ML19227A246

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

ML19227A246
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	08/07/2019
From:	NRC/OGC
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
52-047-ESP, ASLBP 17-954-01-ESP-BD02, RAS 55148
Download: ML19227A246 (23)

Text

Early Site PermitApplication ReviewClinch River Nuclear SiteEnvironmental PanelAugust 14, 2019 Panelists*TamsenDozier -Environmental Project Manager*Kenneth Erwin

-Chief of the Environmental Technical Review Branch 2

Proposed Federal Action

• Issuance of an ESP

• Site suitability determination

• Provides for early resolution of issues

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

Project Description

• No specific design referenced

-PPE*Cooling water source is the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir

• Project objective considered in the

environmental review 4

Proposed Clinch River NuclearSite*Not currently used for power generation

• Previously

disturbed for Clinch River Breeder Reactor 5 EnvironmentalReview

• US Army Corps of Engineers was a Cooperating Agency

• Environmental Review Team 6

Environmental Review Process NRC'sNEPAProcessSolicited and Reconciled Scoping CommentsConducted Technical ReviewIssuedDraftEISfor public / stakeholder commentPrepared Final EISIssued FinalEIS*Scoping period (60 days) from April to June 2017; Scoping meetings held in Oak Ridge, TN*Draft EIS published April 2018

• Comment period on Draft EIS

from April to July 2018 (75 days); meetings held in Kingston, TN

• Considered and dispositioned

comments in preparing final EIS

• Final EIS published April 2019 7

Alternatives

• Purpose and need bounds the alternatives for consideration and shapes the suite of reasonable alternativesPurpose and NeedApplicant's Proposed ProjectReasonable AlternativesNo Action AlternativeAlternative SitesAlternative Energy Sources*Alternative System Designs*The applicant chose to defer the analysis of Alternative Energy Sources (i.e., not addressed in ESP) as allowed by regulation.

8 No-Action Alternative

• The purpose and need for an ESP is early resolution of issues, further informed by the applicant's purpose and need for the project *There would be no environmental impacts

associated with not issuing the ESP; however, this "no

-action alternative" would not accomplish any of the intended benefits of the ESP process 9

Alternative Sites

• Process of identifying possible alternative sitesAlternative SitesRegion of Interest (e.g., service area)Candidate AreasPotential SitesCandidate SitesORR Site 2ORR Site 3 (aka CRN Site)ORR Site 8Redstone Arsenal Site 12 10 Location of Candidate Areas and Alternative SitesORR Sites 2, 3, and 8Redstone Arsenal Site 12 Comparison of Alternative Sites*Impacts at alternatives sites (i.e., Sites ORR 2, ORR 8, and Redstone Arsenal 12) were compared to CRN Site

• No alternative sites were environmentally

preferable to the proposed CRN Site 12 Environmental Review AreasRadiationProtectionTerrestrialEcologyAtmospheric ScienceSocioeconomics/

Environmental JusticeLand UseArchaeology/Cultural ResourcesHydrologyAquatic Ecology 13Alternative Sites /

Alternative SystemsHumanHealthPostulated AccidentsFuel Cycle /

Waste Impacts on Resources -Small 14Resource AreaBuildingOperation Water-relatedSurface-water use and qualitySMALLSMALLGroundwater use and qualitySMALLSMALLEcology (Aquatic)SMALLSMALLSocioeconomicDemographySMALLSMALLEconomic impactsSMALL (beneficial)SMALL (beneficial)Environmental justice NONENONE Air qualitySMALLSMALLRadiological healthSMALLSMALLNonradiologicalwasteSMALLSMALLPostulated accidents NASMALLFuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning NASMALL Impacts on Resources -Moderate And LargeIndiana Bats CRN Site 15Resource AreaBuildingOperation Land useMODERATESMALLTerrestrial EcologyMODERATE SMALL SocioeconomicPhysical impactsSMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE (aesthetics)Infrastructure and community servicesSMALL (for all categories except traffic) and MODERATE to LARGE (for traffic)SMALL to MODERATE (recreation)Historic and cultural resourcesMODERATE to LARGESMALLNonradiologicalhealthSMALL to MODERATESMALL Forest on CRN Site Historic and Cultural Resources*Coordinated NHPA Section 106 consultation through the NEPA process

• Consulted with 20 American Indian Tribes, the Tennessee Historical Commission , and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 16 Historic and Cultural Resources (Cont.)

• Combined impact from construction and preconstruction activities would be MODERATE to LARGE Impacts from NRC

-authorized construction would be SMALLTVA has executed a Programmatic

Agreement (PA) to address its ongoing NHPA Section 106 responsibilities 17 Traffic*TVA completed a traffic study

• During Construction:LARGE adverse impacts on traffic for routes near the CRN Site without mitigation Reduced by planning and mitigationMitigated impacts would still be

MODERATE to LARGE 18 Cumulative Impacts

• Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions*No change to most impact areas from

cumulative analysis

• Some resource impacts increased due to

past activities 19 Future NEPA Analyses

• If a future application references the ESP, the supplemental EIS for that future application would address:Issues deferred from or not resolved in the ESPNew and significant information 20 Conclusions

• Environmental impacts for most resource areas would besmall

• None of the reasonable alternative s

w ere environmentally preferable 21 RecommendationThe staff's assessments documented in the final EIS support a recommendation to the Commission to issue theearly site permit.

22