Stan Olmstead
P.O. Box 403
Jonesborough, TN 37659
November 19, 2013
NRC: Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rulemaking and Adjudication
Washington D.C. 20555-0001
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov
Re: Docket ID NRC-2012-0246
Comment to Waste Confidence DGEIS and Proposed Rule
Thank you for considering my comments on the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s Draft Generic Waste Confidence Environmental Impact
Statement (DGEIS) for Nuclear Waste Confidence and Proposed Rule change.
While attending the waste confidence meeting in Charlotte N.C.
there were many viewpoints and opinions expressed. Those in attendance expressed pro-permitting,
anti-permitting and government employees disseminating information.
NEPA has two underlining principles. Analyze the human
environment and to make an informed decision. The decision maker has latitude
in the decision as long as nondiscretionary interpretation (i.e. Law) is not
violated. Even so interpretation of law by the decision maker does have its
biases and once final can only be corrected by court action. With decisions
that are discretionary and not obligated by law, the decision maker has
increased latitude to impact the environment or our society as long as the
decisions are not arbitrary or capricious.
My comments are based on review of the DGEIS, the U.S. Appeals
Court Order; 2012, professional understanding of NEPA law and process, and the
environment. Full knowledge of each of the Final EIS documents for each nuclear
power facility would certainly have been beneficial, and I contend that a
summary of this information should be within the DGEIS to quantify and to
provide a summation of cause and effect specifics.
The DGEIS has two responsibilities: (1). Analyze the human
environment in a procedural manner for nuclear waste storage of spent fuels after
license expiration and (2). Fulfill the order by the U.S. Appeals Court before
a proposed rule on waste confidence can be made.
The proposed rule is essential to the NRC. The continued
licensing of nuclear energy facilities cannot continue without the rule change.
The absence of a rule change would be a serious burden on the nuclear energy
industry and their production of 20% of the nation’s electricity.
My review of the NRC’s DGEIS concludes:
No Confidence in
Waste management by the Commission.
Although generally the Commission followed the procedures of
NEPA, the draft document fails in analyses and has “fatal flaws” in its Purpose
and Need and Assumptions.
Purpose and Need:
1.
To improve the efficiency of the NRC’s licensing
process by generically addressing the environmental impacts of continued
storage.
2.
To prepare a single document that reflects the
NRC’s current understanding of these environmental impacts.
3.
To address the deficiencies in the 2010 Waste
Confidence rule identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit.
Assumptions:
1. Institutional controls would be in place.
2. Spent fuel canisters and casks would be
replaced approximately once every 100 years.
3. Independent spent fuel storage installation
(ISFSI) and dry transfer system (DTS) facilities would also be replaced
approximately once every 100 years.
4. A DTS would be built at each ISFSI location
for fuel repackaging.
5. All spent fuel would be moved from spent
fuel pools to dry storage by the end of the short-term storage timeframe (60
years).
6. The Analyses in the draft GEIS are based on
current technology and regulations.
My review determines that the purpose and need of the
document should not be the improved efficiency of the NRC’s licensing and that the
document does not address the deficiencies of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling
by completing an appropriate Environmental Impact Statement.
The NRC in its consideration of indefinite storage, as
identified, cannot assume institutional
controls would remain in place for the time frame analyzed. The NRC cannot
assure that the spent fuel canisters and casks would be replaced approximately
once every 100 years and also that the Independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) and dry transfer system (DTS) facilities would be replaced
approximately once every 100 years. The spent fuel material has an extremely
long half-life (consider the dawn of civilization to the present the waste
material would be hazardous much longer).
The draft document draws the reader away from nuclear plant
licensing and plant specific locations. The document for analysis is extremely general
without any specifics and fails to be analytical. It is a “Trust Me Document.” I
can accept the concept of generic analyses. I cannot accept general analyses
without specifics. The document is fraught with constant assumptions, short-term
experience and has an industry-based analysis. Not one specific species is
mentioned in the document for federally listed species, special status species
or other terrestrial species. No specific water bodies are analyzed that may
become contaminated by the stored material whether on Eastern state waterways,
Midwestern farming areas or the Pacific coast. Each existing facility has a
unique environmental and geological situation and the assumption is made if it
was adequately analyzed for a 40 year license with two 20 year renewals at the
power plant then it is adequate for short term, long term and indefinite
storage. Not true! I accept the
attributes within the document’s analyses, but do not accept the analyses.
The DGEIS is a waste storage document. It has two essential
and almost insurmountable problems: The serious nature of the waste to be
stored and the vast length of time (millenniums beyond millenniums) the waste
must be safely stored. NEPA law requires alternatives to be analyzed for a full
understanding of possibilities. The DGEIS alternatives are lacking in understanding,
complexity, or foresight. The 60-year time frame appears arbitrary. If you
review previous decisions by the NRC, this is a doubling of an earlier 30-year recommendation
(Arbitrary). I claim that the 60 year “short term” storage after license
expiration is too long, that the 160 year “long term” storage is too long and
that the “indefinite” storage of the materials stored in perpetuity lacks
responsibility, is naïve and is absolutely impossible (way beyond reasonable
and foreseeable) to analyze and fails NEPA and the NRC mission.
Although you do not wish to consider the “worse case
scenario”, other alternatives must be considered. It was disappointing to read
the section on other alternatives considered but eliminated. I arbitrarily and
for your consideration select 10 years post licensing expiration for the short
term, 20 years post licensing for the longer term and a denial of an indefinite
storage without the absolute need and accessibility of either of the following
two technical solutions.
1.
An approved and environmentally analyzed deep
geologic repository.
or
2. A
reprocessing facility for nuclear materials proven to be technically adequate for
recycling this highly dangerous material.
Without
a continued and safe final conclusion of the waste material in a safe manner, the
indefinite storage is impossible and the discontinuation of the generation of
the spent nuclear material should occur. There are no reasonable and
foreseeable considerations for indefinite storage as described in the
DGEIS.
I also consider that the DGEIS requires “connective actions”
to be analyzed if it is to fulfill the responsibilities of NEPA. Although the
document is addressing the storage of nuclear waste material by private energy
generators, the generation of waste material is a “cradle to grave” event.
However benign or dangerous nuclear material is “in-situ” (e.g. its natural
geologic setting), once uranium is mined, ore processed, material enriched, fuels
used, fuels spent, and waste disposed, citizens should expect safety to body
and environment. Review of the DGEIS does not provide any quantitative
understanding of environmental impacts or risks from earlier nuclear material
activities, origin of nuclear materials or connection to foreign or defense
related activities. I contend that, not
only should the DGEIS provide connective actions to other nuclear industries so
the reader has a clearer understanding of the full impact to our human
environment, the document should include some mention of global activities
since there is no safe level of radiation and all nations that potentially lose
material have the potential to contaminate “down wind.” The human use of
nuclear material is a scant 100 years, fraught with problems of poor use, ignorance,
contamination and death, and you ask the citizens of this nation to simply trust
that the NRC can manage it for millenniums.
If as believed, a deep geologic repository is feasible and
considered the most promising or if the technical reprocessing of spent nuclear
material has potential, complete the technology and establish the facility before
generating undue quantities of nuclear waste.
It is my argument that not only should the storage of spent
fuels not be perpetually stored at the existing nuclear energy facilities but
the facilities once no longer in operation should in a short term (arbitrary)
be reclaimed to near natural lands, free of hazardous material and available
for future civilizations or other species without ill effect.
I ask that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rewrite the
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Waste Confidence and not consider
the renewal of nuclear plant licensing nor the continue accumulation of spent
nuclear waste until an “End Game” is proven and in place.
NRC mission: The NRC licenses
and regulates the nations civilian use of radioactive materials to protect
public health and defense and security and protect the environment.
I state that most important in the NRC’s mission is the
protection of public health and the protection of the environment.
Sincerely,
Stan Olmstead
No comments:
Post a Comment