |
| 20 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. "Climate Change 2021: The 21 Physical Science Basis. Accessed May 24, 2022, at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
| |
| 22 TN7435.
| |
| | |
| 23 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate 24 Change 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. TN8557.
| |
| | |
| 25 Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. 16 26 U.S.C. 1801 Note. Public Law 109-479, January 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3575. TN7841.
| |
| | |
| 27 NMSA (National Marine Sanctuaries Act). 2000. "National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Title 16, 28 Chapter 32 § 1431 et seq. United States Code as amended by Public Law 106-513. Silver 29 Spring, M.D. Available at https://nmssanctuaries.blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-30 prod/media/archive/library/national/nmsa.pdf. TN7197.
| |
| | |
| 31 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. Regional Climate Trends and 32 Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 2. Climate of the Southeast U.S.
| |
| 33 Technical Report NESDIS 142-2. Washington, D.C. TN7424.
| |
| | |
| 34 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 36 ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738. TN288.
| |
| | |
| 37 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 38 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License Application for William States Lee III Nuclear 39 Station, Units 1 and 2) and Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 40 and 4). CLI-09-21, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML093070690. TN6406.
| |
| | |
| G-8 1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS 3 Package Accession No. ML13107A023. TN2654.NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
| |
| 4 2022. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear 5 Station, Units 1, 2,and 3); Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power 6 Station, Units 2 and 3); Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 7 4); Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2); Virginia 8 Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2). CLI-22-03, Rockville, 9 Maryland. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML22055A521, ML22055A526, ML22055A527, 10 ML22055A533, ML22055A554. TN8272.
| |
| | |
| 11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 12 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4). CLI-22-02, 13 Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML22055A496. TN8182.
| |
| | |
| 14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 15 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Revision 2, 16 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML23011A063. TN7802.
| |
| | |
| 17 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in 18 the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University 19 Press, New York, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML100580077. TN18.
| |
| | |
| 20 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the 21 United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
| |
| 22 Yohe (eds.). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 23 ML14129A233. TN3472.
| |
| | |
| 24 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2017. Climate Science Special Report:
| |
| 25 Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume I. Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J.
| |
| 26 Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 27 ML19008A410. doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. TN5848.
| |
| | |
| 28 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in 29 the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume II. D.R. Reidmiller, C.W.
| |
| 30 Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.).
| |
| 31 Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19008A414. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. TN5847.
| |
| | |
| G-9
| |
| | |
| NUREG-1437 Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear February 2024 Supplement 2 Plants Supplement 2, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal Second Renewal, Draft for Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3}}
| |