ML20206Q226
| ML20206Q226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1999 |
| From: | Resnikoff M NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206Q192 | List: |
| References | |
| 99-754-01-LA-R, 99-754-1-LA-R, LA, NUDOCS 9905190084 | |
| Download: ML20206Q226 (3) | |
Text
F;
]
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Administrative Judges:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chariman Dr. Thomas S. Elleman Thomas D. Murphy I
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-029-LA YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLBP No. 99-754-01-LA-R (Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
License Termination Plan SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. MARVIN RESNIKOFF I, Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, declare under penalty of perjury to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the above captioned matter that:
- 1. I am the Senior Associate at Radioactive Waste Management Associates, a private consulting firm based in New York City. A statement of my qualifications and documents I previously reviewed in this matter are on file as attachment to my declaration supporting New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's initial contentions in this case.
- 2. I am familiar with the License Termination Plan [LTP] and the NRC Staffs Environmental Assessment [EA] on the LTP, 64 FR 17690 (April 12,1999). I am also familiar with and have reviewed the documents which the NRC Staff referenced in the EA, and the letter from John P. DeVillars, EPA Regional Administrator, Region I, to Judge Charles Bechhoefer, Chainnan, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and the Office of the Secretary, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (January 26,1999), concerning the EPA's comments on environmental issues relative to the LTP.
- 3. In my professionaljudgement, the NRC Staffs EA of the LTP is deficient in the following respects and for the following reasons:
(a) The NRC Staffs EA is not based upon a supplemented Environmental Report. Between the time of the pre-hearing conference in this matter and the date of this declaration, so far as I am aware, Yankee Atomic Electric Company has not issued any l
l l
9905190004 990517 F
,~ vi
i Second Declaration ofDr. Marvin Resnikof
\\
update to the supplemental Environmental Report on the decommissioning of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts [YR] which was issued in December,1993, pIigI to commencement of decommissioning. The NRC Staff's EA in this case is neither based on a supplemental ER which considers and evaluates the environmental effects of the changes YAEC made to the YR site in the course of decommissioning, nor one which considers cumulative environmental impacts of the operational history of YR through the final site survey process. Therefore, as such material is not contained in any of the referenced documents or provided in the EA itself, in my professional opinion the NRC Staff has no basis in fact for making any scientific judgments that the LTP and Final Site Survey will assure that the health and safety of the public are adequately protected from radioactive contamination at the YR site.
(b) The NRC Staff's EA does not consider the comments which its sister organization, the Environmental Protection Agency [ EPA] for Region I, provided to the NRC at the Prehearing Conference in January of this year. In my professional opinion, failure to take account of and discuss the opinions of the EPA in this matter is not consistent with standard practice in the preparation of Environmental Assessments under j
the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. In my experience, not only should the i
preparing agency take account of, comment upon, and discuss opinions and facts offered l
by sister agencies, but it is customary, particularly where there is any controversy over the i
plan at issue, to offer a draft EA for comment prior to issuing a final EA and Finding of No Significant Hazards. The NRC Staff's failure to properly account for, comment upon, and discuss the opinions of the EPA concerning the LTP at issue make the EA incomplete and not consistent with any NEPA proceedings with which I have been involved.
(c) The NRC Staff's conclusion in the EA that "[i]ssuance of the amendment approving the LTP will not have any significant effect on accident risk and probability of l
any-other environmental impact is extremely remote" is not based upon any set of calculations provided in the EA itself or in the materials referenced in the EA. Hence, the NRC Staff has no basis for making a statement which must take into account the i
calculations necessary for a probabilistic risk assessment, (d) The NRC Staff s conclusion in the EA that "the proposed action does not increase the probability or consequences of any accidents" is not based upon any set of I
calculations provided in the EA itself or in the materials referenced in the EA. Hence, the NRC Staff has no apparent basis for making a statement which must take into account the i
calculations necessary for a probabilistic risk assessment.
l (e) The NRC Staffs conclusions that "no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite" is not based upon any scientific study of the impacts upon the environment due to changes to the YR site during decommissioning, as there are no such studies referenced in the material upon which the NRC Staff has
l Second Declaration ofDr. Marvin Resnikof supposedly based this opinion. Since the NRC Staff does not provide any reference to studies which show the history to date of changes to the YR site, including consideration of changes which will be implemented if the NRC approves the LTP, in my opinion there is no scientific basis for concluding that there will be no cht.nges in the types of effluents released offsite due to the activities which will flow from approval of the LTP.
(f) The NRC Staff mistakenly concludes that the " principal alternative" to approval of the LTP "would be to deny the action" and that " denial would result in no change in current environmental impacts."
Plainly, among principal alternatives to approval of a plan for general release of the YR site would be approval of a plan for restricted release of the site. Additionally, there could be approval of portions of the plan and directions that other parts of the plan be changed prior to implementation. Moreover, there could be approval if particular tests and studies are done, and the results of such tests and studies are within acceptable parameters for release of the YR site for general use. In point of fact, the NRC Staff has, by failing to request comments upon the EA, failing to respond to comments already received through the extant hearing process and limited appearance statements, insulated its EA from the consideration of any alternatives.
In my professional experience of the NEPA process, an agency such as the NRC has an obligation to solicit and consider reasonable alternatives to its proposed course of action.
In the instant case, it has not done so.
For the reasons set forth above, it is my professional opinion that the NRC Staffs EA on the LTP is defective and should either be rejected by the Board, or contentions
. questioning the basis of the EA should be admitted to the proceeding. I have reviewed the contentions based upon this declaration, and find them to be correct and accurate in technical detail to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am prepared to testify at hearing in support of the professional opinions I have expressed in this declaration.
DATED:This Mayof
,1999.
J
$f. Marvin Resnikoff N'
enior Associate adioactive Waste Management Associates 526 W. 26? Street Room 517 New York, NY 10010 Tel. (212) 620-0526