ML20301A150
| ML20301A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 10/25/2020 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 85FR27447 | |
| Download: ML20301A150 (6) | |
Text
From:
Judy Treichel <judynwtf@aol.com>
Sent:
Sunday, October 25, 2020 2:46 PM To:
WCS_CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0231 Attachments:
WCS DEIS comment 1020.rtf Please see attached comment letter. Also advise me that these comments were received.
Thank you, Judy Treichel, Executive Director Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Federal Register Notice:
85FR27447 Comment Number:
7440 Mail Envelope Properties (688591077.2552980.1603651579798)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0231 Sent Date:
10/25/2020 2:46:19 PM Received Date:
10/25/2020 2:46:36 PM From:
Judy Treichel Created By:
judynwtf@aol.com Recipients:
Post Office:
mail.yahoo.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 172 10/25/2020 2:46:36 PM WCS DEIS comment 1020.rtf 320319 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
1 NEVADA NUCLEAR WASTE TASK FORCE, INCORPORATED 4587 Ermine Court Non-profit/Public Advocacy Las Vegas, NV 89147 Judy Treichel, Exec. Director Phone: 702-248-1127 E-mail: judynwtf@aol.com Fax: 702-248-1128 October 25, 2020 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Docket ID NRC-2016-0231 Report number: NUREG-2239 (Environmental Impact Statement for Interim Storage Partners LLCs License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Andrews County, Texas(
The Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force (Task Force) was formed more than 30 years ago when the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA) was passed. The singling out of Yucca Mountain, Nevada to be the only site considered for a national high-level nuclear waste repository created the need for the public in Nevada to become aware of the law and to have a voice in federal government agency deliberations and actions. This organization continues to serve Nevadans and to stay abreast of issues and participate in the opportunities for public input on related actions.
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to accompany the license application submitted by Interim Storage Partners LLC (ISP) to construct and operate a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) in Andrews County, Texas. The docketing of this application was illegal because it violates Section 148 (d)(1) of the NWPAA. A Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility referred to in the Amendments Act is the same as a CIFS. It is clearly prohibited for such a facility to be licensed until a repository for final disposition of the waste held at an MRS/CISF has been licensed.
For many years the U.S. Congress has debated changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act to allow for an MRS/CISF independent of a repository but no bill has passed. Therefore there is no justification for NRC to accept or docket this application.
2 A particularly egregious statement in the DEIS is:
Unless and until Congress amends the statutory requirement, the NRC assumes that the transportation of SNF from the CISF to a permanent repository will be to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The licensing process for Yucca Mountain was suspended about 10 years ago. At the time, only preliminary steps toward the decision about whether or not a license would be issued for a repository at Yucca Mountain had begun. None of the nearly 300 contentions had been adjudicated and witnesses had not been heard by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). There was no, and still is no reason to believe that the license would have been granted. The officials and residents of Nevada believed then and continue to believe that once all of the contentions are considered, it will be clear that the site is unsuitable and will not be licensed. The published assumption by the NRC, that a license WILL be granted for a Yucca Mountain repository, destroys any trust that Nevadans may have had in the Commission.
Additionally, the license application for a Yucca Mountain repository is based on a design that does not align with waste acceptance at either of the two currently proposed CISF sites.. Technology and current practices in the CISF proposals as well as at reactor sites have made much of the Yucca Mountain license application obsolete and not compatible with waste forms at existing reactors or those envisioned at the proposed CISFs.
In the ISP license application there is no repackaging capability. The application states that: As a temporary storage facility, waste containers will not be opened at the CISF. (page 10-1) And it also states: At the end of the storage period, all of the spent nuclear fuel located at the CISF will be removed and shipped for permanent disposal in a geologic repository. (page 10-1) The NRC DEIS assumes that the repository is at Yucca Mountain but the design and waste acceptance criteria at Yucca Mountain require that waste arriving be in transportation, aging and disposal (TAD) canisters. The TADs are much smaller and contain far less waste than the canisters at the CISF. Therefore the waste could not be sent to Yucca Mountain.
The waste handling facilities described in the license application for Yucca Mountain are not intended for the repackaging of large amounts of waste. The design, operating procedures and waste acceptance criteria would all have to be changed in the obsolete Yucca Mountain license application.
3 Another issue to be addressed here is the assumption made both by ISP and the NRC that the proposed CISF can be considered to be an interim facility that will not violate the terms of its forty-year license period. As stated in the application: The CISF is designed to store spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository is constructed and operating. The initial request for a license is for a term of 40 years.
(page 3-1) The key word in that statement is initial. Because of the existing laws and incompatibility of the designs of CISF and Yucca Mountain, the waste storage period at the WCS facility should be considered endless. Granting a 40 year license, knowing that there is no expectation for waste removal would intentionally create a stranded fuel site.
The prohibition of temporary consolidated off-site storage of nuclear waste is not an annoying oversite in the existing legislation. It should be clear to decision makers that a permanent disposal facility must be designed, licensed and at least under construction before any interim storage site is considered or approved. If there is to be a CISF, it should be designed only when full knowledge of the capability of the repository is approved for safety and licensed. A workable and acceptably safe waste management and disposal system must be considered as a whole. Waste generators must be aware of the limitations and capabilities of disposal facilities at the time waste is removed from the spent fuel pools. The packaging and storage systems both at the reactor site and any possible interim site have to be designed to be compatible with permanent disposal.
The Task Force was an active participant in the Yucca Mountain pre-licensing activities of both the DOE and NRC. Throughout the more than twenty year period of our mutual activity and communication with both government agencies, officials and staff constantly insisted that the process was fair, objective and deliberate. We were repeatedly assured that all of us in Nevada could place our trust in the NRC because before any license was granted for construction or operation at Yucca Mountain, a thorough and unbiased process would fully play out. We were told that there was no reason for questioning the fairness of the NRC licensing process.
Needless to say, there was skepticism after what we had seen in the Private Fuel Storage licensing process but we were told that in the case of Yucca Mountain, NRC could be trusted. It is clear to see now that those assurances were false and to trust them would be foolhardy. Both the ISP CISF license application and this supporting DEIS assume a repository will be licensed, constructed and in operation so as to allow for the Texas CISF to comply with the 40-year license time period. It may be understandable that ISP would try to convince the NRC that future agency and
4 Congressional actions could be counted on to validate their application assumptions.
For NRC to not only accept such myths in docketing the application but to go one better and express the same fantasy in the DEIS is incredible.
How can any Nevadan believe that a licensing proceeding will honestly consider the hundreds of accepted contentions submitted by the parties to the Yucca Mountain licensing process? Likewise, why would any resident in a community with an NRC licensed nuclear waste facility believe that they can trust the safety of the operations?
How can the people of Texas possibly believe that the licensing process for the ISP CISF will be fair and objective when they can see in the DEIS that NRC assumes a non-existent future decision as fact?
The license application has been docketed but this DEIS must not be allowed to stand with the assumption of a Yucca Mountain repository and the licensing process for this facility must not go forward. Granting a license to this facility would only saddle the State of Texas and the people in the area with the burden of waste that will almost certainly never leave.
Submitted by, Judy Treichel Executive Director