| Issue
| Category
2
| Finding
3
| Plant parameter envelope/site parameter
envelope values and assumptions
4
|
|---|
| Land Use
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Onsite Land Use | 1 | SMALL | The proposed project, including any associated land uses, complies with NRC siting regulations in 10 CFR part 100. The site size is 100 acres [ac] (40.5 hectares [ha]) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance includes 30 ac (12 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance includes no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. The proposed project complies with the site's zoning and is consistent with any relevant land use plans or comprehensive plans. The site would not be situated closer than 0.5 miles [mi] (0.8 kilometers [km]) to existing residential areas or 1.0 mi (1.6 km) to sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. The site does not have a history of past industrial use capable of leaving a legacy of contamination requiring cleanup to protect human health and the environment. The total wetland loss from use of the site, including use of any offsite rights-of-way (ROWs), would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management would be used. Compliance with any mitigation measures established through zoning ordinances, local building permits, site use permits, or other land use authorizations.
|
| Offsite Land Use | 1 | SMALL | New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 feet [ft] (30.5 meters [m]) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No new offsite ROW would be situated closer than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) to existing residential areas or sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. No existing ROWs in residential areas would be used or widened to accommodate project features. No ROW has a history of past industrial use capable of leaving a legacy of contamination requiring cleanup to protect human health and the environment. The total wetland loss from use of the entire project, including use of the site and any offsite ROWs, would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). BMPs for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management would be used. Compliance with any mitigation measures established through zoning ordinances, local building permits, site use permits, or other land use authorizations.
|
| Impacts to Prime and Unique Farmland | 1 | SMALL | The site size is (40.5 ha) or less. The site does not contain any prime or unique farmland or other farmland of statewide or local importance; or the site does not abut any agricultural land and is not situated in a predominantly agricultural landscape.
|
| Coastal Zone and Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) | 1 | SMALL | The site is not situated in any designated coastal zone, or the applicant can demonstrate that the affected State(s) have or will issue a consistency determination or other indication that the project complies with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Onsite Land Use | 1 | SMALL | The proposed project, including any associated land uses, complies with NRC siting regulations in 10 CFR part 100. The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 part per trillion [ppt] salinity). BMPs for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management would be used.
|
| Offsite Land Use | 1 | SMALL | New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. BMPs for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management would be used (wherever land is disturbed during the course of ROW management).
|
| Visual Resources
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Visual Impacts in Site and Vicinity | 1 | SMALL | The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The site would not be situated closer than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) to existing residential areas or 1 mi (1.6 km) to sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. The maximum proposed building and structure height is no more than 50 ft (15.2 m), except that the maximum height is 200 ft (61 m) for proposed meteorological towers and 100 ft (30.5 m) for transmission line poles/towers and mechanical draft cooling towers. The proposed project structures would not be visible from Federal or State parks or wilderness areas designated as Class 1 under section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7472); or as a Wild and Scenic River, a Natural Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation.
|
| Visual Impacts from Transmission Lines | 1 | SMALL | New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No transmission line structures (poles or towers) would be over 100 ft (30.5 m) in height. The new offsite ROWs would not be situated closer than 1 mi (1.6 km) to existing residential areas or sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. Any proposed new structures on offsite ROWs would not be visible from Federal or State parks or wilderness areas designated as Class 1 under section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7472); or as a Wild and Scenic River, a Natural Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Visual Impacts During Operations | 1 | SMALL | The site would not be situated closer than 1 mi (1.6 km) to existing residential areas or sensitive land uses such as Federal, State, or local parks; wildlife refuges; conservation lands; Wild and Scenic Rivers; or Natural Heritage Rivers. The maximum proposed building and structure height would be no more than 50 ft (15.2 m), except that the maximum height would be 200 ft (61 m) for proposed meteorological towers and 100 ft (30.5 m) for proposed transmission line poles/towers and proposed mechanical draft cooling towers. The proposed project structures would not be visible from Federal or State parks or wilderness areas designated as Class 1 under section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7472); or as a Wild and Scenic River, a Natural Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation. If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity).
|
| Meteorology and Air Quality
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Dust During Construction | 1 | SMALL | The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance is 30 ac (12.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands and the temporary footprint of disturbance is an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated land. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no longer than 1 mi (1.6 km) and have a maximum ROW width of 100 ft (30.5 m). Criteria pollutants emitted from vehicles and standby power equipment during construction are less than Clean Air Act de minimis levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if the site is located in a nonattainment or maintenance area, or the site is located in an attainment area. The site is not located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value. The level of service (LOS) determination for affected roadways does not change. Mitigation necessary to rely on the generic analysis includes implementation of BMPs for dust control. Compliance with air permits under State and Federal laws that address the impact of air emissions during construction.
|
| Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Construction | 1 | SMALL | Greenhouse gases emitted by equipment and vehicles during the 97-year greenhouse gas life-cycle period would be equal to or less than 2,534,000 metric tons [MT] of carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2(e)]. Appendix H of NUREG-2249, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors” contains the NRC's methodology for developing this value, which includes emissions from construction, operation, and decommissioning. As long as this total value is met, the impacts for the life cycle of the project and the individual phases of the project are determined to be SMALL.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Emissions of Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants during Operation | 1 | SMALL | Criteria pollutants emitted from vehicles and standby power equipment during operations are less than Clean Air Act de minimis levels set by the EPA if located in a nonattainment or maintenance area. The site is not located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value. The LOS determination for affected roadways does not change. Compliance with air permits under State and Federal laws that address the impact of air emissions. Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions will be within regulatory limits.
|
| Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Operation | 1 | SMALL | Greenhouse gases emitted by equipment and vehicles during the 97-year greenhouse gas life-cycle period would be equal to or less than 2,534,000 MT of CO2(e). Appendix H of NUREG-2249 contains the NRC's methodology for developing this value, which includes emissions from construction, operation, and decommissioning. As long as this total value is met, the impacts for the life cycle of the project and the individual phases of the project are determined to be SMALL.
|
| Cooling-System Emissions | 1 | SMALL | If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft. Cooling towers would be equipped with drift eliminators. The site is not located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value. Mechanical draft cooling towers would be less than 100 ft (30.5 m) tall. Makeup water would be fresh (with a salinity less than 1 ppt). Operation of cooling towers is assumed to be subject to State permitting requirements. HAP emissions would be within regulatory limits. No existing residential areas within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the site.
|
| Emissions of Ozone and Nitrogen Oxides during Transmission Line Operation | 1 | SMALL | The transmission line voltage would be no higher than 1,200 kilovolts [kV].
|
| Water Resources
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Surface Water Use Conflicts during Construction | 1 | SMALL | Total Plant Water Demand Less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gallons per minute [gpm] (0.379 cubic meters per second [m
3/s]). If water is obtained from a flowing water body, then the following plant parameter envelope/site parameter envelope (PPE/SPE) parameter and associated assumptions also apply: Average plant water withdrawals do not reduce discharge from the flowing water body by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and do not prevent the maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. The 95 percent exceedance flow accounts for existing and planned future withdrawals. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. If water is obtained from a non-flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameter and associated value and assumptions also apply: Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of America, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of water required by the plant. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. The Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination is obtainable, if applicable, for the non-flowing water body.
|
| Groundwater Use Conflicts due to Excavation Dewatering | 1 | SMALL | The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s) (the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary.
|
| Groundwater Use Conflicts due to Construction-Related Groundwater Withdrawals | 1 | SMALL | Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer (SSA), or from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special protections to limit drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements.
|
| Water Quality Degradation due to Construction-Related Discharges | 1 | SMALL | The permanent footprint of disturbance includes 30 ac (12.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance includes no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. Adherence to requirements in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the EPA or State permitting program, and any other applicable permits. The long-term groundwater dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s). Dewatering discharge has minimal effects on the quality of the receiving water body (e.g., as demonstrated by conformance with NPDES permit requirements). There are no planned discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection), including stormwater discharge.
|
| Water Quality Degradation due to Inadvertent Spills during Construction | 1 | SMALL | The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance includes 30 ac (12.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance includes no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. Applicable requirements and guidance on spill prevention and control are followed, including relevant BMPs and Integrated Pollution Prevention Plans (IPPPs).
|
| Water Quality Degradation due to Groundwater Withdrawal | 1 | SMALL | Groundwater Withdrawal for Excavation or Foundation Dewatering. The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s) (the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Groundwater Withdrawal for Plant Uses Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated SSA, or from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special protections to limit drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements.
|
| Water Quality Degradation due to Offshore or In-Water Construction Activities | 1 | SMALL | In-water structures (including intake and discharge structures) are constructed in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Adverse effects of building activities controlled and localized using BMPs such as installation of turbidity curtains or installation of cofferdams. Construction duration would be less than 7 years.
|
| Water Use Conflict Due to Plant Municipal Water Demand | 1 | SMALL | The amount available from municipal water systems exceeds the amount of municipal water required by the plant (gpm). Municipal Water Availability accounts for all existing and planned future uses. An agreement or permit for the usage amount can be obtained from the municipality.
|
| Degradation of Water Quality from Plant Effluent Discharges to Municipal Systems | 1 | SMALL | Municipal Systems' Available Capacity to Receive and Treat Plant Effluent accounts for all existing and reasonably foreseeable future discharges. Agreement to discharge to a municipal treatment system is obtainable.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Surface Water Use Conflicts during Operation due to Water Withdrawal from Flowing Waterbodies | 1 | SMALL | Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m
3/s). Average plant water withdrawals do not reduce discharge from the flowing water body by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and do not prevent the maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. The 95 percent exceedance flow accounts for existing and planned future withdrawals. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed.
|
| Surface Water Use Conflicts during Operation due to Water Withdrawal from Non-flowing Waterbodies | 1 | SMALL | Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m
3/s). Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of America, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of water required by the plant. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) consistency determination is obtainable, if applicable.
|
| Groundwater Use Conflicts Due to Building Foundation Dewatering | 1 | SMALL | The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s) (the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary.
|
| Groundwater Use Conflicts Due to Groundwater Withdrawals for Plant Uses | 1 | SMALL | Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated SSA, or from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special protections to limit drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements.
|
| Surface Water Quality Degradation Due to Physical Effects from Operation of Intake and Discharge Structures | 1 | SMALL | Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m
3/s). Adhere to best available technology requirements of CWA 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326). Operated in compliance with CWA section 316(b) and 40 CFR 125.83, including compliance with monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 125.87 and 40 CFR 125.88, respectively (40 CFR part 125). Best available technologies are employed in the design and operation of intake and discharge structures to minimize alterations due to scouring, sediment transport, increased turbidity, and erosion. Adherence to requirements in NPDES permits issued by the EPA or a given State. If water is obtained from a flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameter and associated value also apply: The average rate of plant withdrawal does not exceed 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow for the water body. If water is obtained from a non-flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameters and associated values and assumptions also apply: Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of America, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of water required by the plant.
|
| Surface Water Quality Degradation Due to Changes in Salinity Gradients Resulting from Withdrawals | 1 | SMALL | Total plant water demand is less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m
3/s). If water is obtained from a flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameter and associated assumptions also apply: Average plant water withdrawals do not reduce discharge from the flowing water body by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and do not prevent the maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. The 95 percent exceedance flow accounts for existing and planned future withdrawals. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. If withdrawals are from an estuary or intertidal zone, then changes to salinity gradients are within the normal tidal or seasonal movements that characterize the water body. If water is obtained from a non-flowing water body, then the following PPE/SPE parameter and associated values and assumptions also apply: Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of America, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of water required by the plant. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional, or Tribal governing authorities. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed. If withdrawals are from an estuary or intertidal zone, then changes to salinity gradients are within the normal tidal or seasonal movements that characterize the water body.
|
| Surface Water Quality Degradation Due to Chemical and Thermal Discharges | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC determined that a generic analysis to determine operational impacts on surface water quality due to chemical and thermal discharges was not possible because (1) some States may impose effluent constituent limitations more stringent that those required by the EPA, (2) limitations imposed on effluent constituents may vary among States, and (3) the establishment of a mixing zone may be required. Because all of these issues related to degradation of surface water quality from chemical and thermal discharges require consideration of project-specific information, a project-specific assessment should be performed in the supplemental environmental impact statement.
|
| Groundwater Quality Degradation Due to Plant Discharges | 1 | SMALL | The plant is outside the recharge area for any EPA-designated SSA, or any aquifer designated to have special protections by a State, Tribal, or regional authority. The plant is outside the wellhead protection area or designated contributing area for any public water supply well. There are no planned discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection).
|
| Water Quality Degradation due to Inadvertent Spills and Leaks during Operation | 1 | SMALL | Applicable requirements and guidance on spill prevention and control are followed, including relevant BMPs and IPPPs. There are no planned discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection), including stormwater discharge. A groundwater protection program conforming to currently applicable industry guidance is established and followed. The site size is 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. Use of BMPs for soil erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management. Adherence to requirements in NPDES permits issued by the EPA or a given State, and any other applicable permits.
|
| Water Quality Degradation due to Groundwater Withdrawals | 1 | SMALL | The long-term dewatering withdrawal rate is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s) (the initial rate may be larger). Dewatering results in negligible groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Groundwater withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) is less than or equal to 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s). Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft (0.3 m) of groundwater level drawdown at the site boundary. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated SSA, or from any aquifer designated by a State, Tribe, or regional authority to have special protections to limit drawdown. Withdrawals meet any applicable State or local permit requirements.
|
| Water Use Conflict from Plant Municipal Water Demand | 1 | SMALL | Usage amount is within the existing capacity of the system(s), accounting for all existing and planned future uses. An agreement or permit for the usage amount can be obtained from the municipality.
|
| Degradation of Water Quality from Plant Effluent Discharges to Municipal Systems | 1 | SMALL | Municipal Systems' Available Capacity to Receive and Treat Plant Effluent accounts for all existing and reasonably foreseeable future discharges. Agreement to discharge to a municipal treatment system is obtainable.
|
| Terrestrial Ecology
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Permanent and Temporary Loss, Conversion, Fragmentation, and Degradation of Habitats | 1 | SMALL | The permanent footprint of disturbance would include 30 ac (12.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance would include no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. Temporarily disturbed lands would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation once the lands are no longer needed to support building activities. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. The footprint of disturbance (permanent and temporary) would contain no ecologically sensitive features such as floodplains, shorelines, riparian vegetation, late-successional vegetation, land specifically designated for conservation, or habitat known to be potentially suitable for one or more Federal or State threatened or endangered species. Total wetland impacts from use of the site and any offsite ROWs would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). Applicants would demonstrate an effort to minimize fragmentation of terrestrial habitats by using existing ROWs, or widening existing ROWs, to the extent practicable. BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management.
|
| Permanent and Temporary Loss and Degradation of Wetlands | 1 | SMALL | Applicant would provide a delineation of potentially impacted wetlands, including wetlands not under CWA jurisdiction. Total wetland impacts from use of the site and any offsite ROWs would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). If activities regulated under the CWA are performed, those activities would receive approval under one or more nationwide permits (NWPs) (33 CFR part 330) or other general permits recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Temporary groundwater withdrawals for excavation or foundation dewatering would not exceed a long-term rate of 50 gpm (0.003 m
3/s). Applicants would be able to demonstrate that the temporary groundwater withdrawals would not substantially alter the hydrology of wetlands connected to the same groundwater resource. Any required State or local permits for wetland impacts would be obtained. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management.
|
| Effects of Building Noise on Wildlife | 1 | SMALL | Noise generation would not exceed 85 A-weighted decibels [dBA] 50 ft (15.2 m) from the source.
|
| Effects of Vehicular Collisions on Wildlife | 1 | SMALL | The site size would be 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. The permanent footprint of disturbance would include 30 ac (12.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands, and the temporary footprint of disturbance would include no more than an additional 20 ac (8.1 ha) or less of vegetated lands. There would be no decreases in the LOS designation for affected roadways. The licensee would communicate with Federal and State wildlife agencies and implement mitigation actions recommended by those agencies to reduce potential for vehicular injury to wildlife.
|
| Bird Collisions and Injury from Structures and Transmission Lines | 1 | SMALL | The site size would be 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No transmission line structures (poles or towers) would be more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height. Licensees would implement common mitigation measures such as those provided by the American Bird Conservancy for buildings, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for towers, and by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) for transmission lines.
|
| Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action.
|
| Important Species and Habitats—Other Important Species and Habitats | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies regarding wildlife and plants and implement mitigation recommendations of those agencies.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Permanent and Temporary Loss or Disturbance of Habitats | 1 | SMALL | Temporarily disturbed lands would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation once the lands are no longer needed to support building activities. The total wetland loss from site disturbance over the operational life of the plant would be no more than 0.5 ac (0.2 ha). Any State or local permits for wetland impacts would be obtained. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other wetland permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management.
|
| Effects of Operational Noise on Wildlife | 1 | SMALL | Noise generation would not exceed 85 dBA 50 ft (15.2 m) from the source. There would be no decreases in the LOS designation for affected roadways. The licensee would communicate with Federal and State wildlife agencies and implement mitigation actions recommended by those agencies to reduce potential for vehicular injury to wildlife.
|
| Effects of Vehicular Collisions on Wildlife | 1 | SMALL | Noise generation would not exceed 85 dBA 50 ft (15.2 m) from the source. There would be no decreases in the LOS designation for affected roadways. The licensee would communicate with Federal and State wildlife agencies and implement mitigation actions recommended by those agencies to reduce potential for vehicular injury to wildlife.
|
| Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota doses would be below International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) guidelines.
|
| Cooling-Tower Operational Impacts on Vegetation | 1 | SMALL | If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity).
|
| Bird Collisions and Injury from Structures and Transmission Lines | 1 | SMALL | The site size would be 100 ac (40.5 ha) or less. New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. No transmission line structures (poles or towers) would be more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height. Licensees would implement common mitigation measures such as those provided by the American Bird Conservancy for buildings, by the FWS for towers, and by the APLIC for transmission lines.
|
| Bird Electrocutions from Transmission Lines | 1 | SMALL | New offsite ROWs for transmission lines, pipelines, or access roads would be no more than 100 ft (30.5 m) in width and total no more than 1 mi (1.6 km) in length. Common mitigation measures, such as those recommended by APLIC, would be implemented.
|
| Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources | 1 | SMALL | Total plant water demand would be less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m
3/s). If water is withdrawn from flowing water bodies, average plant water withdrawals would not reduce flow by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and would not prevent maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. Any water withdrawals would be in compliance with any EPA or State permitting requirements. Applicants would be able to demonstrate that hydroperiod changes are within historical or seasonal fluctuations.
|
| Effects of Transmission Line ROW Management on Terrestrial Resources | 1 | SMALL | Vegetation in transmission line ROWs would be managed following a plan consisting of integrated vegetation management practices. All ROW maintenance work would be performed in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Herbicides would be applied by licensed applicators, and only if in compliance with applicable manufacturer label instructions.
|
| Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna | 1 | SMALL | Based on the literature review in the License Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement (LR GEIS), the NRC determined that this is a Category 1 issue and impacts would be SMALL regardless of the length, location, or size of the transmission lines. The NRC did not recommend any mitigation in the LR GEIS; hence, none is needed here. The NRC did not rely on any PPE and SPE values or assumptions in reaching this conclusion.
|
| Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the ESA of 1973 | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action.
|
| Important Species and Habitats—Other Important Species and Habitats | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies regarding wildlife and plants and implement mitigation recommendations of those agencies.
|
| Aquatic Ecology
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Runoff and sedimentation from construction areas | 1 | SMALL | BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control. Temporarily disturbed lands would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation once the lands are no longer needed to support building activities.
|
| Dredging and filling aquatic habitats to build intake and discharge structures | 1 | SMALL | Applicant would obtain approval, if required, under NWP 7 in 33 CFR part 330. Applicant would implement any mitigation required under NWP 7 in 33 CFR part 330. Applicant would minimize any temporarily disturbed shoreline and riparian lands needed to build the intake and discharge structures and restore those areas with regionally indigenous vegetation suited to those landscape settings once the disturbances are no longer needed. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control.
|
| Building transmission lines, pipelines, and access roads across surface waterbodies | 1 | SMALL | If activities regulated under the CWA are performed, they would receive approval under one or more NWPs (33 CFR part 330) or other general permits recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pipelines would be extended under (or over) surface through directional drilling without physically disturbing shorelines or bottom substrate. Access roads would span streams and other surface waterbodies with a bridge or ford, and any fords would include placement and maintenance of matting to minimize physical disturbance of shorelines and bottom substrates. No access roads would be extended across stream channels over 10 ft (3 m) in width (at ordinary high water). Any bridges or fords would be removed once no longer needed, and any exposed soils or substrate would be revegetated using regionally indigenous vegetation appropriate to the landscape setting. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control.
|
| Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.1801 et seq.) | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) require consultations for each licensing action that may affect regulated resources.
|
| Important species and habitats—Other Important Species and Habitats | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies regarding aquatic fish, wildlife, and plants and implement mitigation recommendation of those agencies.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Stormwater runoff | 1 | SMALL | Preparation, approval by applicable regulatory agencies, and implementation of a stormwater management plan. Obtaining and compliance with any required permits for the storage and use of hazardous materials issued by Federal and State agencies under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). BMPs would be used for stormwater management.
|
| Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota doses would be below IAEA and NCRP guidelines.
|
| Effects of refurbishment on aquatic biota | 1 | SMALL | BMPs would be used for erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management. Exposed soils would be restored as soon as possible with regionally indigenous vegetation.
|
| Effects of maintenance dredging on aquatic biota | 1 | SMALL | If activities regulated under the CWA are performed, those activities would receive approval under one or more NWPs (33 CFR part 330) or other general permits recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any mitigation measures indicated in the NWPs or other permits would be implemented. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control.
|
| Impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources | 1 | SMALL | Vegetation in transmission line ROWs would be managed following a plan consisting of integrated vegetation management practices. All ROW maintenance work would be performed in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Herbicides would be applied by licensed applicators, and only if in compliance with applicable manufacturer label instructions. BMPs would be used for erosion and sediment control.
|
| Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms | 1 | SMALL | Intakes would comply with regulatory requirements established by EPA in 40 CFR 125.84 to be protective of fish and shellfish. Best available control technology would be employed in the design of intakes to minimize entrainment and impingement, such as use of screens and intake rates recognized to minimize effects.
|
| Thermal impacts on aquatic biota | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC would have to first review the discharge plume analysis (as described in section 3.4) and the aquatic biota potentially present before being able to reach a conclusion regarding the possible significance of impacts to that biota.
|
| Other effects of cooling-water discharges on aquatic biota | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC would have to first review the discharge plume analysis (as described in section 3.4) and the aquatic biota potentially present before being able to reach a conclusion regarding the possible significance of impacts to that biota.
|
| Water use conflicts with aquatic resources | 1 | SMALL | If needed, cooling towers would be mechanical draft, not natural draft; less than 100 ft (30.5 m) in height; and equipped with drift eliminators. Any makeup water for the cooling towers would be fresh water (less than 1 ppt salinity). Total plant water demand would be less than or equal to a daily average of 6,000 gpm (0.379 m
3/s). If water is withdrawn from flowing waterbodies, average plant water withdrawals would not reduce flow by more than 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow and would not prevent maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements. Any water withdrawals would be in compliance with any EPA or State permitting requirements. Applicants would be able to demonstrate that hydroperiod changes are within historical or seasonal fluctuations.
|
| Important Species and Habitats—Resources Regulated under the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act | 2 | Undetermined | The NRC is unable to determine the significance of potential impacts without consideration of project-specific factors, including the specific species and habitats affected and the types of ecological changes potentially resulting from each specific licensing action. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) require consultations for each licensing action that may affect regulated resources.
|
| Important species and habitats—Other Important Species and Habitats | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would communicate with State natural resource or conservation agencies regarding aquatic fish, wildlife, and plants and implement mitigation recommendations of those agencies.
|
| Historic and Cultural Resources
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Construction impacts on historic and cultural resources | 2 | Undetermined | Impacts on historic and cultural resources are analyzed on a project-specific basis. The NRC will perform a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation as required, in accordance with 36 CFR part 800, including consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Operation impacts on historic and cultural resources | 2 | Undetermined | Impacts on historic and cultural resources are analyzed on a project-specific basis. The NRC will perform a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation as required, in accordance with 36 CFR part 800, including consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties.
|
| Environmental Hazards—Radiological Environment
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Radiological dose to construction workers | 1 | SMALL | For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements of:
—10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license
|
| | | | —10 CFR 20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults 10 CFR 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public
|
| | | | —Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20 Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.34a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents—nuclear power reactors
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.36a. Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review.
Application will be found to be in compliance by the NRC with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Occupational doses to workers | 1 | SMALL | For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements of:
|
| | | | —10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license
|
| | | | —10 CFR 20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults
|
| | | | —Appendix B of 10 CFR part 20 Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.34a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents—nuclear power reactors
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review.
Application will be found to be in compliance by the NRC with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program.
|
| Maximally exposed individual annual doses | 1 | SMALL | For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements of:
—10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license
|
| | | | —10 CFR 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public
|
| | | | —Appendix B of 10 CFR part 20 ALIs and DACs of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.34a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents—nuclear power reactors
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review.
Application will be found to be in compliance by the NRC with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program.
|
| Total population annual doses | 1 | SMALL | For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements of:
|
| | | | —10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs if issued a license
|
| | | | —10 CFR 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public
|
| | | | —Appendix B of 10 CFR part 20 ALIs and DACs of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.34a Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents—nuclear power reactors
|
| | | | —10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review. Application will be found to be in compliance by the NRC with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program.
|
| Nonhuman biota doses | 1 | SMALL | Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota doses would be below IAEA and NCRP guidelines.
|
| Environmental Hazards—Nonradiological Environment
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Building impacts of chemical, biological, and physical nonradiological hazards | 1 | SMALL | The applicant must adhere to all applicable Federal, State, local or Tribal regulatory limits and permit conditions for chemical hazards, biological hazards, and physical hazards. The applicant will follow nonradiological public and occupational health BMPs and mitigation measures, as appropriate.
|
| Building impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) | N/A | Uncertain | Studies of 60 hertz [Hz] EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. Because the state of the science is currently uncertain, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the future, the Commission finds scientific information sufficient to draw conclusions about potential human health impacts, the Commission may require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their application. Until such time, applicants are not required to submit information about this issue.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Operation impacts of chemical, biological, and physical nonradiological hazards | 1 | SMALL | The applicant must adhere to all applicable Federal, State, local or Tribal regulatory limits and permit conditions for chemical hazards, biological hazards, and physical hazards. The applicant will follow nonradiological public and occupational health BMPs and mitigation measures, as appropriate.
|
| Operation impacts of EMFs | N/A | Uncertain | Studies of 60 Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. Because the state of the science is currently uncertain, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. If, in the future, the Commission finds scientific information sufficient to draw conclusions about potential human health impacts, the Commission may require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their application. Until such time, applicants are not required to submit information about this issue.
|
| Noise
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Construction-related noise | 1 | SMALL | The noise level would be no more than 65 dBA at site boundary, unless a relevant State or local noise abatement law or ordinance sets a different threshold, which would then be the presumptive threshold for PPE purposes. If an applicant cannot meet the 65 dBA threshold through mitigation, then the applicant must obtain a variance or exception with the relevant State or local regulator. The project would implement BMPs, such as modeling, foliage planting, construction of noise buffers, and the timing of construction and/or operation activities.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Operation-related noise | 1 | SMALL | The noise level would be no more than 65 dBA at site boundary, unless a relevant State or local noise abatement law or ordinance sets a different threshold, which would then be the presumptive threshold for PPE purposes. If an applicant cannot meet the 65 dBA threshold through mitigation, then the applicant must obtain a variance or exception with the relevant State or local regulator. The project would implement BMPs, such as modeling, foliage planting, construction of noise buffers, and the timing of construction and/or operation activities.
|
| Waste Management—Radiological Waste Management
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) | 1 | SMALL | Applicants must meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 20 (e.g., 10 CFR 20.1406 and subpart K), 10 CFR part 61, 10 CFR part 71, and 10 CFR part 72. Quantities of LLRW generated at a new nuclear reactor would be less than the quantities of LLRW generated at existing nuclear power plants, which generate an average of 21,200 cubic feet [ft
3] (600 cubic meters [m
3]) and 2,000 curies [Ci] (7.4 × 1013 becquerels [Bq]) per year for boiling water reactors and half that amount for pressurized water reactors.
|
| Onsite spent nuclear fuel management | 1 | SMALL | Compliance with 10 CFR part 72.
|
| Mixed waste | 1 | SMALL | RCRA Small Quantity Generator for Mixed Waste.
|
| Waste Management—Nonradiological Waste Management
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Construction nonradiological waste | 1 | SMALL | The applicant must meet all the applicable permit conditions, regulations, and BMPs related to solid, liquid, and gaseous waste management. For hazardous waste generation, applicants must meet conformity with hazardous waste quantity generation levels in accordance with RCRA. For sanitary waste, applicants must dispose of sanitary waste in a permitted process. For mitigation measures, the applicant would perform mitigation measures to the extent practicable, such as recycling, process improvements, or the use of a less hazardous substance.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Operation nonradiological waste | 1 | SMALL | The applicant must meet all the applicable permit conditions, regulations, and BMPs related to solid, liquid, and gaseous waste management. For hazardous waste generation, applicants must meet conformity with hazardous waste quantity generation levels in accordance with RCRA. For sanitary waste, applicants must dispose of sanitary waste in a permitted process. For mitigation measures, the applicant would perform mitigation measures to the extent practicable, such as recycling, process improvements, or the use of a less hazardous substance.
|
| Postulated Accidents
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Design Basis Accidents Involving Radiological Releases | 1 | SMALL | For the exclusion area boundary, the maximum total effective dose equivalent for any 2-hour period during the radioactivity release should be calculated. For the low-population zone, the total effective dose equivalent should be calculated for the duration of the accident release (i.e., 30 days, or other duration as justified). The above calculations would compare the design basis accident doses with the dose criteria given in regulations related to the application (e.g., 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)), standard review plans (e.g., standard review plan criteria, table 1 in standard review plan section 15.0.3 of NUREG-0800), and regulatory guides, (e.g., RG 1.183), as applicable.
|
| Accidents Involving Releases of Hazardous Chemicals | 1 | SMALL | Reactor inventory of a regulated substance is less than its Threshold Quantity (TQ). TQs are found in 40 CFR 68.130, tables 1, 2, 3, and 4; and Reactor inventory of an extremely hazardous substance is less than its Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ). TPQs are found in 40 CFR part 355, appendices A and B.
|
| Severe Accidents | 1 | SMALL | Within the maximum population dose risk 95th confidence bounding value of 9.727 × 10
3 person-rem per reactor year (i.e., Indian Point Energy Center Units 2 and 3) specified in the 1996 LR GEIS and demonstrating the utilization of 10 CFR 50.155 or diverse and flexible coping strategies (FLEX) to address mitigation of beyond-design-basis events; or Within the maximum 10- and 150-mile Exposure Index at the 95th confidence bounding value of 1.896 × 10
4 and 2.864 × 10
6, respectively (i.e., Indian Point Energy Center Units 2 and 3) specified in the 1996 LR GEIS and demonstrating the utilization of 10 CFR 50.155 or FLEX to address mitigation of beyond-design-basis events; or Utilizing the source term from 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D), or the equivalent 10 CFR 52 regulation, with a non-intact containment or confinement for population density assessments under 10 CFR 100.21(h) to demonstrate a calculated total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of no greater than 1 rem over a period of 30 days and that no further mitigation is necessary because health effects are shown not to be significant or a new reactor that is co-located with an existing LWR may compare its source terms to demonstrate that the LWR's severe accident risks bounds the new reactor's risks; or Utilizing 10 CFR 50.33(g)(2) to demonstrate there is no plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone where the projected total effective dose equivalent exceeds 1 rem over 96 hours (i.e., 10 CFR 50.33(g)(2)(i)(A)) and no further mitigation is necessary because health effects are shown not to be significant.
|
| Acts of Terrorism | 1 | SMALL | The environmental impacts of acts of terrorism and sabotage only need to be addressed if a reactor facility is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
|
| Socioeconomics
|
| Construction:
| | | |
| Community Services and Infrastructure | 1 | SMALL | The housing vacancy rate in the affected economic region does not change by more than 5 percent, or at least 5 percent of the housing stock remains available after accounting for in-migrating construction workers. Student:teacher ratios in the affected economic region do not exceed locally mandated levels after including the school age children of the in-migrating worker families.
|
| Transportation Systems and Traffic | 1 | SMALL | The LOS determination for affected roadways does not change. Mitigation measures may include implementation of traffic flow management, management of shift-change timing, and encouragement of ride-sharing and use of public transportation options, such that LOS values can be maintained with the increased volumes.
|
| Economic Impacts | 1 | Beneficial | The economic impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear reactor are expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the project-specific environmental review, the NRC determines a detailed analysis of economic costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the NRC may require further information from the applicant.
|
| Tax Revenue Impacts | 1 | Beneficial | The tax revenue impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear reactor are expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the project-specific environmental review, the NRC determines a detailed analysis of tax revenue costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the NRC may require further information from the applicant.
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Community Services and Infrastructure | 1 | SMALL | The housing vacancy rate in the affected economic region does not change by more than 5 percent, or at least 5 percent of the housing stock remains available after accounting for in-migrating construction workers. Student:teacher ratios in the affected economic region do not exceed locally mandated levels after including the school age children of the in-migrating worker families.
|
| Transportation Systems and Traffic | 1 | SMALL | The LOS determination for affected roadways does not change. Mitigation measures may include implementation of traffic flow management, management of shift-change timing, and encouragement of ride-sharing and use of public transportation options, such that LOS values can be maintained with the increased volumes.
|
| Economic Impacts | 1 | Beneficial | The economic impacts of construction and operation of a nuclear reactor are expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the project-specific environmental review, the NRC determines a detailed analysis of economic costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the NRC may require further information from the applicant.
|
| Tax Revenue Impacts | 1 | Beneficial | The tax revenue impacts of construction and operation of a nuclear reactor are expected to be beneficial; therefore, this is a Category 1 issue. If, during the project-specific environmental review, the NRC determines a detailed analysis of tax revenue costs and benefits is needed for analysis of the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation, the NRC may require further information from the applicant.
|
| Fuel Cycle
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Uranium Recovery | 1 | SMALL | Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51 is expected to bound the impacts for new reactor fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248, including:
|
| | | | —Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining has lower environmental impacts than traditional mining and milling methods.
|
| | | | —Current light-water reactors (LWRs) are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in less demand for mining and milling activities.
|
| | | | —Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting mining and milling activities.
|
| | | | Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material and 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material.
|
| Uranium Conversion | 1 | SMALL | Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51 is expected to bound the impacts for new reactor fuels because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248, including: Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in less demand for conversion activities. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting conversion activities. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material and 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
|
| Enrichment | 1 | SMALL | Table S-3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248, including: Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas centrifugation, which requires less electrical usage per separative work unit. Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in less demand for enrichment activities. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting enrichment activities. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material; 10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material; 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material; and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
|
| Fuel Fabrication (excluding metal fuel and liquid-fueled molten salt) | 1 | SMALL | Table S-3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248, including: Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in fewer discharged fuel assemblies to be fabricated each year and due to longer time periods between refueling. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting fabrication. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
|
| Reprocessing | 1 | SMALL | Table S-3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248, including: Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in fewer discharged fuel assemblies to be reprocessed each year. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting reprocessing. Reprocessing capacity up to 900 metric tons of uranium [MTU]/yr. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material; 10 CFR part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities;10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material; 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material; 10 CFR part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-related Greater Than Class C Waste; and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
|
| Storage and Disposal of Radiological Wastes | 1 | SMALL | Table S-3 is expected to bound the impacts for new nuclear reactor fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248, including: Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup resulting in fewer discharged fuel assemblies to be stored and disposed. Less reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants is resulting in less gaseous effluent releases from electrical generation sources supporting storage and disposal. Waste and spent fuel inventories, as well as their associated certified spent fuel shipping and storage containers, are not significantly different from what has been considered for LWR evaluations in NUREG-2157. Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material; 10 CFR part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material; 10 CFR part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material; 10 CFR part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-related Greater Than Class C Waste; and 10 CFR part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.
|
| Transportation of Fuel and Waste
|
| Operation:
| | | |
| Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel | 1 | SMALL | The maximum annual one-way shipment distance does not exceed 59,160 km (36,760 mi). The annual shipments associated with the one-way shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 megawatts electric [MW(e)], i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor from WASH-1238. The maximum annual round-trip shipment distance does not exceed 118,320 km (73,520 mi). The annual shipments associated with the round-trip shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor from WASH-1238.
|
| Transportation of Radioactive Waste | 1 | SMALL | The maximum annual round-trip shipment distance does not exceed 293,145 km (182,152 mi). The annual shipments associated with the round-trip shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor and a shipment volume of 2.34 m
3/shipment from WASH-1238.
|
| Transportation of Irradiated Fuel | 1 | SMALL | The maximum annual one-way shipment distance does not exceed 505,393 km (314,037 mi). The annual shipments associated with the one-way shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU/shipment from WASH-1238. The maximum annual round-trip shipment distance does not exceed 1,010,786 km (628,073 mi). The annual shipments associated with the round-trip shipment distance have been normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU/shipment from WASH-1238. A maximum assembly averaged burnup of 80 gigawatt-days [GWd]/MTU for UO2 fuel and peak pellet burnup of 133 GWd/MTU for TRi-structural ISOtropic (TRISO) fuel.
|
| Decommissioning
|
| Decommissioning | 1 | SMALL | The environmental impacts for the following resource areas were generically addressed in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, would be limited to operational areas, would not be detectable or destabilizing and are expected to have a negligible effect on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning:
|
| | | | —Onsite Land Use
|
| | | | —Water Use
|
| | | | —Water Quality
|
| | | | —Air Quality
|
| | | | —Aquatic Ecology within the operational area
|
| | | | —Terrestrial Ecology within the operational area
|
| | | | —Radiological
|
| | | | —Radiological Accidents (non-spent-fuel-related)
|
| | | | —Occupational Issues
|
| | | | —Socioeconomic
|
| | | | —Onsite Cultural and Historic Resources for plants where the disturbance of lands beyond the operational areas is not anticipated
|
| | | | —Aesthetics
|
| | | | —Noise
|
| | | | —Transportation
|
| | | | —Irretrievable Resource
The following issues were not addressed in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, but have been determined to be Category 1 issues:
|
| | | | —Nonradiological waste
|
| | | | —Greenhouse Gases
|
| Decommissioning | 2 | Undetermined | Threatened and endangered species was an issue identified in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, as requiring a project-specific review.
Four conditionally project-specific issues identified in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, will require a project-specific review if present:
|
| | | | —Land use involving offsite areas to support decommissioning activities
|
| | | | —Aquatic ecology for activities beyond the licensed operational area
|
| | | | —Terrestrial ecology for activities beyond the licensed operational area
|
| | | | —Historic and cultural resources (archaeological, architectural, structural, historic) for activities within and beyond the licensed operational area with no current (i.e., at the time of decommissioning) evaluation of resources for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility
Additionally, the following two environmental resource areas are additional decommissioning impacts that require project-specific review:
|
| | | | —Climate Change: the effects of climate change are location-specific and cannot, therefore, be evaluated generically (see section 1.3.3.2.2, Category 2 Issues Applying Across Resources, of NUREG-2249)
|
| | | | —Cumulative: must be considered on a project-specific basis where impacts would depend on regional resource characteristics, the resource-specific impacts of the project, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the resource. (see section 1.3.3.2.2, Category 2 Issues Applying Across Resources, of NUREG-2249).
|
| Issues Applying Across Resources
|
| Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources | 2 | Undetermined | The effects of climate change on environmental resources are location-specific and cannot, therefore, be evaluated generically. For example, while climate change may cause many areas to receive less than average annual precipitation, other areas may see an increase in average annual precipitation. Therefore, applicants and the NRC would address the effects of climate change on environmental resources in the environmental documents for new nuclear reactor licensing.
|
| Cumulative Impacts | 2 | Undetermined | Applications must individually consider the cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions known to occur at specific sites for proposed new nuclear reactors and briefly present those considerations in supplemental NEPA documentation. The staff would address whether these individualized evaluations of potential cumulative impacts alter any of the generic analyses and conclusions relied upon for Category 1 issues. The individualized cumulative impact analyses may also identify opportunities where NRC might rely upon the generic analyses for some Category 1 issues for which certain of the PPE or SPE values and assumptions might be exceeded.
|
| Non-Resource Related Issues
|
| Purpose and Need | 2 | Undetermined | Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application.
|
| Need for Power | 2 | Undetermined | Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application.
|
| Site Alternatives | 2 | Undetermined | Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application.
|
| Energy Alternatives | 2 | Undetermined | Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application.
|
| System Design Alternatives | 2 | Undetermined | Must be described in the environmental report associated with a given application.
|