ML20080C209
| ML20080C209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek, Ginna, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1983 |
| From: | Resnikoff M Sierra Club |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-713 NUDOCS 8402080009 | |
| Download: ML20080C209 (1) | |
Text
'
River Road, Columbia, NJ 07832 (201)841-9529 November 29, 1983 Freedom of Infonnation Officer FREEDOM OF INFORMATION US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACT REQ 1 JEST Washington, DC 20555 gp g 7/3
Dear Sir / Madam:
g _/_ y Under the Freedom of Infonnation Act (5 USC 552), we would appreciate rec-eiving a copy of all correspondence, including requests for apprcved shipping routes and license amendment and federal temporary storage inquiries, between the Nuclear Regulatory Connission and the parties listed below and/or their shipper (Nuclear Assurance Corporation or Transnuclur), regarding shipment of irradiated fuel from West Valley, New York to the respective reactors or other destinations:
- a. Jersey Central Power & Li ht (0 ster Creek)
- b. kochester Gas & Electric Ginna If these utilities have sought guidance from the NRC regarding pennission to use federal temporary storage facilities, or on the need to amend their operating licenses, we wish copies of me noes and correspondence.
In addition, we would appreciate receiving a copy of all recent correspondence between the NRC andthe shipper and/or the respective laboratories listed below regarding route applications between the respective laboratories and the Savannah River Plant near Aiken, South Carolina:
- c. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Chalk River, Ontario reactors)
- d. Brookhaven National Laboratories (Upton, Long Island, NY)
The Office of '4uclear Material Safety and Safeguards would oversee route applic-ations and the Office of the Executive Legal Director (John Kluscik) would be most familiar with license amendment inquiries regardir.g the West Valley ship-uents.
The information requested is needed by the Sierra Club, but would also be made available to a number of public interest organizations. Because the Sierra Club is a public interest environmental organization, we regt.est that we not be charged for the above information.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
cc: L. Audin Sincerely yours F. liillar ,
L. Finaldi '
4 45 iarvin Resnikoff
/ '
River Road Columbia, NJ 07832 8402080009 831129 PDR FOIA RESNIKOB3-713 PDR
! sierra club radioactive waste l campaign l
./ \- UMTED STATES
.: ;.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
...:j,,,,-[,f
. V/ASHINGTo N. D. C. 20S55
- ll.7,R 14 1023 Docket Nos. 50-266 -
and 50-301 Mr. C. W. Fay As sistant Vice President -
Wisconsin Electric Power .
Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Dest Mr. Fay:
Your November 1,1982 letter indicated your belief that paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating Licenses CPR-24 and DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 authorizes your possession and storage at Point Beach Nuclear Plant of Point Beach-generated spent fuel assemblies presently -
stored at the West Valley Service Center and at the General Electric Morris Operations facility. ,
We have reviewed this letter and have been informed in subsequent dis-cussions with your representatives that title to the fuel stored at these locations has been with Wisconsin Electric Power Company and has not massed to the Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. nor to Genpral Electric.
A copy of an agreement between Wisconsin Electric and Nuclear Fuel Ser-vices, Inc. dated May 6, 1977 was provided to us by.yout representativ.s as support for the ' fact that title to the fuel at West Valley has remained with Wisconsin Electric Power Company. We understand that the arrangement whn General Electric was similar in this respect.
- On this basis, we agree that your present licenses need not be modified to authorize your possession and storage qf such fuel in the spent fuel l
storage pools at Point Beach, provided such possession and storage is i carried out fully in accordance with the existing provisions of the licenses i
and all amplicable Tec..nical Specifications' and does not entail any modiff-cations to the facility or facility procedures involving an unreviewed safety question under 10. CFR 50.59. In this connection, we note that such i action was contemplated in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation and Environmental l Impact Appraisal supporting Amendments 35 and 41 to Facility Operating Licenses OPR-24 and DPR-27 respectively for the Point Beach Units.
We remind you of the applicability of Technical Specifications 15.3.8 and 15.5.4 with regard to storage of spent fuel and heavy load handling over -
the spent fuel pool at Point Beach. Cepending on the outcome of the NRC staff's review and resolution of Generic Task C-10 " Control of Heavy Loads Over Spent Fuel", further requirements may become applicable prior to com- .-
pletion of this transfer.
j 3 d 3 ?_.3 6 ' M ,
'~
.-; -- _: _ ____ - : -.: = __ = - _.- -- .- - - . _.. - - - -
b *
- s. _
a Mr. C. W. Fay - 2-The handling of such fuel at West Valley must be carried out in accordance with the governing procedures applicable at that facility and any trans-portation must be carried out in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Moreover, the disposal of such spent fuel should be included in arrangements made by' Wisconsin Electric Power Company with DOE in connection with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. .
Sincerely.-
0t 4%I r.
j-cu
- Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page e
ae e e
e k
l l
Je l .
e I
e em
. we . ,
,n ---
..--e - ,- , , _ - - ,-. -- . - . - , , - - , , -
i
.. '407 ,
? Wisconsin Electric Power Company .
l cc:
Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esquire USNRC Resident Inspectors Office .
Shaw, Pittnan, Potts and Trowbridge 1000 M Street, N. W. 6612 Nuclear Road Washington, D. C. 20036 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. James J. Zach, Manager Naclear Operations .
- Wisconsin Electric Power Company Point Beach Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Gordon Blaha ,
Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks .,
Route 3 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 ,
Ms. Kathleen M. Falk General Counsel .
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade 114 N. Carroll Street .
Madison, Wiscensin 53703 ,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency '-
Federal Activities Branch Region V Office 1
ATTN: Regional Radiation
- Representative l 230 5. Dearborn Street s l Chicago, Illinois 60604
. a. .
l Chairman
. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin '
Hills Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 ,
Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III .
Office of Executive Director for Operations .'
799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 t - - -
l
.. _- April 12,1983 l
Howard A. Jack, Esq. l
} First Deputy Counsel N.Y. State Energy Research I
& Development Authority ,
~
Two Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12222 In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION
{0yster Creek Nuclear Pc er Plant, Unit No.1) i l Docket No. 50-219
Dear Mr. Jack:
This responds to your letter of January 12, 1983 in which you inquired as -
to the licensed authority of General Public Utilities Corporation to store at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station spent fuel from that i
facility currently at West Valley. -
Your inquiry is similar to your inquiry of November 8,1982, relating to the Wisconsin Electric Corporation's Point Beach facilities. The NRC Staff has recently completed our review of this question for the Point Beach facilities and has provided you with a copy of the HRC's letter to Wisconsta Electric. company dealing with this =atter (letter dated March 14. 1983, Robert Clark to C. W. Fay, copy attached). - ;
If the circumstances concerning Oyster Cree'k fuel are the same as those l
discussed inoaur letter concerning the Point Beach facilities, our response
' involving Oyster Creek would be the same; however, it will be necessary for l us to be provided with the same type of information relating to Oyster Creek as that provided to us with respect to Point Beach before we can give you a definitive response.
Sincerely,
- i. -
! # Guy H. Cunningham, III
. Executive Legal Director ,
Attachment y g. ._;
O Y [ ....m __m . ,,-.. _ , _ . . , - - , , , , . , , , . _ , _ , , ,,_-.3,.,, ,_,,.f.,,, ,-7,_ ,-_ . _ _ _ _,,..,, ,____...f..--.,,.' =r-" * =---w- m==vsv'-vvww----
GX e
.. n [ '%c y1
' UNITED STATES .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 A/j g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'Ni(ff
%' f .
....=
- November 17, 1983 Dave Scott New .lersey Department of Environmental protection Bureau of Padiation Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 In the l'atter of GEhERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (0yster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1)
Docket No. 50-219
Dear Mr. Scott:
This letter responds to_.your telephone inquiry of September 21, 1983 regarding NRC licensing requiraments for the proposed return to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station of 224 spent fuel assemblies, presently in storage at the West Valley Service Center. Your specific questic s were (1) whether a license amendment is required to authorize receipt of the spent fuel by GPU and (2) whether an inspection o' the spent fuel is required prior to its deposit in the spent fuel pool at the Oyster Creek facility.
Your questions are similar to those raised in connection with shipments of certain spent fuel from West Valley to Wisconsin Electric Company and Comonwealth Edison Company. In a Director's Decision dated September 30,1983 (copy attached), the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety ird Safeguards, indicated that no license amendrrent was -
needed :n the case of those shipments. We understand the situation in connection with shipment for Oyster Creek to be similar to that discussed in the Director's Decision. If the facts are the same the result wculd be the same.
Earlier in the year we received an inquiry from the New York State Energy Research revelopment Authority, concerning the licensed authority of General Public Utilities Corporation to store at the Oyster Creek facility spent fuel from that facility, then in storage at West Valley. .
Enclosed is a copy of our response dated April 12, 1983 addressed to tir. Howard Jack.
With respect to your question concerning inspection of the spent fuel prior to deposit in the spent fuel pool at Oyster Creek, it is our understanding that the fuel w"1 be visually inspected by an underwater video camera at West Valley before loading into casks for transport back to Oyster Creek.
=- ... . .
I trust this letter responds fully to your inquiry. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesi. tate to inform me.
Sincerely,
$$l1 Colleen P. Woodhead
~
Counsel for N.RC Staff Enclosures (2) as stated 4
+
9 #
t I
%a G
-: ... - .-....-..,... ..-.-...-. .. . .-. ,- .- - .-...= - . .
- i. -
00-83-14 UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS John G. Davis, Director In the Matter of ) 50-10, 50-237
) 50-249 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, )
)
NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND ) 50-201 OEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ) ,
)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) 50-266, 50-301
)
(Shipment of Irradiated Nuclear ) (10 CFR 2.206)
Fuel from West Valley, N.Y.) ) -
\ -
DIRECTOR'S DECISION TJNDER 10 CFR 2.206 By letter dated August 24, 1983, Marvin Resnikoff, on behalf of the Sierra Club requested that the NRC require any licensee prospectively involved in the shipment of irradiated reactor fuel from the Western New York Nuclea:-
Service Center in West Valley, New York, to submit a license amendment appli-
~
cation, a safety evaluation and other reports with respect to the fuel shipment. In support of its request, the Sierra Club identifies several l "[i]mportant safety, environmental and policy issues [which] need to be resolve'd before these shipments take place."
~
Resnikoff Letter at 1.
On September 9, 1983, the State of Ohio, through its Attorney General, requested, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. ! 2.206:
y>.L t $'?$1 7.L -
L.. . . . . _ . . .
2-
- 1. That the NRC institute a show cause proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.202 to modify, revoke, or suspend the licenses of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Wisconsin Electric Power J
Ccmpany and Commonwealth Edison Company in connection with the transport of spent nuclear fuel from West' Valley, N.Y. ;
- 2. That NRC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement with respect to transportation of the spent fuel from West Valley; and
- 3. That NRC stay the transport of spent fuel from West Valley pending the resolution of' issues- the Attorney General would raise.
a b
4 e
, , . . , ._ ._$ . , _ _ _ _ _ . . . . ,,,_.c._ .____..m_..,_,-., , ,. ._y_-___, __.,. , . . . , , , . , - _.
3 4
Both the Sierra Club's and the Ohio Attorney General's letters are being treated as requests for action under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206. 1# The requests are being handled by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in viewofthl}soffice'sprimaryresponsibilityinmattersconcerningtheWest Valley facility and in questions concerning the shipment and transport of
~
radioactive material. For the reasons stated in this decision, the requests are denied.
1/ In connection with their requests for the initiation of appropriate proceedings, the Sierra Club and the Ohio Attorney General also request that the Commission provide proper notice of such proceeding and grant an opportunity ta intervene in the' proceeding. The Ohio Attorney General also requests that a h' earing be held in connection with the proceeding. Since these requests concern the procedural aspects of any proceeding that might be instituted as a result of this decision under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206, such questions as -the sufficiency of notice and standing to participate are addressed more appropriately in the context of any such proceeding and need not receive further censideration in
- this decision. Consideration of a request for action under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206 dces not initiate any formal proceeding or give rise to any hearing or intervention rights under the Atomic Energy Act. See .
Illinois v. NRC, 591 F.2d (7th Cir. 1979).
The Sierra Club letter also requests the initiatien of a proceeding to cove'r any movements of fuel by a utility whether specifically identified in its petition or not. The NRC has no indication of a plan to move spent fuel from the Center to other reactors, except possible movements to General Public Utilities' Oyster Creek Station or Rochester Gas and Electric Company's Ginna plant. Therefore modification of the Oyster j Creek or Ginna licenses are not within the scope of the Sierra Club's -
request. Nor are they within the scope of the Attorney General's petition. If we read the Sierra Club request to include Oyster Creek and Ginna, we would deny it as premature.
e
.. . . _ _ _ . , . - - , ~ , - ,e. -----e ""-""''"-^#*-*"' ~ * ~ ' ' ' * ' ' * ' " " ' '
- ' ~ *
, 4 Toputthereques.tsoftheSierraClubAndtheAttorneyGeneralandthis decision in context, a discussion cf past and present activity at the klestern New York Nuclear Service Center is appropriate.
BACXGROUND The Center was established as a cooperative venture by New York State (NYSERDA) and Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) to commercially reprocess
, irradiated nuclear reactor fuel. Under contract with the State, NFS built and operated the reprocessing facilities at the Center. The construction and operation of the Center was licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission. E The Center's features include a-Fuel Receiving Facility, at which irradiated (spent) nuclear reactor fuel was receivad and stored pending reprocessing..
Spent fuel was reprocessed at the Center from 1956 until March 1972, when -
reprocessing was suspended to permit enlargement and modification of th'a
- Center's facilities. While NFS sought NRC approval for the facility modifi-cations, it formed agreements with Wisconsin Electric Power Company., Common-eealth Edison Ccapany, General Public Utilities Service Corporation (as agent l for Jersey Central Power & Light Company), and Rochester Gas and Electri'c.
Company to receive and store spent fuel owned by the utilities pending the l resumption of reprocessing. The anticipated reprocessing never occurred and the spent fuel remains in storage at the Center's Fuel Receiving Facility.
i 2/ The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) -
is the succassor to the New York State Atomic Research and Development Authority, to which the Atomic Energy Cor.ission (AEC) issued a construction permit in 1963, and the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority, to which the AEC issued a povisional operating license, CSF-1, in 1966. Nuclear Fuel Services was also a licensee under the pr.ovisional operating license.
5
"~ . - - .L, ::_ . _ :, J. L L L __-.-, J _-...L_ L . . . ..-_L
5- -
As a result of the~ reprocessing which occurred before its permanent cessation,asu$stantialquantityofhigh-levelliquidradioactivewastewas generated at the Center. In 1980, the Congress enacted the West Valley Demonstration Project Act,'which directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to solidify and remove 'this high level waste from the ' Center. NYSERDA has placed the Center in the exclusive possession and control of 00E. To comply with the' Congressional directive to solidify the high level liquid waste, DOE plans to use the Fuel Receiving Facility where the utilities' spent fuel is now stored.
NYSERDA, which owns the Center, has demanded that the utilities remove their spent fuel from the Fuel Receiving Facility. ,
A federal court has held that the utilities involved in the H tigation have a duty to heed that demand and .
remove the spent fuel as expeditiously as is reasonably possible.3 -
Although ,
the court has held that Wisconsin Electric and Commonwealth Edison have a duty to remove the spent fuel at NYSERDA's request, neither the court nor the NRC has ordered the utilities to remove their fuel from the Center. Wisconsin Electric and Commonwealth Edison have taken action in preparation for -.
returning the spent fuel to their nuclear reactor sites in Wisconsin l and Illinois. One hundred fourteen spent fuel shipments are planned for 1
- 3/ New York State Energy Research and Development Authority v. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., CIV 82-426 (W.D.N.Y., filed June 30,1983).
See also, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority v.
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc..
561 F. Supp. 954 (W.D.N.Y. 1983).
Rochester Gas and Electric Company reached an agreement with NYSERDA on the removal of Rochester's spent fuel from the Center and was not a party to the litigation.
me "N*
, . , , , _ - . - - _ - . - _ - -, _ ,,__,.[,,_, ____[_. brw,
6'- .
Wisconsin's Point Beach plant and 30 shipments for Commonwealth Edison's Dresden station. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 73.37, the NRC on Septemoer 14, 1983, approved transportation routes in connection with these shipments._
NYSERDA LICENSE AUTHORITY The Sierra Club and the Attorney General assert that NYSERDA presently has no license to ship nuclear fuel and that a license amendment is needed if NYSERDA is to ship spent fuel from the Center.
NYSERDA does not appear to have any plan,for nor any interest in,ditedtly participating in any handling of sp'ent fuel at the Center. The. utilities' agreement with DOE, which is addressed more fully later, confirms our 1
understanding. In the absence of any indication that NYSERDA. plans to play an active role in the operation of the facility, the handling of,the fuel, or its shipment from the Center, the Sierra Club's request to initiate a proceeding to modify NYSERDA's license is denied. '_.
= --
=- -. =- . .
7-
~
UTILITY LICENSE AUTHORITY The Sierra Club's request and the Attorney General's petition for amendment of the utility licenses are based on the conclusion that the utilities do not have sufficient authority to undertake or complete the shipment of spent fuel from West Valley to the utilitits' reactor sites.
The utilities on September 21, 1983, by letter from legal counsel to the NRC, informed the Commission that the utilities will rely on DOE to undertake all activities at.the Center in-connection with loading the spent fuel for shipment. S These activities. include removing the empty shipping l cask from the truck upon arrival at'the Cente,r; performing necessary preload 1
surveys; moving and loading the fuel into the cask; installing the cask 4/ Letter from Gerald Charnoff, Counsel for Wisconsin Electric PcWer Company and Commonwealth Edison Company to Charles E. MacDonald, Chief, Transportation Certification Branch, NRC'(Sept. 21,1983).
~.
e e e
e 9
IO *
, -g.
4 cover; purging and drying the cask; conducting a centamination survey and reloading the cask on the truck. DOE w'ill prepare procedures for the handling and loading of the casks ar.d for related quality assurance and quality control activities. The utilities have determined that the DOE procedures,for handling and loading the spent fuel are consistent with the utilities' NRC approved quality assurance progrsns. DOE will certify to
! a utility representative that each shipment has been prepared and leaded in
- accordance with these procedures. ,
DOE will also certify that the shipping package has been prepared, marked and labeled in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. Upon review of the certifica-tions, a utility representative will execute the shipping papers.
~
Together, the Sierra Club, and t'he A'ttorney General assert that neither utility has authority to package, or load the spent fuel at the Center, or to i transport it from the Center. The Sierra Club and the Attorney General
' conclude that a license amendment authorizing these activities is required.
It is noted, however, that the utilities will neither package nor load the spent fuel. DOE, through its contractor, is performing those activities.
The West Valley Demonstration. Project Act directs DOE to solidify the high-level liquid waste at the Center and to do certain other tasks associated with the solidificatien project. E DOE has retained a contractor to perform '
5/ Pub. L.96-368, 94 Stat. 1347 (1980).
-- - , , , - - - , . - - ,-.-,,--.-n --- -...-,-,.,---,-e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,,r , , - - , , - ,--.e-,-- - ,r
9- -
the solidification and other necess'ary tasks.
, DOE has determined that the Fuel Receiving Facility will be needed in the course of the West Valley Demonstration Project. As a result, the DOE contractor must remove the spent fuel fr-cm the Fuel Receiving Facility. .
Except with respect to a few clearly defined actions (e.g. , ciecontamination and decommissioning cf the facilities used in the course of the project),
NRC has a limited role at West Valley. That role does not include deciding whether DOE needs the Fuel Receiving Facility to conduct the West Valley Demonstration Project. Neither does it include licensing or regulating the activities of DOE's prime Eontractor. Under the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
S 30.12 and 5 70.11 the activities _of DOE's prime contractor are presently exempt frem NRC license requireinents.
- The West Valley Demonstration Project Act limits NRC review of DOE's -
activities at the Center to informal, consultative procedures. By lsw, the l Commission may not examine DOE's administration of the project in formal proceedings. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. and New York State Enercy Research and Develcoment Authority (Western New York Nuclear Service Center) ALAB-679, 16 NRC 121, 126 (1982).
To the extent that the utilities take action with respect to the spent fuel at the Center, they are within NRC's jurisdiction. The utility contractors (Nuclear Assurance Corporation and Transnuclear, Inc.) will o
. ..___..__,m, _ _ . , _, ..,..c.--r ' - - ~ - == g - ---- -' -------*
provide an NRC approved shipping cask a'nd the utility carriers will haul the loaded casks from the Center. The utilities' representatives will execute the shipping pacers and authorize the loaded casks to be delivered to the carriers' vehicles. ,
Wisconsin Electric and Commonwealth Edison, both NRC licensees, dei need authority to deliver the spent fuel to a carrier for transport. That o
authority is provided by 10 C.F.R.5 71.12, as amended, 48 Fed. Reg. 35600, 35610, August 5, 1983. That section of the Commission's regulations provides a general license to any licensee of the Commission to transport or deliver
' ~
to a carrier for transport cartain radioactive material including irradiated reactor fuel in packages for which a Cirtificate of Compliance has been issued by the NRC. The genhral license of 5 71.12 authorizes the delivery of spent fuel to a carrier for transport if the requirements of the general
, license are met. A principal requirement of the general license is that the licensee have a Commission approved quality assurance program satisfying the i
provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 71, Subpart H. Both utilities have NRC approved quality assurance programs wnich satisfy the requirements cf Part 71, Subpart H. As noted above, the handling and loading procedures to be used at the Center are consistent with the approved quality assurance plans. The casks to be used have been previously certified by the NRC for use..
1 THE TRANSPORT ROUTE Both the S.ierra Club and the Attorney General have expressed concern over the routes selected for transport of the spent fuel from the Center. To,the l-b-
" ~
~f f _E . . l_ _, _ _ __ _ .1 ~ 1 _ _ i _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ ._,
extent that the concern arises frein questions of highway safety, it is within the jurisdiction of the DOT. See, 49 U.S.C. SS 1801-1812. The Sierra
- Club's concern appears to focus on the ability of the roads in and around West Va'lley to accommodate a loaded transport vehicle.
This is clearly a highway safety issue of the type governed by DOT regulations.
DOT has established specific requirements fer the carriers of spent fuel in transport, including routing requirements. 6,/ The NRC's regulatory process does not require examination in advance of any particular transportatien route as to its degree of risk to the public health and safety. To the extent that the Sierra Club's highway safety concern has implications for radiological safety, those1 mplications have been considered and judged to be of small potential risk. The casks 4n which the spent fuel will move are designed to withstand both the normal conditions of transport and specified 6/ Under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 U.S.C.
SS 1801-1812, the DOT is authorized, among other things, to issue routing regulations for the safe transportation of radioactive materials. The DOT issued regulations for driver training of carrier I personnel and for the highway routing of radioactive material .
shipments, including spent fuel, on January 19., 1981 (46 Fed. Reg.
I 5298). The regulations became effective on February 1,1982. These-l routing requirements are set forth in 49 C.T.R. S 177.825. Under 49 C.F.R. S 177.825(b), a carrier or any person who operates a motor vehicle containing a pachge of large quantity radioactive material (spent fuel is a "large quantity", see 49 C.F.R. S 173.389(b)), shall operate over a preferred route. Preferred routes are interstate h.ighways and state-designated routes. Carriers are allowed off the interstate system only to follow a state-designated route, in a documented case of emergency, to obtain necessary fuel or vehicle repairs, or tc travel to and from a pick-up or delivery site not located on an interstate highway. Variations are also permitted from the perferred routes for security purposes and as otherwise imposed by the NRC in 10 C.F.R. Part 73. See, 49 C.F.R. S 177.825(e).
o e
C-
_ 12
^
accidentconditions.E The designs for;the casks proposed for use in the West Valley fuel move have been certified by the Commission as meeting the Commission design criteria. 8_/ To the extent that the Sierra Club and Attorney General's conc.ern arises from questions of physical security, they are within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Nuclear Assurance Corporation and Transnuclear, Inc., applied to the Commission for route approvals for the spent fuel movements from West Valley. The Governor of Ohio, through the Ohio Adjutant General's Disaster Service Agency, requested a change in the proposed route through Ohio. The Commission's route survey team surveyed the routes and found that they satisfied the requirements for phy.sical protection of irraciated reactor fuel in~ transit found at 10 C.F.R. 5 73.37.
Based on the team's findings and the Governor's-reqdtst, the route proposed by the
. Governor was approved on September 14, 1983, as the primary route through -
Ohio. E There is no safeguards (i.e., physical security) reason to reject
^ ,
l 7/ See 10 C.F.R. Part 71, Subparts 0 through H for NRC's package , approval requirements; package approval standards; package tests; operating l controls and procedures; and quality assurance requirements.
8/
See Certificate of Compliance for Radioactive Materials Packages No'.
- 9010, Revision 12 (Docket No. 71-9010) and No. 9016, Revision 5 (Docket No. 71-9016).
9f Letter from Theodore S. Sherr, Material Transfer Safeguards Licensing Branch, NRC, to F.L. Danese, Sapervisor, Cask Operations, Nuclear Assurance Corp. (Sept. 14, 1983). Letter from Theodore S. Sherr, to John Mangusi, General Manager, Operations, Transnuclear, Inc. (Sept. 14, 1983). .
e e
,---_,._.-.s., ,,,.c .,_,,,,,.,,,,,,,,y, , , , _ . , - , , , , , , - ,,_.,,,,,,.,,y,,..,___.y..g_.,..,,-,,,.,,. , , , , ,
the route proposed by Nuclear Assurance and Transnuclear. Their route was approved as an alternate route. Neither the Sierra Club nor the Attorney General suggest any threat of radiological sabotage, theft or diversion which would cause us to doubt the correctness of the route approvals.
The Attorney General suggests that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared with respect to the transport of the spent fuel. The Attorney General conceces that the proposed fuel move "does not fall really within any of the specified circumstances requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement." Tine National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in connectionwithamajorFederalac{ ion'significantlyaffectingthequality of the human environment. The NRC is taking no action significantly affecting the environment. The NRC has examined the environmental impact-of its transportation regulations and has found the regulations to be adequate.
e On June 2, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 23768), the NRC announced that it was i
( reevaluating its then existing regulations concerning the air transportation of radioactive materials, including packaging. As part of the rulemaking, the Commission prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on the subject which included consideration of other transport modes because of the .
requirement to consider alternatives contained in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Comments were sought on the draft EIS and the
Final Environment,a1 Statement,." Transportation of Radioactive Material By Air and Other Modes" (NUREG-0170), issued in December 1977. The Commission concluded, based upon the analysis developed in the rulemaking proceeding, the public comments received, the safety record of transportation of .
licensed ma'terials and other information, that present regulations were adequate to protect the public against unreasonable risk from the transport of radioactive materials. See, Withdrawal of Advance Notice of Rulemaking, 46 Fed. Reg. 21619 (April 13, 1981). The Commission specifically reaffirmed .
this conclusion on the adequacy of existing 10 C.F.R. Part 71 with respect t
to the safety of radioactive material transportation in a subsequent ,
rulemaking on Advance Notification. 47 Fed. Reg. 596 (January 6, 1982).
Both the Attorney General and the Sierra Club raise the question of whether the entities involved in the spent fuel move would be indemnified in the event of a transport accident. Because of amendments to the Price-Aaderson Act in 1975, public injury and damage claims would be paid through private insurance rather than government idemnity. In those amendments, the Congress recognized that under a newly adopted system, government indemnity would eventually be phased out. In the event of a nuclear incident, funds available to pay personal injury and property damage claims would come from three sources:
(1) third party liability insurance (a primary layer of financial protection) purchased from the nuclear insurance pools (this amount is currently $160 million);
e L - - .
15 - -
(2) retrospective premium insurance (a secondary layer of financial protection) to be collected from the utilities by the insurance pools at the rate of $5 million per large nuclear power plant licensed to ;
operate-(with 82 such plants licensed to operate the amount of this layer'is currently 5410 million); and (3) i f the sum of the primary and secondary layers is less than $560 million, government indemnity, which would fill the gap betweer, the limits of. private insurance coverage and $560 million, the indemnity ceiling. ASI Seth Wisconsin Electric and Commenwealth Edison are presently required to and do maintain $570 million in financial protection through the primary and secondary levels of private insurance. Under the private insurance policies, (the Nuclear Energy Liability Policy, Facility Form), ;a shipment of spent fuel to a covered facility from any location except an indemnified facility is an insured shipment. See, 10 C.F.R. I 140.91 Appendix A. The l shipment of spent fuel from the Canter, whose indemnity coverage has been" suspended for the duration of the West Valley Demonstration Project, to a i utility reactor site, a covered facility, is thus an insured shipment l
!* covered by $570 million in nuclear liability insurance. -
10/ See (1975] U.S. Code Cong, and Ad. News 2259-2262.
4
- o. .
,r --
c- --.- , , , - ,- - --w e
16 -
ACTIVITY AT THE REACTOR SITE The Attorney General asserts that the utility licenses contain no language allowing receipt of irradiated spent nuclear fuel at the respective reactor sites. The Attorney General suggests that this absence of license language requires the conclusion that authority to receive the spent fuel is also absent. The liceraes authorize the utilities, pursuant to the Atomic Energy l Act and 10 C.F.R. Parts 30 and 70, to possess such byproduct?and special nuclear material as may be produceo by the operation of their respective !
reactor facilities. Section 30.34 of the Commission's regulations provides that, except as othewise pFevided in the license, a license issued pursuant :
to Part 30 shall carry with it the rigst-to receive by product material. , i Similarly, section 70.41 of the Commission's regulations provides that, .
except as otherwise provided in the license, each license issued pursuant to l ,
Part 70 shall carry with it the right to receive special nuclear material, i
The utility licenses contain no provision which suggests that 5 30.34 or S 70.41 do not apply or do not operate as their language suggests. The utilities are authorized by the Commission's regulations to recei're the byproduct and special nuclear material which constitute the spent fuel to be removed from the Center.
I
. . - _ _ = - -__ - .
17 The Sierra Club raises questions regarding the need for a safety evaluation addressing receipt of the spent fuel. The Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R.S 50.59 permit licensees to change procedures described in the safety analysis report unless the change involves a change in the technical specifications of the license or an unreviewed safety question. An unreviewed safety question exists if the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident or safety equipment malfunction increase; if the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a type not previously
, evaluated may be created; or if the margin of safety defined in the basis i
for any technical specification is reduced. The Safety Analysis Reports for the units at Wisconsin's Point Beach plant and Commonwealth Edison's Dresden station cover the proper functioning of fuel handling equipment and spent fuel movement. The possibility of malfunction, and a fuel drop' accident were considered in the safety analysis reports. The Sierra Club presents no evidence of increased probability or consequences of a fuel handling accident or of a type of accident not previously considered; or of any reduction in the margins of safety in fuel handling from the receipt of spent fuel from the Center. The actions involved in receipt of spent fuel and the potential _.
accidents and their consequences of th'ese actions are simi.lar to those involved in the packaging and loading of spent fuel for transport away from a
, reactor. These actions, potential accidents and consequences have been ,
evaluated. There is no need for a new safety evaluation to address tha receipt of spent fuel at the reacter site.
e se e c ,,,,,,ye g,-, x ,-e- , --
p- - +.,-a. y- ~ _,-,,.._-.-,_.,,,,.,,me--.- --_-_e,,- - - , ,, , y g..,-,-----,,_,4,yy -,- ---- , , , ,
[ ,. . . -m.
. CONCLUSION
~
For the reasons stated in this decision, no license amendment or further authorization is required to pemit 'the transfer of spent fuel from the West Valley facility to the Point Beach and Dresden facilities. Accordingly, the requests of the Sierra Club and the Ohio Attorney General for ' initiation of l proceedings and other relief in connection with the transfer of spent fuel is denied. The Attorney General's request for preparation of an environmental impact statement and a stay of the shipments is also denied.
A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.206(c).
k.
ui Qrm , .d
/.
. John G. Davis, Director
' Office of Nuclear Material Safety and ' Safeguards Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland - .
this 30th day of September,1983. -
~
l 1 .
.e P
_ - -