ML20247F484
| ML20247F484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1989 |
| From: | Patricia Jehle NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8656 OLA, NUDOCS 8905300093 | |
| Download: ML20247F484 (34) | |
Text
- _ - _ _ _ -
-e MAY 2 31989 4
L iL} n UNITED STATES 0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION 89 W 24 P2 :55 EEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
,y r DOCh([ f !l, 3
i (.
j p t. e..
In the Matter of VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-0LA POWER CORPORATION
)
(Spent fuel Pool Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
NRC STAFF BRIEF AND
SUMMARY
OF RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ON WHICH THE STAFF INTENDS TO RELY AT ORAL ARGUMENT ON NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.1113, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff hereby submits its written brief summarizing all the facts, data and arguments of which the Staff is aware and on which the Staff intends to rely at the oral argument, scheduled for June 21-23, 1989.
For the reasons set forth below, it is the Staff's position that there is no genuine issue of material relating fact to Interveners' Contention 3, that the Staff has met its burdan of proof on Environmental Contention 3, and that the Staff is entitled, as a matter of law, to a decision in its favor on Environmental Contention 3.
This brief is supported by an." Affidavit of Frederick C. Sturz of the NPC Staff Regarding New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Environmental Contention 3."
(SturzAffidavit).
I.
BACKGROUND OF THIS PROCEEDING By letter dated April 25, 1986, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, the Licensee, requesteo a change to Section 5.5.D of the Technical Specifications for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont
)Y 8905300093 s90523 DR ADDCK 0500 1
E
Yankee). This change would increase the number of fuel assemblies that could be stored in the spent fuel pool from 2,000 to 2,870. The change involved the installation of new high density racks in the spent fuel pool to provide a closer packing of fuel assemblies than in the prior system.
Required criticality margins are maintained by incorporation of boron containing material in the rack design. This is a commonly used feature for high density rack design, and a large number of similar designs have been approved by the NRC.
Following completion of its review, the NRC Staff made a final finding that installation of new racks involved no significant hazards consideration, and on May 22, 1988 the Staff issued Amendment No. 104, which authorized Vermont Yankee to place new racks in the pool to accommodate 2,870 assemb*fies, and to store fuel in the racks, but provided that storage would not exceed the presently authorized 2,000 assemblies.
On July 25, 1988, the NRC staff issued its " Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Spent Fuel Pool Facility Operating License No.
DPB-28," for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The need for increase'd storage capacity and six alternatives to the proposed action l
were discussed in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the Environmental Assessment with the conclusion that t.here are no significant radiological or non-radiological effects associated with the proposed action and that the amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
On October 11, 1988, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted the Interveners' late-filed Environmental Contention 3.
Vermont Yankee I
NuclearPowerCorp.(VermontYankeeNuclearPowerStagon),LBP-88-26, 28NRC440(1988). Contention 3 alleges that the Staff inadequately l
considered one particular alternative to the proposed action; that is, the Interveners allege the Staff did not adequately consider dry cask storage as an alternative to spent fuel pool expansion through reracking. The Interveners' Contention 3 states:
1 The NRC has failed to give adequate consideration to the alternative of dry cask storage, and has thus not complied with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, nor of its own rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
The Interveners contend that the Staff's consideration of dry cask storage is inadequate because Section 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 9 4332(2)(E) and the NRC's regulations in 10 C.F.R. 5 51.30(a)(ii) require that an environmental assessment (EA) consider alternatives to the proposed action which may partially or completely meet the proposal's goal. The Interveners' interpretation of these provisions is incorrect.
II.
REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA $6102(2)(E) AND 102(2)(C)
AND 10 C.F.R. Part 51 0F THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS An analysis of the applicable Commission regulations and hEPA provisions is necessary to respond to the Interveners' contention.
10 C.F.R. G 51.30(a)(ii) states:
(a) An environmental assessment shall identify the proposed action and include:
(ii) Alternatives as required by 102(2)(E) of NEPA; Section 6 102(2)(E) of NEPA provices:
(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall (E) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning
alternativeusesofavailableresources;[ emphasis added].
On first examination, G 102(2)(E) appears to mandate that federal agencies consider in detail appropriate alternatives to proposed actions.
The analysis, however, must not end at this point. On closer examination it is clear the language of 5102(2)(E) conditions.an agency's investigation.of alternatives to proposed actions on there being
" unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources". I/' The Staff's position is that absent unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, there is no requirement under NEPA nor the Commission's regulations to consider alternatives to a pronosed plan in any detail.
The Interveners do not state what they believe the available resources are. However, it is imperative that the "available resources" be identified and analyzed to ensure a proper interpretation of the Commission's regulations and NEPA. The resources involved in the proposed action are the spent fuel pool the new racks and in a more general sense, the' plant itself. El 1/
The Staff has previously maintained that i 102(2)(E) does not pertain to an EA, but only to an environmental impact statement (EIS).
See "NRC Staff Response to Joint Motion of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for Leave to File Late-Filed Contentions," dated September 6, 1988. The Staff will not reargue this position, because as will be discussed below, the requirements of 6 102(2)(E) are not triggered in this case regardless of whether an EA or an EIS at issue.
1 i
-2/
The Staff agrees that plant workers are resources, and that occupational exposure to additional workers, although insignificant, is a consequence of the expanded storage.
The Interveners withdrew (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
The Interveners suggest that a dry cask independent spent fuel storageinstallation(ISFSI)isan"availabicresource"under9102(2)(E).
In actuality, a dry cask ISFSI is an alternative to the expansion of the spent fuel pool. To require the examination of a dry cask ISFSI is to require the study, development, and description of an alternative to the proposed action. Section 102(2)(E) does not require consideration of alternatives without a finding of unresolved conflicts.
Because the Interveners prefer a particular alternative to the proposed action, they contend that the NRC Staff is required to examine dry cask storage under 6 102(2)(E).
The Interveners' position is incorrect; the proposed action is not a " major federal action..." requiring the preparation of an EIS pursuant to 5 102(2)(C). The Interveners seek an examination of alter-natives under 6.102(2)(E) because the preparation of a full environmental impact statement is unavailable to them under 6 102(2)(C).
Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA requires that:
(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall (C) include in every recommendation a report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on --
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action.
Courts have held that i 102(2)(C)(iii) requires no consideration of alternatives unless it is first found that the proposed action will (F0OTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Environmental Contention 2 which concerned worker exposure by (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
P l..
p 1
significantly affect the environment.
Borough of Morrisville v.
Delaware River Basin Commission, 399 F. Supp. 469 (D. Pa. 1975), aff'd, 532F.2d745(3rdCir.1976). An environmental impact statement is not required every time a federal agency acts; it is required only when a proposed action is " major" and its effect on the human environment is "significant." Town of Gorton v. Laird, 353 F. Supp. 344, 348 Conn.
1972)..
In the present case the proposed action is neither a major federal action nor an action with a significant impact on the environment.
In its Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) the NRC Staff j
determined that increasing pool storage through reracking actions is generally not a major federal action and does not have a significant impact on tb environment. " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Reactor Fuel," NUREG-0575, dated August 1979. Sturz Affidavit 11 12, 13.
In order to require the in-depth review and analysis of altm satives that are part of the EIS process, the Interveners must provide a basis for their belief that tne Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool has unique qualities or problems which raise independent safety or environmental concerns.
III. AVAILABLE RESOURCES UNDER 6 102(2)(E) 0F NEPA It is not clear how dry cask storage relates to any resources that are involved in this amendment request.
(he a m + ble resources are the (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE stipulation, dated April 3,1989, and they are precluded from raising that issue now. Memorandum and Order (Report of Oral Argument),
dated April 13, 1989.
h_-_--_______
_m-_.__m2.
-_u.-.._
pool and the racks, and the materials used to build the racks. A dry cask ISFSI is an alternative to wet storage; it is not a resourcc over which there is an unresolved conflict.
Furthermore, the Staff indicates that dry cask storage is not available for boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel; no casks for BWR fuel nave received NRC or DOE approval. Sturz Affidavit at 11 27, 28.
The Staff has no obligation to consider alternatives that are not available. An agency is not required to examine every conceivable alternative to a project involving the environmeM., but only those that are reasonable.
F_riends of the Earth v. Coleman, 513 F.2d 295, 297 (9th Cir. 1975). Only reasonably available alternatives need be discussed.
Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 359 F. Supp. 1289, 1344 (S.D. Tex. 1973).
Reracking of the spent fuel pool will not result in any irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of water, land, or air resources. No additional land or water commitments are required, because the volume of the spent fuel pool remains unchanged. The land area now used for the pool will be utilized more efficiently by safely increasing the density of fuel stored. The new racks are constructed of steel and boral, with a combined weight estimated at 150 tons. These materials are no*. expectec to significantly foreclose alternatives available with respect to any other licensing actions nesigned to improve the possible storage of spent fuel storage capacity.
In addition, the materials used in the reracking are readily available materials, and in no way can be considered to be l
scarce or unique resources. Thus, there is no commitment of valuable resources due to the reracking.
Sturz Affidavit at 1 9.
It is valuable, scarce or unique resources that Congress seeks to protect through NEPA and 5 102(2)(E) in particular.
l l
l
The Staff has properly determined that the "available resources" to be evaluated in the case at hand are the spent fuel pool and the materials which are used in the construction of the racks. The same analysis was used when the Commission determined that dry cask storage under a general
~ license by reactor licensees would not have a significant environmental impact. " Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Rule Entitled, ' Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites'," 54 Fed. Reg. 19379. See Sturz Affidavit at 11 38, 39.
In the EA for dry cask storage, the Staff evaluated the available resources that will be used in dry cask storage.
Id. The resource at issue is the dry cask ISFSI.
The Staff identified the materials ~ to be used in a dry cask ISFSI as being steel, lead or uranium, concrete, plastic, land, and equipment to move casks.
Sturz Affidavit at 11 38, 39, 40.
The Staff's EA for wet storage states correctly that alternative uses of available resources need not be considered because the action does not involve.the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Final Environmental Statement (FES),
dated July 1972 which relates to Vermont Yankee.
See also Sturz Affidavit at 19.
The Staff's EA supplements that FES; it need not cor, sider the alternative use of resources unless resources not identified in the FES are implicated. Such would be the case if the proposal requested, for example, an offsite ISFSI. However, such is not the case here. When addressing environmental considerations in a license amendment proceeding, a licensing board should not reassess the environmental issues which have been thoroughly considered and decided in the initial proceeding.
Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-11, 7 NRC 381, 393 (1978); Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 415 (1975); see also Portland General Electric Co. -(Trojan Nuclear Plant), LBP-78-40, 8 NRC 717,744-45(1978), aff'd, ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287 (1979).
Even though NEPA and the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R Part 51 do not require consideration of alternatives under the circumstances described above, the Staff did discuss alternatives and the Interveners offer no basis for their suggestion that the discussion is inadequate.
The Staff agrees that there may be some dispute regarding the facts surrounding dry versus wet storage. Which of the two methods is better and where dry storage facilities are best located are interesting questions. However, the answers to these questions are not relevant because the Commission determined that both wet and dry storage methods have an insignificant impact on the environment. The impacts on the environment due to wet versus dry storage are not different, they are the same; both are insignificant. Sturz Affidavit at 11 13, 24, 37, 48.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION WERE PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE NRC STAFF The Staff identified and evaluated six alternatives to expansion of spent fuel pool capacity. Sturz Affidavit at 11 18-26. The Staff found no significant impact on the environment and determined that there are no unresolved conflicts concerning available resources.
Sturz Affidavit at j
11 18-25. If the Staff had found otherwise, it would have required the l
l Licensee to provide additional information on alternatives.
However, the l
Licensee did not submit a proposal for dry cask storage, nor did the Staff 1
require the Licensee to submit information on a dry storage alternative.
1
Thus, the Staff has no design or economic data'en which to base a 1
site-specific analysis of the dry cask alternative.
The Interveners conclude that the Staff rejected an environmentally
" preferable" alternative to expansion of Lpent fuel pool capacity solely on the ground that the design, construction, and NRC review of such storage could not be carried out within the Licensee's time schedules.
This is an incorrect conclusion and there is no basis, in the record, to support such a conclusion.
The Staff has never " rejected" dry cask storage as a viable alternative to wet storage.
In fact, the Staff has concluded that both spent fuel pool storage and dry cask storage are environmentally benign. Moreover, the Staff points out that no plant with room to accommodate additional pool storage has ever requested a license amendment for dry cask storage. The development of a dry cask storage facility has always been carried out after exhausting the expansion capabilities of an existing pool, because the economic and environmental costs are less when an existing resource is fully utilized. Sturz Affidavit at 11 24, 26, 35, 36.
The Staff has stated that it did not perform a site-specific analysis of dry cask storage, but relied on the Commission's past licensing experience to assess the alternative. Sturz Affidavit at 1 32. The Staff also relied on its generic assessment of the impacts of dry cask storage.
Sturz Affidavit at 1 33-40. The Staff's analysis of dry cask storage is presented clearly in its EA, the responses to NECNP's interrogatories, and in the Sturz Affidavit. The regulations require nothing more; in fact, the Staff's analysis goes beyond the requirements of NEPA and the Commission's regulations.
V.
THE NRC STAFF FULFILLED ITS REQUIREMENTS UNDER NEPA AND THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS 1
Courts in discussing 5102(2)(C) and (E) of NEPA generally construe l
these sections in terms of environmental impact statements prepared for a proposed action. See e.g.,
Environmental Defense Fund Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of U.S. Army, 492 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1974); Conservation Council of North Carolina v. Froehlke, 340 F. Supp. 222 (D. N.C.1972);
Borough of Morrisville v. Delaware River Basin Commission, 399 F. Supp.
t 469 (E.D. Pa. 1975), aff'd. per curiam, 53P F.2d 745 (3rd Cir. 1976);
Natural Resources Defe:se Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837 (D.C.
Cir. 1972); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Calloway, 524 F.2d 79, 92-93 (2nd Cir. 1975); Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineer of U.S. Army, 470 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1972). The Supreme Court has not found that 6 102(2)(E) applies to environmental assessments.
Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223 (1980).
In Strycker's Bay the Court held that absent an obligation to complete a full-scale environmental statement, an agency that has considered the environmental consequences of its proposed action has fulfilled its NEPA requirements. M.at225-28. TrinityEpiscopalSchoolCorp.v.Romney,E cited by the Interveners as supporting their interpretation of 9 102(2)(E),
was reversed by the Supreme Court in Strycker's Bay. 444 U.S. at 228.
The Commission's regulations require that an environmental assessment include a i 102(2)(E) evaluation only in the case of unresolved conflicts 3/
523 F. 2d 88 (2d Cir. 1975).
..n concerning alternative use of-available resources. Without a showing by the Interveners that such is the case, NEPA and the Commission's regula-tions require no more of the Staff.
VI.
INTERVENERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A LEGAL BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3
.The Licensee has proposed a use for the spent fuel pool; that is, an expansio cf pool capacity. The alternative "use" of the pool (the "availableresource")isabandonmentofthepoolwhenitreachescapacity; it is not implementation of a dry cask ISFSI. The Staff considered abandonment of the pool in its EA and determined that taking no action and thus requiring Vermont Yankee to shut down was not a reasonable use of available resources. Sturz Affidavit at 1 25. This alternative has never has never been challenged by the Interveners. The Interveners do not identify conflicts regarding available resources, so as to invoke 102(2)(E)ofNEPA.
The Staff states that there are no unresolved conflicts concerning the alternative uses of the spent fuel pool. The Intervenor has made no allegation of unresolved conflicts concerning this or any other available resource involved in the proposed action.
Instead NECNP has made only a technically insupportable statement that a dry cask ISFSI is environmen-tally preferable to wet storage. At this point Interveners' Environmental Contention 3 is a bald statement regarding the insufficiency of the EA and is devoid of legal basis.
I VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, the Licensing Board should find that there is no genuine issue of material fact in the Interveners' Environmental Contention 3 to be litigated, that the Staff has met its burden of proof
_______m_
_. = - _ _.
'i
- t. '.
nj-*
f' o
9
.)
2.(;
on the Environmental ~ Contention 3, and that the Staff is entitled to a L
- decision in its favor on Environmental Contention 3 as a matter of law.
p L
Respectfully submitted, h s *L. t c~
~
L Patricia A. Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff
' Dated at' Rockville,. Maryland this 23rd day of May, 1989.
m__.____.____
h+^
[
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION (SpentFuelPoolAmendment)
'(VermontYankeeNuclearPower
)
Station)
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK C. STURZ OF THE NRC STAFF REGARDING NECNP'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3 I, Frederick C. Sturz, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
My position is Senior Project Manager for the Fuel Cycle Safety Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
I am responsible for review and oversight of submittals on radiological safety and environmental impacts of proposed licensing actions for facilities for spent fuel storage, low level waste treatment and storage, and spent fuel processing.
2.
The purpose of this testimony is tc address the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board concerning NECNP's Environmental Contention 3 as set forth in the " Joint Motion of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and the Commonwealth ef Massachusetts for Leave to File Late-Filed Contentions." See i
alsoMemorandumandOrder(Late-FiledEnvironmentalContentions),LBP-88-26,28
]
l NRC 440, 448 (1988).
3.
By letter of April 25, 1986, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VY or the Licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station to allow the
expansion of the capacity of the spent fuel pool and the increased storage of spent _ fuel in the pool. Further information was provided in letters dated August 15, September 26, October 21, November 24, and December 5, 1986;.
' February 25, March 19, March 31, April 9, April 13, May 22, June 11, September 1, 1987; and March 2 and June 7, 1988.
4.
The amendment would authorize the licensee to increase the capacity from the current 2000 fuel assemblies to the proposed capacity of 2870 fuel assemblies in the pool. The proposed expansion was to be achieved by removing the spent fuel racks formerly in use from the pool and replacing them with new racks (i.e., reracking) in which the cells. for the spent fuel assemblies are more closely spaced and by the addition of enhancements to the spent fuel pool cooling system. Both the former fuel storage arrangement and the proposed arrangement make use of free-standing racks containing a neutron absorber (Boral).
5.
On May 20, 1988, the Staff issued License-Amendment No. 104, which authorized the Licensee to place new racks in the pool to accommodate 2870 assemblies; however, not to exceed the presently authorized 2000 assemblies.
On June 7, 1988, VY wrote a letter to the NRC forwarding a document relating to its commitment to' provide an enhanced cooling system for spent fuel pool cooling. The Staff has examined the environmental impacts to be expected from the installation and operation of such a system, with storage in the spent fuel storage pool of the proposed 2870 assemblies.
6.
NECNP's Environmental Contention 3 states:
The NRC has failed to give adequate consideration to the alternative of dry cask storage, and has thus not complied with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, nor its own rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
Joint Motion at 4.
b
- 3'-
~7.
' Contention 3 asserts that the' Staff has failed to adequately consider dry cask storage as an alternative to re-racking the spent fuel pool, and therefore, is not in compliance with the Nationai Environmental Policy Act
.(NEPA)'and 10 C.F.R. Part 51. The contention is not specific about the inadequacies of the dry cask storage alternative considered in the Staff's environmentalassessr:..it(EA).
8.
10 C.F.R. Part 51 implements the Commission's responsibilities under NEPA. 10C.F.R.'51.30(a)(1)(ii)requiresanenvironmentalassessmentto include a'brief discussion of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA.. Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA calls for an analysis of alternatives for which the proposed action involves " unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses'of available resources." The Staff considers 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines to be applicable to consideration of the proposed action. The Staff is not aware of any require-ments, criteria and/or guidance that are specifically applicable to the consideration of a dry cask storage installation in the context of this proposed action in regard to NEPA.
9.
The NRC determined that the re-racking does not involve new use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Commission's " Final Environmental Statement dated July 1972, related to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station." The Staff contends that because there are no " unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources," no assessment of alternatives is required on this point.
Because the Commission concluded that no significant environmental effects will result from the proposed action, alternatives need not be evaluated.
Furthermore, alternatives to the proposed action would have equal or greater environmental impacts.
4
- 10. 10 C.F.R. 51.30(a)(1)(iii) requires an environmental assessment (EA) to include a brief discussion of the environmental impacts of alternatives as appropriate. The alternatives and their impacts are presented below.
Alternatives
- 11. Commercial reprocessing of spent fuel has not developed as anticipated.
In 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission directed the Staff to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS, the Statement) on spent fuel storage. The Commission directed the Staff to analyze alternatives for the handling and storage of spent light water power reactor fuel with particular emphasis on developing long range policy. The Statement was to consider alternative methods of spent fuel storage as well as the possible restriction or termination of the generation of spent fuel through nuclear power plant shutdown.
- 12. A " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of. Spent Light Water Power Reactor fuel" (NUREG-0575), Volumes 1-3 (the l
FGEIS) was issued by the NRC in August 1979. The finding of the FGEIS is that the environmental costs of interim storage are negligible, regardless of where such spent fuel is stored. A comparison of the impact costs of various
)
alternatives reflect:; the advantage of continued generation of nuclear power versus its replacement by coal-fired power generation.
Continued nuclear generation of power versus its replacement by oil-fired generation provides an even greater economic advantage. The FGEIS also considered a bounding case, shutting down the reactor when the existing spent fuel storage capacity was filled. The cost of replacing nuclear stations before the end of their normal lifetime makes this alternative uneconomical. The storage of spent fuel as
evaluated in NUREG-0575 is considered to be an interim action, not a final solution to permanent disposal.
- 13. One spent fuel storage alternative considered in detail in the FGEIS is the expansion of 'onsite fuel storage capacity by modification of the existing spent fuel pools. Applications for more than one hundred spent fuel pool expansions have been received and have been approved or are under review by the NRC. The finding in each case has been that the environmental impact of such increased storage capacity is negligible.
However, since there are variations in storage designs and limitations caused by the spent fuel elready stored in some of the pools, the FGEIS recommends that licensing reviews be done on a case-by-case basis to resolve plant-specific concerns.
- 14. The Licensee has considered several alternatives to the proposed action of the spent fuel pool expansion.
Letter-(andatthchment)fromW.P.
Murphy, VYNPC, to H. Denton, NRC, dated April 25, 1986, " Proposed Technical Specification Change for Spent and New Fuel Storage." The Staff has evaluated these and certain other alternatives with respect to the need for the proposed action, that is, the need for increased storage capacity.
In September 1977, Vermont Yankee (VY) received a license amendment to increase its spent fuel storage capacity in phases from 600 to 2000 assemblies. At the time it filed for the proposed amendment, VY had installed racks sufficient to store 1680 fuel assemblies. At that time, the racks in the pool were insufficient to maintain full core off :.oad capability beyond cycle 13 startup (October 1987).
1 Although VY's 1977 license amendment would permit the installation of additional racks to permit the storage of the 2000 assemblies, the presence of additional racks in the pool would complicate the task of reracking.
- 15. At the time of the previous fuel pool expansion, it was anticipated 1
j~
that away-from-reactor storage would be available during the 1980's.
- However,
I in 1981, the federal government announced that it intended to discontinue funding the away-from-reactor storage program, and utilities were given a clear mandate by the Department of Energy to develop their own storage programs.
- 16. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides for limited away-from-reactor storage and stipulates that a spent fuel repository will be available by 1988. Since the Act does not require a repository before this date, it is not clear whether there will be any place to ship spent fuel in the 1980's or in the early to mid-1990's. Therefore, VY has proposed to expand further its existing spent fuel storage capacity to 2870 assemblies, which is projected to provide storage capacity until 1999 while still maintain-ing a full core offload capability.
- 17. The following alternatives were considered by the NRC Staff:
Shipment of spent fuel to a permanent fuel stcrage/ disposal facility.
Shipment of fuel to a-reprocessing facility.
Shipment of fuel to another utility for storage.
(4 Reduction of spent fuel generation.
(5) Construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).
(6). No Action taken.
Each of these alternatives is discussed below.
4 1.
Shipment of Spent Fuel to a Federal Fuel Storage / Disposal Facility
- 18. Shipment to a permanent federal fuel storagz7 disposal facility is one possible alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity.
The Licensee has made contractual arrangements whereby spent nuclear fuel and/or l
high level nuclear waste will be accepted and disposed of by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). DOE is developing a respository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). Public Law 97-425, Section 302(a)(5).
1 However, the facility is not likely to be ready to receive spent fuel until
. 7 _.
2003 at the earliest. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the near-term storage needs of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. for the Vermont Yankee Plant.
- 19. As an interim measure, shipment to a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility is another possible alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel. storage' capacity. DOE, under the NWPA, has recently submitted its MRS proposal to Congress.. Because Congress has not authorized an MRS and because one is not projected to be available before 1998, this alternative does not meet the near-term storage needs for the Vermont Yankee Plant.
20.
Under NWPA the federal government has the responsibility to provide not more than 1900 metric tons capacity for the interim storage of spent fuel.
The impacts of storing fuel at a Federal Interim Storage (FIS) facility fall within those already assessed by the NRC in NUREG-0575.
In enacting the NWPA, Congress _found that the owners and operators of nuclear power stations have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage of spent nuclear fuel.
In accordance with the NWPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 53, shipping of spent fuel to a FIS facility is considered a last resort alternative. The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 53, see especially 10 C.F.R. 653.30(8)(d), make it clear that FIS will be made available only to licensees who have exhausted all other stor-age alternatives, such as expansion of capacity by installation of high density racks and fuel rod compaction and construction of new spent fuel storage facil-ities at the reactor site.
See 10 C.F.R. 553.13(c). Thus the FIS alternative is not available to VY at this time.
2.
Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility
- 21. Reprocessing of spent fuel from the Vermont Yankee Plant is not a viable alternative because at the present time there is no operating commercial 1
(~
reprocessing facility in the United States, nor is there a prospect for one in the foreseeable future.
3.
Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility for Storage
- 22. The shipment of spent fuel from the Vermont Yankee Plant to the storage facility of another utility company could provide short-term relief for Vermont Yankee's storage capacity problem. However, the NWPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 53 clearly place the responsibility for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel with each owner or operator cf a nuclear power plat t.
- Moreover, transshipment of spent fuel to and its storage at another site would entail potential environmental impacts greater than those associated greater than those associated with the proposed increase in storage at the Vermont Yankee site. Therefore, shipment of spent fuel to another utility for storage is not a practical or reasonable alternative.
4.
Reduced Spent Fuel Generation 23.
Improved usage of fuel and/or operation at a reduced power level would extend the life of the fuel in the reactor.
In the case of extended burnup of fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer offloads would take place.
However, even if such an improvement were accomplished, the currently available storage capacity would be exhausted prior to 1999.
Further, operation at reduced power would not make effective use of available resources, thus causing economic penalties.
5.
Construction of a New Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
- 24. Additional storage capacity could be developed by building a new, independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), either similar to the
L l l;
existing pool or a dry cast storage installation. The NRC staff has
. generically assessed the impacts of the pool alternative and found, as reported in NUREG-0575, that "the storage of LWR spent fuels Vn water pools has an l
insignificant impact on the environment". A generic assessment for the dry L
cask alternative has not been made by the Staff.
However, assessments for the l
dry cask ISFSI at the Surry Power Station and the dry modular concrete ISFSI at the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit 2 resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation," Letter from L. C. Rouse (NRC) to W.L. Stewart (VirginiaElectricPowerCompany)datedApril 12, 1985, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the H.B. Robinson Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation'," Docket No. 50-261, Carolina Power and Light Company, March 1986.
While these alternatives are environmentally acceptable, such a new storage facility, either at the Vermont Yankee site or at a location offsite, would require new site specific design and construction, including equipment for the transfer of spent fuel.
NRC review evaluation and licensing of such a facility would also be required. There is little likelihood that this effort could be completed in time to meet the need for additional capacity.
Furthermore, the expansion capacity of the existing pool is a resource that should be used.
6.
No Action Taken 25.
If no action were taken, i.e., if the spent fuel pool storage authorization would remain 2000 locations, the storage capacity would become exhausted, and Vermont Yankee would have to be shut down. This cesution of operations would result in no further generation of spent fuel, thereby
eliminating the need for increased spent fuel storage capacity.
However, the spent fuel already in the pool would remain there and thus would continue to impact the environment, albeit, insignificantly. The impacts of terminating the generation of spent fuel by ceasing the operation of existing nuclear power plants (i.e., ceasing generation of electric power) when their' spent fuel pools become filled was evaluated in NUREG-0575 and found to be undesirable. This alternative would be a waste of an available resource, the Vermont Yankee Plant itself, and is not, therefore, considered a reasonable alternative, i
26.
In summary, the only alternative to the proposed action that could resolve the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation's spent fuel storage capacity problem is the construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation at the Vermont Yankee site or at a location away from the site.
Construction of such an additional spent fuel storage facility could provide long-term increased storage-capacity for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corpora-tion.
However, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation has not requested an amendment for the construction of a new independent spent fuel storage installation utilizing dry casks. Meanwhile, the NRC staff has determined that the expansion of the capacity of the spent fuel pool and the increased storage of spent fuel in the pool requested in an amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Power Station will have no significant impact on the environment.
- 27. Based on ISFSI licensing experience to date and on the documents referenced in Appendix A, the NRC staff concluded that the dry cask alternative could not be implemented in time to meet the need for additional capacity for the Vermont Yankee Plant. The NRC staff's best estimate for the range of the time necessary to plan, design, license, construct and initially load an ISFSI is from three to six years.
This estimate includes a one year period from the
r
.j.
initial pre-license application discussions until the subraittal of the license application, but does not include time spent by the applicant on planning studies conducted before the initial discussions were held. This estimate is valid for an ISFSI for both BWR and PWR fuels. Because of the Staff's ISFSI licensing and Topical Safety Analysis Report (TR) review experience with PWR fuel, the time required to design and construct an on-site dry cask ISFSI for PWRs is expected to be in the shorter time range.
However,.because no storage casks for BWR fuel currently have active NRC approval, the time required to design and-construct an on-site dry cask ISFSI for BWRs is estimated to be closer to six years.
- 28. The Staff's best estimate of the time necessary to license a dry cask ISFSI for either BWR or PWR fuel-on a reactor site (assuming no intervention) is 12 to 18 months. Because of the Staff's experience in ISFSI licensing and TR reviews for PWR fuei, the time required to license an on-site dry cask ISFSI, which references a previously reviewed and approved cask design for PWR fuel, is expected to tend towards the lower end of the time range.
Because no storage casks for BWR. fuel currently have active NRC approval, the time required to license an on-site dry cask ISFSI and concurrently review a cask TR for BWR fuel.is expected to tend towards the upper end of the time range.
Fuel Reprocessing History; Storage at Reprocessing Facilities
- 29. No spent fuel is being reprocessed on a commercial basis in the United States.
In 1972 the Nuclear Fuel Service (NFS) plant at West Valley, New York, was shut down for alterations and expansion.
In September 1976, NFS informed the Commission that it was withdrawing from the nuclear fuel reprocessing business. The Allied General Nuclear Services (AGNS) plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, is not licensed to operate as a reprocessing L
I l
facility. The General Electric Company (GE) Morris Operation (formerly Midwest Recovery Plant) in Morris, Illinois, is in a decommissioned condition.
- 30. On April 17, 1977, President Carter issued a policy statement on commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, which effectively eliminated reprocessing as part of the relatively near-term nuclear fuel cycle.
- 31. Although no plants are licensed for reprocessing fuel, the storage pools at Morris and West Valley are licensed to store spent fuel. The storage pool at West Valley is not full, but the current licensee, New York Energy Research and Development Authority, is not accepting spent fuel for storage, even from those power generating facilities that had contractual arrangements with West Valley. Rather, spent fuel is being removed from NFS and returned to its owners. On May 4,1982, the license held by GE for spent fuel storage activities at its Morris operation was renewed for another 20 years; however, GE is committed to accept for storage at this facility only limited quantities of additional spent fuel from Cooper and San Onofre Unit 1.
- 32. Referencing previous Commission environmental documents was relied upon herein in order to keep the discussions brief. Of course, the extensive technical documents on which the NRC staff relied are available in the Public Document Room.
- 33. The alternative of dry cask storage is just one potential method that can be used for an independerat spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) and was included under Alternative 5, " Construction of a New Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation." This alternative considers both wet and dry storage methods. Both methods could be implemented either at a reactor (AR) site or an away-from-reactor (AFR) facility (new site). The discussion of environmental impacts associated with an ISFSI referenced the Commission's " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water
4 -,
4 Power Reactor fuel," NUREG-0575, dated August 1979, (FGEIS). The FGEIS found:
I "The storage of LWR spent fuels in water pools has insignifi-cant impact on the environment, whether AR or at AFR sites" and "[t]his statement supports the finding that the storage of spent fuel in away-from-reactor facilities is economically and environmentally acceptable." The FGEIS further found: "The use of alternative dry passive storage techniques for aged fuel,... appears to be both technically feasible and environmentally acceptable." While, the FGE15 provides some information about the environmental impacts of dry storage, the discussion of environmental impacts for dry storage methods, in the Staff's EA, also relied on the Commission's licensing experience for the Surry and H. B.
Robinson ISFSI's by referencing the re nective EA's in order to provide a broader basis for general conclusions about the environmental impacts of dry storage. Each EA concluded:
"the *** ISFSI will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment." Both EA's resulted in Commission findings of no significant impact.
50 Fed. Reg. 15517 and 51 Fed. Reg. 12006.
1
- 34. The NRC staff evaluation of alternative five, dry cask storage, was a generic evaluation of environmental impacts, which relied on referencing on a previous environmental impact statement, NUREG-0575 and was based on previous licensing experience. Also, the NRC has issued an Environmental Assessment and j
Finding of No Significant Impact in connection with the Oconee Nuclear Station ISFSI license application, which provides additional support for the conclusion j
that dry storage is environmentally acceptable. The three EAs address site-specific construction and operational impacts in connection with land and water resources, socioeconomic, climatology, noise, and air quality, and the projected radiological doses to the workers and the public are also associated with site-specific factors; however, the estimates for the three sites can be l
used to draw general conclusions about potential radiological and environmental
.4-,
effects 'of dry storage.
Additionally, the Com:nission, in its " Waste Confidence Decision,"CLI-84-15,20NRC288(1984), stated that it " finds reasonable assurance' that, if necessary, spent fuel... can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts" in reactor storage pools or in " independent spent-fuel storage installations." Moreover, the " Environmental Assessment for 10 C.F.R. Part 72 ' Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste,'" NUREG-1092, and the Supplementary Information~for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register (51 Fed.
Reg. 19106) on May 27, 1987, contain specific analyses which show that the potential environmental impacts of dry storage of spent fuel in casks are small..
- 35. The NRC staff has assessed the public health consequences of dry storage cask accidents and acts of radiologic sabotage.
In connection with separate, ongoing rulemakings related to licensing requirements for storage of high-level radioactive wastes and emergency preparedness, the NRC staff reevaluated consequences of potential accidents involving spent fuel storage in dry casks.
See 51 Fed. Reg.19106 and "A Regulatory Analysis on Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and Other Radioactive Material Licensees,"
NUREG-1140. The reevaluation revealed no reason to increase the estimated doses set forth in NUREG-0575 and NUREG-0709, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of Material License SNM-1265 for the Receipt, Storage, and 4
Transfer of Spent Fuel Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 72 - Morris Operation -
General Electric Company," Docket Nos. 70-1308 and 72-1.
The NRC staff also determined that the releases from dry cask storage are of a magnitude comparable to that for wet storage.
Because of the physical characteristics of the storage casks, the conditions of storage, and specific security provisions,
=
the NRC staff concludes the potential risk to the public health and safety due to accidents or sabotage is extremely small.
- 36. The Staff assesses the potential environmental impacts of dry fuel storage to be small and not significant. The primary documents the Staff relied on are:
1.
" Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station Independent Spent fuel Storage Installation," October 1988, Docket No. 72-4 (50-269, -270, -287).
(Finding of No Significant Impact, Federal Register, Vol. 53, No.
211, November 1, 1988, 53 FR 44133).
2.
The Commission's " Waste Confidence Decision," CLI-84-15, 20 NRC 288 (1984).
3.
" Environmental Assessment for 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste,'" NUREG-1092, August 1984 (Proposed Rule and Finding of No Significant Impact, 51 FR 19106, May 27, 1986).
4.
"A Regulatory Analysis on Emergency Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and the Radioactive Material Licensees," NUREG-1140, January 1988.
5.
Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of Material License SNM-1265 for Receipt, Storage and Transfer of Spent Fuel Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 72 - Morris Operation - General Electric Company,"
NUREG-0709, July 1981, Docket Nos. 70-1308 and 72-1.
These documents provide additional support that dry spent fuel storage has no significant environmental impact and, therefore, is environmentally acceptable.
More recently, the Commission published for comment a proposed ruled to amend its regulations:
" Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites," Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 86, May 5, 1989.
If such a process were approved and the NRC were to license an ISFSI, the amount of time for NRC to conduct its licensing review would not change.
However, under such a process, the NRC would conduct its safety reviews of dry spent fuel storage casks and issue a Certificate of Compliance fc,r each type or model of cask approved. These Certificates of Compliance would set forth the
conditions of each cask's use. A genera? license would be issued to holders of power reactor licenses for the storage of spent fuel in dry casks approved by the NRC. The reactor licensee would have to shov that there are no changes
. required in the facility technical specifications or unreviewed. safety questions related to activities involving storage of spent fuel under the general license. The licensee would also.have to show conformance with conditions of the Certificate of Compliance issued for the cask by the NRC.
l The licensee would have to establish and maintain records showing compliance.
And the records would be made available for inspection by the Commission.
Under this process, power reactor licensees would be allowed to store spent fuel at the reactor site without additional NRC site-specific reviews (that is, no NRC site-specific licensing of an ISFSI).
For storage designs not compatible with such a process, NRC licensing under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 would continue essentially unchanged.
In connection with the proposed rule, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared.
The Commission concluded that the proposed rulemaking would "not have a significant incremental effect on the quality of the human environment."
l
- 38. The major non-radiation environmental impacts for dry cask storage of spent fuel would be those related to fabrication of the casks and construction of the storage facility.
In " Spent Fuel Storage Requirements 1987,"
)
00E/RL-87-11 (September 1987), DOE estimates that by the year 2000 about 6753 metric tons of uranium (MTU) as spent fuel will need to be stored outside of l
existing reactor storage pools. Assuming about 10 MTU per cask, about 675 casks would be required to store this amount of spent fuel.
Storage casks L
l weigh about 100 tons and are fabricated mainly from steel, lead or uranium, concrete and plastic. The estimated 67,500 tons of steel required for these casks over this time period is expected to have very little impact on the steel
)
L..
- 17 industry. The amounts of lead and iron needed would not have significant incremental impacts on the mining and use of these metals. Similarly, the amount of uranium used in these casks would have not significant incremental l
impacts on the uranium' industry because the quantity needed could be obtained from processing some of the vast supply of depleted uranium available as uranium hexafluoride.
If concrete casks are used, the amount of concrete required would be small compared to industrial and construction uses. The amount of plastic, most commonly polyethylene used as a neutron shield, would not be more than about a ton per cask and would be insignificant compared to the millions of tons produced annually.
- 39. Other than casks, storage of spent fuel under a general license would consist primarily of cranes and mobile equipment necessary to move the casks, reinforced concrete pads on which the casks are placed, and the land. The materials required for such ancillary equipment and structures are small, and incremental impacts from their construction and use are not considered to be significant. Land use commitments are negligible. Only a small fraction of the licensee's land previously committed for the nuclear power station would be 1
used.
40.
The only irreversible commitments of resources determined in this assessment were those materials needed for the casks and the land used for the l
storage site. The resource commitments for dry cask storage are similar to l
those required for extended storage of spent fuel previously evaluated in NUREG-0575.
- 41. The Staff did not perform a site-specific analysis of the economic costs of alternative five (5), but used the NRC's past licensing experience to assess the alternative.
Design and construction time for a dry cask
~ independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is necessarily design and site dependent and may vary according to cask vendors and applicants. The Staff has no information related to the time to design and construct a site-specific dry cask ISFSI at Vermont Yankee.
- 42. The Staff did not compare the costs, technical feasibility and/or risks or Vermont Yankee's proposed action to the cost, technical feasibility and/or risks dry cask storage. The Staff has no documents which make such a comparison. However, it is reasonable to assume, as the Staff did, that the costs of expanding an existing resource are less than the costs required to plan, design, license, construct and initially load an independent' spent fuel storage installation. The Staff determined that while an independent spent fuel storage installation is environmentally acceptable, a new storage facility, either at the Vermont Yankee site or at a new location offsite, will require a new site design and construction plan. Because the Staff did not conduct a site-specific evaluation for Vermont Yankee, the Staff did not specifically evaluate the acquisition of additional land. Furthermore, the Staff determined that pool storage is without any significant environmental impact. Therefore, the Staff is not required to analyze the independent spent fuel storage installation alternative in depth. Moreover, the Staff will not conduct this type of analytical exercise without a formal application by the Licensee fnr an ISFSI.
The Staff's actions in the review of the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool expansion amendment have been consistent with NRC actions in the other licensing actions.
Vermont Yankee's proposed action does not differ from other reracking actions which the Staff has approved.
- 43. Although the NRC staff has no information on the actual costs for the design and construction of the Surry ISFSI, VEPCO, in its Surry ISFSI License Application, Section 1.4, did provide an estimate of the project costs:
i L______-___-_-.
I
. -l s
L.',.
The total cost of building and operating the Surry ISFSI over the lifetime of the project in 1982 base dollars would be a low for capital expenditures of $57.8 million and a high of $90.6 million with an operation and maintenance cost of $1.9 million.
l 1
- 44. The DOE in its " Initial Version Dry Cask Storage Study," DOE /RW-0196, August 1988, at page 33, provides factors for estimating the unit-cost range for storing intact spent fuel in metal storage casks. Using the DOE factors, the estimated cost range for the Surry ISFSI would be between $45 million and i
$79 million.
- 45. Duke Power Company (Duke) provided an estimate of the project costs in its Oconee Nuclear Station ISFSI License Application, Chapter 1:
" Duke estimates that the total cost of the proposed Oconee nuclear Station ISFSI will-be approximately $20 million."
- 46. Duke's projected spent fuel storage requirements necessitate operating the Oconee Nuclear Station ISFSI by January 1990. Duke requested that the NRC review and approve the ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (SAR) by March 31, 1989. The review schedule for the NUH0MS-24P TR is paralleling the review of the Oconee Nuclear Station ISFSI SAR review. This schedule allows time for l
i the Commission to review Duke's application and to authorize the issuance of a license by spring or early summer of 1989, i
i
- 47. The NRC staff has no information on the actual costs for the design I
and construction of the ISFSI at the H. B, Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Any data concerning the cost for the design and construction of this ISFSI would 1
i not be representative of a full size ISFSI because it was designed for a limited amount of fuel and was built as a demonstration facility in cooperation with DOE.
- 48. The Staff's EA, in Section 1.3, Alternative 5, " Construction of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation," discussed the environmental l
1 1
r impacts associated with an ISFSI alternative, which encompasses dry cask I
storage as one option. The discussion of impacts was kept brief by incorporating by reference previous Commission documents. The Staff provided additional information about ISFSI environmental impacts.
Regardless of viability, a considerable body of information has been presented indicating that, the ISFSI alternative, including dry cask storage, would not have a significant environmental. impact and is therefore environmentally acceptable.
Thus, the Staff has provided appropriate consideration of the environmental impacts of the dry storage alternative and has complied with the Commission's regulations (10 C.F.R. 51.3C(a)(iii) and the provisions of NEPA.
- 49. As a point of information, the Staff does not require cost estimates nor final cost data as.part of their review of spent fuel pool expansions or other spent fuel storage designs.
Frederick C. Sturz Senior Project Manager for the Fuel. Cycle Safety Branch Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 1989 i
Notary Public My Commission Expires:
l l
l
o
. Bi ii ;
,p c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 MAY 24 P2 35 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.
bod t, s In the Matter of Nu n VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-3LA POWER CORPORA 110N
)
(Spent Fuel Pool Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF BRIEF AND
SUMMARY
OF RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ON WHICH THE STAFF INTENDS TO RELY AT ORAL ARGUMENT ON NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3 AND AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK C. STURZ OF THE NRC STAFF REGARDING NEW ENGLAND C0ALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION (NECNP) AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTION 3" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by express mail, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 23rd day of May, 1989:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.*
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
2066:i Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter
- George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Administrative Judge Senior Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Capitol Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Concord, NH 03301-6397 i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Diane Curran, Esq.
Panel (1)*
Harmon, C9rran & Tousity U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555*
Washington, PC 20009 George Young, Esq.
George Dean, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Vermont Depart. of Public Service Office of the Attorney General 120 State Street One Ashburton Place Montpelier, VT 05602 Boston, MA 02108
O,
R.K. Gad,'III, Esq.
Jay Gutierrez, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Regional Counsel One International Place USNRC, Region I Boston, MA 02110-2624 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Atomit 56Tety and Licensing Appeal Docketing and Service Section*
Panel (5)*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Adjudicatory File
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I
f t
' (.OA l'72 (.A.) NA Patricia Jehle Counsel for NRC Staff
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _