ML061770052
| ML061770052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/2006 |
| From: | Sherman W State of VT, Dept of Public Service |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 71FR20733 00010 | |
| Download: ML061770052 (11) | |
Text
i#LO0619OO)52 From: To: Date:
Subject:
"Sherman, William" <William.Sherman@state.vt.us>
<VermontYankeeEIS@nrc.gov>
Fri, Jun 23, 2006 4:24 PM VT Dept of Pub Service Comments -License Renewal EIS for Vermont Yankee Please accept the attached comments from the Vermont Department of Public Service for the EIS for License Renewal of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.<<VT-DPS Comments -VY-EIS.pdf>>
Bill Sherman State Nuclear Engineer Vermont Department of Public Service (802) 828-3349 IIAI / r ý'( DI)TV]1 KJ ,-0-o C-m c-f)C)rn w v~t1c2 June 23, 2006 Chief, Rules and Directives BranchDivision of Administrative Services Office of the Administration Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555-0001Re:Vermont Yankee, 50-271, License Renewal Vermont Department of Public Service comments on the Environmental ReportVermont Department of Public Service comments on the scope of issues to be addressedin the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are provided on Attachment A to this letter. Thesecomments are provided in accordance with Federal Register Notice, Vol 71, No. 77, Friday April 21, 2006, pages 20733-20735.The Department of Public Service appreciates the opportunity to make these comments. Please call if there are questions.Sincerely, William Sherman State Nuclear Engineer Attachment AVermont Department of Public Service CommentsEIS for License Renewal for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power StationCategory I item - Onsite Land Use
- 1. 10 C.F.R. §54.23 requires the Applicant to submit an environmental report that complies with Subpart A of 10 C.F.R. Part 51. 2. 10 CFR §51.53(c)(3)(iv) provides that the [t]he environmental report must containany new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware.3. New and significant information exists regarding the time for which onsite land willbe removed from other uses, and whether such land use is irretrievable, which was not providedin the ER by the Applicant in accordance with 10 C.F.R. §51.53(c)(3)(iv). The current estimate in the Generic Environment Impact Statement (GEIS) is on-site storage of spent fuel will not last beyond 30 years after the end of the license period (including an extended license period). GEIS, Sections 6.4.6.2, 3.4. The GEIS evaluates the impacts associated with onsite land use as Category 1,SMALL. The basis for this assessment is the assumption that the land used for storage of nuclear wastes at the reactor site will not exceed 30 years after the end of the license term. GEIS, Section3.2 (referring to GEIS Chapter 6). That assumption, in turn, relies upon the assumption that a permanent high level waste repository, and perhaps even a second repository, will be in place by that time to receive the reactor wastes. GEIS, Section 6.4.6.2 Based on those assumptions the use of the reactor site for storing spent fuel, in this case for a period ending in 2062, has been deemed to be a small impact. GEIS, Section 3.2.5. However, as summarized below, these assumptions are flawed. Recent evidence, notevaluated previously in the GEIS, now discloses that: 1) the likelihood that a permanent high level waste repository will be in place by 2062 is slight due to unanticipated technical problemsuncovered at the Yucca Mountain site coupled with changes in national policy; 2) the onlycurrently contemplated high level waste repository can accommodate the quantity of spentnuclear fuel expected to be produced by Vermont Yankee through the end of its originally licensed life, but it would not have space for at least a part of the additional spent nuclear fuelgenerated by VY during extended licensing; 3) no present plans exist for building a second highlevel waste repository nor has any site been identified for consideration for such a facility; 4) the United States is now embarking upon a changed policy for waste disposal which will make allthe current schedules obsolete and for which there is no reliable time frame for its implementation; 5) there is not now nor has there been any reasonable prospect that the federalgovernment or any third party will take title to the license-renewal spent fuel waste and remove it from the site; and 6) it follows that it is reasonable to expect that at least a part of spent fuel to begenerated at VY during the period of an extended license will remain at the site for a much longer time than evaluated in the GEIS and perhaps indefinitely.
Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 2 of 8
- 26. Since this new information, not available at the time of development of the GEIS,demonstrates that the commitment of onsite land for storage/disposal of spent nuclear fuel fromlicense renewal will be substantially longer than assumed in the GEIS,and may be indefinite, thisresults in an irretrievable commitment of onsite land with a MODERATE or LARGE impact.7. As demonstrated below, Vermont and its communities have firmly established valuesassociated with land use such that the long-term or indefinite use of a portion of the VY site forspent nuclear fuel storage should clearly be evaluated as a MODERATE or LARGE impact in the VY supplement to the GEIS. 8. Entergy identifies in Environmental Report (ER) Section 6.4.2, that the land requiredto dispose of spent nuclear fuel as a result of operation during an extended license represents airreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Entergy does not qualify the irreversibleor irretrievable nature of this land use to a limited time period. Therefore, Entergy is identifying this use as indefinite. This identification is in conflict with the GEIS which does not identifysuch land use as irreversible and irretrievable. This difference from the GEIS requires should be addressed in the EIS for the impact of onsite land use.9. In ER Section 4.0, Entergy refers to 10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, whichidentifies onsite land use as Category 1, SMALL impact. But this identification only refers to theportion of land from license renewal as being a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site,and does not include evaluation of the indefinite removal of the land from any beneficial use.10. Entergy demonstrates in the Environmental Report (ER) Section 4.0 a flawedapplication of its obligations to identify new and significant information. Section 4.0 contains the statement, Entergy reviewed the NRC findings on these 52 issues andidentified no new and significant information that would invalidate the findings for VYNPS.The flaw is the identification of items in Table 4-2, which are purported to be the Category 1 issues applicable to VYNPS.
Land Use (license renewal period) is listed in Table 4-2. But theadverse impact is from the land use beyond the license renewal period, caused by the actionsduring the license renewal period. If Table 4-2 has been stated correctly, then perhaps Entergy would have provided the new and significant information related to onsite land use.11. The EIS should take into account that the nations policy with regard to spent fuelmanagement has changed since the GEIS. The current administration and Congress have Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 3 of 8 3announced a major shift in policy called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Refer in general to the Administrations GNEP website - http://www.gnep.energy.gov/ - which containsthe announcement and much information regarding this new policy direction. Proponents of thisnew policy hope this new approach will not separate out plutonium products. However the referenced website shows that this technique has neither been developed nor demonstrated.12. This shift in policy will remove attention and resources from repository developmentsuch that the basis and conclusions that spent fuel will not have to be stored on site beyond 2062 are no longer valid. For example, see the report of comments below from Sen. Pete Domenici:MOVEMENT OF SPENT FUEL IN THE US COULD BEFURTHER DELAYED, according to Senator Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici indicated during a status hearingon DOE's repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nevada that itwas unrealistic to proceed with a status-quo repository project andlater factor in spent fuel reprocessing waste and recycling activitiesassociated with DOE's new fuel-cycle initiative, the Global NuclearEnergy Partnership. It ought to be pretty clear to everyone that spent fuel rods won't be put into Yucca Mountain, Domenici saidin an apparent reference to GNEP, which is aimed, in part, atclosing the nuclear fuel cycle in the US and abroad. Recycling willdetermine what kind of repository the US needs, he added. "It's amess," Domenici said, of the Yucca Mountain program as reportersapproached him after the hearing. He said that he believes any legislation on Yucca Mountain would have to include language onspent fuel recycling. Draft legislation DOE sent to Congress last month did not include language on spent fuel reprocessing.Platts Nuclear News Flashes, Tuesday, May 16, 2006, Copyright McGraw Hill Publications 2005, reprinted with permission13. In addition, the EIS should consider that the previous assumption regarding thesuitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste disposal site is no longer valid. At YuccaMountain, contrary to the assumptions underlying the GEIS, it has been discovered that thedisposal area is subject to water in-leakage. Therefore the design must be changed from thatpreviously assumed and it is not clear a new design can be developed which will meet dose andintegrity requirements. Partially in response to this discovery, DOE has abandoned previous caskdesigns and now proposes a concept called the TAD (transportation, aging and disposal) standard canister for which there is not presently even a preliminary design.
Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 4 of 8 414. Further, the EIS should stated that these changes have occurred in an increasinglyhostile political environment. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) strongly opposesdevelopment of Yucca Mountain and is able to use his position as minority leader effectively toadvance this opposition and would do so even more forcefully as majority leader if the Senate leadership changes parties. And, the Western Governors Association (WGA) has the followingactive resolution (03-16):On December 1, 1989, the Western Governors' Association adopted Resolution89-024 which stated that spent nuclear fuel should remain at reactor sites until astate has agreed to storage and DOE provides reasonable transportation, safety,and emergency response assurances to the western states. The resolution was
readopted in 1992, 1995, 1997, and 1999.All of the new information identified above provides additional arguments and evidence tobolster the opposition of Senator Reid and the WGA and undercut the assumed completion datefor a usable high level waste repository.15. In addition, the EIS should evaluate, because the GEIS was prepared beforeSeptember 11, 2001, it does not factor in the impact of viable terrorist threats into an evaluationof the socioeconomic impacts of indefinitely storing spent fuel at the reactor site. The extendedlong-term or indefinite presence of spent nuclear fuel at Vermont Yankee after permanentshutdown means a defined terrorist target will be present for the long-term or indefinitely. In itsnews release No.03-053 (April 29, 2003), NRC stated:
The Commission believes that this DBT [Design Basis Threat] represents thelargest reasonable threat against which a regulated private security force should be expected to defend under existing law.(Emphasis added). The phrase, should be expected to defend , means there is a limit on theexpectation on Entergy, and that state resources will be expected to provide additional security responses beyond Entergys capability. The very presence of this target creates an effect on thatland, contiguous lands, and the surrounding area, creating the need for continuous augmentedemergency preparedness plans and security response from the State. The EIS should evaluate thisincreased, long term burden on state resources. See also the decision of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace V. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 03-74628 (June 2, 2006).16. Entergy has stated that all of the spent fuel projected to be generated by VermontYankee through the end of its current operating license (including increases of spent fuel from power uprate) will be within the 70,000 metric tons storage limits of the first repository. The Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 5 of 8 5EIS should identify that at least some part of the spent fuel from license renewal will exceed the70,000 metric ton limit (when all spent fuel being generated nationally is considered) and mustgo into a second repository, and that this entry of Entergy into the second repository isspecifically the result of the license renewal.17. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in 2003, performed a study:
The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Entergy should have identified that itsponsored the co-chair of the study, Dr. Ernest Moniz, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, MIT Department of Physics, as a witness in PSB Docket No. 7082,regarding authorization for dry cask storage. In that docket, Dr. Moniz testified:[T]he MIT Study argues that interim storage of spent fuel (whichcan be carried out either at reactor sites or in consolidated facilities,possibly under federal control) for fifty to seventy years is in anycase a preferred approach for design of an integrated spent fuelmanagement system.The implication of Entergys testimony through Dr. Moniz is that the first repository will not beavailable for fifty to seventy years. If the schedule for the first repository is fifty to seventyyears, a time period greater than evaluated in the GEIS, then the schedule for a secondrepository is indefinite at best, if such a repository could ever be built. The EIS should take noteof this fact.18. The EIS should identified how Vermont would evaluate the onsite land use whichwould occur if license renewal were granted. Vermont assigns a high value to land and its use within the state. The values are codified in the form of environmental protections in permittingcriteria in 10 V.S.A Chapter 151, State Land Use and Development Plans (see Exhibit Vermont-
5).19. Criteria No. 7 of 10 V.S.A §6086 (a) states:[Before granting a permit, the district commission shall find thatthe subdivision or development:](7) Will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of thelocal governments to provide municipal or governmental services.The long-term or indefinite storage of license renewal spent fuel at VY would trigger long-termburdens on local governments for emergency management and security services. It is highlylikely that long-term or indefinite storage of the spent fuel created by license renewal would not Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 6 of 8 6comply with Criteria No. 7. Therefore, this would suggest the impact of the proposed onsite landuse should be determined to be LARGE in the VY supplement to the GEIS.20. Criteria No. 8 of 10 V.S.A §6086 (a) states:[Before granting a permit, the district commission shall find thatthe subdivision or development:](8) Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or naturalbeauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceablenatural areas.Under this criteria, the District Environmental Commission would evaluate the effect of spentnuclear fuel being left long-term or indefinitely on a riverbank site that would otherwise be fullyreturned to greenfield condition. It is highly likely the long-term or indefinite presence of spentnuclear fuels following decommissioning of VY would be deemed to create an undue adverseeffect. Considering this criteria, the proposed onsite land use should be evaluated asMODERATE or LARGE in the VY supplement to the GEIS.21. In addition, Vermonts land use law requires a finding that land uses are inconformance with local or regional plans:(10) Is in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan or capital programunder chapter 117 of Title 24. In making this finding, if the district commission finds
applicable provisions of the town plan to be ambiguous, the district commission, for interpretive purposes, shall consider bylaws, but only to the extent that they implementand are consistent with those provisions, and need not consider any other evidence.
10 V. S.A. §6086 (a)(10).
- 22. The Windham Regional Plan of October 30, 2001, which is applicable to VY, establishes land use requirements, and has the following provision:LAND USE POLICIESRural Residential Lands1. Ensure that any development of rural residential lands will be at densities thatwill serve to contain rural sprawl, and that are compatible with existing land uses
and sensitive to the limitations of the land.
Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 7 of 8 7Once the bulk of the site is returned to a greenfield condition, it is doubtful that long-term orindefinite presence of spent nuclear fuel from license renewal would be considered compatible with existing land uses. This provision suggests the onsite land use impact should at least beevaluated as MODERATE in the VY supplement to the GEIS.
- 23. The Windham Regional Plan also has the following provision:
COMMUNITY RESOURCE POLICIES High Level Radioactive Waste
- 1. Encourage a requirement that permanent spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage beresolved prior to any consideration of extending or reviewing the operating license of Vermont Yankee.It is highly likely that a land use evaluation under 10 V.S.A. §6086 (a)(10) would find theproposal for long-term or indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel from license renewal did notconform with the regional plan with regard to the item above. Thus, this provision suggests a LARGE impact from the onsite land use from the proposed license renewal.24. There is also a Vernon Town Plan, Nov. 3, 2003, which is applicable to VY. Thisplan contains the following:Section III: Resource and Economic DevelopmentRecommendations:
- 3 The Town should pursue discussions with appropriate representatives of theVermont Yankee Nuclear power Company regarding the possible re-use of the
power plant site for other commercial and industrial development following decommissioning.The long-term or indefinite presence of spent nuclear fuel from license renewal has the potentialfor preventing other commercial and industrial development following decommissioning. If the spent fuel storage completely prevented the use of the site for other developments, it is highlylikely the impact from license-renewal onsite land use would be LARGE. If the spent fuel storage allowed some additional development but hindered other possible commercial and industrial uses, the impact would likely be MODERATE. 25. The extended long-term presence of spent fuel will prevent use of the immediate land Attachment AJune 23. 2006Page 8 of 8 8it occupies and will deter other possible uses of larger contiguous areas because of societal andcommercial concerns regarding the proximity of radioactive material. From the foregoing, it isshown that the EIS should identify that Vermont has existing land use evaluation criteria, whichestablish the basis under which the impact from additional long-term or indefinite onsite land use resulting from the spent nuclear fuel generated from license renewal should be evaluated as MODERATE or LARGE in the VY supplement to the GEIS.
c:\temp\GW}00001.TMP Page 1 Mail Envelope Properties (449C4DE1.3C9 : 21 : 58313)
Subject:
VT Dept of Pub Service Comments - License Renewal EIS for Vermont Yankee Creation Date Fri, Jun 23, 2006 4:23 PM From:"Sherman, William" <William.Sherman@state.vt.us
>Created By:William.Sherman@state.vt.us Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 VermontYankeeEISPost OfficeRoute TWGWPO03.HQGWDO01nrc.govFilesSizeDate & Time MESSAGE282Friday, June 23, 2006 4:23 PM TEXT.htm941 VT-DPS Comments -VY-EIS.pdf56395 Mime.82280897 Options Expiration Date:
None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested:
No Return Notification:
None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk MailJunk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator
Junk List is not enabled
Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled
Block List is not enabled