ML20150B683
| ML20150B683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/2020 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| White B | |
| References | |
| Download: ML20150B683 (9) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS DIVISION OF FUEL MANAGEMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE PSEG NUCLEAR LLC AND EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLCS INITIAL AND UPDATED DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PLANS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 72.30(B) AND (C) FOR SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, HOPE CREEK UNIT 1 AND THE INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION SHARED BY HOPE CREEK AND SALEM DOCKET NO. 72-48 LICENSE NO. SFGL-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Background....1 1.2 Proposed Action3 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.4 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.4 3.0 ALTERNATIVES5 4.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED.5
5.0 CONCLUSION
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS....6
6.0 REFERENCES
..6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PSEG Nuclear, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) have submitted initial decommissioning funding plans (DFPs) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and updates to the DFPs, for the NRCs review and approval. The NRC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) and its associated finding of no significant impacts (FONSI) in accordance with the NRC regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended,1 and the NRC staff guidance in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs. This EA and FONSI documents the NRCs compliance with NEPA.
1.1 Background
The NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste, govern the storage of spent nuclear fuel (spent fuel)2 generated at commercial nuclear power reactors licensed by the NRC. Spent fuel that has been removed from the reactors spent fuel pool is typically stored at a nuclear power plants independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The applicable NRC regulation defines an ISFSI as a complex designed and constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, solid reactor-related
[Greater than Class C] waste, and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel.3 The NRC requires its licensees to plan for the eventual decommissioning of their licensed facilities prior to license termination. The term decommission is defined as the removal of a facility or site safely from service, and the reduction in residual radioactivity to a level that permits either an unrestricted or restricted release of the property and termination of the applicable NRC license.4 An essential element of decommissioning is ensuring that licensees have adequate funds to pay the various decommissioning costs that may arise. Financial assurances are financial arrangements provided by a licensee, whereby funds for decommissioning will be available when needed.
On June 17, 2011, the NRC published a final rule amending its decommissioning planning regulations (76 Federal Register (FR) 35512). The final rule amended the NRCs regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thus, reduced the likelihood that any operating facility would become a legacy site. The statement of considerations for the June 2011 final rule states that a legacy site is a facility that is decommissioning and has an owner who cannot complete the decommissioning work for technical or financial reasons (76 FR 35516). According to the 1
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
2 The NRC defines spent fuel as fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, has undergone at least one year's decay since being used as a source of energy in a power reactor, and has not been chemically separated into its constituent elements by reprocessing. Spent fuel includes the special nuclear material, byproduct material, source material, and other radioactive materials associated with fuel assemblies (10 CFR 72.3, definition of Spent Nuclear Fuel or Spent Fuel).
3 10 CFR 72.3 (definition of Independent spent fuel storage installation or ISFSI).
4 10 CFR 72.3 (definition of Decommission). The NRCs criteria for unrestricted release and restricted release are set forth in 10 CFR 20.1402 and 20.1403, respectively. The NRC defines the term residual radioactivity as radioactivity in structures, materials, soils, groundwater, and other media at a site resulting from activities under the licensees control (10 CFR 20.1003, definition of residual radioactivity).
1
EA (NRC, 2009) that supported the June 2011 rulemaking, legacy sites have two common characteristics: (1) subsurface residual radioactivity in amounts greater than anticipated and (2) insufficient funds to remediate the radiological contamination to levels that will meet the NRCs decommissioning criteria. The rulemaking EA further stated that numerous unremediated minor spills, accumulated over the lifetime of a facility, may lead to unanticipated levels of subsurface contamination that have not been adequately factored into decommissioning costs.
The rulemaking EA concluded that the amendments were not expected to have any significant environmental impacts.
The June 2011 final rule amended the NRC regulation, 10 CFR 72.30, which concerns financial assurance and decommissioning for ISFSIs. This regulation now requires each holder of, or applicant for, a license under 10 CFR Part 72 to submit, for NRC review and approval, a DFP (hereafter, initial DFP). The purpose of the initial DFP is to demonstrate the licensees financial assurance, i.e., that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. Section 72.30(b) requires that the initial DFP contain a detailed decommissioning cost estimate (DCE) in an amount reflecting: (1) the cost of an independent contractor to perform all decommissioning activities, (2) an adequate contingency factor, and (3) the cost of meeting the 10 CFR 20.1402 unrestricted use criteria (or the cost of meeting the 10 CFR 20.1403 restricted use criteria, provided the licensee can demonstrate its ability to meet these criteria). The licensees initial DFP must also identify and justify using the key assumptions contained in the DCE. Further, the initial DFP must describe the method of assuring funds for ISFSI decommissioning, including means for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the ISFSI. Additionally, the initial DFP must specify the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the criteria for license termination (either restricted or unrestricted release), and contain a certification that financial assurance for ISFSI decommissioning has been provided in the amount of the DCE. 5 In addition, Section 72.30(c) requires that at the time of license renewal and at intervals not to exceed 3 years, the licensee must resubmit an updated DFP, with adjustments as necessary to account for changes in cost and the extent of contamination. The resubmitted DFP (hereafter, updated DFP) must update the information submitted with the original or prior approved plan.
The updated DFP must also specifically consider the effect of the following events on decommissioning costs: (1) spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material; (2) facility modifications; (3) changes in authorized possession limits; and (4) actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate.6 In accordance with 10 CFR 72.13(b) and 10 CFR 72.13(c), 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c) are applicable to both specific-licensed and general-licensed ISFSIs.7 5
10 CFR 72.30(b)(1)-(6).
6 10 CFR 72.30(c)(1)-(4).
7 A specific license for the construction and operation of an ISFSI must be initiated by the submission of an application in accordance with the requirements of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 72. NRC approval and issuance of a specific license, including the conditions of the license, is governed by Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 72. The specific license is a stand-alone document that is assigned a unique NRC license docketing number. A general license is considered an incident of a 10 CFR Part 50 or 52 reactor license (see 10 CFR 72.210). The conditions of the general license are set forth by regulation in 10 CFR 72.212.
The NRC does not issue any license document for a general license nor assign to it any unique NRC license docketing number.
2
The Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 site and Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, all located in Hancocks Bridge, NJ, share a single ISFSI, which is operated by PSEG8. PSEG is authorized by the NRC, under a general license (License No. SFGL-30), to store spent nuclear fuel at the shared Salem-Hope Creek ISFSI. By letters dated December 17, 2012, PSEG and EGC each submitted initial DFPs (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML12353A037 and ML12353A488, respectively) for NRCs review and approval for the shared Hope Creek-Salem ISFSI. By letter dated March 31, 2015, EGC submitted an updated DFP (ADAMS Accession No. ML15090A537) for its share of the ISFSI shared by Hope Creek and Salem generating stations. By letter dated December 17, 2015, PSEG submitted an updated DFP for the ISFSI shared by Hope Creek and Salem (ADAMS Accession No. ML15351A336). The NRC is reviewing both sets of DFP submittals, the initial and triennial update.
In addition to preparing this EA and FONSI, the NRC staff is also conducting a financial review of PSEG and EGCs submittals to determine whether they include the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c), and, accordingly, whether PSEG and EGC have provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the shared ISFSI at the Salem Generating Station site, including the requirement to meet the license termination criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402 or 10 CFR 20.1403.
1.2 Proposed Action The proposed Federal action is the NRC staffs review and approval of PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFPs submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c). Specifically, the NRC must determine whether PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFPs contain the information required by 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c) and whether EGC has provided reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. In order to approve the initial DFPs, the NRC evaluates (i) whether the DCE adequately estimates the cost to conduct the required ISFSI decommissioning activities prior to license termination, including identification of the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the license termination criteria and, (ii) whether the aggregate dollar amount of EGCs financial instruments provides adequate financial assurance to cover the DCE and that the financial instruments meet the criteria of 10 CFR 72.30(e). In order to approve the updated DFP, the NRC evaluates whether the updated DFP has been adequately adjusted to account for changes in the DCE and the extent of contamination. Specifically, the NRC staffs review considers whether PSEG and EGC have accurately updated the information submitted with the initial DFPs and has specifically considered the effects of the following on decommissioning costs: spills of radioactive material producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material, facility modifications, changes in authorized possession limits, and actual remediation costs that exceed the previous DCE.
PSEG and EGC are not requesting changes to the ISFSIs licensed routine operations, maintenance activities, or monitoring programs, or proposing new construction or land-disturbing activities as part of the initial or updated DFP. The scope of the proposed action concerns only the NRCs review and approval of PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFPs.
The scope of this proposed action does not include, and will not result in, the review and approval of decontamination or decommissioning activities or license termination for the shared Salem-Hope Creek ISFSI or at the Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek, 8
The Salem generation station is co-owned by PSEG and EGC, therefore each entity is required to submit a DFP for its stake in the shared ISFSI.
3
Unit 1 nuclear reactors. Prior to license termination, PSEG and EGC will need to decontaminate and decommission the shared ISFSI and the two nuclear power plants. As part of future decommissioning activities, PSEG and EGC will submit, for NRC approval, a license termination plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82. The NRC would conduct a separate environmental review in support of PSEG and EGCs proposed decommissioning plan or license termination plan.
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The amended decommissioning planning rule (76 FR 35512) requires applicants and licensees to submit a DFP for NRC review and approval. Accordingly, the purpose and need for the proposed action is for the NRC to confirm that PSEG and EGC will have sufficient funding to cover the costs of decommissioning the ISFSI.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This EA addresses the environmental impacts of the NRCs review and approval of PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFPs, submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c). A separate financial review of the DFPs, which evaluated the adequacy of the initial and updated DFPs, including the amount of the DCE and the method of assuring funds for decommissioning, will be documented by the NRC staff.
The NRCs approval of the initial and updated DFPs will not change the scope or nature of the operation of the ISFSI and will not authorize changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities. The NRCs approval of the initial and updated DFPs will not result in changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or in the creation of solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the initial and updated DFPs will not authorize construction activity or facility modification.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA),9 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with the NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, the NRCs approval of PSEG and EGCs initial and PSEG and EGCs updated DFP constitutes a Federal undertaking.10 The NRC, however, has determined that the approval of the initial and updated DFPs is a type of undertaking that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties were present, because the NRCs approval of PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the initial and updated DFPs will not authorize construction activity, facility modification, or other land-disturbing activity. Additionally, future NRC approval of site-disturbing remediation activities conducted by PSEG and EGC would require an NRC environmental review, including a Section 106 review. This environmental review would be conducted as part of the NRCs review and approval of PSEG and EGCs license termination plan (per 10 CFR 50.82). Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under Section 106 of the NHPA.
9 See 54 U.S.C. 30618.
10 See 36 CFR 800.16(y).
4
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,11 prior to taking a proposed action, a Federal agency must determine whether (i) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and if so, whether (ii) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on listed species or their critical habitats because the NRCs approval of PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFPs will not authorize or result in changes to licensed operations or maintenance activities, or changes in the types, characteristics, or quantities of radiological or non-radiological effluents released into the environment from the ISFSI, or result in the creation of solid waste. Moreover, the approval of the initial and updated DFPs will not authorize construction activity, facility modification, or other land-disturbing activity.
Future NRC approval of site-disturbing remediation activities conducted by EGC would require an additional NRC environmental review, including an ESA review. This environmental review would be conducted as part of the NRCs review and approval of both PSEG and EGCs license termination plan (per 10 CFR 50.82).
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the approval of the initial and updated DFPs is a procedural and administrative action that will not result in significant impacts to the environment.
3.0 ALTERNATIVES NEPA requires that Federal agencies consider alternatives to the proposed action (Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA). In addition to the proposed action, the NRC evaluated one alternative. The alternative action was to review but deny PSEG and EGCs initial and updated DFP (i.e., the no-action alternative). The NRC, however, would then request PSEG and EGC to supplement or amend its proposed DFPs to provide the required information in 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c) and demonstrate adequate decommissioning financial assurance. The NRC could also take enforcement action, as needed, to reinstate compliance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c). The end result would be the licensees compliance with 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c), leading to eventual NRC approval of the initial and updated DFPs. Therefore, for the no-action alternative, the environmental impacts would be the same as those evaluated for approving the initial and updated DFPs. Approving the DFPs has no significant impacts on the environment as discussed in Section 2.0 of this EA.
4.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The NRC consulted with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Safety and Health (State) on September 1, 2016, via letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML16250A188). The State did not respond.
The NRC staff has determined that Section 7 consultation is not required for ISFSI DFP reviews because the proposed action is a procedural and administrative action that will not affect listed species or critical habitat. This determination is documented in a May 15, 2017, Note to File (ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062).
11 See 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
5
5.0 CONCLUSION
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on its review of the proposed action and in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has determined that approval of PSEG and EGCs proposed DFPs will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. NRC approval of the proposed DFPs does not result in changes in licensed activities, maintenance or construction activities, or effect changes in the permitted types or amounts of radiological effluents.
Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed action and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI) is appropriate.
6.0 REFERENCES
This FONSI, EA, and references related to this action can be found online at the NRCs Electronic Reading Room or the NRCs webpage, www.nrc.gov. The Electronic Reading Room can be accessed at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this website, you can access ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRCs public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents are provided in this section.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing ADAMS, contact the NRCs public document room staff at 1-800-397-4209 or by email at pdr@nrc.gov.
49 FR 9381. Federal Register Notice. Final Rule Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions and Related Conforming Amendments.
March 12, 1984.
76 FR 35512. Federal Register Notice. Final Rule Decommissioning Planning. June 17, 2011.
NRC, 2003. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2003/08/31-NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs, Final Report.
Washington, DC. August 2003. ADAMS Accession No. ML032540811.
NRC, 2009. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Assessment re: Final Rule:
Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72; RIN 3150-AI55).
Washington, DC. February 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML090500648.
NRC, 2016. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Letter to P. Baldauf, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Safety and Health, re:
Review of the Draft EA and FONSI for the Salem Generation Station ISFSI Decommissioning Funding Plan (72-48) L24791. September 1, 2016. ADAMS Accession No. ML16250A195.
NRC, 2017. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ESA Section 7 No Effect Determination for ISFSI DFP Reviews (Note to File). May 2017. ADAMS Accession No. ML17135A062.
EGC, 2012. Proposed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Decommissioning Funding Plans for Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Limerick, Oyster Creek, Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, and Salem. December 17, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12353A488.
PSEG, 2012. Decommissioning Funding Plan for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations [Peach Bottom, Hope Creek and Salem]. December 17, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12353A037.
6
EGC, 2015. Report on Status of Decommissioning Funding for Reactors and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. March 31, 2015. ADAMS Accession No. ML15090A537.
PSEG, 2015. Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations [Peach Bottom, Hope Creek and Salem]. December 17, 2015. ADAMS Accession No. ML15351A336.
EGC, 2018. Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Funding Plans for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSls). May 2, 2018. ADAMS Accession No. ML18124A197.
PSEG, 2018. Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI), Regarding Decommissioning Funding Plan Update for Salem and Hope Creek, and Peach Bottom Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, Docket Nos. 72-48 and 72-29. May 7, 2018.
ADAMS Accession No. ML18127A045.
7