ML20206C313
| ML20206C313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1986 |
| From: | Infusino T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606190458 | |
| Download: ML20206C313 (12) | |
Text
<
s 00!G110NTS ON Tile DRAFT ENVIRON!4 ENTAL STATE!GHT P03 DmoIEIS1IOllING IIUMBOLT DAY POWER PLANT U!!IT NO. 3 (Docket No. 50-133)
'l t
by Thomas P. Infusino 1512 Drake Ave.
Burlingame, CA. 94010 June 15, 1986
- OOD 8606190458 060615
\\\
I) Introduction Upon reading the Draf t Environmental Statement for ve-com:aissioning Htuabolt Bay Power Plan t No. 3 (EIS) I was struck by the many inadequacies of the document. The in-adequacies of the report compelled me to submit this public comraent. I structured the comment so that the criteria used in the analysis are cet out first. Then the criteria are applied to the statemen t. The final section lists the conclusions of the analysis.
,, II) Criteria of. Analysio A) Al ternatives The alternatives sec tion of an EIS preacnto athe en-vironmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form." (10 CPH 51, Subpt. A, App. A (5).) The agency must study the alternatives, and the study must be revealed in the s tatement. (Rankin v. Coleman, 1975, 394 F. Supp. 647. ) ,
The agency uuot develop all the alternatives in detail, so as to provide a basic for comparison. (Joseph
- v. Adams, 1978, 467 F.Supp.141.) The treatment of alterna-tives must be complete, so that a person removea from the declulunmaking procean can, on his own, evaluate the alter-natives. (Sierra club v. Morton, 1975, 510 F.2d 813. )
B) Detail l
When composin6 an EIS, the Nuclear RcGulatory Commission (NRC) must " to the fullect extent practicable quantify the various factors considered. " (10 CFR 51.71d,) If on-site in-vesti6ation appears reasonably neconnary for an agency to 1
2 exercise i ts expertise, then such an. investigation must be l
done. (Sierra Club v. Frochlke, 1973, 39 F.Supp. 1289.) A valid ecosystem analysis is done by an interdisciplinary team of scientists conducting a rigorous examination. (EDF
- v. Corps of Digineers, 1972, 348 F.Supp. 916.) Also, a projects mere compliance with environmen tal quality standards does no t remove the requirement from the NRC of analyzing and weighing all the environmental effee to cf the proposed action. (10 CFR 51.71 fn. 3) In addi tion, an EIS should in-clude a (Wtailed cost benefit analysis. (Cm lien'ry Bird Club v. ilard, 1973, 359 F.Supp. 404. )
.t C) Objec tivity The courts have i..terpre ted the National Divironmental Policy Act (NEPA) as requiring that a6encies produce com-prehensive and objec tive environmental impac t statenents.
(EDF v. _ Corps of Enj;ineers, 1972, 348 F.Supp. 916) This means that the, facts should be clearly separated from the opinions in the statement. It means that the statement must reveal the unpleasan t aspects of the propo ?cd projec t. It means that assertions must be supported by facts, and tha t
.the report is not misleading.
D) Mitigation Measures "Where important to the comparative evaluation of alter-natives, appropriate mitigating measures of the alternatives will 'be diccussed. (10 CFR 51 Subpt A, App. A (5).)
E) Unefulness Ultimately, an MIS :aust be a useful docun.ent for agency l
3 decisionmakers and the general public. (City of Davis v.
Coleman, 1975, 521 F.Supp. 661.) A good EIS should provide enou3h information to enable one to understand and consider the essential elements of the decision. (Sierra Club v. Mor-ton, 1975, 510 F.2d 813)
III) Application of criteria A) Alternatives d:suued .
In this EIS, .the agencyn t he alternatives in a circular fashion, and failed to discuss all the viabic alternatives. i Also, the tptaff failed to discuss the environmental impacts ;
l '
of all three major decommissioning alternatives noted in sec tion 1. 3. This prevents thoughtful comparison of the al terna tives.
The discussion of the DECON and ENTOMB alternatives is soraewhat circular. (EIS, 1.3.3, 1.3.2) The report first assumes that the spent fuel will be stored on-site for these I
alternatives. ,The report then no tes that this is a major negative aspec t of each alternative. The discussion com-pletely ignores the possibility that the spent fuel could be stored off-site. Off-site storage at a large facility spe-cificly. built, cited, and designed for such a purpose may be able to handle spent fuel from other plants in the near future, and reap efficiency of scale gains. It is inappropriate to structure alternatives so as to ensure their undesirability.
The EIS does acknowled 6 e that independent spent fuel storage ir a possible alcornative in its own right, however, ;
I the i
the staff rejects the alternative due to uncertainty of ;
l
4 available sites and the construction lead time. (EIS, 1-4, 1-5.) Again, the alternative is structured so as to appear less desirable than SAFSTOR. Tne alternative, as struc tured, ignores the possibility that off-site storage could be em-ployed after a short period of on-site storage or storage at a facility other than Humbolt.
c In addition to improperly structuring alternatives, the staff failed to develop the environmental impacts of any al-ternative other than SAF3 TOR. (EIS, 3 3-13.) In addi-tion, it failed to note the radiological impacts of SAFSTGR t,
, on the fl' ora and Fauna around the Humbolt plant. The al ter-natives are vot detailed enough to provide a basis for com- '
paricon. -
The agency does have some discretion to cull out of the analysis those alternatives that are beyond the rule of reason, but i t should not have th discre tion to structure
'otherwise reasonable alternatives so as to unnecessarily burden them with unpleasant properties that enable the staff to excuse itself from fully analyzing the alternatives.
i B) Detail The most striking inadequacy of this EIS is the lack of detail in almost every area.
The alternatives to SAFSTOR are described in short paragraphs. (EIS, 1-2, 1-3) These are complex techniques involving high technology decontamination and dismantling equipment. Tncy require hours of labor and milliond of dollars. _ However, none of this is mentioned or quantified.
c.
S The report claims that 3AFSTOR is the most cost-effective alternative, but no quantitative data is provided to sub-stantiate that claim. As a result, one can't adequately weigh environmental costs and benefits against monetary costs and benefits. A detailed cost / benefit analysis would be a step in the right direction.
The " Description of Plant" section is equally sketchy.
( EIS, 2-1. ) The report notes that their was a leak in the opent fuel pool during its initial operation in 1966, and that the 3,cak resulted in some soil contamination. It notes that, although a liner was installed to stop the leak, the liner itself leaks at a rate of .45 liters / day. It also notes that there is some intermingling of the leakage and the groundwater.
3 However, the report fails to tell one if any tests have been done to determine the migration rate of soil contami.-
of nants, orgthe spread of contamination to the groundwater, or of any effects that the contanination or the leakage might have on the environment. These are all eraential de tails. It would be preposterous to license the storage of 6 pent fuel in a pool whose leakage could cause extensive contamination.
That may not be the case at Humbolt, but one is not given enough information to make a determination regarding the soundness of the pool. When such contamination exists, the agency should perform a rigorous on-site investigation. The EIS shows no evidence of such an investigation.
Section 3, the impac t analysis, is plagued wi th similar
6 sins of omission.
Some of the area around the plant is used for grazing, and other areas around the plant support - rich and diverse estuarine habitats. Yet the EIS does not mention the radi-ological effects of decommissioning on plant and animal populations. The report notes that the effects on humans from radiation exposure through the food chain would be minimal following a major spent fuel pool spill, but the re-
. port doesn.'t detail the potential effect on other consumers high on the f ood chain, like shore birds, that would con-1 sume large quantities of contaminated food if such an'ac-cident occurred. This omission should be rectified. I Table 4-1 in t he project summary section includes un-substantiated material. The table mentions that DECON is '
the lowest cost alternative, but nowhere in the report are dollar figure estimates of any of the alternatives given.
It also notes that DECON results in twice the occupational
~
dose of radiation of other alternatives. This estimate is not mentioned anywhere else in the report, and the health effects of such a dose are not described in the report. !
Are health effects increased proportionally with the dose increase? If this is the case, such a dose increase seems less significant when one considers that the risks differ by a factor of four depending on the model one chooses to use to measure the risk. (EIS, 3-4) The increase in health risk would be within the error margin of the accepted es-tination models. However, we are not given the inforuation I
s i
. 7 necessary to make such a determination.
This lack of regard for significant de tail is evident throughout the report, and is not limited to the few examples mentioned above. One would hope that when an agency is con-sidering an action so expensive, complex, and potentially hazardous as the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant that it would more thoroughly display the rigor of its analysis in the environmental impact statement.
C) Objectivity The ,* agency 's .use of 10 OFR 51.23a in the SIS is miulead-ing. The staff presents 10 CFR 51.23a as if it were some sort of evidence of the soundness of the on-site storage proposal. (EIS,4-1) When put in its proper context, the regulation merely clarifies when environmental impac ts of spent fuel storage are to be considered.
10 CFR 51.23b uses the asuurances set forth in 10 CPR 51.2}a to state that no discussion needs to be made of the environmental impacts of spent fuel. storage in the reactor facility storage pools or an independent spent fuel storage ,
installation for a period af ter that for which the applica-tion is being made. So, new plants seeking operating lii censes, or existing plants seeking to extend an operating license, don't need to review the impacts of spent fuel u torage af ter the termination of the li, pense for which the application is being made. The generi; determination mere-ly expresses the NRO 's educated opinion that there are some safe ways to store spent fuel before final delivery to a
8 government depository. It does not imply that all proposed means of storage of opent fuel in existing facility storage pools is without environmental impact.
Careful review of the developnent of 10 CFR 51.23 pro-vides further support for the above interpretation. The rule grew out of a legal decision in which the court remanded to the NRC for a determination on the availability of per-manent off-site storage by 2007-2009, and on whether there are reasonable assurances that spent fuel could be stored on-site sqfely beyond those dates. (Minnesota v. Nito, 1979, 602 F.2d 412.) In response to the remand, the NHO began the
" Waste Confidence" rulemaking proceedings. 10 CFM 51.23 was one of the results of those proceedings. The NRC interpreted this rule in a report printed in the Federal Registern:
This rule has the effect of continuing the Cotamionion3s practice, employed in the proceedings reviewed in State of Minnesota, or limiting considerations of environ-meHtal impac ts of spent fuel storage in licensing pro-ccedings to the period in question and not requiring the Nn0 staff or the applicant to address the impacts of extended storage past the expiration of the license applied for. " (Federal Regis ter, vol. 49, No. 171, August 31, 1984, p. 34689.)
including references to 10 Cru 51.23 in the analysis and conclusion sections of this EIS was very misleading.
The rule, read out of context, appears to be an endorsement of all spent fuel storage in existing spent fuel pools, when the rules true purpose is to clarify the timing and -
scope of impact analyses. The rule does not express a find-ing of the NHO with respect to the Humbolt Plant. The NRO stated that such premature shutdown would be handled non a L j
. 9 case by case basis. " (Federal Regis ter, vol. 99, No. 171 Augus t 31, 1984, p. 34689.)
The mioleading use of 100FR 51.23a, as well as tne lack of uetail anc cursory review of alternatives noted above, discount the credibility and objectivity of this BIS.
D) Mitigation Measures The report noted no committment oy the licenace to mitigate any of the effects of the proposal. This may partly be due to the fac t tha t the unde tailed impact anal-ysis fail,ed to clarify the impac ts. When the impac ts are properly determined, the agency should exact mitigation measures from the licensee.
E) Usefulness The lack of detail and the inadequate treatment of t he alternatives made it impossible for me to fully evaluate the merits of the alternatives from the EIS. If the EIS is a reflection of ,the depth of analysis done by the agency, then the EIS failed to properly channel the decisionmaking process of the agency, for it failed to result in a compre-hensive analysis. Although the EIS provides a framework for a future analysis of the proposal at issue, it is inadequate to serve as a basis for decisionmaking.
IV) Conclusions The agency failed to treat seriously many alternatives, ,
and gave an undetailed analysis of the alternatives treated. I l
All the reasonable alterna tives should be seriously and cos- >i l
prehensively analyzed. Such an analysis chauld include I
e
1s such considerations as the management record of the plant and the radiological effects on nearby flora and fauna.
The agency failed to present an adequately detailed do-cument. Mone tary cost estimates should be provided ' far each alternative. Data on contamination from the early pool leak should be provided to verify modeled projections of potential future contamination events. The report should estimate impacts. of discharges and exposures that are within regulatory limits. The specific attributeo 6 al terna tives a
should be discussed more fully. Greater effor( must be made to quantify estimates and provide the background ma-terial so that decisionmakers don't have to rely on unsub-stantiated sturf opinions.
The discuosion of 10 CFn 51.23a probably should be left out entirely. It serves no useful purpose in the analyois, and it is very misleading.
When the ippacts are fully defined, the agency should exact mitigation measures from the utility.
When all of t he above are done, this BIS will be a use-ful document for decisionmakers and the public.
.r.
r v
614-% 278873053 MAEAAf p oft et Service Center /Stabon pagar ggg y is orginal with trus forrt.? OYesONo g A f/ h d M/[ N d$ aspeicn , ,
1
'p- l Emplowe#
' \
/El). Orphe Ave. Trne C 'Date'$ )
Ru r-1l% w> a eous onn Remarks y/L grf.o l
- /
O Tax exempt [eh bm a n _L . 1 Base ctwge iW10t'1 'lt k NV$C11C 0Wtwf h t'()dlM To'd h YeQ D State /localtaxes l/.5 /Vuc/ tar Re<jv/ 4 hry Cornmliduh , _ ,,, _ ,
Wa s% tun s D/. O ns fC ges Macrune e Dispatch e M';053. m gg c,y *c , oo 3
fftoA f0% Wloation c ge Total charge T""=" Recipents. f Copes l
%,00 O Hold for pckup Cash received at ygin Odesbnabon 4
Employee #
O Saturday servee O Other:
FEC acct. O Serder's O Recipenrs acct #
- SKI TW Courcy wes O Trnra part/s acct #
), - Orgin Destinabon
- Creet card DAmex O MasterCard OVISA O Other:
5 Exp.
- ' Card 8
~
- A C.* JimI. O bant O Address correction
- pages ' Page sve 61ue ggy jg Currency: Street 6
ll $
State Zip Cdy anamar O Hold for sender Employee # Date a O Deliver to other party pluin to sender O Orginal returned at FEC focahon To - A 6.s i a o 41( s '/'t -/600
( ' Time Date W ycaniete l$lL $Ys g Rece-w b AJ4y m 4 9401o O Hold for pckup Ow-w O Sattsday service O Other:
Part s2041736800 Pimied m U S A. fev 3/84 SRC Scaryiqd g,t,1,0,;59 on 06/16/86 Printed at 14:23 on 06/16/86 Fro,mJ1P[J,,,,,,,,,,,,6M7p6725 To MPN 3019516177 011 Pases Printed C 00 1 3 Re.......-.............
gag ,g,9 ,t, ,L pfy _, , _ _ , . .
IlI