ML20198J136

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Issuance of Directors Decision 97-24 Re Petition Dtd 960826,filed by CA Overland on Behalf of Florence Township,Mn,Board of Supervisors,Under 10CFR2.206
ML20198J136
Person / Time
Site: Prairie Island  Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/26/1997
From: Paperiello C
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198J123 List:
References
2.206, DD-97-24, NUDOCS 9710060391
Download: ML20198J136 (1)
v • d • e


Text

_ d ^;.i.. :

.,,...--s.

' ~ ~ ~

~

~

4 7590-01 P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 7210 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 (DD 97 24)

Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, has issued a Director's Decision concerning a Petition dated August 26,1996, filed by Carol A. Overland, on behalf of the Florence Township, Minnesota, Board of Supervisors (Petitioner), under Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206).

The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has determined that the Petition should be denied for the reasons stated in th6 " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD 97 24), the complete text of which follows this notice. The Decision and documents cited in the Decision are available for public inrpection and copying in the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

A copy of this Decision has been filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As provided therein, this Decision will become the final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance unless the Comm!ssion, on its own motion, institutes review of the Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, thisM ay of September 1997.

d FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

$- (

W M" Carl J. Paperiello, irector Office of Nuclear Material Safety l

and Safeguards l

([7/006 0.5 9 D 1p,

a '

g DD 97 24 i

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS Carl J. Paperiello, Director in the Matter of

)

)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY

)

Docket No. 7210 (Goodhue County independent Spent

)

(10 CFR 2.206) l Fuel Storage Facility)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

1. INTRODUCTION On August 26,1996, Florence Township, Minnesota (Petitioner) filed a petition i

requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.20E with regard to the application by Northem States Power Company (NSP),

claiming, that NSP violated the Commission's regulations by falling to provide Lake City, Minnesota, with an opportunity to comment on a proposed emergency plan for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) before submission to the NRC. The Petitioner requested that NRC: 1) determine that NSP violated the requirements of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(14) by refusing to allow Lake City, Minnesota, 60 days to comment on NSP's emergency plan before submitting it to NRC; 2) reject NSP's application as incomplete and

- inadequate and retum it to the corporation; 3) require that NSP specifically name the local governments referred to in section 5.6 of the emergency plan which are expected to respond in case of an accident: 4) require that NSP allow 60 days to the named local govemments to review and comment upon NSP's emergency plan prior to NSP's resubmission of the application; 5) impose a penalty in the amount of one million dollars and require NSP to compensate the Petitioner in the amount of $7.500.00for time expended by its Board and attorney in attempting to obtain the emergency plan before its 9L7/4G(r M f Spo.

y

a. -

i 2

4 submission to the NRC; and 6) provide heaHngs on this petition at which the Pethioner and members of the public may participate.

The Petitioner asserts as the basis for this request the regulate v requirement found at Section 72.32(a)(14) of Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations [10 CFR 72.32(a)(14)):

The licensee shall allow the offshe response organizations expected to respond in case of an accident 60 days to comment on the initial submittel of the licensee's emergency plan before submitting it to NRC. Subsequent plan changes need not have the offsite comment period unless the plan changes affect the offsite response organizations. The licensee shali provide any comments received within 60 days to NRC with the emergency plan.

The petition has been referred to me for a decision. For the reasons given below, I have concluded that the Petitioner's requests should be denied.

11. B A C K G R,Q.W hlQ NSP has an onsite ISFSI et Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Hant (PINGP), which I

i has a capacity to store 1920 spent fuel assembles in 48 Transnuclear TN 40 casks. In 1994, the Minnesota legislature enacted statutes authorizing NSP to store spent nuclear l

fuel at the ISFSt.1994 Minn. Laws ch 641, arts 1,6 (codified at Minn. Stat il 116C.77.80(1996)). The legislation authorized the immediate use of five casks and allowed the use of four additional casks upon a determination that NSP had: (1) filed a license application wnh NRC for a separate dry cask storage facility in Goodhue County; (2) continued a good faith effort to implement Cw attemate site; and (3) arranged for the use of additional megawatts of wind power. The law also provided that NSP could not construct at the second site without first obtaining a Certificate of Site Compatibility from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB). The MEQB was authorized to certify that the alternative Goodhue County site was comparable to the independent spent fuel i

storage facility site located on Prairie island.

hQ, p, *

..=l n;g5.Q&5fK n

(

L 3

i-NSP applied for a certificate from the MEQB in July 1995, it identified two possible sites for the Goodhue County spent fuel storage facility, both in Florence Township, south

/

of the City of Red Wing.' On October 2,1996, after receiving the report of a citizen Advisory Task Force, the MEQB determined that because of the additional risks it believed to be inherent in transporting spent nuclear fuel to a second site in Goodhue County away from PINGP, no other site in Goodhue County would be comparable to the Prairie Island facility and denied a certifieste.

NSP's application to NRC included an emergency plan for the Goodhue County facility, which contain3d comments from the Minnesota Departments of Public Safety and Public Health, as well as the Goodhue County, Minnesota, Office of Emergency Manogement which coordinates emergency services within the county, NRC completed its acceptance review and docketed the NSP application on September 9,1996. A " Notice of Consideration of lasuance of a Materials License for the Storage of Spent Fuel and Not:ce of Opportunity for Hearing" was published in the Federal BiallitI on September 17,1996.

The Petitioner and several others sought a hearing as provided by 10 CFR 2.105. An i

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) was established on October 9,1996. Among the issues raised in the petitions to intervene by the Petitioner and by Lake City, 4

Minnesota, were issues associated with emergency planning, substantially similar to the issues raised by the Petitioner in the petition requesting that the NRC institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202. Consequently, the staff deferred the response to the Petition until completion of the ASLB hearing process.

Because of the physical proximity of its Reservation to PINGP, the Prairie island

'One of these was the site chosen by NSP for inclusion in its application to NRC. It is -

described as being situated south of Frontenac Station, north of Wells' Creek, and between Territ rial Road and the CP Rail railroad tracks.

Mw. -.:.

~-

A i

indian Community had been particularly interested in seeing the offsite ISFSI built. Since the MEOB decision effectively ended the possibility of that facility being c,eveloped, the indian Community inhiated litigation in the Minnesota State Courts in December 1996, seeking to overtum the MEQB decision. When the litigation began, NSP requested and was granted a sesponsion of both NRC staff's review of the Goodhue County application and the ASLB proceeding, just prior to the pre-hearing conference which was scheduled for December 1996. State litigation ended in July 1997, when the Minnesota Supreme Count declined to hear an appeal of the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling which affirmed the 1

MEQB decision. Subsequently, in a letter dated July 22,1997, NSP withdrew the Goodhue County application. NRC scknowledged the withdrawal in a letter dated August 4,1997. The ASLB issued a Memorandum and Order terminating its proceeding on July 30,1997. However, a motion for reconsideration is currently under review by the Board.8 111. DISCUSSION Section 72.32(a)(14) provides that the offsite response organizations exoected bv the licensee to respond to an on site emergercy should be provided an opportunity to aOn July 30,1997, the Petitioner filed a response to NSP's July 24,1997, Motion for Withdrawal of Application and Termir.stion of Proceeding, in the response, the Petitioner requested that the ASLB dismiss the NSP application whh prejudice, or alternatively, deny NSP4 application, or impose a condition of wrthdrawal that the application for the Florence Township site shall not be resubmitted. The ASLB considered this Petitioner's June 30, 1997, submittal to be a motion for reconsideration. On August 29,1997, the staff responded that Florence Township's motion for reconsideration should be denied on the basis that the proceeding had not sufficiently progressed such that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate, and on the basis that Florence Township has not demonstrated legal harm warranting the relief it requests.

. a ut n.

c-

, _ 7, ym

=-

t

.u..-

5 r-

. comment on an ISFSI emergency plan.8 As required by 10 CFR 72.32(a)(14), NSP contacted the offsite response organizations k expected to respond to en on-site emergency at the proposed Goodhue County facility. NSP requested comments from the Minnesota Departments of Public 8tafety and Public Health and the Goodhue County, Minnesota, Office of Emergency Management. All three responded to NSP's request.

Their comments were provided to NRC with the emergency plan.

The Petitioner claims that because the Lake City, Minnesota, Fire Department contracts with Florence Township to provide fire protection, it is one of the offsite response organizations that NSP would contact in case of an on-site emergency at the Goodhue County ISFSI. Lake City is not located in Goodhue County, however, and therefore is not expected by the applicant to respond to an on-site emergency.

The emergency plan appropriate for an ISFSl is an on site emergency plan. The staff has determined that there are no credible occidents at on ISFSI which have significance for offsite emergency preparedness.' There is no specific requirement that 9

any particular political jurisdiction be contacted to comment on an ISFSI emergency plan, i

Rather, the applicant is required to detaanine which' services it will require from offsite providei's and to seek comments from those organizations. NSP did not indicate in the emergency plan that Lake City, Minnesota, was expected to respond to an on site

'The regulatory requirements for comments on the emergency plans for ISFSis, like the requirements for the emergency plans, are separate and quite different from those for nuclear reactors The requirements for emergency plans for ISFSis are for on-site emergencies c,iy, Because offsite hesith effects have not been identified for accidents at ISFSis, there is no requirement for neighboring jurisdictions to be involved in emergency response. There is, for instance, no requirement for evacuation planning and hence no necd for the kinds of more elaborate plans associated with nuclear reactors.

s

,,,m.

~

. - - - ~---

.a o

/< - - - - - - - -

e 6

e emergency. Further, no evidence has been provided that NSP, at the time of the submittal of the license application, had plans to seek amorgency planning assistance from Lake City, Minnesota. Thus, there it no violation of 10 CFR 72.32(a)(14) to warrant any enforcement action.

The Petitioner ralsed several additional requests regarding NRC's review of NSP's, Goodhue County application. These are matters which the NRC considers during the license review, not as part of a Petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206. Further, in light of the fact that NSP has now withdrawn the application, they are moot.

CONCLUSION I have concluded that NSP did not violate NRC regulations by failing to provide Lake City, Minnesota, with an opportunity to respont' to the proposed emergency plan. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision win r4 filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14 day of September,1997.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

Carl J. Papiriello, irector Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

^

~

- Ms. C rCl A. Ov:rland S:pt:mber 26,1997 402 Washington St. South-Suite 225 Northfield, MN 55057

Dear Ms. Overland,

I am writing in response to your petition dated August 26,1996,in which you requested that the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 with regard to the application by Northern States Power Company (NSP) for the Goodhue County independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility.

Your request was referred to the staff for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As you are aware, action had to be deferred until the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) completed its consideration of the issue raised in your petition. That issue had also been raised as a contention and was to be part of the ASLB proceeding. With NSP's decision to withdraw its application and the ASLB's subsequent termination of the proceeding, a Director's Decision can now be rel eased. For reasons stated in the enclosed " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206,* the petition has been denied.

A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of issuance of the Decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision within that time.

A copy of the Notice which is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication is enclosed.

Sincerely, (ORIGINAL SIGNED BY /S/)

Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Dockets 72 10,50 282,50-306

Enclosures:

1. Director's Decision 97-24
2. Federal Reaister Notice cc: Goodhue Service List

'see previous concurrence enmoonoissmusen u. im 0FC SFPO*

E SFP0*

SFPO*

h

/

OGC*

NAME-HDelligatti:dd VTharpe EJLeeds LCla JGoldberg DATE 09/24/97 09/24/9h 09/24/97 Adf /97 \\

09/24/97 EBEEEEEE EauNEE EIBMEEEEEiEEEEEE WHEEhEEEBREEEEEEEE!EElEEEEEuliEEEEE M OFC SFP0*

E NMSd M NAK CJHaughney CJPakriho DATE 09/24/97 09/26/97' 09/ /97 09/ /97 09/ /97 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY 9

1 RECORD COPY G:\\MSD\\GT96669.MSD; \\GT96669.FRN

$ 9ggy 3 y,OFF

plSTRIBUTION: GT96669 Dockets 72 10, 50 282,50 306 NMSS R/F NMSS Dir. Off. R/F EDO R/F NRC Fife Center SFPO R/T PUBLIC JCallan, EDO HThompson, EDO LClark, OGC JBlaha, EDO PTiessler, EDO JLieberman, OE CPoiand, NMSS LGilbert, SFPO DDamiano, SFPO Sshankman, SFPO SCollins, NRR BWetzel, NRR RLandsman, Rlli BBeach, Rlli

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20198J136&oldid=4098148"