ML14084A324
| ML14084A324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/2014 |
| From: | Rachel Johnson Prairie Island Indian Community |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML14084A324 (76) | |
Text
mmS ON 0
CE it unity
Prairie Island Indian Community - Background o Descendants of Mdewakanton Band of Eastern Dakota - "Those who Were Born of the Waters" o Mdewakanton Dakota have lived on Prairie Island, Tinta Wita, for generations due to its richness in aquatic and terrestrial resources o Approximately 3,200 acres tribal land 2
Location Prairie Island Indian Community Minnesota 3
4 ISFSI < 1 mile from PIIC's Lower Island reservation area and about 600 yards from the nearest homes.
5
6 "Confidence"
".... faith or belief that one will act in a right, proper, or effective way..."
".. . the quality or state of being certain..."
". 0of, . relating to, or adept at swindling by false promises..."
Source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (loth Ed. 1993) at 241-242. 7
Seven Generations
- Spent Nuclear Fuel has already been stored on site far longer than originally promised.
- Indefinite on site spent fuel storage creates long-term issues affecting Seven Generations.
S
The NRC cannot fulfill the Court's mandate to analyze the impacts associated with long-term, on site storage by assuming there will be no long-term, on site storage.
- On what basis can the NRC assume that casks will be reloaded every 100 years?
- On what basis can the NRC assume that institutional controls will exist in 100 years? In 200 years?
9
Will adequate funding be available in 100 years? In 200 years?
"The average price per cask at the PINGP ISFSI has increased by 734% in less than 25 years -
from $812,500 in 1990 to $5.96 million in 2013.
"Should the NRC assume that per cask costs will increase by this same percentage every 25 years?
10
11 Preserve Ancestral Homeland, Culture & Heritage 12
Questions?
13
Waste Confidence Rulemaking A Host State's Perspective March 21, 2014 Commission Meeting Presentation of the State of New York John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General 1
- The Waste Confidence DGEIS does not meet the D.C. Circuit's and NEPA's requirements.
- The DGEIS miscasts the federal action.
- The DGEIS's discussion of alternatives is artificially limited.
- The treatment of severe accidents is flawed.
2
Site-Specific Analysis of On-Site High-Density Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at the Indian Point Facilities, Westchester County, NY
- 24 miles from NewYork City
- 6 miles from NewYork City reservoir 3
- V
~.=
A 4
High-Density Spent Fuel Pools
- Site-Specific Impacts
- Site-Specific Alternatives &
Mitigation Measures 5
Transparent, Objective,Thorough Review of Site-Specific:
- Impacts
- Alternatives
- Mitigation Mitigation Alternatives Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for on-site spent nuclear fuel storage 6
Site-Specific Analysis
" subject to review by host State & experts
" test assumptions, inputs, outputs
- natural resources
" unique & critical infrastructure
" residential & commercial areas
- MACCS2 / MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System
" site risk 7
Price Anderson Concerns 8
I There is no regulatory framework for I
environmental restoration following a major radiological release.
- Sorne point to CERCLA - which is not designed for that purpose.
- There is an active diSCUSSion within the Executive Branch regarding this subject - unclear how stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input.
No international framework is in place to facilitate accident response cooperation and information dissemination Source: from Nuclear Issues in the Post Fukushima World, February 6, 2012, Commissioner William D. Magwood, IV. 9
Until a proper NEPA analysis is done, decisions to allow nuclear reactors to continue the dense storage of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools at reactor sites and to continue to generate spent fuel for which there is no permanent waste repository violate N EPA.
10
Nuclear Industry Perspectives on Waste Confidence Briefing on Waste Confidence Rulemaking March 21 2014 Ellen C. Ginsberg Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Nuclear Energy Institute
Background
- Waste Confidence Decision:
- A generic determination that used fuel can be stored at nuclear power plant sites or at offsite consolidated storage facilities- safely and without significant environmental impact - between the end of the license term and the time it is shipped for disposal.
" D.C. Circuit Decision Required Further Environmental Review Under NEPA:
- Environmental impacts of a hypothetical federal failure to establish a high level waste repository (as required by statute)
- Risks of spent fuel pool leaks
- Risks of spent fuel pool fires, considering probability and consequences
- NRC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) comprehensively addresses the remanded issues and more
The Major Federal Action
- Question: Did the NRC appropriately define the proposed action as a rulemaking rather than a licensing action?
- Response: The D.C. Circuit stated that the "rulemakingat issue here constitutes a major federal action"
- NRC evaluated appropriate alternatives to a Waste Confidence rulemaking - (1) no action/site specific consideration; (2) GElS-only; and (3) policy statement.
- NRC considers the alternatives to licensing in connection with individual licensing decisions - including no action and project alternatives.
- Regardless of whether Waste Confidence is a rule or a licensing action, NRC took the required "hard look" at the issues involved - impacts of continued storage and a lack of a repository.
I Assessment of the No Repository Scenario
- Question: Did the NRC adequately examine the impacts of no repository?
- Response: DGEIS examines the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a (highly unlikely) failure to provide a repository, as required by the D.C. Circuit.
- DGEIS provides ample basis to conclude that a repository will be available within the 60-year timeframe: NEI considers this the most likely scenario.
° Consistent with statutory obligations, technical feasibility, and international experience.
- DGEIS considers the impacts for 60-year and 160-year timeframes - based on reasonable assumptions regarding the control of the spent fuel.
- It is not reasonable to assume a gross and permanent failure to develop a repository-the D.C. Circuit did not reverse longstanding NEPA law: NEPA does not require analysis of the consequences "remote and speculative scenarios."
0 But the NRC still considered the indefinite storage scenario.
- By any reasonable measure, the DGEIS meets the NEPA "hard look" standard.
El/
Assumptions of Institutional Controls
- Question: Did the NRC "arbitrarily" rely on continued institutional controls?
- Response: NEPA does not require assessment of "remote and speculative" "worst case" scenarios; NRC's assumptions regarding institutional controls are reasonable.
- The DGEIS reasonably assumes institutional controls during the short-term (60-year) and long-term (160 years) scenarios; fuel can be managed onsite by licensees who will remain subject to NRC jurisdiction.
DGEIS (at 1-14) references federal precedent under NEPA for institutional controls, even in perpetuity.
- The indefinite "no repository" scenario remains highly speculative and highly unlikely; the DGEIS appropriately does not layer an additional conservatism of a loss of institutional controls - this would exceed what is required by NEPA.
- In connection with the proposed repository, DOE did consider a loss of institutional controls after 100 years - this is an unnecessary "worst case" analysis
- But the DOE analysis can be referenced in the NRC's GELS.
Itl
Analysis of Spent Fuel Pool Leaks
- Question: Did the NRC sufficiently analyze the significance of past spent fuel pool leaks and, further, inappropriately rely on the regulatory structure to prevent leaks?
- Response: DGEIS includes a conservative, bounding assessment of the risk of spent fuel pool leaks that fully meets NEPA and the D.C. Circuit remand.
- The regulatory regime in the future is a fact; the Court of Appeals did not mandate that NRC ignore the regulatory regime.
- Industry will maintain the ability to prevent, detect and mitigate leaks - as required by the NRC.
- Designs are robust, detection capability exists, and mitigation can and will be taken.
- DGEIS (Appendix E) compiles an ample record including but not limited to past operating experience to establish the low likelihood of leaks and assesses the potential consequences of leaks.
- Past experience has in fact been considered in a reasonable, technically-informed way.
- There is ample support for the conclusions in the DGEIS that impacts of future leaks would be small.
N7F
Generic Analysis of Fires
- Question: Must the NRC conduct site-specific impact analyses of spent fuel pool fires, including terrorist attacks?
- Response: NRC has thoroughly evaluated the risks of spent fuel pool fires, consistent with the D.C. Circuit remand and the standard in CarolinaEnvironmentalStudy Group v. United States.
- Risk analysis includes probability and consequences: Environmental impacts are small based on probability weighted consequences.
- DGEIS (Appendix F) references a substantial body of technical research on the remote probability and potentially severe consequences of a spent fuel fire.
- Consequence assessments include health effects and economic consequences.
- NUREG-1738 shows that the likelihood of spent fuel pool fires diminishes to zero as fuel cools.
- This issue therefore applies only at the very early stages of the short-term timeframe.
- DGEIS is consistent with the results of the NRC's recent Consequences Study.
- NRC has accurately characterized the very low probability of a successful terrorist attack; NEI's comments also cite extensive safety analyses and testing that establish the robust nature of storage systems that would be used for long term storage.
Incorporation of Impacts Into Site-Specific Analyses
- Question: Must the GElS incorporate impacts into site-specific cost-benefit analyses?
- Response: There is no evidence that either the costs or environmental impacts of spent fuel storage will "tip the balance" of a NEPA cost-benefit analysis for an individual project.
- Environmental impacts of continued spent fuel storage in the short and longer term are small.
- Specific projects costs-benefits are addressed in individual licensing reviews (without re-litigation of the issues addressed in the Waste Confidence rule).
N FJ
Reasonable Assurance Finding
- Question: Does the proposed rule violate the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) by eliminating essential reasonable assurance findings?
" Response: The NRC has an ample record to conclude that there is reasonableassurancethat a repository can be available when needed and fuel can be stored safely until then.
- 2 nd Circuit has rejected an argument that AEA requires a definitive finding on disposal in NRDC v. NRC, 582 F. 2d 166,170 (2d Cir. 1978).
- The NRC's prior Waste Confidence findings made reasonable assurance findings; the DC Circuit did not invalidate any aspect of the prior decisions under the AEA.
- The DGEIS further supports reasonable assurance findings.
- The rule language should reflect "reasonable assurance" findings which are supported by the record and consistent with the NRC's traditional findings and case law.
MWl
Proposed Revision to Proposed 51.23 (a) and (b)
- (a) The Commission has developed a generic environmental impact statement (NUREG-2157) analyzing the environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor.
- (b) The Commission has reasonable assurance that: (i) sufficient mined geologic repository capacity to dispose of spent nuclear fuel generated in any reactor can be available when necessary, and (ii) spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored until that time.
NF'j
Decommissioning Plant Coalition Perspectives on Waste Confidence March 21, 2014 Michael S. Callahan, President, CCMSC CORP on Behalf of GSI and the Decommissioning Plant Coalition
NRC Waste Confidence Effort
- Outstanding Work
- Keith McConnell & Team Bring Great Credit to Themselves & NRC 2
Members
" Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Yankee Rowe
- Dairyland
- Sacramento Municipal Utility District
" Pacific Gas & Electric
" Exelon
" Edison International
-3
Purpose
- Since 2001 - Ensure Issues with Unique Impact on Our Sites Are Properly Addressed
- Hasten Federal Government's Fulfillment of its Contractual Obligations
- Have Kept, Will Keep, Stored Spent Fuel
& Greater Than Class C (GTCC) Safe and Secure as Owners & Licensees 4
Draft Rule
- Appropriately Limited to Court-Identified Deficiencies
- Analyses More Than Adequate to Support Tenet That U.S. Can & Will Successfully Store & Dispose of Spent Fuel & Reactor Generated GTCC.
5
Primary Recommendation
- Must Hold to Long-Established Tenet that NRC Does NOT Support Indefinite On-site Storage of Spent Fuel or GTCC 6
Four Issues
- (1) Specific Timeline not Necessary
- (2) & (3) Retain Ample Explanations
° Include Statement that NRC Does NOT Support Indefinite On-site Storage
° (4) Endorse Name Change
GElS
- Draft FRN for Rule and GElS Refer to "Current Technology and Regulation"
- Language Needs Clarification
- Exact requirements will be Determined by Research Combined with Policy, Legislative, and Legal Activities 8
Additional Comment
- Additional Plants Face Shut-Down Transition & Decommissioning e Strains at Both Sites and NRC e Impact on Planning, Decisions, and as a result, Communications With the Public
- Past Can Inform the Present 9
Summary
- Addresses the Deficiencies Found by the Court
- Expand and Clarify
- Exercise Safety and Security Role e Thank You 10
Brefn on Wat Cofdec Rulmain PrsnainBfr h ulC m iso Nuclear Reglator Commssio Geofre H.FetuSeno Atore Naurl esuresDeene ouci
- Mrc 21 2014 A
Thre Prmy *Poit ND h asprvie N wit a wa fowad th gec hasdnthsfr
Ana fort poin Non of wha sai here toa isnwo adds to th 00cord beor th onth Drf Wat Cofdec Generic EIS.
NRl Decmbe 20 201 comment wer tiel fie and spa for theseles
Ou fudaena di.sagremen
" N thnks he ropoed ctio isw hehro fin l disposal.S
" ndw thin th Cour agee wit us.
NR' Pr0p0sed Acto Page 1-5, "Pooed Fedea Acin Th 10 CF 51.23* tha geeial adrse the eniom na im at of cotne storage.*
Thi reiso wol adop int reuato the enirnm ntl mpctaalse i tisdrf GEIS.00 0 0 *
- S * *0 * *
- 0
NR' Pups &9 ee Th NR cotnus Pag 1-6 "Teproean6 *S .SL.. edfrt epropose acio aretreod
- (1 aoipov h fiiec fteNR' iesngpoesb geeial addesn the eniom na im at of continued storage;
- S. S -
- 2)t pea re a. single doum n t at relet th urn a unesa ndn of ths am aand*eniom na 5 acs ah af eut is a alye ithsdrfGESa10CR5.3 saif obigtin une gaPA resec ait aoth envron ena l im at of cotiue strg.
NR* Altenatve Page 1-6 4lentvs "Th NR col pusu several altraieohrta h rpsdatot d rs th enio m na im at of cotne storage in it0 licensing actions.6 reut into rue a Thsaprah ol alo the N o*dp liesn aciiis but wihu th bidn efec of aue
- CoThird missioncould the isue a plicy satm n.Teplc stte en wo6l no bin liese an ap lcat lik a rule, bu itw udpoientc fteC m iso' nett incrpoat 6idig th of th ESit*nio m na eiw for fuur liesin activities ."66 6
- 6. .66 . 6 6 S *7
ofa I is on "sgiiantl afetn th ultyo h hu a.nion et"4 U .S.. § 4332(2)(C).
NR ha pefre th mio bueucai ac of selecting among foratraieptwy oaopeigNP docuenttio on cotne pnulsoae Suc an act dos not in an of itef ris to th lee of a It mao fe ea acio si gnfc tl afetn th qualityof thuanevrnet"adteeoei cano leiim tl sev as th ap rpit deiso analysis.
framwor fora Daft EIS
- . S~
S S* * * *
- ae8
What~~~
Hapndcnd We kno of no co prbeistnei hc a~~
Feea Agnc prpsn a ajredra 0P dieto fro a Feea Cour - has sogh tosbttt otbnftcmaio and searhn envrnmna impactM reuie unde NPA.
Th Drf ES micnsre NR* NP obiatint fedra acin in thsisac
- ue akig -. tha NRC a ropoesa fndaenta preicat toal pendin and fuur liesn acin authorizingth proucio an strg of spn nula ful
- 910
A leal co plan deiito of* a rpsd cin Th NR prpoe to rinsate as a pr-etrindstg of it iniida liesn 9cton fo nula reactr 9a99 Inepndn Spn Fue Strg Intalaios a9 binin ru9lA tht eneial 9n cosdes 9h deemie for purposesl
- futr liesig resnal foeeal and cumulativ9e eniomna imat of cotnun to str on th9 surf9ac of the fo 9at exene periods inluin 9 ndfintel A/9 spntue prvoul geerte and 9stor9ag requrin pusun to post Comsso liesn acios and any9 spne tha wol be geneate puruan to pend9ng 99d rasonbl foeseal licensin 99heacin Comsso m9 9netk 9h in future
N AIpictoso a LaflFrmn of th Mao Feea Actio A Drft EISmustanayzethe nvionmnta cosqune of resnal alenaie fo acual Aimlemntn cotne strg of spn fue the C0 msso may auhrz in fuur commercialpower A NPA co pin anlyi mus em rc aageo rn wal to ineint stoag. Fo moedsattm perods thanlssms osdrtecneune fo th hu a an naua enio m n in th absence
- 0*
of conrols intituiona
- 0* S *5 5*
- S
- 12
Imlcain Under NPA, *otd topooe acin ta t wol avi or minimiz Contras thi wit appoac - an approac whic o co fals plywit NEP's asi reure et an eiesteasr euto pefrigNP nlsso ast ar u NEP analys0.is.0 0 0
- 13
" SaeyRlvn Clse ofSetFe
" Strg Cas Teholg Options "Reinev.Eoino ntttoa otosa a* Fucto of Time*
- 1
As 006 the pe Court' dietin 0ut
- 1) prpel idntf th mao feea actio neesttn anevrnetlipc
- 2) evlut th enio 0fet m na of* failingt S06) prpel exmn fuur dagr and key consqueces ithresect o sent uelpoo fie and leaks. 6 00
- ~ NR fale topromec fteeatos S
- S 0 ** 06 0 16
S(2 comec wor on a drf EI tha cople and sujc tetoNPAs "had oo reuieens an rel on rea.sonable prjetins foeat and asuptos. to fom lt it alenaie an ex
- mn their reasnaby foeseableenvronmnta impcts
- 17
END Acknowldgemen Th auho of thi prsetaio S thnk .
0olage fo thi asitac in the prepaato ofti reetto 0*0. S S * *18
SU.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ProtectingPeople and the Environment Briefing on Waste Confidence NRC Staff Presentation March 21, 2014
Waste Confidence Activities Develop Final GElS and Final Rule 2
Open Government
" Transparency
- Diverse communication tools
" Participation
- Written Comments
- Public Meetings
- Collaboration 3
Public Outreach - Lessons Learned
" Successes
- Dedicated Communication Team
- Open-House Opportunities
- Facilitated Telephone Call-in Opportunities
" Challenges
- Web-based "Chat" 4
Results - Proposed Rule
° Nearly 9,000 Unique Comments
- Public Meetings.
> 1400 participants; ~ 500 Transcribed statements
- Written Comments:
- 33,000 Submittals; 1500 Unique Submittals 5
Most Common Topics 1,000 1 a"'tt
- UU 800 7001 6001 500 400 300 200 10:
0 Opposition to Feasibility of Alternatives Feasibility of Nuclear Safe Storage Disposal 6
Example High-Interest Topics 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Spent Fuel Institutional Spent Fuel High Burn Up Pool Fires Controls Pool Leaks Fuel 7
Public Input to Policy Issues
" Solicited in FederalRegister
- Summarized in "Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Proposed Rule: Public Feedback on Specific Issues"
- (SECY-14-0025, Feb 28, 2014) 8
Issue 1
- Whether specific policy statements regarding the timeline for repository availability should be removed from the rule text.
9
Issue 2
- Whether a specific policy statement regarding safety of continued storage should be made in the rule text.
10
Issue 3 e Whether the Discussion portion (Section III) of the Statements of Consideration should be streamlined by removing content that is repeated from the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
11
Issue 4 Whether the title of the rule should be changed in light of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement being issued instead of a separate Waste Confidence Decision.
12
Path Forward
- Complete Comment Resolution
" Recommend Draft GElS and Draft Final Rule to Commission in Summer 2014
" Publish in Fall 2014 13
Back Up Slide Waste Confidence Directorate
- Formed - September 6, 2012
- Full Time Staff:
-7 offices within NRC
- Contract Support:
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratories
- Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 14
Back Up Slide Other High-Interest Topics 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 I I -- --- I I 000 A!I 15