ML13277A306

Comment (2) of David Kraft on Behalf of Neis Re Supplement to Nrc'S Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for the Byron Nuclear Power Station

ML13277A306
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	09/27/2013
From:	Kraft D Nuclear Energy Information Service
To:	Cindy Bladey Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
78FR47800 00002, NRC-2013-0178
Download: ML13277A306 (6)

Text

Page 1 of 2As of: October 01, 2013Received:

September 27, 2013PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending-Post PUBLC S BMISIONTracking No. ljx-87un-z Comments Due: SeptemSubmission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2013-0178 License Renewal Application for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; Exelon Generation

Company, LLCComment On: NRC-2013-0178-0001 License Renewal Applications:

Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; Exelon Generation Co., LLCDocument:

NRC-2013-0178-DRAFT-0001 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-18935

,436ber 27, 2013Submitter Information Name: David Kraft '/.Address:NEIS 7 ,/-7 Q ,, -c-m3411 W. Diversey,

1. 16 -Chicago, IL, 60647 --)Email: neis@neis.org T-~1General Comment %A27 September, 2013Cindy Bladey, ChiefRules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB)Office of Administration Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Comments on the Supplement to the NRC's "Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)for License Renewal for the Byron Nuclear Power StationDocket number NRC-2013-0178 Greetings:

SUNSI Review CompleteTemplate

= ADM -013E-RIDS= ADM-03Add=/-. CA. ýhttps://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/componentlcontentstreamer?objectld=090000648143eba9&for...

10/01/2013 Page 2 of 2Nuclear Energy Information Service is a 32 year old Illinois environmental organization based in Chicago.

Wesubmit the following comments on the above Docket, to be entered into the official record concerning the ByronNuclear Power Station relicensing.

Thank you.David A. KraftDirectorAttachments Byron license renewal comments 9-27-13https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/componentlcontentstreamer?objectId=09000064814 3eba9&for...

10/01/2013 Nuclear Energy Information ServiceIllinois'Nuclear Power Watchdog since 1981Office and Mail: 3411 W. Diversey Avenue, #16, Chicago, IL 60647-1245 (773)342-7650 www.neis.org neis@neis.org Cindy Bladey, ChiefRules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB)Office of Administration Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Comments on the Supplement to the NRC's "Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GELS)for License Renewal for the Byron Nuclear Power StationDocket number NRC-2013-0178 September 27, 2013Nuclear Energy Information Service is a 32 year old Illinois environmental organization based in Chicago.We wish to make the following comments on the above Docket, to be entered into the official record.Prefacing Remarks:

a "Nuclear Safety Culture"In oral comments made at the public meeting held by NRC at the Byron Station on August 19, 2013, wemade the following observation about NRC's expected role in the license renewal process.For the better part of a year now, NRC has been admonishing utilities in Region III on their "lack of asafety culture."

In September, 2012, at the Palisades reactor in Michigan, NRC presented a slide show,instructing utilities what it expects and illustrating the characteristics of an acceptable "nuclear safetyculture":

"Nuclear Safety Culture is the core values and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment byleaders and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of peopleand the environment."

[NRC side show, Palisades reactor presentation, 9/12/12]In a Q&A session with then Region III director Chuck Casto, we asked what such "competing goals" mightbe, and suggested things like: schedules, procedures, how management and regulators listen to and actupon worker complaints.

Mr. Casto stated,"We're trying to go beyond what's required."

(emphasis ours)A REAL, AUTHENTIC nuclear safety culture will evidence behaviors that go beyond the mere letter of therequirements.

Evaluations of all kinds will therefore be more than mere check-box exercises in compliance to the letter of the regulations.

If NRC expects utilities to operate with that mindset, then NRC needs tolead by example, and regulate with that mindset as well.If NRC is serious about establishing a nuclear safety culture, then we will be forced to evaluate NRC's rolein this relicensing proceeding with those same standards:

going beyond what's required, what'sperfunctory.

This will mean entertaining notions and requiring lines of investigation into matters that are"outside the box" of existing regulations in some cases. The regulations serve as the floor, not the ceiling,of compliance that will "ensure protection of people and the environment."

It is with this attitude that we will evaluate NRC's performance in this license renewal proceeding.

Comment 1: The ER submitted by Exelon is incomplete in not providing evidence that it hasexamined the projected effects of predicted Illinois climate disruption on future operations.

NRCregulations are inadequate for not requiring this examination.

Current climate models suggest that Illinois will gradually assume a climate resembling that of East Texasor Mississippi by mid-Century (within the period of operational life extension of Byron), depending onwhether one is running a low- or high- emissions model. Summer temperatures are expected to increaseon average from 3.30 to 8.60 F. While total precipitation is expected to remain about the same, seasonalvariation will increase, and frequency of heavy precipitation events-measured in terms of number of daysper year with more than 2 inches of rain, and annual maximum 24-hr, 5-day and 7-day rainfalltotals-is likely to continue to increase, particularly closer to the Great Lakes, a factor which will haveimplications in the Comments below.The implications of these projections do not seem to be incorporated into the ER analysis provided byExelon, which invariably result in the conclusion of "small" impact. The ER clearly states that the RockRiver is a "small river" by definition.

Make-up water for the mechanical draft cooling tower system relies onthe Rock River. Decreased volume and flow rates expected under projected climate disruption models forIllinois could have an adverse effect on the MDCT's ability to function.

Since this system is dedicated tocooling the safety-related portions of the plant, this could have serious consequences; but this is notevidenced in the conclusions Exelon arrives at.Exelon's historic penchant to request license variances on water use and thermal discharge (not a factor atByron) from IEPA suggests the possibility for greater effect than is characterized in the Exelon ERdocument.

The alternative would be curtailment of operation, which also does not appear factored into theExelon ER in any manner.Recommendation:

NRC should require a more thorough projection of water use at Byron, based on thebest possible climate modeling for Illinois between now and mid-century.

Because this variation in climatedisruption and its effects are local/regional, it falls outside the scope of a generic analysis or regulation.

Comment 2: Analysis of socio-economic impacts are incomplete.

No analysis of impacts of early orunexpected closure are considered or provided.

The Exelon ER documents a significant tax impact for the presence of the Byron Nuclear Station, yet onlyaddresses the positive impacts.

No mention or analysis of negative impacts resulting from abrupt, planned,or unexpected early closure of Byron is presented.

This is a significant omission.

According to the Exelon ER Byron represents nearly 26% of the Ogle County total tax base, roughly $30million annually for the years 2008 through 2010. It also accounts for upwards of 73% of Byron Unit 226School District's adjusted property tax levy. These are not insignificant amounts.

Their abruptdisappearance would wreak economic havoc on the affected governmental and essential service entities' ability to operate.The ER either fails to recognize or mention at all some of the possible events that could result in such asituation:

• Unexpected major accident, resulting in immediate and presumably premature closure* NRC ordered shut down* Exelon's unilateral decision to close the plant on economic or other grounds, as it did at Zion,resulting in an immediate loss of about 55% of Zion's tax base" Devaluation through sale, as occurred at the Clinton station, resulting in enormous loss of tax base" Eventual old-age, license expiration closure (the outcome most hoped for)

Exelon even provides a possible indication of the kinds of circumstances that would lead it to close Byronon economic grounds.

Section 3.2 on Refurbishment indicates that Exelon is well aware that Byron Unit 2may need a steam generator replacement during the extended operational lifetime.

It is also tracking thepotential for reactor vessel head replacements at its operating PWRs at both Byron and Braidwood.

Should either or both of these conditions emerge at a time of deflated energy prices, or at a time Exelonacknowledges might occur as early as 2024 when renewables are much more cost competitive andapproaching base load capabilities (Sec. 7.2, page 7-9), or as the result of multi-season drought curtailing water availability

-Exelon being a business will certainly make the calculations it made when it closedZion, and decide if Byron should continue to operate.In this omission the ER makes the same mistake the U.S. Government made when it invaded Iraq -it hadno exit strategy.

To simply assume that the only socio-economic effects of Byron's presence will bepositive ones is simply irrational.

Recommendation:

Planning for some kind of eventual closure must be made long before it happens tominimize economic and service disruptions to the entities whose tax base will be affected.

Debate aboutthe license extension serves as a good reminder of this fact, and an opportunity to take action. Werecommend that dependent govemmental and taxing entities begin formal negotiations with Exelon toestablish an escrowed "closure mitigation fund," based on some mutually agreeable assessment andpayment structure, so that dependent entities will have some kind of temporary funds available to softenthe economic blow of closure, and not radically disrupt essential services.

Comment 3: Incomplete and faulty analysis in Section 7.0 -Alternatives to the Proposed ActionIn reviewing the scenarios Exelon examined to come up with its evaluations concerning the viability ofoptions replacing the power output of Byron, we find that Exelon uses information that is perhaps notcurrent, and leaves out significant other real world options for consideration and analysis:

" Role of renewables too narrow, inaccurate, inappropriate:

Exelon tends to treat the renewable energy resources as if they are just some variant of traditional fossil and nuclear plants. They arenot. As a result they analyze these renewables solely in ways amenable to their own narrow viewof functioning, which is not necessarily the best or optimal use of the particular renewable energyresource.

For example only centralized energy station use of both wind and solar are considered, with no consideration of "distributed generation" in any meaningful way. Pairing up one renewable with natural gas is the only permutation

analyzed, when pairing up of solar with wind to compliment the strengths of both is ignored.

Further, it is not clear the degree to which the operational efficiencies of these renewables either in the present or the future is accurately analyzed.

Improvements in technology, higher wind towers, increased solar panel efficiencies, etc. are all veryreal prospects even before the 2024/26 license expirations of the two Byron nuclear reactors.

Webelieve that this section needs a serious revision, perhaps from an outside independent consultant to more accurately reflect both the real, and the realistically anticipated world of renewable energycontributions.

" Anachronistic business model used exclusively:

The Exelon ER examines the contributions of allcompetitors to the Byron nuclear plant -not just the renewables

-on the assumption that Byroncan only be replaced by "baseload" power. While indeed that is the way things are structured atpresent, current trends and real world energy discussions are starting to envision the end of thisbusiness model and approach.

The notion of "distributed power" has been around for over adecade. Recently FERC officials have seriously talked about "baseload" being a concept of thepast, which technological developments in both generation and grid dispatching will renderincreasingly meaningless.

Some major US utilities are even setting up exploration of a non-baseload oriented system in trial increments within their existing systems.3 The purpose of the license extension proceeding for Byron is NOT to analyze its past performance and compare it to the present; it is to look at its present performance and extrapolate that out anadditional 20 years (31 and 33 years from now), attempting to envision the energy world at that timeto see if the "present" can compete or even function in that world. Insufficient attention has beenpaid to this analysis in the Exelon ER. Section 7 reads like a convenient cherry-picked self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even Exelon itself cannot think that the business model is uses today will be the one that Byron willoperate in from 2024 to 2044. A way to prove that is to ask: does Exelon TODAY operate with thebusiness model it had in 2002 (11 years AGO)? This was just a handful of years out from utilityderegulation and unbundling of utilities here in Illinois.

Exelon did not even exist. Its predecessor's predecessor was just in the process of selling off its coal plants.Before these critiques are summarily dismissed by NRC as out of the scope of this docket, wewould remind you that a "nuclear safety culture" demands that kind of "out of the box" thinking andanalysis to "...ensure protection of people and the environment."

You said so yourselves.

Analyzing the functioning of Byron in the energy world of the future will have serious implications forExelon's analysis of socio-economic impacts.

Until that analysis is done, their "small" conclusions must be held in serious doubt.Recommendation:

Order Exelon to re-examine its Section 7 comparisons, incorporating:

1.) distributed generation and decline of the "baseload power' business model; 2.) better data on the capabilities of windand solar, based on expected improvements in technology, or better and more optimal use decisions; 3.)expected

upgrades, improvements and additions of grid and dispatching systems in the MISO and PJMInterconnection areas.We appreciate the opportunity to offer these observations.

We look forward to NRC incorporating theserecommendations in future license extension proceedings.

4