ML20056F632
| ML20056F632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Point Beach, 07201007  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1993 |
| From: | Roth T HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Rathbun D NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056F633 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308300197 | |
| Download: ML20056F632 (4) | |
Text
_
'TOBY ROTH i
rest.cN ana e5 C:oo ttet g _'
EIGHTH DitTOCT i
ec:.s:. c,,, r. a.s: es,.:s,,s, WISCONSIN 2234 RAYBURN BUllD!NG g,yg,yg p,y,ygg,yr WA$MINGioN. D.C. 20515
- .'"?' M UsBAN Ana.R$ COvv T*E!
'AAVEL AND IOUR:$M CAUCU$
O!N!se. O tes c ' asc
- f k' 0C N S
$PCEi$wtN $ CAUCUS f 0 0'*0"< O'0*'" ;
RUR AL C AUCut Ga ACE CauCU5 RUI1Eb D' U EO M UUBC Of ECprEBentatiUCS C 4a 4N TA$rsceCtcN soc:At sECut tv July 1, 1993 Mr. Dennis Rathbun Director, Congressional Affairs US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738
Dear Mr. Rathbun,
Enclosed please find correspondence I have recently received from my constituent Bruce Johnson of Green Bay, Wisconsin.
1 I would greatly appreciate it if you could respond to the concerns expressed.
Please address your reply to the attention of Lisa Schwarz in my Washington office.
Thank you very much for your kind assistance.
i Sincerely, I
I Tobyl 1 h
i MembH r of Congress i
TR:lks i
i i
1 9308300191 930823 PDR ADDCF 05000255 H
PDR h
EEEEH LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION June 15, 1993
Dear Rep. Roth:
The Lake Michigan Federation is a four state, non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the improvement and protection of the Lake Michigan basin.
We are writing to alert you to a problem with the potential for serious environmental harm to your constituency as a result of questionable high level nuclear waste storage procedures.
In addition, we wish to draw your attention to an overt lack of accountability on the issue by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We respectfully request your sponsorship, or assistance, in convening a Congressional field hearing in the region regarding these immediate concerns.
BACKGROUND ON THE HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE ISSUE:
The burgeoning quantity of high level nuclear waste in the form of spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear facilities on Great Lakes shores currently threatens the health of both the public and the environment.
This tenuous situation also presents the possibility of substantial cost increases to consumers of electricity.
Until recently, spent nuclear fuel has been stored on site at nuclear facilities in " spent fuel pools".
This means of storage has been considered temporary while utilities wait for the federal government to locate, 7nstruct, and operate a national repository for the spent fuel such at chat currently proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Department of Energy is scheduled to accept high level nuclear waste (spent fuel) for disposal in a national repository by 1998.
- However, experts believe it is unlikely this proposed disposal method will become a reality before the year 2015 at the earliest.
The current location under consideration for the national repository-- Yucca Mountain--has met; strong resistance due to political and technical difficulties that promise to continue indefinitely.
While the controversy over Yucca Mountain drags on, utilities faced with spent fuel pools nearly filled to capacity are forced to find another means of " temporary" spent fuel storage.
This is the heart of the present issue.
It is also where the potential for serious hazardous consequences exists.
The latest temporary storage technology of choice for spent fuel is
" dry cask storage."
The procedure typically involves placing spent fuel into metal casks filled with helium and stored on concrete pads near the nuclear plant. However, another type of cask, made of concrete, has recently been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
This cask, the VSC-24 designed by Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates, was constructed at the Palisades nuclear power plant operated by Consumers Power company near South Haven, Michigan crior to NRC approval.
Another utility on the other side of Lake Michigan, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO), has proposed to use the VSC-24 at its Point Beach facility beginning in 1995.
Other h. y ;, 4,
..mo oo wm-sent x,,yuys e.y-,
59 E Van Buren St.
- Suite 2215
- Chicago. IL 60605 + 312 939 0838 = FAX 312 939 2708 812 S. Fisk St.
- Green Bay. % I 54304
- 414199 0220 + FAX 414 499 8689 647 W. Virginia 5t.
- Suite 307 + Milwaukee. WI ~>3204 + 414 271.5059
- F AX 414 2710796 425 W. Western Ave.
- Suite 201
- Muskegon. MI 19140 616 722.5116 + FAX 616 722.4914
~~
4 facilities in the Great Lakes region are also censidering the use cf the VSC-24 cask.
IMPACT ON THE GREAT LAKES The primary issue is the safety of the cask design.
The VSC-24 has only been tested through the 1:se cf a prototype and uncorreborated cceputer analysis.
Its durt.:lity, should it be needed for lenger than the 20 to 40 year licensing life, has not been established.
Nor has the ability of utilities to monitor the cask adequately under current NRC requirements.
In addition, experts have questiened the safety margin accepted by the NRC for the temperatures at which the spent fuel will be stored.
Consistently high temperaturer could result in the decay of the medium within the casks which holds the spent fuel pellets.
This condition cculd create a dangerous situatica for workers, the public, and the environment when the casks must be recpened for repacking or removal to a national repository.
A recent Appellate Court d3 cision in Minnesota reversed a decision by the Minnesota Public Utilitles Commission to allow the dry cask storage of spent fuel at Northern 6tates Power's Prairie Island facility en the Mississippi RivLr.
The Court ruled the storage would be permanent, not temporary, and the establishment of such a facility should not proceed without legislative approval.
While the decision was made based on Minnesota state statutes, it affirms the need for thorough review of the dry cask storage option in comparison with other alternatives.
This has not been done at the federal level--
where it would be most expedient to do so.
These are only a few of the many serious concerns raised by the public and experts in the fie]d.
The potential impact on Lake Michigan, which prcvides drinking water for over 14 million people, warrants a thorough and comprehensive review of both the VSC-24 and its use at a power plant located on the erosion prone dunes of Lake Michigan.
PUBLIC CONCERNS HAVE BEEN IGNORED!
In spite of repeated calls by Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley and other concerned citizens and organizations throughout the region for a public hearing on the matter prior to approval of the VSC-24 cask, the NRC issued a fin *al ruling on April 7, 1993 approving the VSC-24 for use at any licensed facility.
With the promulgation of this final rule, the VSC-24 can be used at any site in the country vithout reviev of site-specific conditions!
The Lake Michigan Federation, Attorney General Kelley, and private property owners near the Palisades plant have filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin the use of the VSC-24 cask until public concerns are heard and adequate review of the cask has been conducted.
The case has been transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, where a motion to stay has been denied.
While the case is still under review, it is clear that the public has been consistently Page 2
i 4
.. ~.
.deniedaccesstothe decisien making process on a topic presenting a
/
potentially profound impact en their health, property, and environment.
Despite very real concerns, the IEC has persisted in its refusal to hold public hearings on the approval of the VSC-24.
A public meetina was held in Mi' higan in February 1993, but a hearino would allow c
pro.per review of relevant documents not yet available to the public.
A hearing would also provide for the cross-examination under oath of IEC, Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates, Consumers Power, and other officials involved in designing, testing, approving, and monitoring dry cask storage designs.
Additional.ty, no environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared that specifically focuses on the use of dry cask storage of spent fuel in this country.
NRC environmental assessments consistently conclude "no significant impact," and have precluded any lengthy consideration of viable alternatives to spent fuel storage and nuclear power generation that would be identified and reviewed during the thorcugh prcparatien of an EIS.
?
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS NEEDED!
The NRC has ignored the requests of the public and Michigan Attorney i
General Kelly for a public hearing.
Attorneys General from Wisconsin and Illinois have also indicated their interest in such a forum, i
These calls for the opportunity to thoroughly review the VSC-24 cask, and dry cask storage in general, have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears.
We respectfully request your sponsorship or assistance in convening a Congressional hearing in the region regarding the lack of due process and public accountability by a federal agency, and ask for a moratorium on the continued use of dry cask storage until adequate consideration of all alternatives are examined through the preparation of an EIS.
Thank you for your interest in this extremely important issue.
The health and safety of your constituents depends on you!
We anxiously await your reply.
Sincerely, Bruce N. Johnson, Nuclear Project Coordinator The Lake Michigan Federation 1
812 S. Fisk St.
Green Bay, WI 54304 t
(414) 499-0220 for...
Glenda L.
Daniel, Executive Director Tanya Cabala, Michigan Director Eleanor K. Roemer, Staff Attorney Page 3
' i
--)