ML18059A648
| ML18059A648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1994 |
| From: | Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Adamkus V ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18059A649 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402030307 | |
| Download: ML18059A648 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555--0001 Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus Regional Administrator, Region 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
January 30, 1994 I am pleased to respond to your letter of December 30, 1993, in which you state that having.recently become aware of proposals for dry cask storage at the Palisades and Prairie Island nuclear power plants, your office desires copies of the environmental documentation relating to those proposals.
While we are of course happy to provide the documents you seek, you should be aware that all of the environmental documentation relating to cask design used at Palisades (the "VSC-24"} was sent to the*u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} headquarters some six months ago, with copies to a member of the EPA Region 5 staff.
(See the attached letter of August 4, 1993, to Ms. Susan Off erda l, EPA.}
Since that time, there have been a number of developments relat"ing to dry cask storage that may be of interest to you.
Most notably, last fall the Government filed its brief in Kelley v. Selin, Nos. 93-1646 et al.," in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, involving the casks at Palisades.
The central issue in this case, which is now pending before the court (no date for oral argument has so far been established} was the procedure used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve the "VSC-24" spent fuel storage casks.
The NRC's position was that its procedure for approving the cask design (by generic rulemaking, without the need for additional site-specific approvals} was consistent with the clear statutory directive of Congress in the National Waste Policy Act of 1982. Congress, seeking to foster the development of "off-the-shelfn at-reactor spent fuel storage technologies that could be used safely at any nuclear power plant site, directed NRC to use generic approvals, without additional site-specific approvals (and attendant adjudicatory hearings}, "to the maximum extent practicable." NRC's technical judgment, reflected in a 1990 rulemaking, was that this approach wa$ indeed fully "practicable."
The essence of the petitioners' challenge is that there is something unique about the Palisade~ site that warrants a site-specific environmental analysis, notwithstanding the statutory directive. The Government's brief argues in response that the NRC's 1990 rulemaking, in which the petitioners did not participate, established the principle that no site-specific analysis is necessary or desirable so long as the NRC can find, generically, that a particular cask design can withstand the range of environmental and climatic conditions representative of NRC-licensed nuclear plant sites for which its use is approved.*
( 9402030307 9461:30
- PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
l
~Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus 2
I~ fact, the environmental analysis underlying t.he decision on the VSC-24 *cask isaextensive:
The record refl~cts a series of "tiered" analyses, beginning with a *Generic En vi ronmenta l Impact Statement in 1979 on the handling and.
sto.rage *of spent fuel, and encompassing,_ over a period of years, a number of,
~elated and progressively more specific findirigs; including* environmental assessments of the 1990 and 1993 rulemaking$.
- Mot~over,".the Palisades site was the.subject of a full environmental.impact statement at t.he time of the initial lice~sing of the plant.
In sum, be~ause the generically approved vsc...:24 cask can only be used on sites
- already apprpved for.nuclear* power p.l ants, the reslil t at Pali sade.s* is that a safe and exhaustively reviewed technology has been installed*on a safe and exhaustively reviewed site. ~
A copy, of the. b~fof is enclosed *for your f nformat ion; * "
The installation of spe-~t fuel storage*.'c:asks at Prairie *Island, on the other.
hand, took place through.an *individual licensing action rather than a rulemaking.
As t~e NRC noted i.n its August 4, **1992, Federal..:..Req.ister notice
~on the subject, a. copy of which is -ehc"losed," an environmental :assessment found-~.*.
.
- that there would be no sigriHicant impacts *from construction of.the.casks.**
- ,Radiologiial impacts from gaseous ahd:liquid effluents were foundto be minimal, falllng within the scope of impacts. evaluated for licensed reactor,
.operations* and con.trolled.by the existiri.g* t.echnical specifications for the Pra-1rie Island.,plant.-. '.
T~e 1~92 n~t~~e noted ihai the* erivitorimental -asse~sment reiied on a numbei rif:
- .previous environmental documents, incTuding the.f973 Final Environmental.
-Statement for th~ Prairie Island plant; the 1991 Fihal Environmental. Impact Statement on the Prairie Island~lndependent Sp~nt.Fuel Storage Installation,
- -Report #11, EPA: 520, L-88-:020; and the 1979 Final Generic Environmen,tal S,tatement on*. the. handl fog. and storage of spent fuel.*. The en vi rohment_a l asse~sment took note.of the presence. of a nearby. Indian Tri be cbmlJ!unfty and of*
- the~£artron Atcha~rilogical Stte, an area including evidence of an Indian village and l:!urial mounds, whic_h*.was discovered at the southern boundary of.
th_~ plant*site and was adoed* to. the National Register of Historic Places in*.*
Febru.ary. 1971.
A further instance of NRC's due recognition of its responsibility to the
- ~:
Indian Tribe.in the vicinity of the Prairie* Island nuclear plant will *also*.*..,.*
.. in.terest you, since you mention the issue.in your letter. After the NRC c**: :_
- pub l i sh~d notice on October 19, 1990, of its-consideration *of issuance of a
- *materials license for spent fuel storage at Prairie Island, a notice. of
- intervention was filed by -the Prairie Island *Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community.
In March 1991, a stipulation agreement was signed by the Tribe,
- the NRC staff, the utility, and two State of Minnesota agencies which had also filed intervention petitions. Under it, the petitioners withdrew their intervention petitions, and the NRC and the utility agreed to furni~h complete information, including notice of relevant-meetings, and to perform additional analyses requested by the petitioners.
"'.: I,-'!.-F,
~
J l
- ~*
- Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus 3
In sum, we belie*ve that the NRC's handling of the issue of spent fuel storage at Palisades and Prairie Island has been above reproach:
in its technical and environmental s6undne~s. in,its fidelity to Congressional directives, and its responsiveness to concerns of public commenters, State bodies, an9 affected Indian Tribes.
We think that on review -of the relevant documents, you will share our view.
Enclosures:
- 1. Ltr to S. ~fferdal Sincerelj,_'.
Origlnal signed by Robert M. Bemero Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material. S~fety
- and Safeguards
. frm F. Sturz *dtd 8/4/93 w/encl._
- 2.
Brief dated 11/3/93 3.. Federa_l Register Notice 8/4/92..
Distributiori: EDO #9678.w/o encl*... NRC File Center Docket 72~1007 50-255 50-266/301 72-10 PDR LPDR.
- J~NS Central Files
- NMSS* r/f JMTB r/f IMIF 'r/f EDO r/f.
NMss* Director r/f* DMorris*, EDO.
. CEstep.
CPoland
- JTaylor.
HThompson LGerky.
. RBarigart_, OSP MGamberon i AMasciantonio JSniezek
- . 'JBlaha AGody, Jr.
LMarSh JKnubel TMurley JMartin, RIII
- AHsai KCyr*
SECY OPA MKna EBeckjord, 'RES NAME PCrane~fb
. CJPa iel lo
1 2lf194 DATE OFC.
NAME DATE RMBernero 1 '$-o 94
- C=COPY E =. COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY. *. G: ED096 78. pc OFFICIAL RECORD COPY