ML20138B240

Appeals NMSS 851104 Denial of Illinois Safe Energy Alliance 850829 Petition Seeking Detailed Environ Review of GE Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility in Morris,Il.Facility Never Accorded Review Envisioned Under NEPA & 10CFR51

ML20138B240
Person / Time
Site:	07200001, 07001308
Issue date:	12/06/1985
From:	Parrish R ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#485-456 2.206, SP, NUDOCS 8512120247
Download: ML20138B240 (2)

Text

'

ggi,~.

~

3 b_ -

Env' iron ~ mental Task Fiorcen

..,...i........c..............m

'85 DEC 10 P2:53 December 6', 1985 LfTet:t CF htuiti.

Munzio J.

Palladino, Chairman hC U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 !! Street, NW Washington, DC '20555 Re :

G.E.

Morris Operation

'sy

'20Q Docket Nou. 70-1308 72-1 SP near Chai~rman Pa llad ino :

I am writing in regard to the petition filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 by the Illinois Safe Energy Alliance (ISEA) seeking a detai' led environmental review of the interim spent fuel storage facility operated by General Electric. Company at Morris, Illinois, the only operating facility of its. kind in the country.

The petition,. filed August 29, 1985 was denied by John G.

Davis, Di rec tor,..NMSS, on November 4,

1985, on the basis that all environmental reviews required:by law had been conducted during the course-of.the facility's licensing.and operation (DD-85-16).

GE wa's issued a-license to receive and store spent fuel in December 1971, while pursuing plans to operate a reprocessing facility.

Though the hoped for reprocessing facility was abandoned, the storage license was renewed in August 1974, amended to increase the authorized fuel ~ storage-capacity in December 1975, and renewed again in May 1982.

When the.first spent fue'l was received for storage in January 1972, what is described as the NRC's environmental review and safety evaluation was contained in a " Note to Files."

December 1977 letter from Clifford Smith, Director, NMSS, to Russell Egger t, Assistant Attorney General, State of Illinois.

Subsequently, the environmental impacts associated with spent fuel storage at GE Morris were considered briefly in a December 1972 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the proposed-reprocessing of. spent fuel, again briefly in's December

.1975 Environmental Impact App,raisal- (EIS) ! accompanying the license. amendment authorizing an increase in storage'from 100 metric tons uranium (MTU) of spent fuel to 750 MTU, and again in a June 1980 EIA-and July 1981 Safety Evaluation Report (SER) associated with-the latest license renewal.

In none of these reviews, however, was the operation -of the facilityas an

" interim" spent' fuel storage facility accorded-the detailed

- environmen.tal review envisioned under NEPA.

8512120247 851206 PDR ADOCK 07001308 i

C PDR 1346 Connecticut Averiue, N.W., Suite 912 ' Washingto'n, D.C. 20036 202/822-

c

.,.m

• a-v

~

.c.

Munzio J.cPalladino-

.Page Twof The' Director noted that a I.icensing' Board hid rejected a similar request for an.EIS in the.1982 license renewal proceeding on the groundsithat.the licensee was. merely con tinuing. activities licensed subsequent.to enactment of.the National. Environmental Dolicy Act -(MEPA),and af ter an environmental review conducted under that law.

Under the law, the adequacy of those previous environmental reviews is no longer subject to. legal challenge.

De spi te this long history of purported environmental analyses, it is cle~ar that the GE Mocris facility has never been accorded the type of detailed environmental review envisioned under MEPA and Part 51 of the Commission's regulations, including detailed consideration of need and alternatives, worst case analyses, and 'ull public participation.

This despite the fact that the Morris facility is the only spent fuel storage facility in the country operating independent of a nuclear power plant, and in face of the years of detailed review and public participation ordained by Congress in the high-level nuclear waste repository siting process.

I Citing legalistic analyses in defense of a decision not to prepare an EIS hardly contributes to public confidence in~the continued operation of this facility, the~' industry or the Commission.

The. piecemeal consideratio.n of. environmental factors

~does little to resolve the concerns o.f the citizens and the State of Illinois regarding nuclear waste transportation and storage' issues.

A.public hearing or detailed environmental review of the type envisioned under NEPA would likely serve to ease those concerns and certainl'y would restore confidence in the Commission's interest in protecting public health and safety.

- Thus, this appeal is made to your conscience to give th'e issues the detailed attention and public airing warranted by the continued operation of the only facility of'its kind in the country.

We join with the Illinois Safe Energy Alliance in respectfully requesting that you exercise your discretion to initiate such a review in this case.

Sincerely, 3

cC4JW LA,

/

Richard A.

Parrish Staff Attorney cc: - Commissioners Rachelle Zalman, ISEA-0 P

O a-w g-

+-mv-n.r.-.--n

.a,

.v--

-,