ML20154H930
| ML20154H930 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1998 |
| From: | Kennedy J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#498-19635 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9810150093 | |
| Download: ML20154H930 (9) | |
Text
' {$$$$
DOCKETED October 14,1998
% OCT 14 P2 :13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
U.,1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENhlNG BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC
)
Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI
)
(Independent Spent
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02 ISFSI Fuel Storage Installation)
)
CONTENTIONS OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GOSHUTE RESERVATION RELATING TO THE LOW RAH; LICENSE AMENDMENT In response to the License " Amendment" filed by the Applicant on August 28, 1998, and served upon the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation (herein, "the Goshute Tribe") on September 29,1998, the Goshute Tribe submits the following contentions with respect to the " Amendment:"
Contention I.
l The Goshute Tribe hereby adopts and restates as though set forth in full herein the additional Contentions and Supporting Bases of the State of Utah filed with the Board on September 29, 1998, relating to the Low Rail Transportation License Amendment.
l 9810150093 981014 DR ADOCK 0720 2
l Y
a
l Contention I.
The Applicant's Environmental Report fails to provide adequate consideration to the potential fire hazards and the impediment to response to wild fires associated with constructing and operating the proposed rail line in the Low corridor.
Basis: The ER must consider the environmental effects of the proposed action.
10 CFR s51.45(c). The ER must also consider the regional environmental effects of the proposed action. 10 CFR s72.10(b). The proposed rail line creates the potential for new and additional wildfire ignition causes and locations. In addition to the points raised by the State in its Supplemental Contentions on this point, the Goshute Tribe also adds the following bases:
A slow moving train (20 mph speed per Application) could easily be overtaken by
.a wildfire, regardless of the cause of the fire. The location and 26 mile length of the train tracks makes this form of transportation particularly susceptible to damage and personal injury in the event of a wildfire which could occur at virtually any point along the tracks
. during a significant portion of each calendar year.
l Thus, not only would the train possibly cause such fires (as noted in the State's Contention HH) it would be particularly vulnerable to damage and injury from such j.
fires.-
t These new considerations are not addressed in the ER.
__,,4
, Contention K:
The " Amended" Application fails to account for the costs associated with the construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of the rail line and the costs associated with the ultimate removal of the stored fuel at the end of the lease.
Basis:10 CFR s72.100(b) requires an evaluation of "the effects on the regional environment resulting from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the ISFSI
...." In addition,10 CFR 651.54(c) requires an analysis in the environmental report of"other benefits and costs of the proposed action." Inadequate consideration of these factors has been provided especially in view of the fact that the proposed rail line is inseparably connected with the storage site and, according to the " Amended" Application, would be the primary or preferred method of transport from the main rail line to the site.
r In addition to those factors identified by the State in its Contention II, the Goshute Tribe notes that the Applicant has failed to provide any cost information relating to on-going maintenance of such a line.
Also, there is no discussion by Applicant of the costs of removal of such a line at the termination of the lease, including the costs of revegitating the area.
In addition, no costs are provided for decommissioning using the line and/or associated other transportation facilities.
That is, when the spent fuel waste is ultimately removed from this proposed " temporary" site, the costs of transporting that
f
. waste to another site is not included. Clearly, removal costs (and the ability of Applicant to pay those costs) should be considered before the license is approved. At this point, Applicant has provided neither the costs nor any rational methcd for calculating such costs.
- Contention L.
The intermodal transfer point (ITP), under the proposed " Amendment," becomes at temporary storage facility which requires a separate and additional license. 10 CFR s72.6(c)(1).
Basis: In addition to the points raised by the State in its Contention B-1, the Goshute Tribe points to the increased likelihood that materials will be stored at the ITP for potentially extended periods of time. Factors which have yet to be mentioned or considered are interruptions in -transportation schedules caused by mechanical
. breakdowns (affecting the trains, cars, special trucks, cranes,' rail lines, switching equipment, etc.), wildfires, employee work-stoppages, and problems occurring on the i
main rail lines (including, e.g., rising Great Salt Lake waters which could delay removal of defective casks). Any problem or combination of problems could result in an accumulation and temporary storage of waste materials at the ITP.
4 Contention M.
The proposed rail line will increase hazards to the public.
Basis:
In addition to the issues raised earlier by the Goshute Tribe in its first set of Contentions, the placement of a slow-moving train on a track running parallel to the interstate highway will increase the vulnerability of the train and its cargo to terrorist attack. Moreover, running the line parallel to the Interstate will increase the possibility of exposure by the traveling public to the potential dangers stemming from accidental or intentionally released radiation.
Contention N.
The " Amendment" fails to provide adequate notice to the public of the changes, which are substantial.
Basis:
The Application process contemplates publication of the initial application in the Federal Register so that the public will have notice of the nature of the license being sought. In this instance, the Applicant is circumventing that fundainental requirement by proposing substantial changes in the nature of the license through a so-called " Amendment." A review of the hundreds of pages contained in the " Amendment" shows that Applicant has made changes on virtually every page. Such a sweeping set of changes should mandate that Applicant proceed to republish the Application so that potentially interested citizens impacted by such changes would be able to participate in
I
!s.
l this proceeding. The failure to do so taints this proceeding by denying due process notice to the public at large.
i l
The Goshute Tribe Satisfies the Commission's Late-Filing Criteria.
The Goshute Tribe has good cause for late filing because the proposed amendments were not served upon the Tribe until September 29,1998. The Tribe became aware of the proposed amendments only a few days before that time.
Submission of these added contentions has followed in due course without unreasonable delay.
In addition, the Goshute Tribe has no immediate means, other than this proceeding, to protect its interests in the issues identified above.
Third, the Goshute Tribe's participation in this proceeding can reasonably be i
expected to assist in developing a record.
Fourth, with respect to the contentions added by the Goshute Tribe which go beyond those submitted by the State, there are no other parties who will represent the Goshute Tribe's interests with respect thereto.
Finally, if the admission of the foregoing contentions broadens this proceeding, such a result is caused by Applicant. Any delay or broadening is outweighed by the significance of the issues.
Thus, the foregoing satisfies the NRC's criteria for late consideration.
I
t
!. Dated:
October 14,1998 i
Respectfully submitted,
,A l
l John Pa 1 K inedy Attorney or the Confederated Tribes of the i
Goshute Reservation 1385 Yale Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
)
o 801-583-6170 Fax: 801-581-1007 Email: john @kennedys.org l
i i
1 l
r f
, - - ~ = - - - -
i
i 00CKETED USHRC Certificate of Service
'96 0CT 14 P2 :13 l
>creby certify that copies of the above Statement of Contentions were served upon the persons indicated below in the manner stated on the date stated:
OFFO: JK~ - /?
)U RULEM -
i-Attn: Docketing & Service Branch Dr. Jerry R. KligJUDC r C M f.
Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge L
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
Mail Stop 016G15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike One White Flint North Washington, D.C. 20555 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 emailjrk2@nrc. gov
]
(originaland two copies-- Fed Ex.)
i email hearingdocket@nrc. gov G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Dr. Peter S. Lam Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
email gpb@nrc. gov email psl@nrc. gov Office of the Secretary _
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff Catherine L. Marco, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission (Fed Ex. Only)
Mail Stop:. 0-15 B18 Washington, D.C. 20555 Fax: 301-415-3725 email SET @nrc. gov email pfscase@nrc. gov cim@nrc. gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocunission Office of the Comm'n Appellate Adjudication Washington, D.C. 20555 Mail Stop 16-G-OWFN U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jay E. Silberg, Esq Joro Walker, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 2300 N Street N.W.
160 South Main Street, Suite 1
- Washington, D.C. 20037-8007 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 L
Fax: 202-663-8007 Fax: 303-786-8054 jay silberg@shawpittman com joro61@inconnect.com ernest _blake@shawpittman.com 4
r m -,..
q
,-.,-r o--
3-
- o Is I Danny Quintana, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
50 W. Broadway, Fourth Floor.
Harmon, Curran & Spielberg Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 l
Fax: 801-521-4625 Washington, D.C. 20009 quintana @Xmission.com Fax: 202-328-6918 -
dicurran@aol.com Denise Chancellor Utah Attorney General's Office James M. Cutchin P.O. Box 140873 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fax: 801-366-0292 Washington, D.C. 20555 dchancel@ state.ut.us emailjmc3@nrc. gov Electronic Mail only Connie Nakahara, Esq.
Utah Dep. OfEnvironmental Quality Office of the Commission Appellate 168 North 1950 West Adjudication P.O. Box 144810 Mail Stop: 16-G-15 ) OWFN Fax: 801-536-0061 U.S.N.R.C.
cnakahar@ state.UT.US Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Mail only Clayton J. Parr, Esq.
Michael Later, Esq.
Richard E. Condit, Esq.
Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless Land & Water Fund of the Rockies 185 S. State #1300 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-0019 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Fax: 801-532-7751 email: rcondit@lawfund.org karenj@pwlaw.com Dated: October 14,1998.
r.
n?nu n
Jofin Paul Kelnedy.
J 1
!