ML24274A192

GEH Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan Environmental Assessment

ML24274A192
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos Nuclear Center
Issue date:	09/30/2024
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
References
Download: ML24274A192 (51)

Text

1 ML24274A192 Environmental Assessment for the License Termination Plan for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor at the General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Sunol, California Final Report Completed: September 30, 2024 Environmental Center of Expertise Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... iii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................ v 1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Proposed Action.................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action...................................................... 1-3 1.3 Alternative to the Proposed Action........................................................................ 1-3 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Analysis.................................................................... 1-3 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action.................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 History of the VBWR License................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Decommissioning Activities.................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Decommissioning Approach................................................................... 2-4 2.2 Alternatives........................................................................................................... 2-6 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.................... 3-1 3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Impact Analysis Based on the GEIS..................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Land Use Direct and Indirect Impacts................................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination.................................................. 3-4 3.3.2 Site-Specific Activities............................................................................ 3-4 3.4 Air Quality Direct and Indirect Impacts.................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination.................................................. 3-4 3.4.2 Site-Specific Activities............................................................................ 3-4 3.4.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.............................................. 3-5 3.5 Geology and Soils Direct and Indirect Impacts..................................................... 3-6 3.5.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination.................................................. 3-6 3.5.2 Site-Specific Activities............................................................................ 3-6 3.6 Water Resources Direct and Indirect Impacts....................................................... 3-6 3.6.1 Surface Water Direct and Indirect Impacts............................................. 3-6 3.6.1.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination............................... 3-6 3.6.1.2 Site-Specific Activities......................................................... 3-7 3.6.2 Groundwater Direct and Indirect Impacts............................................... 3-7 3.6.2.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination............................... 3-7

ii 3.6.2.2 Groundwater Site-Specific Activities................................... 3-7 3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources Direct and Indirect Impacts................................ 3-8 3.7.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination.................................................. 3-8 3.7.2 Site-Specific Activities............................................................................ 3-8 3.8 Ecological Resources (Terrestrial and Aquatic) Direct and Indirect Impacts........ 3-8 3.8.1 Terrestrial Resources............................................................................. 3-8 3.8.1.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination............................... 3-8 3.8.1.2 Terrestrial Site-Specific Activities........................................ 3-9 3.8.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species................................. 3-9 3.8.1.4 Migratory Birds.................................................................. 3-10 3.8.2 Aquatic Resources............................................................................... 3-11 3.8.2.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination............................. 3-11 3.8.2.2 Aquatic Site-Specific Activities.......................................... 3-12 3.8.2.3 Conclusion......................................................................... 3-12 3.8.3 Federally Protected Ecological Resources........................................... 3-12 3.9 Socioeconomics Direct and Indirect Impacts...................................................... 3-14 3.9.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination................................................ 3-14 3.9.2 Site-Specific Activities.......................................................................... 3-14 3.10 Public and Occupational Health Direct and Indirect Impacts.............................. 3-15 3.10.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination................................................ 3-15 3.10.2 Site-Specific Activities.......................................................................... 3-15 3.11 Transportation and Traffic Direct and Indirect Impacts....................................... 3-15 3.11.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination................................................ 3-15 3.11.2 Site-Specific Activities.......................................................................... 3-16 3.12 Environmental Justice......................................................................................... 3-16 3.12.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination................................................ 3-16 3.12.2 Site-Specific Activities.......................................................................... 3-17 3.13 Waste Management Direct and Indirect Impacts................................................ 3-18 3.13.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination................................................ 3-18 3.13.2 Radioactive Waste Site-Specific Activities........................................... 3-18 3.13.3 Nonradioactive Waste Site-Specific Activities...................................... 3-18 3.14 Terrorism............................................................................................................. 3-19 3.15 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................. 3-20 3.16 Summary of Environmental Consequences........................................................ 3-21 4

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.......................................................... 4-1 4.1 State Review......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation................................ 4-1 4.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.................................................. 4-1 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 5-1

iii 6

LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................ 6-1 7

REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 7-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Location of Vallecitos Nuclear Center. Source: Google Maps............................ 1-1 Figure 1-2 General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy Vallecitos Nuclear Center................... 1-2 Figure 2-1 Vallecitos Nuclear Center Building 300 Area...................................................... 2-3 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Environmental Resource Areas Bounded by the Decommissioning GEIS......... 3-3 Table 3-2 Federally Listed Species at the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor and Vicinity.............................................................................................................. 3-10 Table 3-3 Endangered Species Act Determinations..3-13 Table 1-4 Environmental Consequences by Resources3-21

v ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

°C degree(s) Celsius

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit ac acre(s)

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ALARA as Low as Reasonably Achievable AMM Avoidance and Minimization Measures BMP best management practices BSA Biological Study Area cm centimeter(s)

CRLF California red-legged frog CTS California tiger salamander DPR Developmental Power Reactor EA environmental assessment ER environmental report ESA Endangered Species Act EVESR experimental superheat reactor FSS final status surveys FSW forested shrub wetland FT Federally Threatened ft foot (feet) ft3 cubic foot (feet)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GCRP Global Change Research Program GE General Electric GEH General Electric Hitachi GEIS generic environmental impact statement GHG greenhouse gas ha hectare(s)

HSA historical site analysis in inch(es)

IPaC Information Planning and Consultation km kilometers LLRW low-level radioactive waste LTP license termination plan

vi m

meter(s) m3 cubic meters MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual mi mile(s) mrem millirem MWe megawatts electric NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PM particulate matter PWR pressurized water reactors rem roentgen equivalent man SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SSC species of special concern Sv sieverts USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VBWR Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor VNC Vallecitos Nuclear Center

1-1 1

INTRODUCTION By letter dated September 7, 2023, supplemented on September 15, 2023, and email dated October 31, 2023, General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH or licensee) submitted a license amendment request seeking approval of a license termination plan (LTP) for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) Developmental Power Reactor (DPR)-1 to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). The facility is in Sunol, California, and is located in a 997-acre (403 hectars]) area called the Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC)

(Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). Within the VNC area is a 105.8 acre (42.7 hectares) site development area that encompasses several buildings and structures. Within the site development area is the VBWR licensed area also known as the Building 300 Area. In addition to the VBWR, the Building 300 Area includes the Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR) under license DP-1 and several other supporting buildings. GEH plans to decommission the VBWR, terminate license DPR-1, and transfer the residual radioactive material to the EVESR (GEH 2023c).

Figure 1-1 Location of Vallecitos Nuclear Center. Source: Google Maps.

Submittal of the LTP is one of the final steps in the NRCs nuclear power reactor decommissioning process, which involves the safe removal of a facility from service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits NRC license termination. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.82, Termination of license, provides the requirements for terminating power reactor licenses. Those requirements specify what must be included in a licensees LTP when submitted to the NRC for review and approval. The LTP describes the process the licensee will use to meet the requirements for terminating the license.

GEHs original request included an LTP and an associated environmental report. Both reports specifically addressed the removal of the VBWR reactor vessel as the remaining component that is inseparable from the DPR-1 license. The LTP noted that the removal of the vessel was being performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 in 2023. The LTP provides that the remaining residual radioactive material will be transferred from the VBWR license to the EVESR license,

1-2 and there will be no final status survey (GEH 2023d) because the final status survey will be completed under the EVESR license termination activities.

Figure 1-2 General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) Vallecitos Nuclear Center.

Source: GEH.

Prior to the DPR-1 license termination, GEH will seek the transfer of the VBWR facility and all in situ residual contamination to the EVESR license, which sits on the same footprint as the VBWR license. Therefore, the remaining residual contamination will fall under the authority of GEHs EVESR DR-10 license and will be included in the EVESR LTP so that the final decommissioning of the VBWR facility will be part of the final decommissioning of the EVESR facility and the termination of the EVESR DR-10 license, which is required by regulation to be terminated by April 15, 2030.

The NRC staff has prepared this environmental assessment under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the NRCs regulation in 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, to evaluate and document the potential environmental impacts resulting from the NRCs approval of the GEH VBWR LTP and the subsequent implementation of it. The NRC staff is also performing a detailed safety analysis of the LTP. The results of the safety analysis will be documented in a separate safety evaluation report. The NRCs decision whether to approve the LTP will be

1-3 based on the results of the NRC staffs reviews documented in this environmental assessment (EA) and the safety evaluation report.

1.1 Proposed Action The proposed action is the review and requested approval of the GEH VBWR LTP. GEH intends to decommission the VBWR at the VNC and terminate its license. The removal of the reactor vessel has been completed under 10 CFR 50.59 authority, and the remaining residual radioactive material is planned to be transferred to the EVESR license.

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of and need for the proposed action is to allow for the completion of decommissioning of the GEH VBWR, termination of the VBWR operating license by the NRC, and transfer of residual radioactive material. The NRC regulation at 10 CFR 50.82 sets forth the process for the licensee to decommission its nuclear power plant, including submission of the LTP. The NRC will approve the LTP, provided that the LTP meets the criteria in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10).

The NRC staffs (staff) review and approval of the LTP is the regulatory mechanism by which the NRC ensures that final decommissioning activities are appropriately completed. As part of the LTP review process, the NRC staff determines whether the procedures and activities planned for completing decommissioning appear sufficient, as described in the LTP.

1.3 Alternative to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the no-action alternative.

Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the LTP or the license amendment request because regulatory requirements have not been met. Consequently, the VBWR license would not be terminated.

The NRC regulation at 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10) states that the Commission shall approve an LTP, by license amendment, if the LTP demonstrates that the remainder of the decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with the NRCs regulations, will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, and will not have a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

If the NRC was unable to approve the LTP because the regulatory requirements were not met, then GEH would have to take the necessary actions to ensure the regulations were met. The GEH would need to take additional action to prepare an LTP that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10); the updated LTP would then need to be submitted to the NRC for approval prior to license termination. Under this scenario, until the GEH resubmits the LTP, decommissioning activities at the VBWR would likely continue, and the environmental impacts would neither increase nor decrease as a result of the additional time required for the LTP resubmission.

1.4 Scope of the Environmental Analysis To fulfill its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the NRC must evaluate the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts associated with approval of the LTP and subsequent termination of the license. These evaluations involve an

1-4 assessment of the impacts of remaining decommissioning and site restoration activities documented in the LTP and license termination activities.

The NRC previously evaluated the potential environmental impacts of nuclear reactor decommissioning in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (GEIS or decommissioning GEIS) (NRC 2002). The GEIS is used by NRC staff to evaluate the environmental impacts that would occur during the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The GElS is considered generic in that it evaluates environmental impacts from decommissioning activities common to nuclear power reactor facilities. The GEIS addresses the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors licensed by the NRC, including pressurized water reactors (PWRs), boiling water reactors, and multiple reactor stations. The generic analysis was based, in part, on experience with reactors that had already undergone or were undergoing decommissioning.

The scope of the GEIS is based on decommissioning activities from the time that a licensee certifies it has permanently ceased power operations until the license is terminated. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the environmental impacts of decommissioning, including license termination activities, can be determined generically for all nuclear power plants and will have SMALL impacts1 in all but six environmental resource areas. The GEIS concluded that two of these six resource areas (i.e., threatened and endangered species and environmental justice) must always be evaluated on a site-specific basis in site-specific EAs, such as this EA for the VBWR LTP. Depending on the site-specific circumstances, the following four additional resource areas are considered to be conditionally site-specific: (1) offsite land use, (2) historic and cultural resources, (3) terrestrial ecology beyond the operational area, and (4) aquatic ecology beyond the operational area (NRC 2002).

The GEIS did not address the affected environment, cumulative impacts, climate change and greenhouse gases (GHGs), nonradioactive waste management, or contamination of groundwater from decommissioning activities. Therefore, this EA also provides a description of the affected environment at the VBWR, considers cumulative impacts, and evaluates the impacts of climate change and GHGs, as well as nonradioactive waste management, and impacts to groundwater from decommissioning activities.

In the GEIS, the staff determined that a decommissioning cost assessment is not a NEPA requirement. Licensees must submit decommissioning funding plans annually. Upon receipt of a decommissioning funding plan, the NRC reviews the estimates to determine whether the licensee has demonstrated compliance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(v)-(vii), thus providing assurance that the licensee is maintaining sufficient funds for decommissioning.

1 The NRC staff use a standard of significance in the GEIS, described as either SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. SMALL impacts are defined as environmental impacts that are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource (NRC 2002).

2-1 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Proposed Action This section discusses the history of the site and the decommissioning activities to be performed in accordance with the LTP.

2.1.1 History of the VBWR License General Electric (GE) was issued a license for Construction Permit Power Reactor (CPPR)-3 to construct and operate the VBWR on May 14, 1956, as DPR. License CX-2 to operate DPR was issued on July 29, 1957, and initial criticality was achieved on August 3, 1957. License DPR-1 was issued to GE on August 31, 1957, and full power was attained on October 19, 1957 (GEH 2023d).

The VBWR ceased operations on December 9, 1963, was defueled on December 24 of that same year, and GE was issued a license to possess but not operate the VBWR on September 9, 1965. The Atomic Energy Commission issued GE an order to dismantle the VBWR on July 25, 1966. On October 22, 2007, license DPR-1 amendment 21 was issued, transitioning ownership of the VBWR from GE to GEH. From approximately 1956 to 1963, Pacific Gas and Electric Company installed and operated a turbine generator at VNC. From 1965 through 1975 and 1981 through 1982, portions of VNC were used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct research work. GE also conducted research operations as a DOE subcontractor and later transitioned these operations to a private corporation in 1998 (GEH 2023d).

The VBWR was issued a possession-only license in 1965 by the predecessor of the NRC, the U.S. Atomic Energy. The license was renewed in 1973 and has remained effective under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.51(b). The facility has been maintained in SAFSTOR2 condition. Since then, it has been maintained in a monitored condition, and the plant structures external to the containment vessel, have been dismantled. In recognition of this, GEH has evaluated several options for decommissioning the facility, considering current facility conditions and factors external to the facility. Since the facility has been maintained in a condition equivalent to SAFSTOR for nearly 60 years, radioactivity levels at the facility have decayed naturally, likely reducing occupational radiation exposure during future decontamination activities (GEH 2023c).

The licensee submitted the Limited Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report in 2022 that describes a change to the DECON3 of the VBWR. The spent fuel has been removed from both the reactor and the site (GEH 2023d). The GEH submitted the LTP on September 15, 2SAFSTOR means that the facility is placed in a safe, stable condition and maintained in that state (safe storage) until it is subsequently decontaminated and dismantled to levels that permit license termination.

The determination of SAFSTOR includes those activities necessary for the final decontamination and dismantlement of the facility. During SAFSTOR, a facility is left intact, but the fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel, and radioactive liquids have been drained from systems and components and then processed. Radioactive decay occurs during the SAFSTOR period, thus reducing the quantity of contaminated and radioactive material that must be disposed of during decontamination and dismantlement. The definition of SAFSTOR also includes the decontamination and dismantlement of the facility at the end of the storage period.

3 DECON: The equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site that contain radioactive contaminants are promptly removed or decontaminated to a level that permits termination of the license shortly after the cessation of operations.

2-2 2023, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9). The NRC held a public meeting related to the LTP request in Pleasanton, California, on May 21, 2024 (ML24131A119). The meeting covered the NRCs overall decommissioning process, the process for approving the LTP, and was held to take public questions and comments on the LTP.

2.1.2 Decommissioning Activities The VBWR and EVESR licensed area, also known as the 300 Area (Figure 2-1), is approximately 3.2 ac within the site developed area.

In addition to the four shutdown reactor facilities within the VNC site developed area, other facilities at the VNC include:

• Building 102 contains the Materials Operations Laboratory, used for post-irradiation studies and research and development activities, and administrative offices.

• Buildings 102A and 102B contain facility equipment (ventilation, etc.) and offices for support of the site.

• Building 103 houses analytical chemistry laboratories and administrative offices.

• Building 104 contains site storage and warehouse facilities.

• Building 105 contains offices and laboratories and houses the Nuclear Test Reactor and another shielded cell that was formerly used as a critical experiment facility.

• Building 106 contains machine, sheet metal, and facilities maintenance shops.

• Building 107 is the Hazardous Material Storage Building.

• Buildings 400 and 401 are currently leased to ManTech.

2-3 Figure 2-1 Vallecitos Nuclear Center Building 300 Area. Source: General Electric - Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) Vallecitos Nuclear Center Temporary storage of solid radioactive materials and low-level radioactive waste is accommodated at the Hillside Storage Facility. Facilities are available on the VNC site for handling, sorting, and processing liquid and solid radioactive waste generated at all VNC nuclear facilities. A liquid waste evaporator facility is located within the 300 Area; the operation of the evaporator is covered by California byproduct material license CA 0017-01. A nonradioactive liquid waste treatment plant and a sewage treatment plant are located in the southwest corner of the site (GEH 2023d).

The LTP provides additional details regarding the following:

• Characterization: Characterization activities include a radiological characterization of VBWR, documenting the residual levels that remain following reactor vessel removal. An estimate of the total residual radioactive material levels is presented, supporting the transfer to the EVESR license.

• Dismantlement and Decontamination Activities: The primary decommissioning activity of removing the reactor vessel was completed in accordance with a 10 CFR 50.59 change review requirement and was completed by constructing a temporary opening in the roof approximately 3.66 meters (m) (12 feet [ft]) in diameter. A protective covering was used over the roof hole, and a man-lift and cutting tools were used to remove the section of the roof. A boom crane was used to lift and remove the vessel from the building and onto a tractor-trailer for hauling to an approved disposal site in Texas (NRC 2023). A 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation included estimates of the associated occupational radiation dose for the reactor vessel removal and an overall projected volume of radioactive waste.

2-4

• Site Remediation Plan: The plan identifies different decontamination techniques that were used; it describes the activities for the removal of lead and asbestos-contaminated materials. The decommissioning activities performed under the direction and oversight of GEH and VNC site management and programs (NS 2024). The VNC organization and programs supporting the decommissioning are discussed, including the VNC Change Authorization Process for work planning and control, the Radiation Protection Program, and the Quality Assurance Program.

• Final Status Survey: This plan acknowledges that all residual radioactive materials will be transferred to the EVESR and the final status survey for the 300 Area will be performed during the decommissioning and license termination of EVESR.

• Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Demonstration that residual levels of radioactivity for VBWR are minimal and do not pose a radiological safety or health concern pending a final site remediation and license termination under EVESR (GEH LTP).

2.1.3 Decommissioning Approach The characterization of VBWR has generally followed the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) process. This process included a Historical Site Analysis (HSA) and scoping surveys, followed by characterization surveys. Characterization continued during the dismantling and remediation process, with surveys post-vessel removal being used for a final radiological characterization and prior to the VBWR license termination request.

MARSSIM final status surveys (FSSs) will be performed during the EVESR license termination.

(GEH 2023d).

The removal and disposal of the reactor vessel, with associated internals, left the VBWR facility with minimal residual radioactive materials under License DPR-1. The remaining areas for decontamination or remediation were those with elevated exposure rates, specifically for the bioshield following the removal of the reactor pressure vessel. The need for remediation was based on as Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) for potential worker exposures and minimization of the potential migration or dispersion pending final remediation during EVESR license termination (GEH 2023d, NS 2024).

A characterization of the reactor vessel was performed, and the results were used to estimate exposure rates associated with the reactor vessel. This characterization was used for planning the removal, packaging, transportation, and disposal. The reactor vessels radionuclide inventory is not included in the characterization of the residual radioactivity, as presented in the LTP because the vessel has already been removed from the site. (GEH 2023c).

Demobilization included remediation of the sump, decontaminating and removing, as much as feasible, all project equipment and materials brought onsite, disposal of project-generated waste such as concrete from expansion joint areas, reactor pit, etc., and returning the work area to a clean, safe condition. All equipment and materials were decontaminated, as necessary, using standard non-destructive (e.g., damp wiping) methods and surveyed to meet limits for unrestricted release. Items exceeding the limits for unrestricted release will be packaged and disposed of as LLRW (GEH 2023d, NS 2024).

All elemental lead in the form of brick has been removed and disposed of offsite. (GEH 2023c, NS 2024). For any lead-containing coatings, demolition work performed during decommission preparation activities for VBWR may have required the removal of lead-containing coatings

2-5 (GEH 2023c). Upon identification of these areas, a qualified lead abatement subcontractor or qualified remediation team removed the lead-containing coatings. Any work performed that required a torch to metal that has a lead-containing coating had the coating removed by a qualified abatement subcontractor or qualified remediation team worker. The activities prior to any torch to metal work or grinding would have complied with the GEH and Vallecitos Site-Specific Safety and Health Manual.

Asbestos-containing materials have been abated in the VBWR containment, and all generated material has been disposed of. If or when asbestos was identified during the work activities, it was removed and packaged for disposal prior to any decommissioning activities in areas where these materials exist. Removal and disposal of asbestos was completed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor (GEH 2023c).

As stated in an update to the correspondence regarding the ER, there are no additional demobilization, lead or lead-coating commissioning or asbestos abatement activities planned or expected in the future (NS 2024).

2-6 2.2 Alternatives As discussed as an alternative to the proposed action in Section 1.3 of this EA, the NRC staff considered the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the LTP or the license amendment request because regulatory requirements have not been met. If the NRC was unable to approve the LTP because the regulatory requirements were not met, the GEH would need to take additional action to prepare an LTP that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10). Under this scenario, if the GEH resubmitted the LTP, decommissioning activities at VBWR would likely continue, and the environmental impacts would neither increase nor decrease as a result of the additional time required for the LTP resubmission. As such, the no-action alternative is not evaluated in further detail.

3-1 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section describes the current environmental conditions at the VBWR site to provide a framework, or baseline, for the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts. It also describes the environmental impacts on those resources that may be affected by the proposed action.

3.1 Affected Environment The property is located in the unincorporated area of Sunol, California (Figure 1-1) on the north side of Vallecitos Road (State Route 84), which is a two-and four-lane paved highway.

Approximately 567 hectares (1,400 ac) of the property are leased for raising feed crops and cattle grazing. Land use near the property is agricultural, including orchards, vineyards, and pastures, although grazing is predominant. A small residential population exists along the western boundary of the property. The nearest incorporated area is the City of Pleasanton, located 6.4 km (4 mi) to the north-northwest. There is light industrial activity within a 16.1-km (10-mi) radius of the property (GEH 2023d).

The project is located within the Livermore Valley climatological subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Livermore Valley is a sheltered inland valley within the Diablo Range near the eastern border of the air basin. In the summer, the Livermore Valley is characterized by clear skies and relatively warm weather, with maximum temperatures ranging from the high 80s to the low 90s Fahrenheit

[°F] or 25 to 35 degrees Celsius [°C]). Cold water upwelling along the coast and hot inland temperatures during the summer can cause a strong onshore pressure gradient, which translates into a strong afternoon wind (GEH 2023c).

In the winter, the air flow in the Livermore Valley is often affected by local conditions. Winter temperatures are mild and usually range from approximately 3 to 17 degrees Celsius (high 30s to low 60s degrees Fahrenheit). The mean precipitation in the winter is about 35.6 centimeters (cm) (14 inches [in.]). For the Livermore Valley, the air pollution potential is high, especially for photochemical pollutants. The Livermore Valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can also be the receptor for 03 and 03 precursors from San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties (GEH 2023c).

The facility, commonly referred to as the site development area, encompasses several buildings and structures (Figure 1-2). In addition to the VBWR, the site development area includes the EVESR and several other supporting buildings. GEH will seek to transfer the VBWR facility and all in situ residual contamination to the EVESR license. The remaining residual contamination will then fall under the authority of GEHs EVESR DR-10 license and will be included in the EVESR LTP so that the final decommissioning of the VBWR facility will be part of the final decommissioning of the EVESR facility and the termination of the EVESR DR-10 license, which is required by regulation to be terminated by April 15, 2030 (GEH 2023c).

3-2 3.2 Impact Analysis Based on the GEIS Table 3-1 lists impacts from environmental resource areas that are generically resolved and bound by the decommissioning GEIS. The staff has confirmed the bounding condition of those resource areas (see Table 3-1). The focus of the EA will be on areas that were not generically resolved in the decommissioning GEIS and require site-specific analysis of potential impacts in resource areas that were not addressed in the GEIS. Section 3.15 will summarize the evaluation of the impact analysis.

As discussed in section 1.4, the impacts requiring additional site-specific analysis are:

Offsite land use Threatened and endangered species Aquatic ecology beyond the operational area Terrestrial ecology beyond the operational area Environmental justice Historic and cultural resources beyond the operational area Additional areas that were not addressed in the GEIS but will be addressed in this EA are:

Affected environment at the project site Climate change and GHGs Nonradioactive waste management Cumulative impacts Groundwater contamination from decommissioning activities

3-3 Table 3-1 Environmental Resource Areas Bounded by the Decommissioning GEIS Environmental Resource Impact Considerations Land Use Onsite The NRC staff expects no impacts associated with these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL. However, offsite, the GEIS notes that potential impacts may be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and must be determined through site-specific analysis.

Aesthetics/Noise (Visual and Scenic Resources)

The NRC staff expects no impacts associated with these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL. Noise will be generated primarily from typical decommissioning and demolition activities and heavy equipment use.

Air Quality The NRC staff expects no impacts associated with these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL. Air emissions will be localized and temporary. The licensee will be required to comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations related to air emissions.

Water Use and Quality The NRC staff expects no impacts on water use or quality other than those described in the GEIS. The GEIS concluded that the impacts on water quality for both surface water and groundwater indicate that for all facilities, the impacts of decommissioning will be neither detectable nor destabilizing and therefore SMALL. Environmental monitoring programs will continue to monitor the resources during decommissioning.

Historic and Cultural Resources Within the operational area, the NRC staff expects no impacts on historic and cultural resources beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL. However, consultation with the State will be conducted when the EVESR license is terminated. At that time, the NRC will consult on whether the entire site, including additional facilities, could be considered a historic district.

Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology within the Operational Area Within the operational area, the NRC staff expects no impacts to ecology beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL.

However, outside of the operational area, the GEIS notes that potential impacts may be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and must be determined through a site-specific analysis. Threatened and endangered species should also be addressed in a site-specific analysis.

Socioeconomics The NRC staff expects no socioeconomic impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL. Site-specific information included as part of the LTP was provided for the affected environment and as a baseline for the other resource evaluations.

Public and Occupational Health The NRC staff expects no impacts associated with public or occupational health beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL.

Transportation The NRC staff does not expect impacts associated with transportation to be destabilizing or beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level is SMALL.

GEIS = generic environmental impact statement; LTP = license termination plan; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

3-4 3.3 Land Use Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.3.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination The GEIS concludes generically that the potential land use impacts from decommissioning activities on a nuclear plant site are SMALL, although it indicates that a site-specific analysis is necessary to determine the significance of offsite land use impacts (NRC 2002). Therefore, as noted above, the GEIS bounds the onsite land use impacts for the VBWR. However, offsite, the GEIS notes that potential impacts may be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE and must be determined through site-specific analysis.

3.3.2 Site-Specific Activities The activities at VNC to remove and dispose of the VBWR boiling water reactor vessel would not have had any measurable impact to onsite land use. There was no change to land use caused by the activities to prepare and remove the vessel. The major activity that occurred during vessel removal was the temporary staging of equipment at the site developed area. This activity did not change the fundamental purpose of the site (GEH 2023c). Existing public roads and highways were used to transport workers and equipment. All activities occurred in the site developed area. No offsite land was required to build, extend, or improve roads, highways, or if required, railways to transport the vessel to an approved site in Texas (GEH 2023c). There are no additional site activities associated with the LTP (ML24220A200).

Accordingly, the determination from the GEIS concerning onsite activities is appropriate. There are no planned offsite activities that would provide significant additional impacts to the resource.

Therefore, the impacts on land use resources are SMALL and insignificant.

3.4 Air Quality Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.4.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination In Section 4.3.4, the GEIS lists several activities that could impact air quality during decommissioning, including vehicle traffic, demolition of structures, dismantlement and decontamination of systems, and movement of materials onsite and shipment offsite occurring until decommissioning is complete. The GEIS concluded that the impacts on air quality from decommissioning are SMALL. The staff expects no impacts on air quality other than those described in the GEIS (NRC 2002).

3.4.2 Site-Specific Activities The VNC site is located in Alameda County, California within the San Franciso Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality is measured against both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQs) in California.

The SFBAAB, including Alameda County, is currently designated a maintenance area for the 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS standard and a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard and 24-hour particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 m or less (PM2.5) standard (40 CFR 81). For the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the SFBAAB is designated a nonattainment area for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, the annual average and 24-hour particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 m or less (PM10) standards, and the annual average PM2.5 standard. The SFBAAB is classified as attainment or unclassified for the remaining NAAQS and CAAQS (GEH 2023c).

3-5 The specific decommissioning activities for the VBWR LTP has not and will not involve any earth moving or use of unpaved roadways and work areas; therefore, there is no generation of fugitive dust. Worker vehicle emissions would not have been noticeable, as there will be a minimal workforce (less than the 30 workers) on-site for the specific decommissioning activities for the VNC. Material was shipped offsite by truck and rail. Low-level radioactive waste generated during portions of decommissioning activities was transported to a nearby rail transload facility for further transfer to a disposal facility. There are no additional activities associated with the LTP that would impact the air quality (NS 2024). Accordingly, the determination of the GEIS bounds the site-specific activities and the impacts are SMALL and insignificant.

3.4.3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change In CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009), the Commission provided guidance to the NRC staff on addressing GHG issues in environmental reviews. That guidance directed the NRC staff to include consideration of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions under NEPA. This Commission decision was issued after the GEIS was finalized in 2002, and as such, these topics were not addressed in the GEIS.

Decommissioning activities for the VBWR include decontamination of remaining radioactive materials, packaging and transportation of radioactive waste, and surveying for residual radioactive contamination. The VNC may dispose of radioactive waste at disposal facilities in Utah or Texas. These activities will occur from 2023 to 2025 (GEH 2023c, 2023d).

Worker vehicles and truck shipments associated with these limited decommissioning activities emit criteria pollutants and GHGs. The NRC developed a generic GHG footprint for the life cycle of a reference 1,000 megawatts electric (MWe) light-water reactor with an 80 percent capacity factor for a net electric output of 800 MWe (NRC 2014). The generic GHG life cycle footprint includes decommissioning; however, the licensee is not performing dismantlement and demolition of structures as the remaining structures will be transferred to the EVESR license.

Additionally, the VBWR operated for only 6 years (1957-1963) rather than the 40 years of operation used in the GHG footprint, so the GHG footprint estimate is much higher than the GHG emissions expected from VBWR decommissioning activities. Minimal GHG emissions are expected from the additional worker vehicles and truck shipments for decontamination, waste transportation, and surveying.

In 2023, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) published its most recent report regarding the state of climate change in the nation (GCRP 2023). The VBWR site is located in the Southwest region, as defined in the GCRP report. The GCRP characterizes the Southwest region as having periods of intense drought and precipitation. These effects are exacerbated by climate change, as rising temperatures lead to hotter extreme heat events, drier soils, and reduced flows in major river basins (GCRP 2023). Higher temperatures have increased evapotranspiration and reduced soil moisture, which can reduce the volume of runoff produced from a given amount of precipitation (GCRP 2023). Agricultural production has been impacted as increased temperatures and lower soil moisture stress vegetation. The area near VNC has been projected to see a slight increase in days over 100°F (38°C) and a slight increase in extreme precipitation amount, but little change in the other climate change indicators, such as the number of days below 0°F (-17°C).

3-6 With regard to GHGs, as mentioned above, there was not a significant number of additional workers or waste shipments to remove the materials on site. No additional activities are associated with the LTP and thus, minimal GHG emissions are expected. Therefore, GHG emissions during decommissioning would be localized, temporary, and well below the estimates in the GHG footprint (NRC 2014). Staff previously found the estimates in the GHG footprint to fall well below the EPA-GHG reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalents (40 CFR Part 98) for other LTPs involving more extensive decommissioning activities such as demolition and dismantlement ((NRC 2023a). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed actions impact on GHG would be minimal.

As discussed above, climate change may lead to increased periods of intense drought and precipitation, reduced streamflow, an increase in days over 100°F (38°C), and a slight increase in extreme precipitation amount. Decommissioning activities for the VBWR will have a minimal impact on surface water use and quality, as discussed in Section 3.6 of this EA and would not contribute further to drought impacts. In a higher-temperature environment, the formation of ozone due to emissions of nitrogen oxides from equipment and vehicles may increase; however, equipment and vehicle emissions would not change due to the LTP and would be localized and temporary and would not contribute measurably to ozone formation given the limited decommissioning activities. Therefore, when the impact of the proposed action is combined with the impacts of climate change, the proposed action has minimal impacts on the relevant environmental resources.

3.5 Geology and Soils Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.5.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination The decommissioning GEIS did not include geology as a resource area because current power plant locations span a number of geologic settings, and any new power plant would have its site-specific geologic conditions evaluated as part of the licensing application. Therefore, this resource area was not evaluated in the GEIS (NRC 2002) but is included in this EA for informational purposes.

3.5.2 Site-Specific Activities Decommissioning activities for the proposed activities at the site would not include any earth-or ground-disturbing activities. None of the proposed activities would intersect with the sites geology or soils because decommissioning activities do not require alterations to the regional or site geology or soils. Activities associated with past contamination of the surrounding soil will be addressed in the future through the EVESR LTP. Accordingly, the impacts on the geologic resource are SMALL and insignificant.

3.6 Water Resources Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.6.1 Surface Water Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.6.1.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination The GEIS states that water use dramatically decreases after plants cease operations and that the quantities of water required during decommissioning for dust abatement or spent fuel cooling are trivial compared to the quantity used during operations (NRC 2002). The GEIS also states that stormwater runoff and erosion control are expected to be managed with best

3-7 management practices (BMPs) to minimize surface water quality changes to nondetectable levels and that any hazardous spills onsite are localized, quickly detected, and relatively easy to remediate for decommissioning sites (NRC 2002). The GEIS concluded that impacts on surface water use and quality from decommissioning are SMALL.

3.6.1.2 Site-Specific Activities Previously completed decommissioning activities had a temporary increase in water use for VBWR compared to the safe storage condition. The increase was from activities such as concrete cutting and dust abatement during the dismantling and transportation process, which were temporary and of short duration. Most of the impacts on the dismantling of the VBWR were on paved and previously disturbed areas of the facility. Wastewater streams created from these water uses were managed and treated within existing VNC wastewater infrastructure and in accordance with their permits (GEH 2023c). There are no additional planned activities under the LTP that would affect surface water (NS 2024). Accordingly, the determination of the GEIS bounds the site-specific activities, and the impacts are SMALL and insignificant.

3.6.2 Groundwater Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.6.2.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination As discussed in the GEIS, the impact of nuclear reactor facilities on water resources dramatically decreases after the operation of the plants ceases. However, water could still be required for activities including fuel removal, facility staff changes, large component removal, and decontamination and dismantlement. This demand would decrease over time as the decommissioning process progressed. In addition, as the facility staff decreases, the demand for potable water also generally decreases. However, in a few cases, facility staffing levels have temporarily increased above levels that were common for routine operations. For these short periods of time, typically during the early stages of decontamination and dismantlement activities, there may be a slight increase in demand for potable water. The GEIS concluded that the impacts on water quality for both surface water and groundwater indicate that for all facilities, the impacts of decommissioning would be neither detectable nor destabilizing and therefore SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted (NRC 2002).

3.6.2.2 Groundwater Site-Specific Activities The licensee will continue to manage water in accordance with its existing infrastructure, permits, and BMPs. The existing spill control and prevention practices and procedures will also remain in place and may be modified as necessary for other VNC site activities. Any land-disturbing activities will be conducted in accordance with BMPs for soil management and in accordance with State and local erosion control and sediment permits and regulations. It is not anticipated that there will be any direct contact with groundwater due to the lack of excavation for this activity. No offsite removal or disposal of wastewater is anticipated. All wastewater will be collected and treated within the existing VNC wastewater treatment infrastructure. VNC will continue to sample existing monitoring wells onsite according to the existing monitoring plan (GEH 2023c).

Accordingly, the determination of the GEIS bounds the site-specific activities, and the impacts on groundwater from decommissioning activities are SMALL and insignificant.

3-8 3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.7.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination As discussed in the GEIS, in most cases, the amount of land required to support the decommissioning process is relatively small and is a small portion of the overall plant site.

Usually, the areas disturbed or used to support decommissioning are within the operational areas of the site and are typically within the protected area. For plants where the disturbance of lands beyond the operational areas is not anticipated, the impacts on cultural, historic, and archaeological resources are not considered to be detectable or destabilizing. The GEIS concluded that the impacts of decommissioning on historic and cultural resources within the operational area are SMALL.

3.7.2 Site-Specific Activities A baseline cultural resources assessment (Error! Reference source not found.) for the VNC site was performed by Montrose Environmental in June 2023. A cultural resource record search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, at California State University, Sonoma, for cultural resource records and studies on file for the VNC site and vicinity. The search consisted of a review of records for the built environment as well as archaeological resources within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the VNC (GEH 2023c).

Although the decommissioning GEIS concluded a site-specific inquiry was necessary outside the operational area, there are no decommissioning activities planned to occur on previously undisturbed land at the VBWR site and surroundings. It has been suggested that the entire facility may be considered a historic district (GEH 2023f). The staff sent a letter to the licensee (NRC 2024) to explain that it should not perform any actions that would adversely affect any potentially eligible cultural resources under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(6). The district will be evaluated in detail during the review of the EVESR LTP.

Based on the limitations on impacts on the potential historic district for the current licensing action, the staff determines that there would be no potential to affect historic properties if they were present.

3.8 Ecological Resources (Terrestrial and Aquatic) Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.8.1 Terrestrial Resources 3.8.1.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination For terrestrial ecological resources, the GEIS concludes generically that the potential impacts from decommissioning activities conducted within the operational area of a nuclear plant site are SMALL, although it indicates that a site-specific analysis is necessary to determine the significance of terrestrial ecology impacts from activities conducted outside of the operational area (NRC 2002). The GEIS acknowledges that lands disturbed by construction of a nuclear facility typically continue to be of low value as terrestrial habitat throughout operations and decommissioning unless the site goes into a decade-long period of low decommissioning activity (NRC 2002).

3-9 3.8.1.2 Terrestrial Site-Specific Activities The licensee states that no tree or vegetation clearing is necessary because all work areas, staging locations, and equipment will be confined to developed areas and no ground-disturbing activities are anticipated (GEH 2023c). Furthermore, species in the vicinity of the decommissioning activities would encounter noise levels similar to those already occurring at the site to which species are already acclimated. Additionally, fugitive dust is not expected from the proposed action (GEH 2023c). GEH plans on implementing several Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) to further reduce potential impacts on protected species and sensitive habitats while continuing the activities at the VNC.

A comprehensive biological report titled Biological Resources Report Vallecitos Nuclear Center Decommissioning Project (Bio Report), prepared by Kleinfelder in 2022 (ML22264A328),

evaluated the potential for migratory birds to nest within the Biological Study Area (BSA) which encompasses a 106-acre area surrounding the area, where VBWR is located. According to the Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the BSA table included in the Bio Report, seven bird species with an agency designated status were identified as having a potential to use the BSA.

Of those seven, six (American peregrine falcon, golden eagle, great blue heron, prairie falcon, tricolored blackbird, and burrowing owl) have a low potential to occur and one (California least tern) is not expected to occur. Along with the six species with protected status in the Bio Report table, there is potential for other migratory bird species to use the BSA for nesting habitat (GEH 2023c). Staff evaluated the potential for ecological impact in Appendix A of this EA.

Due to the highly disturbed and paved nature of the work sites within the building 200 and 300 areas and the determination from the Bio Report stating the lack of recent species occurrences, the proposed action is not expected to directly impact state or federally listed wildlife species.

Furthermore, species in the vicinity of the decommissioning activities would encounter decommissioning noise levels similar to the noise associated with the site during operations to which species would be acclimated (GEH 2023c).

3.8.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species An independent Information Planning and Consultation survey by the staff (FWS 2024) of the VNC VBWR site identified that there may be 11 threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species in the region of the VBWR that are listed in Table 3-2. There were no critical habitats identified within the project area.

3-10 Table 3-2 Federally Listed Species at the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor and Vicinity Species Description Federal Status San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)

Mammal Endangered California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

Bird Endangered California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni)

Bird Endangered Alameda whipsnake (=striped racer) (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) Reptile Threatened Northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

Reptile Proposed Threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)

Amphibian Threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

Amphibian Threatened Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Amphibian Threatened Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii)

Amphibian Proposed Threatened Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)

Insect Candidate Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

Crustacean Threatened As part of its environmental review, the NRC staff evaluated the impacts of the proposed action on Federally listed species and designated critical habitats that may occur in the action area and determined that approval of the GE-Hitachi (GEH) VBWR LTP for decommissioning activities in Alameda County, California, is not likely to adversely affect: the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense),

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), and the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii); and has no effect on the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), monarch butterfly (Danus plexippus), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). The staff determined that no effects on listed species would occur due to the proposed action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurred with the NRC staffs determinations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

3.8.1.4 Migratory Birds A comprehensive biological report titled Biological Resources Report Vallecitos Nuclear Center Decommissioning Project (Bio Report), prepared by Kleinfelder in 2022 and available in ADAMS as ML22264A328, evaluated the potential for migratory birds to nest within the Biological Study Area (BSA) which encompasses a 106-acre area surrounding building 200 and building 300, where VBWR is located. According to the Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the BSA table included in the Bio Report, seven birds with an agency designated status were identified as having a potential to use the BSA. Of those seven, six (American peregrine falcon, golden eagle, great blue heron, prairie falcon, tricolored blackbird, and burrowing owl) have a low potential to occur and one (California least tern) is not expected to occur. Along with the six species with protected status in the Bio Report table, there is potential for other migratory bird species to use the BSA for nesting habitat.

The grasslands, trees/shrubs, and riparian areas within the BSA provide suitable nesting habitat, however there are also certain species like the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) that nest on barren ground. During the on-site survey conducted by Kleinfelder in 2022, the only nests

3-11 identified during the survey were swallow nests located on certain buildings and structures within the BSA. Decommissioning activities for VBWR will be restricted to previously disturbed/graded areas, however there are trees and riparian habitat approximately 91.5 meters (300 feet) away that could be used for nesting by migratory birds. No tree or vegetation removal will be necessary to facilitate decommissioning activities, however, migratory birds could be indirectly temporarily disturbed from increased noise and activity associated with project related activities. In addition, there is potential for swallows to be nesting on nearby buildings.

The FWS administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), which prohibits anyone from taking native migratory birds or their eggs, feathers, or nests. The MBTA protects a total of 1,093 migratory bird species (85 FR 21282). The NRC staffs above-mentioned IPaC search identified the following species of migratory birds designated as birds of priority concern by the FWS as in the area of the FCS:

Allens Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin)

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Belding's Savannah Sparrow (SparrowPasserculus sandwichensis beldingi)

Bullock's (OrioleIcterus bullockii)

California Gull (Larus californicus)

California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum)

Clark's Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkia)

Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa)

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius)

Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus)

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Red Knot (Calidris canutus roselaari)

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

Western Grebe (aechmophorus occidentalis)

Western Gull (Larus occidentalis)

Willet (Tringa semipalmata)

Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata)

Yellow-billed Magpie (Pica nuttalli) 3.8.2 Aquatic Resources 3.8.2.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination For aquatic ecological resources, the GEIS concludes generically that the potential impacts to aquatic ecology from decommissioning activities conducted within the operational area of a nuclear plant site are SMALL, although it indicates that a site-specific analysis is necessary to determine the significance of aquatic ecology impacts from activities conducted outside of the operational area (NRC 2002). The SMALL conclusion in the GEIS assumes that applicable BMPs are implemented and that necessary permits are obtained. The GEIS determined that site-specific analysis is necessary to evaluate the significance of impacts to threatened or endangered species (NRC 2002).

3-12 3.8.2.2 Aquatic Site-Specific Activities There are no aquatic resources immediately within the VBWR action area, although there is forested shrub wetland (FSW) approximately 300 feet to the west of the action area.

Additionally, further west, the FSW transitions into fresh emergent wetland and then into an open water pond (Lake Lee) (ML22264A328).

No direct impacts will occur to aquatic habitats. Although not anticipated, decommissioning activities could indirectly impact aquatic resources near the VBWR action area. Potential indirect effects include stormwater runoff, noise, ground disturbance, and other anthropogenic stressors.

The licensee will implement BMPs and AMMs that include dry season construction from May to October, environmental training and clearance surveys, wetland avoidance, pollutant discharge control measures, vehicle maintenance will occur 50 feet away from water courses, fugitive dust control, coir roll installation, and monofilament plastic installation. GEH does not anticipate that there will be any direct contact with groundwater as a lack of excavation activities for the proposed action. As a result of the proposed action, there will be an increase in VNC potable water supply and usage. GEH will ensure that water use is within existing water rights/allocations and abides by regulatory permits (GEH 2023c).

There is potential for California red-legged frog (CRLF), California tiger salamander (CTS), and northwestern pond turtle (NWPT) to use the aquatic habitat to the west of the VBWR site. The CRLF and CTS has been observed within the GE property and VNC site. CRLF and CTS could potentially use grassland habitat surrounding the VBWR as dispersal and refuge habitat. As stated above, GEH will follow BMPs and AMMs to reduce the potential impacts on protected species (ML22264A328).

3.8.2.3 Conclusion The NRC staff concludes that the overall direct and indirect impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecology would be SMALL. In general, this conclusion is based on 1) the generic determination in the GEIS regarding the SMALL significance of decommissioning activities on the licensees site; and 2) there are no proposed activities for the LTP and (3) continued activities at the VNC will be on paved areas within the Building 300 area (NS 2024).

3.8.3 Federally Protected Ecological Resources The NRC staff evaluated the impacts of the proposed action on federally listed species and designated critical habitats that may occur in the action area. Table 3-3 below contains the NRC staffs Endangered Species Act determinations and rationale for of its determinations. Staffs coordination concerning Section 7 of the ESA is discussed in Section 4.3.

3-13 Table 3-3: Endangered Species Act Determinations Species or Critical Habitat Federal Status Habitat in Action Area Rationale for Determination ESA Effect Deter-mination San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)

Endangered Habitat present, no recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

Endangered Habitat present, no recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni)

Endangered Habitat absent, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)

Threatened Habitat present, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect California Red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)

Threatened Habitat present, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

Proposed Threatened Habitat present, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

Threatened Habitat present, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Threatened Habitat present, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect

3-14 western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)

Proposed Threatened Habitat present, no recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect monarch butterfly (Danus plexippus)

Candidate Habitat absent, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

Threatened Habitat absent, recent survey There are no activities that would have the potential to affect the species or critical habitat No effect 3.9 Socioeconomics Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.9.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination According to Appendix J of the decommissioning GEIS, population changes greater than 3 percent on a local population could have detectable socioeconomic effects in local communities. Changes in tax revenues of less than 10 percent are considered not detectable; that is, they result in little or no change in local property tax rates and the provision of public services. The impacts of decommissioning on public services are generally much smaller than the impacts of plant closure. The impacts of closure are closely related to the tax-related impacts on the community and are affected by the same characteristics of the plant (size and age, tax treatment, and dependence of the local community on plant-related revenues). The impacts of plant closure are those that are observed by the community, rather than the impacts from decommissioning activities, because they occur at about the same time. The impacts occur either through changing employment levels and local demands for housing and infrastructure, or through the decline of the local tax base and the ability of local government entities to provide public services. The GEIS concluded that the socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning are SMALL.

3.9.2 Site-Specific Activities VNC currently has a workforce of 50 to 60. VNC is scheduled to be decommissioned by 2030.

The ongoing maintenance and surveillance activities at the shutdown at VBWR have assigned staff. According to GEH, the workforce reduction at VNC, if any, is due to transitioning the reactors from shutdown to decommissioning, and the completion of decommissioning will be insignificant due to the small workforce onsite. Also, the transition is not expected to impact VNCs tax liability, which would affect State and local tax revenues (GEH 2023d). This small workforce does not significantly impact the socioeconomics due to the small number of staff impacting community resources and the small wage and spending benefits. Accordingly, the determination of the GEIS bounds the site-specific activities, and the impacts are SMALL and insignificant.

3-15 3.10 Public and Occupational Health Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.10.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination The GEIS estimated occupational cumulative doses for PWRs using the DECON option to be 560 to 1,000 person-rem (5.6 to 10 person-Sv). The GEIS made the generic determination that the radiological impacts of decommissioning, including license termination activities, are SMALL because the expected doses will remain within regulatory limits (NRC 2002).

In the GEIS, the NRC determined that the levels of radionuclide emissions were lower for facilities undergoing decommissioning compared to operating facilities. Collective doses to public members were lower than 1 person-rem (0.01 person-Sv) per year within 80 km (50 mi) of the facilities. The maximally exposed individual was estimated to receive a dose of less than 1 mrem/yr (0.01 mSv/yr), which is well within the regulatory limits of 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC 2002). Until the termination of the license, power reactor licensees are required to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas at ALARA levels and are required to meet 10 CFR 50.36a requirements for effluent releases after ceasing operations (NRC 2002).

The GEIS considered the potential impacts of non-spent fuel-related radiological accidents resulting from decommissioning. The determination was that, with the mitigation procedures in place, the impacts of radiological accidents are neither detectable nor destabilizing. Therefore, the staff makes the generic conclusion that the impacts of non-spent fuel-related radiological accidents are SMALL. The staff has considered mitigation and concluded that no additional measures are likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warranted them (NRC 2002).

3.10.2 Site-Specific Activities There are no expected decommissioning activities performed under the LTP (NS 2024) that would deal with radioactive materials. If any activities are required, then those activities will be maintained and monitored by a radiation protection program that will comply with 10 CFR Part 20 limits. These activities will ensure public protection. Therefore, the NRC staff expects no impact associated with public and occupation doses beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

3.11 Transportation and Traffic Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.11.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination The GEIS addressed the impacts of transporting equipment and materials offsite. Materials discussed in the GEIS include LLRW, hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, and mixed waste.

Radiological impacts include exposures to the public and workers along the transportation route.

The GEIS states that transportation impacts include increases in traffic density, wear and tear on roadways and railways, and transportation accidents. While this analysis was primarily based on material leaving the site, those impacts would also apply to truck traffic bringing material (such as clean backfill soils) to the site (NRC 2002). The decommissioning GEIS estimates that shipment of LLRW by rail rather than by truck would reduce radiological impacts significantly (NRC 2002).

Regarding transportation accidents, the GEIS states that, historically, the accident rate for activities at nuclear facilities has been lower than the national average for similar activities,

3-16 attributed to the nuclear industrys emphasis on training and procedures (NRC 2002). The GEIS assumed most decommissioning waste would be transported by truck. The GEIS concluded that the radiological impacts from transportation, based on compliance with applicable regulations, would not be detectable or destabilizing.

Impacts are considered destabilizing if increased traffic causes a decrease in the level of service or measurable deterioration of affected roads, which can be tied directly to the activities at the site (NRC 2002). The GEIS concluded that the impact on transportation from decommissioning is SMALL.

3.11.2 Site-Specific Activities The staff expects that only a small or minimal workforce would commute from local areas and nearby lodging facilities. The transport of material would be accomplished by rail and road and would be completed using approved shipping containers in accordance with Department of Transportation regulations. There will be no additional waste generated during the LTP activities for this licensing action, therefore, no additional transport will be required (NS 2024). Thus, the NRC staff expects no impacts associated with transportation beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

3.12 Environmental Justice The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from activities associated with the proposed action. Such effects may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing in the vicinity of the VBWR site, and all are exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from activities at the VBWR.

Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, (59 FR 7629), dated February 16, 1994, directs Federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested, rather than directed, to comply with the Executive Order, NRC Chairman Ivan Selin, in a letter to the President, indicated that the NRC would endeavor to carry out the measures set forth in the E.O. and the accompanying memorandum as part of the NRCs efforts to comply with the requirements of NEPA. In 2004, the Commission issued its Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040).

3.12.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination As discussed in the GEIS, minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing in the vicinity of a power plant. Potential impacts on minority and low-income populations would consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts) and radiological effects. Radiation doses during

3-17 decommissioning are expected to remain well below regulatory limits. For environmental justice, the GEIS concluded that a site-specific analysis was necessary.

3.12.2 Site-Specific Activities The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from the proposed action. Such effects may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing near the reactor, and all are exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from decommissioning and license termination.

Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the VBWR According to the U.S. Census Bureaus 2020 Census data, approximately 49 percent of the population (approximately 99,000 individuals) residing within a 6 mi (10km) radius of the VBWR identified themselves as minorities. The largest minority population was Asian alone or in combination with other races (approximately 31,800 individuals, or 32 percent), followed by Hispanics or Latinos of any race (approximately 12,800 individuals, or 13 percent)

(MCDC 2024). According to the 2020 Census, 72 percent of the Alameda County population identified themselves as minorities, with Asian alone or in combination with other races (36 percent), Hispanic or Latino of any race (23 percent), and Black or African American alone or in combination with other races (12 percent) comprising the largest minority populations (USCB 2024).

Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of the VBWR According to the U.S. Census Bureaus 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, approximately 4,700 persons and 600 families (approximately 5 and 2 percent, respectively) residing within a 10 km (6 mi) radius of the VBWR were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold (MCDC 2024). The 2022 Federal poverty threshold was $30,186 for a family of four. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus 2022 American Community Survey Census 1-Year Estimates, the median household income for California was $91,551, while approximately 9 percent of families and 12 percent of the State population were found to be living below the Federal poverty threshold. Alameda County had a higher estimated median household income average ($122,159) and lower percentages of families (6 percent) and persons (10 percent) living below the poverty level (USCB 2024).

Potential human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of radiological effects, which would be the same as for those of the general population. However, radiation doses from decommissioning activities associated with the proposed action are expected to be below regulatory limits with no significant visual or noise impacts. Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts in this EA, the proposed action would not have disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living near VBWR.

3-18 3.13 Waste Management Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.13.1 Decommissioning GEIS Determination Regarding LLRW, the GEIS (Section 4.3.18) considered the volume of land required for LLRW disposal (NRC 2002). The GEIS estimated the volume of land required for radioactive waste disposal as having an irretrievable and irreversible impact. In the GEIS (Table 4-7), it was estimated that for decommissioning, 8,000 to 10,000 cubic meters (m3) (282,500 to 353,000 cubic feet [ft3]) of land would be needed for disposal of LLRW for a PWR larger in plant size than the VBWR based on previously decommissioned facilities (NRC 2002).

3.13.2 Radioactive Waste Site-Specific Activities The characterization of VBWR has generally followed the Multi Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIML) described process. This process included a HSA and scoping surveys, followed by characterization surveys. Characterization will continue during the dismantling and remediation process, with surveys post-vessel removal being used for a final radiological characterization prior to the VBWR license termination request. The removal and disposal of the reactor vessel, with associated internals, will leave the VBWR facility with minimal residual radioactive materials under License DPR-1.

There are no radioactive gases at VBWR that require evaluation and control; all radioactive noble gases have decayed or were previously released under appropriate control and in compliance with regulatory requirements (GEH 2023c).

If required, radiological remediation will be sufficient as needed to ensure the potential radiation exposures to both workers and the public from remaining radioactive materials will be ALARA, with potential doses within 25 mrem/year. Residual radioactive materials will be controlled to prevent spread and contamination of the environment (GEH 2023c).

Following the removal of the reactor vessel, structures were surveyed as necessary; contaminated materials was remediated or removed and disposed of as radioactive waste (NS 2024). Residual contaminated structural surfaces that will be transferred to the EVESR license have been assessed. Any additional surveys necessary to determine the remaining activity will be performed post-dismantling and remediation. Decontamination will be performed only if determined to be ALARA for worker protection (GEH 2023c).

The NRC staff concludes that although remaining decommissioning activities, site remediation, and final site radiological surveys are or will be generating LLRW, the amount for decommissioning the VBWR would not have a noticeable effect on the overall disposal capacity at any disposal facility at either facility.

3.13.3 Nonradioactive Waste Site-Specific Activities Additional materials to be addressed during decommissioning activities include lead, lead-containing coatings, and asbestos. The LTP ER states the following actions will be used to address the material and the waste that is generated.

The removal and disposal of the reactor vessel, with associated internals, left the VBWR facility with minimal residual radioactive materials under License DPR-1. The remaining areas for decontamination or remediation were those with elevated exposure rates, specifically for the bioshield following the removal of the reactor pressure vessel. The need for remediation was

3-19 based on As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) for potential worker exposures and minimization of the potential migration or dispersion pending final remediation during EVESR license termination (GEH 2023d) (NS 2024).

A characterization of the reactor vessel was performed, and the results were used to estimate exposure rates associated with the reactor vessel. This characterization was used for planning the removal, packaging, transportation, and disposal. The reactor vessels radionuclide inventory is not included in the characterization of the residual radioactivity, as presented in the LTP (GEH 2023c).

Demobilization included remediation of the sump, decontaminating and removing, as much as feasible, all project equipment and materials brought onsite, disposal of project-generated waste such as concrete from expansion joint areas, reactor pit, etc., and returning the work area to a clean, safe condition. All equipment and materials were decontaminated, as necessary, using standard non-destructive (e.g., damp wiping) methods and surveyed to meet limits for unrestricted release. Items exceeding the limits for unrestricted release will be packaged and disposed of as LLRW (GEH 2023d, NS 2024).

Nonradiological decommissioning included lead, lead-containing coatings and asbestos. All elemental lead in the form of brick has been removed and disposed of offsite (GEH 2023c, NS 2024). Demolition work performed during decommission preparation activities for VBWR required the removal of lead-containing coatings (GEH 2023c). Upon identification of these areas, a qualified lead abatement subcontractor or qualified remediation team removed the lead-containing coatings. Any work performed that required a torch to metal that has a lead-containing coating would have had the coating removed by a qualified abatement subcontractor or qualified remediation team worker. The activities prior to any torch to metal work or grinding would have complied with the GEH and Vallecitos Site-Specific Safety and Health Manual.

Asbestos-containing materials have been abated in the VBWR containment, and all generated material has been disposed of. If or when asbestos was identified during the work activities, it was removed and packaged for disposal prior to any decommissioning activities in areas where these materials exist. Removal and disposal of asbestos would have been completed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor (GEH 2023c, NS 2024).

The GEIS did not consider the impacts of nonradioactive waste generation, handling, and disposal. Based on the information provided in the LTP application, the NRC has evaluated the impacts of the generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste for the VBWR.

GEH has committed to properly handling, containing, and disposing of all waste generated or discovered onsite according to all applicable Federal and State regulations.

3.14 Terrorism The NRCs Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) reviews, analyzes, coordinates, and disseminates threat and intelligence information relevant to NRC licensees and Agreement States, at both strategic and tactical levels. The NSIR staff also serves as NRCs liaison and coordination with other organizations and agencies, including the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

The terrorist threat the United States faces is diverse and emanates from homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) inspired by foreign terrorist organizations and domestic violent extremists (DVEs) inspired by a wide range of ideologies, personal grievances, and a mix of conspiracy theories. While the threat of a catastrophic (9/11-style) terrorist attack from a foreign terrorist

3-20 organization is very low compared to the past 20 years; the primary concern is small scale attacks by HVEs or DVEs consisting of an individual to a few individuals using firearms, edged weapons, or explosives.

This assessment is based up the Office of the Director of National Intelligences unclassified Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, published February 5, 2024; The Homeland Threat Assessment for 2024, published by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis; and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Global Terrorist Threat Assessment 2024 (a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization).

Because all spent fuel and large reactor components have been removed from the reactor and the site, the site is not an attractive target, nor is there a risk of a radiological impact as a result of an unlikely terroristic act at GEH VBWR. Based on its ongoing consideration and its review of information provided by the intelligence community, the NRC has assurance that public health and safety and the environment, and the common defense and security, continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. In conclusion, the probability of a significant radioactive release caused by a terrorist attack remains very low, and the potential health and land contamination effects of the most severe plausible attack would be very low as all spent fuel and large reactor components have been removed from the site.

Cumulative Effects The Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement NEPA define cumulative effects as effects on the environment that result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.1). The NRC staff evaluated whether cumulative environmental effects could result from the incremental effects of the proposed action when added to the effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the area.

The local area is a combination of suburban and rural areas. The Alemeda County Government Community Development Agency planning and review process for all development applications includes an analysis of the proposal and public notification. The Current Planning Division reviews development projects, conducts environmental reviews of projects, and administers zoning ordinances. Current planning projects include residential, industrial, and commercial projects that are currently being reviewed for conformance with local, State and Federal requirements (Alemeda County 2024).

For activities associated with residential development, the change of zoning will require an Environmental Impact Report per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Planning Department reviews Conditional Use Permits and environmental review documents for wind energy development (Alemeda County 2024).

Upcoming projects in the county and the surrounding area of the VBWR and VNC include the Arroyo Lago Residential Project, La Yun Chan Buddhist Center, and the Creston Development.

Ongoing land use projects include surface mining permits for the Eliot Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment Project and Altamount Pass wind resource area wind turbine projects.

The NRC staff has assessed the potential incremental impacts of the proposed action to the current and reasonably foreseeable activities discussed above and, for the reasons stated above, determined that there would be no significant cumulative effects because there would

3-21 only be minimal incremental effects from the proposed action and minor overlapping effects with other projects described above.

3.15 Summary of Environmental Consequences In addition to those areas generically bounded by the GEIS, Table 3-4 contains the impacts on those resource areas not addressed generically in the GEIS and those resource areas that were found to be outside of the bounds of the discussion in the GEIS.

Table 3-4 Environmental Consequences by Resources Environmental Resource Impact Considerations Land Use - Offsite No offsite land is needed to support decommissioning activities. Existing public roads and highways would be used to transport workers and equipment. All activities would be within the site developed area and would be SMALL.

Air Quality and Green House Gases There are no additional site-specific activities and the GEIS impact determination of SMALL and insignificant, is bounded. When the impact of the proposed action is combined with the impacts of climate change, the proposed action has minimal impacts on the relevant environmental resources.

Historical and Cultural -

Offsite There are no decommissioning activities planned to occur on previously undisturbed land at the VBWR site and surroundings. The entire facility may be considered a historic district. The potential for historic properties will be evaluated during the review of the EVESR LTP.

Ecological -Aquatic and Terrestrial Offsite Since most of the work is scheduled to take place in the dry season and there will be no ground-disturbing activities, the impacts on aquatic and terrestrial resources are SMALL.

Threatened and Endangered Species There is no designated critical habitat in the proposed project area. The risk to these species can be reduced even further with the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. There is no potential to affect determination.

Water Resources -

Groundwater due to decommissioning activities All wastewater will be collected and treated within existing the VNC wastewater treatment infrastructure. VNC will continue to sample existing monitoring wells onsite according to the existing monitoring plan. All residual radiological contamination will be transferred to the EVESR license.

Waste Management -

Nonradiological Nonradioactive waste would be either disposed of at a local landfill or recycled. GEH has committed to properly handling, containing, and disposing of all waste generated or discovered onsite according to all applicable Federal and State regulations.

Environmental Justice There would not be disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations living near VBWR.

Terrorism There is reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment, and the common defense and security, continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment.

Land Use Onsite Bounded by GEIS Aesthetics/Noise (Visual and Scenic Resources)

Bounded by GEIS

3-22 Environmental Resource Impact Considerations Air Quality Bounded by GEIS Water Use and Quality Bounded by GEIS.

Historic and Cultural Resources Bounded by GEIS Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology within the Operational Area Bounded by GEIS Socioeconomics Bounded by GEIS Public and Occupational Health Bounded by GEIS Transportation Bounded by GEIS EVESR = experimental superheat reactor; GEH = General Electric Hitachi; GEIS = generic environmental impact statement; GHG = greenhouse gas; LTP = license termination plan; VBWR = Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor; VNC = Vallecitos Nuclear Center.

4-1 4

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 4.1 State Review On August 13, 2024, the NRC submitted a draft EA to the State of California Department of Public Health for their review and comment (ML24078A377). The California Department of Public Health responded on September 12, 2024, with a comment letter (ML24260A220).

4.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation The NHPA was enacted to create a national historic preservation program, including the National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. NHPA Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, define an undertaking as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval. Therefore, the NRCs approval of the VBWR LTP constitutes a Federal undertaking. After reviewing the VBWR LTP, the NRC staff determined the proposed action would not involve any land disturbance or dismantling of structures on the Vallecitos site and therefore will not have the potential to affect historic properties assuming such historic properties are present.

4.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation The NRC must consider the effects of its actions on ecological resources protected under several Federal statues and must consult with FWS or the NOAA, as appropriate, prior to acting in cases where an agency may affect those resources. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq), enacted by Congress to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, listed species) and the habitats in which they are found. The FWS and NMFS are the lead Federal agencies for implementing the ESA, and these agencies determine species that warrant listing.

The NRC staff conducted a search of Federally listed species and critical habitats that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the VBWR licensed area by using the FWS Environmental Conservation Online System Information for Planning and Conservation System Information for Planning and Conservation System (IPaC). Upon receipt of the GEH amendment request, the NRC staff considered whether any Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitats may be present in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) and affected by the proposed action. Eleven listed species have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the VBWR licensed area: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii),

northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii),

monarch butterfly (Danus plexippus), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi).

However, three of these species are unlikely to occur near the VBWR licensed area due to lack of suitable habitat which include the California least tern, monarch butterfly, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. No critical habitats are present in the action area.

4-2 After reviewing the GEH VBWR LTP and discussions with the licensee, NRC staff determined the proposed action would not involve any activities that may directly or indirectly impact listed species and therefore will have no direct nexus to the natural environment that could otherwise affect Federally listed species. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed license termination plan of the GEH VBWR would have no effect on Federal listed species of critical habitat. Federal agencies are not required to consult with the FWS if they determine that an action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Thus, the ESA does not require consultation for the proposed GEH VBWR LTP. The NRC staff considers its obligations under ESA Section 7 to be fulfilled for the proposed action.

5-1 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The NRC has prepared this EA as part of its review of the GEH Vallecitos approval of the LTP.

If approved, this license amendment request would add a license condition to the GEH license reflecting the NRCs approval of the LTP. The decommissioning GEIS generically addressed many of the potential environmental impacts of decommissioning at GEH Vallecitos. During its review of the LTP, the NRC concluded that the impacts for most resource areasonsite land use; water resources; air quality; ecology, threatened and endangered species within the project boundary; socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources within the operational area; aesthetics; noise; transportation; and nonradioactive waste managementwere still bounded by the GEIS. Therefore, the NRC does not expect impacts associated with these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level for these issues was SMALL.

In the GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that it could not necessarily determine the environmental impacts of decommissioning generically for six environmental resource areas. The GEIS concluded that two of these six resource areas (i.e., threatened and endangered species and environmental justice) must always be evaluated on a site-specific basis in site-specific EAs, such as this EA for the GEH Vallecitos LTP. Depending on the site-specific circumstances, the following four additional resource areas are considered to be conditionally site-specific:

(1) offsite land use, (2) historic and cultural resources beyond the operational area with no current cultural and historic resource survey, (3) terrestrial ecology beyond the operational area, and (4) aquatic ecology beyond the operational area (NRC 2002).

The NRC evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the remaining decommissioning and license termination activities on the six environmental resource areas that cannot be determined generically: (1) threatened and endangered species, (2) environmental justice, (3) offsite land use, (4) historic and cultural resources, (5) terrestrial ecology beyond the operational area, and (6) aquatic ecology beyond the operational area. The NRC did not identify any significant impacts in any of these resource areas. In addition, topics not included in the GEIS that the NRC staff evaluated in this EA include climate change, cumulative impacts, contamination of groundwater from decommissioning activities, and nonradioactive waste management.

On the basis of the findings discussed in this EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. That finding will be published in the Federal Register.

6-1 6

LIST OF PREPARERS This EA was prepared by the Environmental Center of Expertise in the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Contributors to the EA are listed below.

• Jill Caverly, Sr. Project Manager, NRC

• Stacey Imboden, Sr Project Manager, NRC

• Jeff Rikhoff, Sr Technical Reviewer, NRC

• Doug Garner, Security Specialist, NRC

• Mitchell Dehmer, Biologist, NRC

• Jean Trefethen, Project Manager, NRC

7-1 7

REFERENCES References used in the preparation of this EA are publicly available online or through the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin a search in ADAMS, select Begin WBA Search. The ADAMS accession number is provided for references in ADAMS.

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations For Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.

59 FR 7629. Executive Order No. 12898. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. Federal Register 59(32):7629-7634.

February 16, 1994.

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions. Federal Register 69(163):52040-52048. August 24, 2004 Alemeda County. 2024. Alemeda County Project Planning. Accessed on April 18, 2024.

https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/currentprojects.htm.

California Department of Public Health. 2024. Letter from Ira Schneider to Jill Caverly. Review of Draft for Review Environmental Assessment for the License Termination Plan for Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Sunol, California, 2024 dated September 12, 2024. ADAMS Accession No. ML24260A220.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed location or may be affected by your proposed project. Dated April 30, 2024. ADAMS Accession No. ML24127A216.

GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2023. Fifth National Climate Assessment.

Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C., USA.

https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023 GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2023. Fifth National Climate Assessment.

Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C., USA.

https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023 GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2023a. License Termination Plan for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor License DPR-1. Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23250A267

7-2 GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2023b. License Termination Plan for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor License DPR-1 (Public). Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23261A591.

GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2023c. GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor Environmental Report. Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23261A593.

GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2023d. GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) License Termination Plan. Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23261A594.

GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2023e. Email dated October 31, 2023. [External Sender] RE:

License Termination Plan for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor License DPR-1 Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action (EPID L-2023-LLA-0138). Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23304A300 GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2023f. Vallecitos Nuclear Center Cultural Resources Report.

Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML23261A591.

GEH (General Electric Hitachi). 2024. Response to Request for Additional Information.

Wilmington, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML24085A792 NS (NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC). 2024. Update to License Termination Plan for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor - Environmental Report. Sunol, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML24220A200 Kleinfelder. 2022. Biological Resources Report. Vallecitos Nuclear Center Decommissioning Project. ADAMS Accession No. ML22264A328.

MCDC (Missouri Census Data Center), Circular Area Profiles (CAPS). 2024. Demographic and Housing Characteristics (DHC) File, 2020 Decennial Census (May 2023), Block Group data on Race and Hispanic and Latino, and 2018-2022 American Community Survey (ACS), Block Group data Poverty Status data (January 2024) within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius of VBWR (37.613267 Lat., -121.840164 Long.). Available at https://mcdc.missouri.edu/applications/caps.html (Accessed April 2024).

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). 54 U.S.C. Chapter 1A, Subchapter. II, § 100101 et seq.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Information Regarding Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.82(A)(6) Review Process Regarding Historic Properties.

Washington, DC. ADAMS Accession No. ML24012A014.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy - NRC Inspection Report 05000018/2023002, 05000070/2023002, And 05000183/2023002 dated January 9, 2024. ADAMS Accession No. ML23362A083 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023a. Final Fort Calhoun License Termination Plan Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23333A049.

7-3 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vol. 1 -

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities.

Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML023470304, ML023470323, ML023500187, ML023500211, ML023500223.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Tennessee Valley Authority. CLI-09-21, Washington, D.C.

ADAMS Accession No. ML093070690.

NRC. (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Attachment 1: Staff Guidance for Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Impacts for New Reactor Environmental Impact Statements. COL/ESP-ISG-026. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A157.

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2024. Table DP1, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2020, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table 1701 and S1702 - Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months - individuals and families, and Table 1901 -

Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2022 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). California and Alameda County. Poverty Thresholds for 2022 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years. Available at https://data.census.gov/table (accessed April 2024).