Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Contents
Table of Contents - Volume 1
Publication Information
[ Next | Table
of Contents ]
Final Report
Manuscript Completed: April 1996
Date Published: May 1996
Division of Regulatory Applications
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Availability
Notice
Abstract
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) anticipates that it will receive applications
for renewal of the operating licenses of a significant portion of existing nuclear
power plants. This Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) examines the
possible environmental impacts that could occur as a result of renewing licenses
of individual nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 54. The GEIS, to the extent
possible, establishes the bounds and significance of these potential impacts.
The analyses in the GEIS encompass all operating light-water power reactors.
For each type of environmental impact the GEIS attempts to establish generic
findings covering as many plants as possible. While plant and site-specific information
is used in developing the generic findings, the NRC does not intend for the GEIS
to be a compilation of individual plant environmental impact statements.
This GEIS has three principal objectives: (1) to provide an understanding of
the types and severity of environmental impacts that may occur as a result of
license renewal of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) to identify
and assess those impacts that are expected to be generic to license renewal,
and (3) to support a rulemaking (10 CFR Part 51) to define the number and
scope of issues that need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant
license renewal proceedings. To accomplish these objectives, the GEIS makes maximum
use of environmental and safety documentation from original licensing proceedings
and information from state and federal regulatory agencies, the nuclear utility
industry, the open literature, and professional contacts.
Figures
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
Figure 2.1 Pressurized-water-reactor power generation
system
Figure 2.2 Boiling-water-reactor generating system
Figure 2.3 License renewal schedule and outage periods
considered for environmental impact initiator definition
Figure 3.1 The seven case study nuclear plants
Figure 4.1 Examples of typical transmission line towers
Figure 5.1 Potential exposure pathways to individuals
Figure 5.2 Log plot of early fatalities (average deaths
per reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water reactor plants,
fitted regression line (solid curve), and 95 percent normal-theory upper prediction
confidence bounds (dotted curve)
Figure 5.3 Log plot of early fatalities (average deaths
per reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water reactor
plants, fitted regression line (solid curve), and 95 percent normal-theory upper
prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve)
Figure 5.4 Log plot of normalized latent fatalities (average
deaths per 1000 MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water
reactor plants, fitted regression line (solid curve), and 95 percent distribution-free
upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve)
Figure 5.5 Log plot of normalized latent fatalities (average
deaths per 1000 MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water
reactor plants, fitted regression line (solid curve), and 95 percent distribution-free
upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve)
Figure 5.6 Log plot of normalized total dose (person-rem
per 1000 MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water reactor
plants, fitted regression line (solid curve), and 95 percent distribution-free
upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve)
Figure 5.7 Log plot of normalized total dose (person-rem
per 1000 MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water
reactor plants, fitted regression line (solid curve), and 95 percent distribution-free
upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve)
Figure 5.8 Water body surface areas and volumes within
80 km (50 miles) of representative nuclear power plant sites (potentially affected
water bodies)
Figure 5.9 Water body surface areas and volumes within
80 km (50 miles) of the reactor site and within six of the 22.50 compass sectors
that exhibit the greatest percentage of time for which the wind blows toward
that compass direction (likely affected water bodies)
Figure 5.10 Water body flow rate at representative nuclear
power plant sites
Figure 5.11 Contaminant residence time (flushing rate)
and surface area-volume ratios for water bodies within an 80-km (50-mile) radius
of selected nuclear power plants
Figure 6. 1 Low-level radioactive waste compact status
Figure 7.1 Typical pressurized-water reactor generating
station layout
Figure 7.2 Site layout on a typical boiling-water reactor
power plant
Figure 7.3 Buildup of activation products in pressurized-water
reactor internal components as a function of effective full-power years
Figure 7.4 Time dependence of radioactivity and dose
rate in a boiling-water reactor core shroud after 40 years of operation
Figure 8.1 U.S. wind energy resources
Figure 8.2 Solar resource availability: annual average
daily direct normal solar radiation
Figure 8.3 U.S. conventional hydroelectric generating
capacity, developed and undeveloped
Figure 8.4 U.S. known and potential geothermal energy
resources
Acronyms and Abbreviations
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
ADS |
automatic depressurization system |
AEA |
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 |
AEC |
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission |
AEO |
Atomic Energy Outlook 1990 |
AFUDC |
allowance for funds used during construction |
AGA |
American Gas Association |
AGR |
advanced gas-cooled reactor |
AIRFA |
American Indian Religious Freedom Act |
ALARA |
as low as reasonably achievable |
ALI |
annual limits on intake |
A/m |
amps per meter |
AML |
acute myelogenous leukemia |
ANO |
Arkansas Nuclear One |
ANOVA |
analysis of variance |
ANSI |
American National Standards Institute |
AP&L |
Arkansas Power and Light |
ASME |
American Society of Mechanical Engineers |
ATWS |
anticipated transit without scram |
|
|
BAU |
business-as-usual |
BEIR |
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation |
BIG/GT |
biomass-gasifier/gas turbine |
BRC |
below regulatory concern |
BSD |
Burlington School District |
B&W |
Babcock and Wilcox |
BWR |
boiling-water reactor |
|
|
° C |
degrees centigrade (Celsius) |
CAA |
Clean Air Act |
CAAA |
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 |
CCC |
California Coastal Commission |
CDE |
committed dose equivalent |
CDF |
core damage frequencies |
CE |
Combustion Engineering |
CEDE |
committed effective dose equivalent |
CEQ |
Council on Environmental Quality |
CERCLA |
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act |
CFC |
chlorofluorocarbon |
CFR |
Code of Federal Regulations |
Ci |
curie |
CML |
chronic myelogenous leukemia |
CMSA |
consolidated metropolitan statistical area |
CNS |
central nervous system |
CO |
carbon monoxide |
ConEd |
Consolidated Edison |
CPI |
containment performance improvement |
CPW |
continuous polymer wire |
CRAC |
Consequence (of) Reactor Accident Code |
CRD |
control rod drive |
CWA |
Clean Water Act of 1977 |
CZMA |
Coastal Zone Management Act |
|
|
DAC |
derived air concentrations |
DAW |
dry active waste |
DE |
dose equivalent |
DECON |
a nuclear plant decommissioning method |
DER |
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation |
DFA |
direct fluorescent antibody |
DMBA |
dimethylbenzanthracene |
DNR |
Florida Department of Natural Resources |
DO |
dissolved oxygen |
DOE |
U.S. Department of Energy |
DOI |
Department of Interior |
DRBC |
Delaware River Basin Commission |
DREF |
dose rate effectiveness factor |
DRI |
Data Resources Incorporated |
DSC |
dry shielded canister |
DSM |
demand-side management |
|
|
E |
electric field |
EA |
environmental assessment |
EAB |
exclusion area boundary |
EDE |
effective dose equivalent |
EEC |
European Economic Community |
EEDB |
Energy Economic Data Base |
EEG |
electroencephalogram |
EEI |
Edison Electric Institute |
E-field |
electric-field |
EI |
exposure index |
EIA |
Energy Information Administration |
EIS |
environmental impact statement |
EKG |
electrocardiogram |
ELF |
extremely low frequency |
EM |
electromagnetic |
EMF |
electromagnetic field |
ENTOMB |
a nuclear plant decommissioning method |
EO |
Executive Order |
EPA |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
EPACT |
Energy Policy Act of 1992 |
EPCRA |
Emergency Planning and and Community Right-to-Know Act |
EPRI |
Electric Power Research Institute |
EPZ |
emergency planning zone |
ESA |
Endangered Species Act |
ESEERCO |
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation |
|
|
FDA |
U.S. Food and Drug Administration |
FEMA |
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency |
FERC |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FES |
final environmental statement |
FFCA |
Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement |
FIFRA |
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act |
FIS |
federal interim storage |
FONSI |
finding of low significant impact |
FPC |
Florida Power Commission |
FP&L |
Florida Power & Light |
FR |
Federal Register |
FSAR |
final safety analysis report |
FWCA |
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act |
FWS |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
|
|
GBD |
gas bubble disease |
GCHWR |
gas-cooled heavy-water-moderated reactor |
GCR |
gas-cooled reactor |
GE |
General Electric Company |
GEIS |
generic environmental impact statement |
g/m2/s |
gallons per square meter per second |
GNP |
gross national product |
GNSI |
General Nuclear Systems, Inc. |
GPU |
General Public Utilities Corporation |
GRI |
Gas Research Institute |
GTCC |
greater-than-class-C |
GW |
gigawatt |
GWd |
gigawatt-days |
|
|
HC |
hydrocarbons |
HL&P |
Houston Lighting and Power Company |
HLW |
high-level radioactive waste |
HP |
health physics |
HPOF |
high-pressure oil-filled |
HRS |
hazard ranking system |
HSM |
horizontal storage module |
HSWA |
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 |
HWR |
heavy-water reactor |
|
|
ICRP |
International Commission on Radiological Protection |
IGSCC |
intergranular stress-cracking corrosion |
IMP |
intramembranous protein particle |
INIRC |
International Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Association |
INPO |
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations |
IOR |
ion exchange resin |
IPA |
integrated plant assessment |
IPE |
individual plant examination |
IRPA |
International Radiation Protection Association |
ISFSI |
independent spent-fuel storage installation |
ISI |
in-service inspection |
ISTM |
inspection, surveillance, testing, and maintenance |
|
|
kV |
kilovolt |
kV/m |
kilovolts per meter |
kW |
kilowatt |
kWh |
kilowatt-hour |
|
|
LD |
Legionnaires' disease |
LDR |
land disposal restrictions |
LDSD |
Lower Dauphin School District |
LET |
linear energy transfer |
LLRWPAA |
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 |
LLW |
low-level radioactive waste |
LMFBR |
liquid-metal first breeder reactor |
LOCA |
loss-of-coolant accident |
LOS |
level of service |
LPGS |
Liquid Pathway Generic Study |
LPZ |
low population zone |
LWR |
light-water reactor |
|
|
m |
meter |
mA |
milliamperes |
MACCS |
MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System |
MANOVA |
multivariate analyses of covariance |
MAP |
Methodologies Applications Program |
MASD |
Middletown Area School District |
mCi |
milliCurie |
MCLG |
maximum contaminant goal levels |
MDNR |
Maryland Department of Natural Resources |
MFD |
magnetic flux density |
mG |
milligauss |
mM |
millimole |
MMPA |
Marine Mammals Protection Act |
MPC |
maximum permissible concentration |
MPRSA |
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act |
MPOB |
maximum permissible organ burden |
MRC |
Marine Review Committee |
mrem |
millirem |
MRS |
monitored retrievable storage |
m3/s |
cubic meters per second |
MSA |
metropolitan statistical area |
MSW |
municipal solid waste |
mT |
millitesla |
MTIHM |
metric tons of initial heavy metal |
MTU |
metric tons of uranium |
mV/m |
millivolts per meter |
MW |
megawatt |
MWd |
megawatt-days |
MW(e) |
megawatt (electrical) |
MW(t) |
megawatt (thermal) |
MYL |
middle year of license |
MYR |
middle year of relicense |
m g/g |
micrograms per gram |
m m |
micron |
|
|
NAA |
nonattainment area |
NAAQS |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
NAS |
National Academy of Sciences |
NBS |
National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) |
NCA |
National Coal Association |
NCRP |
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements |
NEC |
normalized expected cost |
NEPA |
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 |
NERC |
North American Electric Reliability Council |
NESC |
National Electric Safety Code |
NESHAP |
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants |
NGS |
nuclear generating station |
NHPA |
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 |
NIEHS |
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences |
NIOSH |
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health |
NIST |
National Institute of Standards and Technology |
NLF |
normalized latent facility |
NMFS |
National Marine Fisheries Service |
NMR |
nuclear magnetic resonance |
NOx |
nitrogen oxide(s) |
NPA |
National Planning Association |
NPDES |
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System |
NPP |
nuclear power plant |
NRC |
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
NSPS |
new source performance standards |
NSSS |
nuclear steam supply system |
NTD |
normalized total dose |
NUHOMS |
Nutech Horizontal Modular System |
NUMARC |
Nuclear Utilities Management and Resources Council |
NUREG |
an NRC reports category |
NUS |
NUS Corporation |
NWPA |
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 |
NYSDEC |
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation |
|
|
ODC |
ornithine decarboxylase |
OHMS |
hydroxy melatonin sulfate |
OL |
operating license |
O&M |
operation and maintenance |
ONS |
Oconee Nuclear Station |
OPEC |
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries |
OR |
odds ratio |
ORNL |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory |
OSHA |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration |
OTA |
Office of Technology Assessment |
OTEC |
ocean thermal energy conversion |
|
|
PAME |
primary amoebic meningoencephalitis |
PASNY |
Power Authority for the State of New York |
PCB |
polychlorinated biphenyl |
PG&E |
Pacific Gas and Electric |
pH |
hydrogen-ion concentration |
PHWR |
pressurized heavy-water reactor |
PLEX |
plant life extension |
PM |
particulate matter |
PMR |
proportionate mortality ratios |
ppm |
parts per million |
PSD |
prevention of significant deterioration |
PRA |
probabilistic risk assessment |
PTH |
parathyroid hormone |
PURPA |
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 |
PURTA |
Public Utilities Realty Tax Assessment of 1970 |
PV |
solar photovoltaic |
PWR |
pressurized-water reactor |
|
|
QA |
quality assurance |
|
|
RBE |
relative biological effectiveness |
RCB |
reactor containment building |
RCRA |
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 |
RD&D |
1. research, design, and development |
|
2. research, development, and demonstration |
RERF |
Radiation Effects Research Council |
RET |
renewable energy technology |
RF |
radio frequency |
RHR |
residual heat removal |
RIMS |
Regional Industrial Multiplier System |
rms |
root mean square |
ROW |
right(s) of way |
RPV |
reactor pressure vessel |
RRY |
reference reactor year |
RSD |
Russellville (Ark.) School District |
RSS |
Reactor Safety Study |
RV |
recreational vehicle |
RY |
reactor-year |
|
|
SAFSTOR |
a nuclear plant decommissioning method |
SAMDA |
severe accident mitigation design alternative |
SAND |
Data Resource Incorporated's detailed electricity sector model |
SAND NUPLEX |
SAND generating capacity projections |
SAR |
safety analysis report |
SARA |
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act |
SCE |
Southern California Edison |
SCM |
Surface Compartment Model |
SDG&E |
San Diego Gas & Electric Company |
SDWA |
Safe Drinking Water Act |
SEA |
Science and Engineering Associates, Inc. |
SER |
safety evaluation report |
SERI |
Solar Energy Research Institute |
SEV |
state equalized value |
SF |
spent fuel |
SHPO |
state historic preservation office |
SI |
International System |
SIR |
standardized incidence ratio |
SLB |
shallow land burial |
SMR |
standardized mortality ratio |
SMITTR |
surveillance, on-line monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping |
SMSA |
standard metropolitan statistical area |
SO2 |
sulfur dioxide |
SOK |
San Onofre kelp bed |
SONGS |
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station |
SRBC |
Susquehanna River Basin Commission |
SSC |
systems, structures, and components |
|
|
t |
metric tons |
TDE |
total dose equivalent |
TDS |
total dissolved solids |
TEDE |
total effective dose equivalent |
TMI |
Three Mile Island (nuclear plant) |
TRU |
transuranic |
TSCA |
Toxic Substances Control Act |
TVA |
Tennessee Valley Authority |
|
|
UCB |
upper confidence bound |
UFC |
uranium fuel cycle |
UHV |
ultra-high voltage |
UNSCEAR |
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation |
USD |
Unified School District |
USGS |
U.S. Geological Survey |
USI |
unresolved safety issue |
|
|
VDT |
video display terminal |
VR |
volume reduction |
VRF |
volume reduction factor |
|
|
W |
watt |
WCGS |
Wolf Creek Generating Station |
WHO |
World Health Organization |
WNP-2 |
Washington Nuclear Project |
WTE® |
Whole Tree Energy® |
Executive Summary
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
This Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for license renewal of nuclear
power plants was undertaken to
(1) assess the environmental impacts that could be associated with nuclear
power plant license renewal and an additional 20 years of operation of individual
plants and
(2) provide the technical basis for an amendment to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC's) regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, "Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," with regard
to the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. The rule amendment
and this document were initiated to enhance the efficiency of the license renewal
process by documenting in this GEIS and codifying in the Commission's regulations
the environmental impacts that are well understood.
Under NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, renewal
of a nuclear power plant operating license is identified as a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and thus an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is required for a plant license renewal review. The EIS
requirements for a plant-specific license renewal review are specified in 10 CFR
Part 51. Operating licenses may be renewed for up to 20 years beyond the 40-year
term of the initial license. License renewal applicants perform evaluations and
assessments of their facility to provide sufficient information for the NRC to
determine whether continued operation of the facility during the renewal term
will endanger public health and safety or the environment. The assessments also
help to determine what activities and modifications are necessary at the time
of license renewal and throughout the renewal term to ensure continued safe operation
of the plant. Most utilities are expected to begin preparation for license renewal
about 10 to 20 years before expiration of their original operating licenses.
For the analysis in this GEIS, the staff anticipates that plant refurbishment
undertaken specifically for license renewal would probably be completed during
normal plant outage cycles, beginning 8 years before the original license expires,
and during one longer outage, if a major refurbishment item is involved.
The Commission will act on an application for license renewal submitted by
a licensee of an operating nuclear power plant. Although a licensee must have
a renewed license to operate a plant beyond the term of the existing operating
license, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions
that must be met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term
of the renewed license. If the Commission grants a license renewal for a plant,
state regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant would ultimately decide
whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as need for
power or other matters within the state's jurisdiction or the purview of the
owners. Economic considerations will play a primary role in the decision made
by state regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant. Thus, for license renewal
reviews, the Commission has adopted the following definition of purpose and need:
- The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license)
is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the
term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system
generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where
authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
In Chapter 8, the Commission considers the environmental consequences of the
no-action alternative (i.e., denying a license renewal application) and the environmental
consequences of the various alternatives for replacing lost generating capacity
that would be available to a utility and other responsible energy planners. No
conclusions are made in this document about the relative environmental consequences
of license renewal or the construction and operation of alternative facilities
for generating electric energy. The information in the GEIS is available for
use by the NRC and the licensee in performing the site-specific analysis of alternatives.
This information will be updated periodically, as appropriate.
The GEIS summarizes the findings of a systematic inquiry into the potential
environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of and operating individual
nuclear power plants for an additional 20 years. The inquiry identifies the attributes
of the nuclear power plants, such as major features and plant systems, and the
ways the plants can affect the environment. The inquiry also identifies the possible
refurbishment activities and modifications to maintenance and operating procedures
that might be undertaken given the requirements of the safety review as provided
for in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 54, or given a utility's motivation
to increase economic efficiency. Two scenarios were developed to identify possible
initiators of environmental impacts from the possible set of refurbishment activities
and continuation of plant operation during the renewal term. One scenario was
developed as a typical but somewhat conservative scenario for license renewal,
intended to be representative of the type of program that many licensees seeking
license renewal might implement. The other scenario is highly conservative, encompassing
considerably more activities, and is intended to characterize a reasonable upper
bound of impact initiators that might result from license renewal.
The general analytical approach to each environmental issue is to (1) describe
the activity that affects the environment, (2) identify the population or
resource that is affected, (3) assess the nature and magnitude of the impact
on the affected population or resource, (4) characterize the significance
of the effect for both beneficial and adverse effects, (5) determine whether
the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) consider whether additional
mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the same significance
level for all plants.
A standard of significance was established for assessing environmental issues;
and, because significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting
of a proposed action, both "context" and "intensity" as defined in the Council
on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) were considered.
With these standards as a basis, each impact was assigned to one of three significance
levels:
Small: For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable
or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important
attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts,
the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible
levels in the Commission's regulations are considered small.
Moderate: For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient
to alter noticeably but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
Large: For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable
and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The discussion of each environmental issue in the GEIS includes an explanation
of how the significance category was determined. For issues in which probability
of occurrence is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), the probability
of occurrence is factored into the determination of significance. In determining
the significance levels, it is assumed that ongoing mitigation measures would
continue and that mitigation measures employed during plant construction would
be employed during refurbishment, as appropriate. The potential benefits of additional
mitigation measures are not considered in determining significance levels.
In addition to determining the significance of environmental impacts associated
with an issue for that issue, a determination was made whether the analysis in
the GEIS could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures
would be warranted. The categories to which an issue may be assigned follow.
|
Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the GEIS
has shown the following: |
|
(1) |
the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined
to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific
type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics; |
|
(2) |
a single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned
to the impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the
fuel cycle and from high-level-waste and spent-fuel disposal); and |
|
(3) |
mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered
in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific
mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant
implementation. |
|
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the GEIS
has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met,
and therefore, additional plant-specific review is required. |
This final GEIS assesses 92 environmental issues. Sixty-eight of these issues
are found to be Category 1 and are identified in 10 CFR Part 51 as
not requiring additional plant-specific analysis. Guidance on the analyses required
for each of the other 24 issues is provided in 10 CFR Part 51. A summary of the
findings for the 92 environmental issues is provided in Table 9.1 of this
GEIS and summarized in narrative below.
Impacts of Refurbishment
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
- On-site land use impacts are expected to be of small significance at all
sites. Temporary disturbance of land may be mitigated by restoration to its
original condition after refurbishment. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Nuclear power plant atmospheric emissions would either remain constant during
refurbishment or decrease if the plant were partially or totally shut down.
Small quantities of fugitive dust and gaseous exhaust emissions from motorized
equipment operation during construction and refurbishment would temporarily
increase ambient concentrations of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants
in the vicinity of the activity but would not be expected to measurably affect
ambient concentrations of regulated pollutants off-site. Additional exhaust
emissions from the vehicles of up to 2300 personnel could be cause for some
concern in geographical areas of poor or marginal air quality, but a general
conclusion about the significance of the potential impact cannot be drawn without
considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers to
be employed during the outage. This is a Category 2 issue.
- Proven erosion control measures such as best management practices are expected
to be implemented at all plants and to minimize impacts to local water quality
from runoff in disturbed areas. Consequently, impacts of refurbishment on surface
water quality are expected to be of small significance at all plants. Because
the effects of refurbishment are considered to be of small significance and
potential mitigation measures are likely to be costly, the staff does not consider
implementation of mitigation measures beyond best management practices to be
warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Additional water requirements during construction and refurbishment would
be a small fraction of cooling water requirements of the operating power plant.
If the plant were partially or totally shut down, cooling water use would decline.
Water use during refurbishment is expected to have impacts of small significance
on the local water supply. The only potential mitigation for any increase in
water consumption would be to acquire the additional water from some other source.
However, because this approach would provide very little, if any, environmental
benefit and would be costly, the staff does not consider implementation of additional
mitigation to be warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Deep excavations and site dewatering would not be required during refurbishment.
Consequently, the impacts of refurbishment on groundwater would be of small
significance at all sites. No additional mitigation measures would be warranted
because there would be no adverse impacts to mitigate. This is a Category 1
issue.
- Effluent discharges from the cooling system of a nuclear power plant would
either remain constant during refurbishment or decrease if the plant were partially
or totally shut down. Effects of changes in water withdrawals and discharges
during refurbishment would be of small significance. No additional mitigation
measures beyond those implemented during the current license term would be warranted
because there would be no adverse impacts to mitigate. This is a Category 1
issue.
- The small on-site change in land use associated with refurbishment and construction
could disturb or eliminate a small area of terrestrial habitat [up to 4 ha (10
acres)]. The significance of the loss of habitat depends on the importance of
the plant or animal species that are displaced and on the availability of nearby
replacement habitat. Impacts would be potentially significant only if they involved
wetlands, staging or resting areas for large numbers of waterfowl, rookeries,
restricted wintering areas for wildlife, communal roost sites, strutting or
breeding grounds for gallinaceous birds, or rare plant community types. Because
ecological impacts cannot be determined without considering site- and project-specific
details, the potential significance of those impacts cannot be determined generically.
This is a Category 2 issue.
- Because of refurbishment-related population increases, impacts on housing
could be of moderate or large significance at sites located in rural and remote
areas, at sites located in areas that have experienced extremely slow population
growth (and thus slow or no growth in housing), or where growth control measures
that limit housing development are in existence or have recently been lifted.
This is a Category 2 issue.
- Tax impacts, which involve small to moderate increases in the direct and
indirect tax revenues paid to local jurisdictions, are considered beneficial
in all cases.
- In the area of public services, in-migrating workers could induce impacts
of small to large significance to education, with the larger impacts expected
to occur in sparsely populated areas. Impacts of small to moderate significance
may occur to public utilities at some sites. Transportation impacts could be
of large significance at some sites. These socioeconomic issues are Category 2.
- The impacts of refurbishment on other public services (public safety, social
services, and tourism and recreation) are expected to be of small significance
at all sites. No additional mitigation measures beyond those implemented during
the current license term would be warranted because mitigation would be costly
and the benefits would be small. These are Category 1 issues.
- In-migrating workers could induce impacts of small to moderate significance
to off-site land use. The larger impacts are expected to occur in sparsely populated
areas. This is a Category 2 issue.
- Based on the findings at the case study sites, refurbishment-related economic
effects would range from small benefits to moderate benefits at all nuclear
power plant sites. No adverse effects to economic structure would result from
refurbishment-related employment.
- Site-specific identification of historic and archaeological resources and
determination of impacts to them must occur during the consultation process
with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as mandated by the National
Historic Preservation Act. Impacts to historic resources could be large if the
SHPO determines that significant historic resources would be disturbed or their
historic character would be altered by plant refurbishment activities. The significance
of potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources cannot be determined
generically. This is a Category 2 issue.
- The impact on aesthetic resources is found to be of small significance at
all sites. Because there will be no readily noticeable visual intrusion, consideration
of mitigation is not warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Radiation impacts to members of the public are considered to be of small
significance because public exposures are within regulatory limits. Also, the
estimated cancer risk to the average member of the public is much less than
1 x 10-6. Because current mitigation practices have resulted in declining
public radiation doses for nearly two decades, additional mitigation is not
warranted. The impact on human health is a Category 1 issue.
- Occupational radiation exposure during refurbishment meets the ard of small
significance. Because the as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) program continues
to reduce occupational doses, no additional mitigation program is warranted.
This is a Category 1 issue.
- The significance of potential impacts to threatened and endangered species
cannot be determined generically because compliance with the Endangered Species
Act cannot be assessed without site-specific consideration of potential effects
on threatened and endangered species. This is a Category 2 issue.
Impacts of Operation
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
- It is not possible to reach a conclusion about the significance of potential
impacts to threatened and endangered species at this time because (1) the
significance of impacts on such species cannot be assessed without site- and
project-specific information that will not be available until the time of license
renewal and (2) additional species that are threatened with extinction
and that may be adversely affected by plant operations may be identified between
the present and the time of license renewal. This is a Category 2 issue.
- The staff examined nine aspects of water quality that might be affected by
power plant operations: current patterns at intake and discharge structures,
salinity gradients, temperature effects on sediment transport, altered thermal
stratification of lakes, scouring from discharged cooling water, eutrophication,
discharge of biocides, discharge of other chemical contaminants (e.g., metals),
and discharge of sanitary wastes. Open-cycle cooling systems are more likely
than other cooling systems to have such effects because they withdraw and discharge
very large volumes of water; however, the impacts for each of these effects
were found to be of small significance for all plants, regardless of cooling
system type. For each type of impact, the staff considered potential mitigation
measures but found that none were warranted because they would be costly and
would have very small environmental benefits. These are Category 1 issues.
- The staff found no potential for water use conflicts or riparian plant and
animal community impacts of moderate or large significance for plants with open-cycle
cooling systems because they are used on large water bodies. Because the potential
mitigation measures are costly and because the potential benefits are small,
the staff does not consider mitigation to be warranted. These are Category 1
issues.
- The staff found that water use conflicts and the effects of consumptive water
use on in-stream aquatic and riparian terrestrial communities could be of moderate
significance at some plants that employ cooling-tower or cooling-pond systems
because they are often located near smaller water bodies. For plants with these
cooling systems, these are Category 2 issues.
- The staff examined 12 potential effects that nuclear power plant cooling
systems may have on aquatic ecology: (1) impingement of fish; (2) entrainment
of fish (early life stages); (3) entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton;
(4) thermal discharge effects; (5) cold shock; (6) thermal plume
barriers to migrating fish; (7) premature emergence of aquatic insects;
(8) stimulation of nuisance organisms; (9) losses from predation,
parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses; (10) gas
supersaturation; (11) low dissolved oxygen in the discharge; and (12) accumulation
of contaminants in sediments or biota. Except for three potential impacts (entrainment
of fish and shellfish, impingement of fish and shellfish, and thermal discharge
effects), each of these was found to be of small significance at all plants.
Because mitigation would be costly and provide little environmental benefit,
no additional mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current
license term are warranted. These are Category 1 issues. The other three
impacts would be of small significance at all plants employing cooling-tower
cooling systems. Because mitigation would be costly and provide little environmental
benefit, no additional mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the
current license term are warranted. For those plants, these are Category 1
issues. However, the impacts may be of greater significance at some plants employing
open-cycle or cooling-pond systems; and these are Category 2 issues for
those plants.
- The staff found that groundwater use of less than 0.0063 m3/s
(100 gal/min) is of small significance because the cone of depression will not
extend beyond the site boundary. Conflicts might result from several types of
groundwater use by nuclear power plants. If groundwater conflicts arose, they
could be resolvable by deepening the affected wells, but no such mitigation
is warranted because sites producing less than 0.0063 m3/s (100 gal/min)
would not have a cone of depression that extends beyond the site boundary. This
is a Category 1 issue. Plants that extract more than 0.0063 m3/s
(100 gal/min), including plants using Ranney wells, may have groundwater
use conflicts of moderate or large significance. Groundwater use is a Category
2 issue for such plants.
- Cooling system makeup water consumption may cause groundwater use conflicts.
During times of low flow, surface water withdrawals for cooling tower makeup
from small rivers can reduce groundwater recharge. Because the significance
of such impacts cannot be determined generically, this is a Category 2
issue.
- Groundwater withdrawals could cause adverse effects on groundwater quality
by inducing intrusion of lower-quality groundwater into the aquifer. The staff
found that the significance of these potential impacts is of small significance
in all cases. Because all plants except Grand Gulf use relatively small quantities
of groundwaters and surface water intrusion at Grand Gulf would not preclude
current water uses, the staff found that mitigation was not warranted. This
is a Category 1 issue.
- Cooling ponds leak an undetermined quantity of water through the pond bottom.
Because the water in cooling ponds is elevated in salts and metals, such leakage
may contaminate groundwater. The staff found that groundwater quality impacts
of ponds that are located in salt marshes would be of small significance in
all cases because salt marshes already have poor water quality. This is a Category
1 issue. Cooling ponds that are not located in salt marshes may have groundwater
quality impacts of small, moderate, or large significance. This is a Category
2 issue.
- Small amounts of ozone and substantially smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen
are produced by transmission lines; however, ozone concentrations generated
by transmission lines are too low to cause any significant effects. The minute
amounts of oxides of nitrogen produced are also insignificant. Thus, air quality
impacts associated with the operational transmission lines during the renewal
term are expected to be of small significance at all sites. Potential mitigation
measures would be very costly and are not warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- The potential impact of cooling tower drift on crops and ornamental vegetation
arising from operations during the license renewal term is expected to be of
small significance for all nuclear plants. No mitigation measures beyond those
implemented during the current license term are warranted because there have
been no measurable effects on crops or ornamental vegetation from cooling tower
drift. This is a Category 1 issue.
- The impact of cooling towers on natural plant communities should continue
not to result in measurable degradation as a result of license renewal and will
therefore be of small significance. Because the impacts of cooling tower drift
on native plants are expected to be small and because potential mitigation measures
would be costly, no mitigation measures beyond those during the current term
license would be warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Bird mortality from collision with power lines associated with nuclear plants
is of small significance for all plants because bird mortality is expected to
remain a small fraction of total collision mortality associated with all types
of man-made objects. Because the numbers of birds killed from collision with
cooling towers are not large enough to affect local population stability or
species function within the ecosystem, consideration of further mitigation is
not warranted. Both bird collision with power lines and bird collision with
cooling towers are Category 1 issues.
- Because no threat to the stability of local wildlife populations or vegetation
communities is found for any cooling pond, the impacts are found to be of small
significance. Potential mitigation measures would include excluding wildlife
(e.g., birds) from contaminated ponds, converting to a dry cooling system, or
reducing plant output during fogging or icing conditions. The impacts are found
to be so minor that consideration of additional mitigation measures is not warranted.
These effects of cooling ponds are so minor and so localized that cumulative
impacts are not a concern. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Maintaining power-line right-of-ways (ROWs) causes fluctuations in wildlife
populations, but the long-term effects are of small significance. The staff
found that bird collisions with transmission lines are of small significance.
Also, transmission line maintenance and repair would have impacts of only small
significance on floodplains and wetlands. In each case, the staff found that
potential mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current license
term would be costly and provide little environmental benefit, and thus are
not warranted. These are Category 1 issues.
- Wildlife, livestock, and plants residing in power-line electromagnetic fields
(EMF) apparently grow, survive, and reproduce as well as expected in the absence
of EMF. The potential impact of EMF on terrestrial resources during the license
renewal term is considered to be of small significance for all plants. Because
the impact is of small significance and because mitigation measures could create
additional environmental impacts and would be costly, no mitigation measures
beyond those implemented during the current term license would be warranted.
This is a Category 1 issue.
- Land use restrictions are necessary within transmission-line ROWs. The staff
found these impacts to be of small significance at all sites. Mitigation beyond
that imposed when ROWs were established might include relocating the transmission
line. The staff concluded that such mitigation would not be warranted because
it would be very costly and provide little environmental benefit. This is a
Category 1 issue.
- During the license renewal term, the radiation dose commitment to the total
worker population is projected to increase less than 5 percent at nuclear
power plants under the typical scenario and less than 8 percent at any
plant under the conservative scenario. The present operating experience results
in about 30,000 person-rem/year for all licensed plants combined. After the
period of refurbishment, routine operating conditions are expected to result
in 32,000 person-rem/year for all plants combined. The risk associated with
occupational radiation exposures after license renewal is expected to be of
small significance at all plants. No mitigation measures beyond those implemented
during the current license term are warranted because the existing ALARA process
continues to be effective in reducing radiation doses. This is a Category 1
issue.
- Among the 150 million people who live within 50 miles of a U.S. nuclear power
plant, about 30 million will die of spontaneous cancer unrelated to radiation
exposure from nuclear power plants. This number is compared with approximately
5 calculated fatalities associated with potential nuclear-power-plant-induced
cancer. The estimated annual cancer risk to the average individual is less than
1 x 10-6. Public exposure to radiation during the license
renewal term is of small significance at all sites, and no mitigation measures
beyond those implemented during the current license term are warranted because
current mitigation practices have resulted in declining public radiation doses
and are expected to continue to do so. This is a Category 1 issue.
- The significance of potential for electrical shock from charges induced by
transmission lines that may occur during the license renewal term cannot be
evaluated generically because no National Electric Safety Code (NESC) review
was performed for some of the earlier licensed plants. For those that underwent
an NESC review, a change in the transmission line voltage may have been made
since issuance of the initial operating license, or changes in land use since
issuance of the original license could have occurred. This is a Category 2 issue.
- There is no consensus among scientists on whether 60-Hz EMF have a measurable
human health impact. Because of inconclusive scientific evidence, the chronic
effects of EMF would be not be categorized as either a Category 1 or 2 issue.
If NRC finds that a consensus has been reached that there are adverse health
effects, all license renewal applicants will have to address EMF effects in
the license renewal process.
- Occupational health questions related to thermophilic organisms like Legionella
are currently resolved using proven industrial hygiene principles to minimize
worker exposures to these organisms in mists of cooling towers. Adverse occupational
health effects associated with microorganisms are expected to be of small significance
at all sites. Aside from continued application of accepted industrial hygiene
procedures, no additional mitigation measures beyond those implemented during
the current license term are warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- Thermophilic organisms may or may not be influenced by operation of nuclear
power plants. The issue is largely unstudied. However, NRC recognizes a potential
health problem stemming from heated effluents. Public health questions require
additional consideration for the 25 plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals,
or small rivers because the operation of these plants may significantly enhance
the presence of thermophilic organisms. The data for these sites are not now
at hand, and it is impossible with current knowledge to predict the level of
thermophilic organism enhancement at any given site. Thus, the impacts are not
known and are site specific. Therefore, the magnitude of the potential public
health impacts associated with thermal enhancement of N. fowleri cannot
be determined generically. This is a Category 2 issue.
- The principal noise sources at power plants (cooling towers and transformers)
do not change appreciably during the aging process. Because noise impacts have
been found to be small and generally not noticed by the public, noise impacts
are expected to be of small significance at all sites. Because noise reduction
methods would be costly, and given that there have been few complaints, no additional
mitigation measures are warranted for license renewal. This is a Category 1
issue.
- The staff examined socioeconomic effects of nuclear power plant operations
during a license renewal period. Five of these would be of small significance
at all sites: education, public safety, social services, recreation and tourism,
and aesthetics. Because mitigation measures beyond those implemented during
the current license term are costly and would offer little benefit, no additional
mitigation measures are warranted. These are Category 1 issues. Four of the
socioeconomic effects were found to have moderate or large significance at some
sites: housing, transportation, public utilities (especially water supply),
and off-site land use. These are Category 2 issues. In addition, the statute
(National Historic Preservation Act) requires consultation; thus historic and
archaeological resources are Category 2 issues.
Accidents
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
- The environmental impacts of postulated accidents were evaluated for the
license renewal period in GEIS Chapter 5. All plants have had a previous
evaluation of the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents. In addition,
the licensee will be required to maintain acceptable design and performance
criteria throughout the renewal period. Therefore, the calculated releases from
design-basis accidents would not be expected to change. Since the consequences
of these events are evaluated for the hypothetical maximally exposed individual
at the time of licensing, changes in the plant environment will not affect these
evaluations. Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of
design-basis accidents are of small significance for all plants. Because the
environmental impacts of design basis accidents are of small significance and
because additional measures to reduce such impacts would be costly, the staff
concludes that no mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current
term license would be warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
- The staff concluded that the generic analysis of severe accidents applies
to all plants and that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric
releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal
and economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance for all plants.
However, not all plants have performed a site-specific analysis of measures
that could mitigate severe accidents. Consequently, severe accidents are a Category
2 issue for plants that have not performed a site-specific consideration of
severe accident mitigation and submitted that analysis for Commission review.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Management of Waste
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
- The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium
fuel cycle have been reviewed. The review included a discussion of the values
presented in Table S-3, an assessment of the release and impact of
222Rn and of 99Tc, and a review of the regulatory standards
and experience of fuel cycle facilities. For the purpose of assessing the radiological
impacts of license renewal, the Commission uses the standard that the impacts
are of small significance if doses and releases do not exceed permissible levels
in the Commission's regulation. Given the available information regarding the
compliance of fuel-cycle facilities with applicable regulatory requirements,
the Commission has concluded the actual impacts of the fuel cycle are at or
below existing regulatory limits. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that
individual radiological impacts of the fuel cycle (other than the disposal of
spent fuel and high-level waste) are small. With respect to the nonradiological
impact of the uranium fuel cycle, data concerning land requirements, water requirements,
the use of fossil fuel, gaseous effluent, liquid effluent, and tailings solutions
and solids, all listed in Table S-3, have been reviewed
to determine the significance of the environmental impacts of a power reactor
operating an additional 20 years. The nonradiological environmental impacts
attributable to the relicensing of an individual power reactor are found to
be of small significance. The individual radiological and the nonradiological
effects of the uranium fuel cycle are Category 1 issues.
The radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle on human populations over
time (collective effects) have been considered within the framework of Table
S-3. The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from
the fuel cycle, high-level-waste and spent-fuel disposal excepted, is calculated
to be about 14,800 man-rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year
power-reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon
releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large
populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include
many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside
the United States. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer
fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses
have some statistical adverse health effect that will not ever be mitigated
(for example, no cancer cure in the next thousand years) and that these dose
projections over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions
are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that
there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the
doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits and even smaller fractions
of natural background exposure to the same populations. No standards exist that
can be used to reach a conclusion as to the significance of the magnitude of
the collective radiological effects. Nevertheless, some judgment as to the regulatory
NEPA implication of this issue should be made, and it makes no sense to repeat
the same judgment in every case. 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 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission
has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of
the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.
There are no current regulatory limits for off-site releases of radionuclides
from high-level-waste and spent-fuel disposal at the current candidate repository
site at Yucca Mountain. If we assume that limits are developed along the lines
of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report and that, in accordance with
the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, a repository can and likely will
be developed at some site that will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually
all individuals will be 100 mrem/year or less. However, while the Commission
has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is
considerable uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository
application has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the
models used to evaluate possible pathways to the human environment. The National
Academy report indicates that 100 mrem/year should be considered as a starting
point for limits for individual doses but notes that some measure of consensus
exists among national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction
of the 100 mrem/year. The lifetime individual risk from 100-mrem/year dose limit
is about 3 x 10-3. Doses to populations from disposal
cannot now (or possibly ever) be estimated without very great uncertainty. Estimating
cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic.
The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the
integrity of a deep geologic repository have been evaluated by the Department
of Energy (DOE) and the NRC, and other federal agencies have expended considerable
effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high-level-waste
repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More
meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible in the future as
more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect
to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed
by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential
new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative population
impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view that
protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository
at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191
generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk
to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository,
assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under
consideration. The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population
by imposing "containment requirements" that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive
material released over 10,000 years. The cumulative release limits are based
on EPA's population impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer deaths worldwide for
a 100,000-metric tonne (MTHM) repository.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty surrounding the effects of the disposal
of spent fuel and high-level waste, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA
implications of these matters should be made, and it makes no sense to repeat
the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account,
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 should
be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level
of significance for the impacts of spent-fuel and high-level-waste disposal,
this issue is considered Category 1.
- The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from the transportation
of fuel and waste attributable to license renewal of a power reactor have been
reviewed. Environmental impact data for transportation are provided in Table S-4. The estimated radiological effects are
within the Commission's regulatory standards. Radiological impacts of transportation
are therefore found to be of small significance when they are within the range
of impact parameters identified in Table S-4. The
nonradiological impacts are those from periodic shipments of fuel and waste
by individual trucks or rail cars and thus would result in infrequent and localized
minor contributions to traffic density. These nonradiological impacts are found
to be small when they are within the range of impact parameters identified in
Table S-4. Programs designed to reduce risk, which
are already in place, provide for adequate mitigation. Table
S-4 should continue to be the basis for case-by-case evaluations of transportation
impacts of spent fuel until such time as detailed analysis of the environmental
impacts of transportation to the Yucca Mountain repository becomes available.
Transportation of fuel and waste is a Category 2 issue.
- The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from the storage
and disposal of low-level radiological waste attributable to license renewal
of a power reactor have been reviewed. The comprehensive regulatory controls
that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure
that the radiological impacts to the environment will remain small during the
term of the renewed license. The maximum additional on-site land that may be
required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and
associated impacts will be small. Nonradiological environmental impacts on air
and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiological environmental
impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste from any individual plants
at licensed sites are small. The need for the consideration of mitigation alternatives
within the context of renewal of a power reactor license has been considered,
and the Commission concludes that its regulatory requirements already in place
provide adequate mitigation incentives for on-site storage of low-level waste
and that, for off-site disposal, mitigation would be a site-specific consideration
in the licensing of each facility. In addition, the Commission concludes that
there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity
will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent
with NRC decommissioning requirements. Low-level waste is a Category 1 issue.
- The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from the storage
and disposal of mixed waste attributable to license renewal of a power reactor
have been reviewed. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities
and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well
as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment
at all plants. License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk
to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The
radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal
of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. The maximum
additional on-site land that may be required for mixed waste is a small fraction
of that needed for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license,
and associated impacts will be small. Nonradiological environmental impacts
on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiological environmental
impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plants at licensed
sites are small. The need for the consideration of mitigation alternatives within
the context of renewal of a power reactor license has been considered, and the
Commission concludes that its regulatory requirements already in place provide
adequate mitigation incentives for on-site storage of mixed waste and that,
for off-site disposal, mitigation would be a site-specific consideration in
the licensing of each facility. In addition, the Commission concludes that there
is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be
made available when needed for faculties to be decommissioned consistent with
NRC decommissioning requirements. Mixed waste is a Category 1 issue.
- The Commission's waste confidence finding at 10 CFR 51.23 leaves only the
on-site storage of spent fuel during the term of plant operation as a high-level
waste storage and disposal issue at the time of license renewal. The Commission's
regulatory requirements and the experience with on-site storage of spent fuel
in fuel pools and dry storage have been reviewed. Within the context of a license
renewal review and determination, the Commission finds that there is ample basis
to conclude that continued storage of existing spent fuel and storage of spent
fuel generated during the license renewal period can be accomplished safely
and without significant environmental impacts. Radiological impacts will be
well within regulatory limits; thus radiological impacts of on-site storage
meet the standard for a conclusion of small impact. The nonradiological environmental
impacts have been shown to be not significant; thus they are classified as small.
The overall conclusion for on-site storage of spent fuel during the term of
a renewed license is that the environmental impacts will be small for each plant.
The need for the consideration of mitigation alternatives within the context
of renewal of a power reactor license has been considered, and the Commission
concludes that its regulatory requirements already in place provide adequate
mitigation incentives for on-site storage of spent fuel. On-site storage of
spent fuel during the term of a renewed operating license is a Category 1 issue.
- The environmental impacts from the storage and disposal of nonradiological
waste attributable to the license renewal of a power reactor have been reviewed.
Regulatory and operational trends suggest a gradual decrease in quantities generated
annually and the impacts during the terms of renewed licenses. Facilities and
procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at
all plants. Consequently, the generation and management of solid nonradioactive
waste during the term of a renewed license is anticipated to result in only
small impacts to the environment. Because the facilities and procedures that
are in place are expected to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at
each plant, additional mitigative measures are not a consideration in the context
of a license renewal review. Nonradiological waste is a Category 1 issue.
Decommissioning
[ Prev | Next | Table of Contents
]
- Decommissioning after a 20-year license renewal would increase the occupational
dose no more than 0.1 person-rem (compared with 7,000 to 14,000 person-rem for
DECON decommissioning at 40 years) and the public dose by a negligible
amount. License renewal would not increase to any appreciable extent the quantity
or classification of LLW generated by decommissioning. Air quality, water quality,
and ecological impacts of decommissioning would not change as a result of license
renewal. There is considerable uncertainty about the cost of decommissioning;
however, while license renewal would not be expected to change the ultimate
cost of decommissioning, it would reduce the present value of the cost. The
socioeconomic effects of decommissioning will depend on the magnitude of the
decommissioning effort, the size of the community, and the other economic activities
at the time, but the impacts will not be increased by decommissioning at the
end of a 20-year license renewal instead of at the end of 40 years of operation.
Incremental radiation doses, waste management, air quality, water quality, ecological,
and socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning due to operations during a 20-year
license renewal term would be of small significance. No mitigation measures
beyond those provided by ALARA are warranted within the context of the license
renewal process. The impacts of license renewal on radiation doses, waste management,
air quality, water quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomics impacts
from decommissioning are Category 1 issues.