ML20198K918
| ML20198K918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1997 |
| From: | Chancellor D UTAH, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#497-18543 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9710240173 | |
| Download: ML20198K918 (86) | |
Text
_ _
c 4
l76YN DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'97 (ET -2 P5 :19
]}EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 11 CENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECP'i!ARY nill PMKIN0f, N4D
)
ADJUDCAIKAS SWF in the Matter of:
)
Docket No. 72 22 ISFSI
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC
)
ASLBP No. 97 732-02 ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel
)
Storage Installation)
)
October 1,1997 STATE OF UTAH'S MOTION TO SUSPEND LICENSING PROCEEDINGS PENDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM AND APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION OF A SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE APPLICATION, AND REQUEST FOR RE NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT / OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION The State of Utah moves the Licensing Board to suspend licensing proceedings and re notice the opponunity for public hearing on the Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS) to CFR Pan 72 application to construct and operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the Skull Valley Reservation in Utah.
The State requests the Licensing Board to suspend this proceeding until after (1) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff has established a Local Public Document Room (LPDR) in the vicinity of Private Fuel Storage, LLC's (PFS's) proposed ISFSI, and (2) PFS has submitted a substantially complete application. Upon completion of (1) and (2), the State requests the Licensing Board to order re notice of the opponunity for a hearing in the Federal Register.'
' The Board has the authority to order re notice of the opponunity for hearing and request to intervene. See Rochester Gas & Electric Corn, (R.E.Ginna Nuclear b Ab bb22 B
PDR p50
d n
As discussed below, suspension of further proceedings pending establishment of an LPDR and substantial completion of the application is necessary to provide meaningful panicipation by the State and the public in the proceeding. Moreover, the requested suspension would cause no harm to the Applicant, as the license crylication is far from ready for htigation. In fact, the Staff has informed the State that it does not expect to is:ue its own key NEPA and safety review documents for a matter of ynta. Undu these circumstances, there is no justification for moving ahead with the proceeding at rbit point. Instead, the interest of fairness and judicial economy would he serv d by suspending the proceeding pending the establishment of an LPDR, r
providing adequate hearing :.otice to the public, and awaiting the substantial completion of PFS's application before proceeding.
I STATEMENT OF FACTS On April 2r 1997, after becoming aware that PFS was going forward with its ISFSI application, Dr. Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, requested that before docketing the application, the NRC establish a local public document room that contains documents, including referenced documen,, relied on in the application. Letter from Dianne R. Nielson to Charles Haughney attached hereto as Exh.1. Dr. Nielson expressed her concern to the NRC that the public in Utah be granted access to all relevant documents during the period Plant, Unit 1), LBP 83 73,18 NRC 1231 (1983) (Board ordered re notice of opportunity to intervene after extensive delays due to pastponement of construction).
2
d when the public may request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene in the licensing proceeding.
On July 7,1997, the NRC published a notice of intent to establish an LPDR in Utah "once the application from Private Fuel Storage, Limited Liability Corporation (PFS) has been docketed." The notice invited public comments, to be submitted by July 25,1997, on possible LPDR locations. See
- Private Fuel Storage, LLC Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Intent To Establish Lo sl Public Document Room," 62 Fed. Reg. 36,320 (July 7,1997).
On June 25,1997 PFS filed an application with the NRC to construct and operate an ISFSI on the Skall Valley Reservation in Utah. The application consisted of: (1) a license application; (2) an emergency plan; (3) an environmental report; (4) a safety analysis report; and (5) confidential physical security plan. PFS also delivered a copy of the submitted material, with the exception of the security plan, to the State on June 25.
The application submitted by PFS is either incomplete or in violation of NRC procedural requirements in numerous significant respects. For instance, the Applicant failed to submit its emergency plan to offsite responders for their comments before submitting it to the NRC, as required by 10 CFR $ 72.32(a)(14). The application also failed to provide such fundamental information as the nature and membership of PFS's limited liability company, which is required by 10 CFR $ 72.22(a)-(d). Although to 3
e, 3
CFR $ 72.22(e) requires ISFSI applicants to demonstrate their financial qualifications to build and operate their facilities, the application provides no information about PFS's assets or the corporate structure of the LLC. See LA 1.4. Construction and decommissioning cost estimates were given in gross terms without any supporting detail by which they could be evaluated. See LA 1.6 and 1.7. Moreover, the application fails to address how it will deal with contaminated or leaking casks. The application contemplates transfer of spent fuel casks from rail to truck at Rowley junction,24 miles from the proposed ISFSI site, but it provides no evidence that PFS has the right to use any property at Rowley Junction; provides no discussion of emergency planning or decommissioning funding for Rowley Junction; and provides no plan for transfer of the casks from Rowley junction to the facility.
On June 27,1997 the State of Utah filed a 10 CFR 2.206 petition, incorporated by reference into this motion and attached as Exhibit 2, requesting the NRC staff to reject PFS's application for failure to submit the emergency plan to offsite authorities as required by 10 CFR $ 72.32(a)(14). On July 21,1997, the State of Utah filed a second 10 CFR 2.206 petition, incorporated by reference and attached as Exhibit 3, requesting the NRC staff not to accept the PFS license submittal because of its gross deficiencies and incompleteness.
Without even acknowledging the existence of Utah's two 2.206 petitions, on July 22,1997 NRC announced its acceptance of PFS's Part 72 application and on July 4
31,1997 published a
- Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of a Materials License for the Storage of Spent Fuel and Notice of Opponunity for a Hearing " 62 Fed. Reg.
41,099. This announcement came three days before the close of comments on where to set up an LPDR. To date no LPDR has been established in Utah.
Finally, responding to the State's two 2.206 petitions in a letter dated August 6, 1997, NRC's Charles J. Haughney stated that the two petitions were rejected because they did not seek " enforcement action." Mr. Haughney stated that the concerns raised in the State's petitions presented licensing issues and would be considered during the NRC staff's review of the application for compliance with 10 CFR Part 72. Letter from Charles Haughney to Dianne R. Nielson, attached as Exhibit 4.
On September 11,1997, the State of Utah filed a Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene. By happenstance at a public meeting on September 11,1997, the State learned that some time in July PFS submitted a multi volume calculation package to the NRC. PFS had made no reference to the calculation package when it delivered a copy of the application to the State on June 25. In response to a recent request by the State, PFS's attorney agreed to send the State a copy of the non proprietary information contained in the calculation package.
To date, no LPDR has been established in Utah. The public most affec:ed by this licensing action does not have access to the application submittal nor does the public know about or have access to the calculation package.
5 l
n s
11.
DISCUSSION As discussed below, the commencement of this proceeding without establishing an LPDR deprives the State and the public of an opponunity for meanins,ful participation. Furthermore,it would be unfair to the petitioners and wate the Board's and the parties' resources to require Ac development of contentions based on the current subs;antially inadequate application. Finally the Applicant would not be prejudiced by a suspension of this proceeding because it is still far from presenting the full information that is necessary to obtaining a license under 10 CFR Pan 72.
A.
This Proceeding Should be Suspended Until an LPDR Has Been Established.
Although the regulations governing ISFSI facilities do not specifically require the establishment of LPDRs before commencing hearings, Commission precedents, pronouncements made in this proceeding, and the nature of this case suppon the issuance of a suspension of this proceeding until an LPDR has been established as publicly promised by the Commission in July.
First, suspension of the proceeding pending establishment of an LPDR is supported by Commission precedents. This licensing proceeding is being conducted according to the formal procedures and pleading requirements of 10 CFR Pan 2, Subpan G, which were developed for the licensing of nuclear power plants. In nuclear power plant licensing proceedings, it is the p9 icy and practice of the Commission to announce in the notice of opponunity for a hearing the availability of licensing 6
n 5
documents in "an appropriate office near the site of the proposed facility." 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, Section I. The reasoning behind Appendix A's LPDR requirement for nuclear power plant licensing proceedings applies equally to intervenors in other formal NRC proceedings.
Prospective intervenors in ISFSI licensing proceedings are subject to the same sabstantial threshold pleading r:quirements as prospective intervenors in nuclear power plant licensing cases. These burdens include demonstrating injury in fact that is
" concrete" and " fairly traceable" to the proposed project, in order to establish standing.
10 CFR $ 2.714(a); Luian v. Defenders of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555,560-61 (1992).
Prospective intervenors must also plead " contentions" that are " specific" and provide
- [s)ufficient information" to show that "a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact." 10 CFR 5 2.714(b). In order to be able to address these substantial pleading requirements in an informed manner,it is essential that petitioners have reasonable access to the license application and other critical licensing documents.
In fact, the Licensing Board has recognized, where licensing documents are not locally available at the time a petition to intervene must be filed, the pleading requirements for standing and identifying litigable issues must be lower than under Subpan G standards, as "a necessary concomitant of a meaningful right to a fair hearing." Combustion Engineering. Inc. (Hematite Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP 89 23,30 NRC 140,144 (1989).
7
n
's Second, the Commission made a comnitment to establish an LPDR in this case
- once the application from Private Fuel Storage... has been docketed." Notice of Intent to Establish Local Public Document Room,56 Fed. Reg. at 36,320. This notice implicitly requires the establishment of an LPDR at the earliest possible date, before the formal proceeding commences. Contrary to the intent of the notice, no LPDR has been established in the more than two months that have passed since the license application was docketed. The Board should ensure that the intent of the notice is fulfilled by suspending this proceeding until the LPDR is established and stocked with all relevant documents.
Third, the natiire of this case warrants suspension of this proceeding pending the establishment of a LPDR. PFS's application is for a major high level nuclear waste storage facility of unprecedented size,2 which would receive shipments from plants located all over the United States. The application involves extensive transportation and intermodal transportation of these large volumes of waste, all of which pose substantial risks to the public and the environment. Yet, the Applicant claims that the proposed facility is a passive system and poses no significant risk. See c.g., SAR p.1.2-
- 1. In order to establish injury in-fact and adequately plead contentions in such a 2 The application is for storage of up 40,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). By contrast, the total amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at all commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States is about 30,000 MTU. NRC Information Digest,1997 Ed.,
NUREG 1350, Vol. 9, Table 15, p. 78, citing Spent Fuel Discharges from U.S. Reactors (SR/CNEAF/96-01), Feb.1996.
8
9 complex, unprecedented, and sharply contested proceeding, petitioners are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to examine PFS and NRC documents related to the applicatic...
Furthermore, voluminous reports relied on in the application and major periodic updates to the application are not readily available to the public in Utah and would be expensive to purchase hom the Public Document Room in Washington, D.C. (PDR). These documents include not only the application itself but also such related documents as the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for the Transtor Shipping Cask System and the SAR for the TranStor Storage Cask System. Moreover, the people affected by the proposed ISFSI facility include many people of modest mearis who are not in a position to pay hundreds of dollars to the PDR for the copying and mailing of the PFS license application and other related documents. Thus, the statement in the original hearing notice that the application is available in the PDR does not provide members of the public with reasonable access to the licensing documents. In order to provide the citizens of Utah with a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to the license application, it is essential that a library be established in a public, accessible location in the area of the proposed ISFSI.
The State requests the Licensing Board to suspend this proceeding until such time as the Staff has fulfilled the Commission's commitment to establish an LPDR.
Once an LPDR has been established and stocked with all of the relevant licensing 9
Og
- e documents, the State of Utah requests the Board to order the issuance of a new notice of hearing, which notifies the pub'ic of the availability of documents in the LPDR, and the addr.:ss and public hours of the LPDR. Thereafter, the Licensing Board should allow a reasonable opportunity for the filing of new petitions to intervene, and postpone the deadline for filing contentions until at least 45 days after the deadline for filing petitions to intervene.
B.
The Proceeding Should be Suspended Until All Existing Documents Are Made Publicly Available.
The proceeding should also be suspended until all documents that have been submitted to the Staff by PFS are publicly accessible,inchiding those documents presently unavailable. As discussed above, for example, the State learned on September 11 that PFS had submitted a calculation package to the NRC Staff. The State obtained the calculation package from PFS's counsel on September 22. The data package addresses storage pad parameters and cask stability calculations; geotechnical calculations; meteorological data and tornado probability calculations; and radiation protection calculations. Access to this substantive multi volume package is essential to meaningful review of the application. The State is concerned that there may be other important licensing documents, submitted to the Staff by PFS, that are similarly unavailable to the State ano to the public.
Moreover, the Applicant relies on documents that are proprietary or not generally available. For example,in almost all of the eleven chapters of the Safety 10
3, t
f Analysis Report, except chapters 2,9 and 11, the Applicant relies or, the Safety -
Analysis Reports (SARs) for the Holtec International HI STAR 100 Cask System (Docbt No. 721014) and Sierra Nuclear Corporation TranStor Storage Cask System (Docket No. 721023) to support its ISFSI application. See SAR 1.7, 3.7, 4.8, 5.7, 6.6, 7.7,8.4, and 10.3. The SAR for the Holtec casks is proprietary. According to the PDR at some unknown future date a nonproprietary version of the Holtec SAR will be available in the PDR.
C.
The State and the Public Cannot Meaningfully Review the Application Because of the Omission ofImportant Requirements and Superficial Discussion of Other Requirements.
Because construction permits and operating license proceedings are combined for ISFSis, the Commission
- requires considerable detail in the license application, particularly in the (Safety Analysis Report] SAR." 45 Fed. Reg. 74,695 (November 12, 1980). The Commission also specifically directed that the Environmental Report include "an evaluation of the environmental impact of the ISFSi on the region in which it is located, including transportation that is involved "Id. As the Commission recognized, the transportation involving spent fuel shipments to an ISFSI, especially a large installation, is an important consideration in an evaluation of site suitability. Id.
at 74,698.
Contrary to the Commission's requirement for " considerable detail," PFS's application is woefully incomplete in considerable respects. As discussed above and in 11
the State's July 212.206 petition, the application contains egregious omissions, including: failure to identify members of PFS's LLC or describe the corporate structure or assets of the LLC; no contingency measures for leaking and contaminated casks; no documentation of the right to use and control land at the site and at the rail transfer point (Rowley Junction); no plan as to how the casks will be transported from the railhead to the facility; and no discussion of emergency planning and decommissioning planning or funding for the Rowley Junction site.
Other Part 72 requirements are so superficially discussed as to render the application unreviewable. The Safety Analysis Report does not address financial qualifications, decommissioning or constructions costs. There are merely passing references to these items in the License Application. PFS does not provide any fac.ual information to substantiate its claim that it is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activity. Nor does it provide any information to show the source of its decommissioning estimate, with the result that petitioners have no basis for evaluating it. Corporate and financial information, for example, contain gross general statements.
The application does not describe the corporate structure of the Applicant, other than general statements that it is a limited liability company. Also, it is uulear which utilities and how many are current members of PFS and what each utility's commitment is to the enterprise. See LA pp.13 to 110. The application only includes gross construction costs, which cannot meaningfully be evaluated; does not 12
discuss equity contributions or subscription agreements from PFS members; fails to show reasonable assurance of obtaining funds; and provides no basis for its general assertions regarding decommissioning cost estimates or funds. See Exh. 2, pp. 3-5.
Thus it provides no means for evaluating the Applicant's compliance with financial qualifications or decommissioning funding requirements. A quality assurance program is not provided. Instead for this application the Applicant relies on some other quality assurance program relating to cask packaging that NRC approved for PFS on November 3,1996 for use under 10 CFR 71, Subpart H (Docket 71-0829). The Part 71 quality assurance program is totally inadequate to meet the requirement of 10 CFR 72, Subpart G.
The Applicant has made no effort to coordinate the development of its emergency response plan with any governmental entity that may be expected to respond to an emergency, except Tooele County. This has led to a violation of to CFR 72.32(a)(14) (failure to allow emergency responders 60 days to review the emergency plan prior to submittal of the application) and a totally inadequate emergency response plan. Additionally, the Applicant has made no effort to coordinate emergency planning with the federal agencies who control much of the land surrounding the Indian reservation (e.g., surrounding military installations). See State's 2.206 petition, Exhibit 2, for additional discussion o "mergency Response.
13
By having to review an application that is so incomplete and difficult to assess, the State and other prospective intervenors are severely prejudiced in developing their contentions. Moreover, the paucity of information in the application will inevitably require petitioners to supplement their contentions. This will place an unfair burden on petitioners who must make a showing, consistent with 10 CFR $ 2.714(a)(1) (e.g.,
good cause, assistance in developing a sound record, etc.), before the Board will address late-filed petitions. Under such circumstance the burden will inappropriately and unnecessarily be shifted to the petitioners as a result of the Applicant's initial failure to comply with the Commission's requirement to submit a considerably detailed application. This can and should be remedied by a suspension of the proceeding until PFS files a substantially complete application.
By prematurely accepting and reviewing this inadequately developed application, the NRC staff has stifled public participation and has placed a substantial burden on the State and others in their review of the application. The expenditure of additional resources in order to understand and respond to the application will continue if the NRC staff allows the Applicant to submit major portions of the application piecemeal to the NRC.
In the interests of justice, the licensing proceeding should be suspended until the Applicant submits an application suitable for review in toto by the public, the State and other petitioners.
14
c,
.4 D.-
The Applicant Will Not Be Harmed and the Public Will Benefit By -
Suspending Proceedings and Re Noticing the Application.
As discussed above,it is obvious that PFS is not ready to go forward with its application. PFS must eventually supply the omissions from the application and
. supplement those requirements that have only been superficially addressed. The -
requested suspension would not delay PFS's ability to obtain a license application in.
any respect, but would rather hold the proceeding in abeyance until such time as PFS submits an application that is complete enough to be ready for litigation. Thus,
- suspension of the proceeding would cause no additional harm to PFS beyond that which PFS has already caused to itself by submitting an incomplete application.
Moreover, this proceeding is incapable of going forward any time soon, given the Staff's schedule for issuing its own NEPA and safety review documents. As counsel for the NRC Staff recently informed the State, the Staff does not expect to issue a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) until approximately two years from now, with a Final EIS to follow six months to a year afterwards. The Staff does not expect to issue the Safety Evaluation Report until approximately three years from now. Given the Staff's extremely long review schedule, it is unlikely that this proceeding can go beyond the initial stages of contention filing and preliminary discovery for some years. Accordingly, PFS would not be harmed by a stay of the proceeding.
15
m y
In fact, suspending the proceedings would save PFS resources associated with
- premature litigation costs. Given the current state of the application, PFS would need to respond to intervenors who would undoubtedly file additional contentions each -
time PFS supplemented its application. Thus, any delay in this proceeding caused by the requested suspension would have no negative effect on PFS, Assuming arguendo that there is any harm to PFS, it is completely outweighed by the benefits to all parties of conducting a fair and effective hearing that allows for meaningful and timely public participation.
III.
ACTION REQUESTED The State of Utah requests the Board to suspend funher proceedings and order re notification of the application after the NRC has established an LPDR in Utah that contains all relevant licensing documents. In addition, the State requests the Licensing Board to suspend funher proceedings until the Applicant has submitted sufficient additional information to make its application substantially complete and suitable for meaningful review by the public.
IV.
EXPECTED RESPONSE FROM OTHER PARTIES In compliance with the Board's September 23 order, the State had contacted counsel for the other parties to'the proceeding regarding this motion, Petitionen.
Castle Rock Land and Livestock, L.C. et al; Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia; and 16 I
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation and David Pete, support the motion.
The NRC Staff and the Applicant oppose the motion. The Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians probably oppose the motion.
DATED this 1st day of October,1997 Respectfully submitted, Nk n
J D'enise Chancellor '
Fred G Nelson Assistant Attorneys General Diane Curran Connie Nakahara Special Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for State of Utah Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South,5th Floor P.O. Box 140873 Salt Lake City UT 84114-0873 Telephone (801) 366-0286; Fax (801) 366-0293 8
4 17 q.,y a r.y,,,y 7--..
4.,.---
w w
y.
4 ag#
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " STATE OF UTAH'S MOTION TO SUSPEND LICENSING PROCEEDINGS PENDING ESTABLISHMENT OF /OF E
. LOCAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM AND APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION OF A SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE APPLICATION, AND REQUEST FOR RE-
. NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT / OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION," dated October 1,1997, were served on the.. rsons listed below by Federal Express (unless otherwise noted) with conforming copies by hand delivery to those indicated by asterisk:
Attn: Docketing & Services Branch Dr.Jeny R. Kline Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: Ol6G15 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike, One White Flint Washington, DC 20555 North E-Mail: jrk2@nrc. gov Rockville, MD 20852-2738 (originalandtwo copies)
G. Paul Bollwerk,III, Chairman Thomas D. Murphy AdministrativeJudge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Li:ensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 E Mail: gpb@nrc. gov E-Mail: tdm@nrc. gov F
18 j
k
.a.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. -
Jean Belille, Esq.
Catherine L. Marco, Esq.
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Office of the General Counsel 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Mail Stop - 015 B18 Boulder, Colorado 80302
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
_ Washington, DC 20555 Danny Quintana, Esq.*
Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.
Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 l
2300 N Street, N. W.
-Washington, DC 20037 8007 James M. Cutchin Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Clayton J. Parr, Esq.*
Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kimball, Parr, Waddoups, Brown &
_ Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Gee 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 E Mail: jmc3@nrc. gov P. O. Box 11019 (electronic copy only)
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 0019 Office of the Commission Appellate John Paul Kennedy, Sr. Esq.*
Adjudication 1385 Yale Avenue Mail Stop: 16-G 15 OWFN Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (UnitedStates mail,first class)
Dated this 1st day of October,1997.
W d
f l
Denise Chancellor Assistant Attorney General:
State of Utah 19-L 1
p L
.e m
&+4 State o7ai
_ [
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
- Mkhael o. Lmitt 168 North 1930 West Ga"'**
- P.o. Box 144810 Dianne R. Nielson. Ph D.
Sah take City, Utah 84114 4810 I"""" D""
(801)3364400 Voke Brent C. Bradford (801) $36-0061 Fax
- hP*7D'"'"8' (801) 536-4414 T.D D.
April 28, 1997 Mr. Charles Haughney Deputy Director Spent Fuel Project Office United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 re Proposed Skull Valley ISFSI Availability of Information
Dear Mr. Haughney:
I _am writing to request Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
~
assistance in ensuring that the public will have sufficient opportunity to review documents and participate in the licensing process regarding the above-referenced ISFSI.
The State requests that 1)NRC set up a local public document room (LPDR) in Salt Lake City when Private Fuel Storage (PFS) submits its applica~'an for a license to possess radioactive materials associate' n the above ISFSI,
- 2) a copy of all documents reference-the application or relied on by the applicant be included
.. PFS's submittal to NRC, and 3) NRC's pre-acceptance review ensure that all such documents are available at the Salt Lake City LPDR prior to docketing the application.
In. a recent public meeting between NRC and the applicant, PFS and its consultants suggested that the ISFSI application, and in particular. the Environmental Report, will rely on numerous existing studies, environmental impact statements (EISs), etc.
This might indicate that PFS will merely reference existing documents rather than generate new data.
NRC should not accept such references unless accompanied by the actual documents.
In the Northern States Power application for an ISFSI in Goodhue County (Docket No.
72-8),
the Federal Register notice of consideration of issuance of materials license and opportunity for
' hearing was published September 17, 1996 and the deadline for
April 28, 1997 Page 2 requesting a hearing and petition to intervene was October 17, 1996.
61 Fed. Reg. 48,989.
Given NRC's stringent intervention procedural requirements and time constraints, the inability of potential parties to access necessary informaticn would severely curtail their due process rights.
It is unreasonable to expect that parties located in the western region of the country travel to Washington, DC to review relevant documents or be expected to locate past studies or EISs in the 30-day intervention window.
The Marriott Library Special Collections section at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City has provided this service for other environmental projects and would be a good choice for the LDPR.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
\\)(
NW j
l Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
l Executive Director cc:
Mark Delligatti 4
~
?,a J.l l
' BEFORE THE UNITED STATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS.
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
).
STATE OF UTAH
)
2.206 PETITION PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC
)
Part 72 License Submittal
)
)'
+
On June 25,1997 Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS) filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indian Reservation. An Emergency.
Plan was part of PFS's application submittal. The State of Utah reque3ts the INRC to reject the
. application outright because the applicant has failed to submit the Envrgency Plan to offsite
. emergency response organizations and give them 60 days to comment on the Emergency Plan prior to submittal of the license application.10 CFR 6 72.32(a)(14).
i
' This peiltion is filed by the E.tecutive Director, Department of Environmental Quality, on behalf of the State of Utah pursuant to 10 CFR i 2.206(a) which states,in relevant part:
Any person may file a request to institute a proceeding pursuant to i 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper (emphasis added),
The Commission, under 10 CFR { 2.202(a), "may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend or revoke a license or to take such other action as may be proper" by serving an order on a person subject to thejurisdiction of the Commission. By submitting an ISFSIlicense application, PFS is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
BASIS FOR THE REQUEST:
A. -
Regulatory Requirements The PFS ISFSI license application is subject to review under 10 CFR Part 72. Emergency planning requirements for ISFSIs are contained in 10 CFR i 72.32. In Section 9 2 ofits Emergency Plan, PFS states that it has satisfied the requirement of 10 CFR 6 72.32(a)(14) by allowing "the Tooele County, Utah, Department of Emergency Management" 60 days in which to comment on the plan.
Section 72.32(a)(14) reads, in relevant part:
The licensee shall allow the offsite response organizations expected to respond in case of an accident 60 days to comment on the initial submittal of the licensee's emergency plan before submitting it to NRC.... The licensee shall provide any comments received within the 60 days to the NRC with the emergency plan.
B.
PFS Emergency Plan: Offsite Assistance, Support and Resources Chapter 10 of PFS's Emergency Plan states-that it will use Tooele County and Tooele City law enforcement, medical and fire services,if needed. PFS specifically lists Tooele Valley Medical Center, Tooele County Fire Department and Tooele County Sheriff as offsite response organizations it may call upon for assistance. According to information obtained by the State, Tooele Valley Medical Center has not seen or reviewed the PFS Emergency Plan. Exh. I Nor has Tooele City police seen or reviewed the Emergency Plan. Exh. 2.
For other offsite assistance PFS merely recites that "(c]ontracted services and other available resources are listed in the emergency telephone directory." No emergency telephone directory is included as part of the Emergency Plan.
C.
Emergency Response: Utah State Agencies Not one agency of the State of Utah has been notified by PFS about its Emergency Plan.
While the Governor of Utah has openly and aggressively opposed the PFS application, that fact is nojustification for PFS ignoring its legal respo.<.sibilities of communicating with State emergency response organizations.
There is no excuse for PFS not forwarding a copy of its plan to the Utah Division of Radiation Control. The Division of Radiation Control, an Agreement state with the NRC, regulates all sources of radiatim in the State, and employs personnel who have training and experience in responding to radiation incidents. Utah Code Ann. Title 19, Chapter 3. In addition, William Sinclair, Director, Division of Radiation Control, is the Govemor s designee for notification of all shipments of high level nuclear waste coming through the State. Exh. 3.
The other obvious State agency that PFS should have notified is.he Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management -- the entity responsible for coordination and allocation of state emergency services. Utah Code Ann. Title 53, Chapter 2.
There are numerous State entities that may need to assist in the case of an accident associated with the PFS high level nuclear waste storage facility. The State of Utah has an
" Emergency Operations Plan" which, tc the degree possible, reflects the normal day-to-day operations of State agencies. Annex C of the plen, Functional Responsibility Assignments (Exh.
4). shows the specific emergency response assignments among State agencies. From Annex C it 2
can be seen that at a minimum the following State agencies must be allowed 60 days to 8
co, ment on the PFS Emergency Plan:
m Office of the Governor (emergency pubhc information)
Department of Health (emergency medical and health)
Department of Public Safety (public safety and security)
(hazardou: materials response)
Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM)
(emergency
- communications, planning and coordination)
Department of Environmental Quality (fixed site hazardous materials respons e)
(drinking water and sanitation)
(air and water quality)
State Fire Marshal (search and rescue)
(fire fighting-urban)
Department of Natural Resorrces, State Forester (fire fighting-rural)
Department of Transportation (emergency transportation and highway traffic regulation)
D.
Emergency Response: Federal agencies In addition to State emergency personnel, there are federal land managers and military commanders whom PFS may need to call upon for assistance. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, and Dugway Proving Ground operate and control much of the land surrounding the Indian reservation and they too should have had the opportunity to comment on PFS's Emergency Plan.
E.
Wildfires The potential for wildfires in Skull Valley is real and illustrates the need to involve resources other than those controlled by PFS and Tooele County. In the past ten years,48 fires in Skull Valley have been reported to the Utah Division of Forestry. Twenty-four of those fires were caused by lightmng and ranged in size from 0.1 to 7,100 acres (average 373 acres). These reports are limited to fires on state o private lands and do not include fires on federal, military or reservn' ion lands because in Skull Valley, BLM protects its own lands, Forest Service lands and Examples of response functions for each entity are given in I
parenthesis.
3
u the Goshute reservation lands; fires on Dugway Proving Grounds are controlled by the military.
- Ijxh 5.
The initial fire fighting attack forces are volunteer fire departments located at Tooele, Vernon, Stockton, Rush Valley, Wendover, Grantsville, Stansbury Park and Terra.2 The BLM has initial attack resources stationed at Vernon and occasionally at Muskrat Springs in the north end of Skull Valley. Dugway has a military fire department that may assist. Extended attack forces usually involve resources from the Utah Division of Forestry, BLM and the Forest Service.
Exh.5.
F.
Preamble to 10 CFR 72.32 final rule
+
PFS is proposing a storage facility for up to 4,000 casks of high level nuclear waste. The magnitude of the project itself warrants contact with more than a single local organization. By ignoring state, federal, and other local officials, PFS has not met the plain requirements of rule or the direction of the Commission.
In the preamble to the final rule for Emergency Planning Licensing Requirements for ISFSIs,10 CFR 72.32, published in the Federal Register on June 16,1995 (1995 WL 509710(NRC)), the Commission clearly stated that offsite emergency response organizations must be given an opportunity to be involved in the develooment of emergency plans for ISFSIs.
Issue 31 in the preamble addressed public comments in opposition to the 60 day advance notification to offsite emergency organizations. The commentors stated there would be sufficien' time to review the emergency plan as part of the application review by all parties. The
, commentors further noted that the 60 day advanced review would be unnecessary because licensees experienced in operating nuclear power plants recognize the benefits of working with offsite groups. In its response, the Commission disagreed s;ating: "The Commission believes that requiring participation by offsite organizations in the development of the emergency plan significantly helps establish coordination and working relationships between the principais." M.
WL at
- 13. The Commission made a similar point in its response to Issue 21. M. WL at
- 11.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The NRC staff has received explicit direction from the Commission that offsite emergency organizations must be given 60 days to review and comment on a Part 72 Emergency Pian.
Furthermore, the Commission is on record that it does not support a concurrent review of the Emergency Plan along with the license application.
I l
PFS did not submit its Emergency Plan to Terra for its review and 2
P coment.
Exh. 6.
4 L.
m
~
4 P
r a submittal to PFS The State of Utah requests that the NRC return the entire license applica unt,il PFS has complied with 10 CFR 73.32(a)(14). PFS must submit a copy of its Emergency Plan to the State of Utah and give its emergency response agencies an opportunity to comment on the
- plan PFS must also give a similar opportunity to other local response organizations and to the BLM and Dugway Proving Ground to comment on its emergency p%n. Such contments must be-incorporated into any Emergency Plan that PFS submits to the NR 0 as part of its Part 72 license application.
DATED thisc23d(day of 1997 Respectfully submitted.
STATE OF UTAH BY AND THROUGH THE UTAH DEPARTMENT C'( ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
/
I Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director 168 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Pie direct corres ndence to:
A.
Denise Chancellor Attomey for Petitioner Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South,5th Floor P.O. Box 140813 Salt Lake City UT 84114-0873 Te1ephone (801) 366-0286 Fax
. (801) 366-0292 5
y,-a r.,-
y,-py r-~r-r
-q--
7 vv 9y wr p
w M
tr'
~. _
k CERTIFICATE OF MAILING This is to certify that the original of this 2.206 petition was mailed, Federal Express, to:
l C
Executive Director for Operations.
U.S. Nuclear P.egulatory Commission
= Washington DC 20555l and that copies of this petition were mailed, first class postage prepaid to the following:
l
~ John D. Parkyn
- Chairman of the Board Private Fuel Storage LLC-P.O. Box C4010 La Crosse WI 54602-4010
- 12on Bear, Chairman Skull Valley Band of Goshute Skull Valley R:scrvation -
P.O. Box 150:
- Grantsville UT 84029 -
Mark Delligstti U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spent Fuel Project Office Mail Stop 06G22 '
Washington DC 20555 William Lamb-State Director U.S. Bureau of Land Management 324 South State Street, Suite 400 -
' Salt Lake City UT 84111 2303 Colonel John A.Como U.S. Army Commanding Dugway Proving Ground Building 4146 Dugway:UT 84022 5000 DATED this,2 day of OW,1997.1 v
Y M
6 i<
l:a
... ~.
.. -. -..-. ~
. - -.., ~. ~. - - - -. - - -.
y...
3,;
i June 13,1997 DEQ Questionnaire -
- =
1 Please complete the questionnaire to the best of your ability.
1._
Havelyou or your office had discussions with Private Fuel Storage (PFS), any of its-representatives (e.g., its consultant, Stone & Webster) or other person or entity about providing any form of emergency response, resources, or coordination with respect to the -
proposed high level nuclear waste storage. facility to be located on the north. west portion of
. the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation?
Yew No /
- Approximate date of discussions:
Briefly describe issues discussed:
l 2.
Have you or your office received any written information from PFS, its representatives or any other person or entity describing emergency planning for the proposed facility?
Yes No g Date you received the information:
From whom did you receive the infomiation:
Please provide a copy of whatever you received. If you no longr have a copy, please describe the information received:
3.
If you or your office have received written information, has your office mcde written or verbal comments on the information?
Written:
Verbal:
.To whom did you provide comments:
..... m r -
A.h On what date:
s9
,rp Please provide us with a copy of whatever comments you made or briefly describe
' %:.." y:o'ur verbal comments:
-i..
~"r.'p. _.Tq
(:.
?. :*,:
1 a:
=,
1
c o,.
i Jone 13,1997 DEQ Questionnaire Please complete the questionnaire to the best of your ability.
r
- 1..
- Have you or your office had dl13.111Qns with Private Fuel Storage (PFS), any of its-representatives (e.g., its consultant, Stone & Webster) or other person:or entity about
- providing any form of emergency response, resources, or coordination with respect to the
~
- proposed high level nuclear waste storagelacility to be located on the north-west portion of the Skull Valley Goshute Ind an Reservation?
- Yeg No Approximate date of discussions:
- Briefly describe issues' discussed:
- 2.
' Have you or your office received sny written information from PFS, its representatives or any other person or entity describir mergency planniny,.for the proposed facility?
Yes
-- No v Date you received the information:
From whom did you receive the information:
Please provide a copy of whatever you received. If you no longer have a copy, please describe the information received:
3.
-If you or your office have received written information, has your office made written or verbal comments on the information?
- Written:
Verbal:
To whom aid you provide comments:
'-On what'date:
Please provide us with a copy of whatever comments you made or briefly describe your verbal comments:
i.
1 1
e-tm 1
y w
,e-t m
i>--.-w-i----
7w e
s
-3
--+m----,
--r-t
~
~-
j?l cs20212e pum b
S UNITED STATES F
j
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
1 a'
wAssiwctoN. D.C. 20$55-0001 T
g[
'M, h**
g**"*j March 31, 1994 5
p 8 STET \\
Dear Governors' Designees:
Last year you were the designated official in your State to receive advance notification concerning.ransportation of certain shipments of nuclear wasta, as required by 10 CFR Part.s 71 and 73.
Wp have anclosed copies of the applicable portions.
of the rules for your information.
Also enclosed is a copy of the present list of Governors' If designees, containing your address and telephone numb (r.
any information on this list is incorrect, please correct it and return the list to us.
If we do not receive a response by June 1, 1994,-we will-assume the infc,rmation shown on the list is correct.
The list of all Governors' designees will be published in the Federal Recister on or about June 30.
You may FAX corrections.at (301) 504-3502.
During the year, please inform us of any changes which may arise in either your appointment, your address, or telephone number.
Please note that changes in acDointment only must be accompanicd by a letter from the Governor of year State.
Any inquiries on this matter should be directed to Spiros Droggitis of my staff, (361) 504-2367.
Your_ cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
/>
h'iA l(
42 L(
\\.
Richard L. Bangart, h,irector Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated-r-
j l
i INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENTS
]
STATES PART 71 PART 73 ALABAMA Col. George McMinn, Director same Alabama Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 1511 Montgomery, AL 36192-0501 (205) 242-4378 ALASKA Mead Treadwell same Deputy Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, AK 99801-1795 (907) 465-2600 ARIZONA Aubrey Godwin, Director same Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40th Street Phoenix, AZ 85040 (602) 255-4845 After hours: (602) 223-2212 ARKANSAS Greta J. Dicus, Director same Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Programs Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street 4
Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 661-2301 After hours: (501) 661-2136 or 661-2000 CALIFORNIA George M. Edgerton, Chief
'same Enforcement Services Division California Highway Patrol 444 North Third Street, Suite 310
. Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-3253 3
... ~.. -
~
-. ~ - -
l.
STATES PART 71 PART 73 TEMESSEE John White same Assistant Deputy Director Tennessee Emergency Management Agency State Emergency Operations Center
- ~
3041 Sidco Drive.
Nashville,TN 37204 (615) 741-0001 After hours:
(Inside TN) 1-800-262-3300 (Outside TN) 1-800-258-3300 TEXAS David K. Lacker, Chief Col. Joe E. Milner Bureau of Radiation Control Director Texas Department of Health Texas Department of 1100 West 49th Street Public Safety Austin, TX 78756 5805 N. Lamar Blvd (512) 834-6688 Austin, TX 78752 (512) 465-2000 UTAH William J. Sinclair, Director same Division of Radiation Control 168 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144850 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 (801) 536-4250 After hours: (801) 538-6333 VERMONT Patrick J. Garahan, Secretary same Vermont Agency of Transportation 133 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 828-2657 VIRGINIA James D. Holloway, Director same Technological Hazards Division Department of Emergt.acy Services Commonwealth of Virginia 310 Turner Road Richmond, VA 23225 (804) 674-2400 WASHINGTON Robert J. Huss, Deputy Chief same Washington State Pctrol General Administration Building Mail Stop AX-12 Olympiat WA 98504-0612 (206) 586-2340 l
1
.h e.6.e,.r.w. p,
' ~
4,,4hik
]..s.;,:MtiQ..*, %s.
- ).>...Y ga : y%,
ins.
a..
e-v
- a. a +.
9
~.
4 r
pg
' T E O M d1T_
q%
.rA.
u
. c. 4
, s.
3 I f,. e,. e.gm:.aA3 L :e,, {
a sg?
2 ssr cj
- >l%
- i.%Q?i, %koe$mk?M:?nC
}
, y ; 2 5. 9. ;.yn.,, a.
.. W:.C.d.
o q
. ~.~
v
~.
M
\\ i, '. ;.; }M; e. N Q p.
a g.iji,w.e W.:.-g!.;3 'l
- a, x p s4
?
g g';. ! Q ?: i A:'. l'mg'?'g...; w....; a: f. 7 y
i
.ys. g y
(Q
- (O
'.;7 e." 3.. g. q
-v
.,; gy en
..y 0
W g.
Y.N'5[:'!-[ S Gl,~R,1 ]n[,6Q\\
.'1 ? I$
.M'jNiC. : T .. Ql%tQW-g j / 4: (.., m. .. m'.. ':s9,3,.o. w ;. s,,.w.. u.; ; ;/.' y. . j.g. a,.;., ' ?.L :q >w.. e.. c' rg g s - p. ;~;.... z :. $,.,n.:,.@A-! ; ^ ' G t Y ' W *; ;* '3 8 Q{.; >. ,.?.:.. e, n.
- . tu, M.. 2;,67,?',,$. 4 5' M..2 9.. W,. h.? s ny
. 9 .m. R$.* s.,- 9,y r '-" g n ff*m t,; N
- 8. g 2
, 4 g p y.; # m a g g y m p u ' s m E h egyWF,w.in.tWag44 = u N 'N N gm, mEERGENQYdOpjEIRATiON y; w .tussessws a 1 k.4 EML ESRSTERdi W@$ $e g p - g Yj* c y $g g s p& A I d W 4.g w 3 w 44c LEN.h t t 1 c. 1.i_d;GtMS e: u g ry n s.w,+y,y ez w n...v+~- :w r us %., gsy'n:g t p p % x a n u %x p, s y g g g wmwua l
ST,sTE Of UTAll Dlf.ROENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Annes C: Funcilonal Responsibility Assigninents I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this unnex is to assign specific emergency re.sponse functions to State agencies. II. CONCEl'r OF OPERATIONS The functiona' responsibilities assigned under this unnex reflect, to the degree possible, the normal day-to-day operations of state agencies. However.. specific emergency functions must be considered as supplemental to the regular programs, policies and procedures of those agencies as anigned under this plan. Specifie assignments made in the appendices to this annes are divided into two emergency phases: Appendix l - Gosernor's " State of Emergency" Operations State Federal *Emergeney" or
- Major Disaster' Operations Appendix 2 Appendis 3-Gosernor's " State of Emergency" and Federal Disaster Anistance Operati,ns (By Agency)
Catastrophie Disaster and Federal Response Plan Emergency Appendix 4 Suppen Function Operations ill DlHECTION AND CONTROL. As prescribed in the appendises to this annex. APPENDIN I TO ANNEN C C-32 3'92
'e o FitNCTION Al, RESPONSillll_ITY A3Sl(iNMEN"IS (iOVERNOR'S " STATE Ol' EMEH(iENCY" OPEH ATIONS The following primary und support " State of Emergency" operations are anigned to the following State agencies. These functions are supplemental to the normal day to-da) operations functions of each agency: Emergene) Function State Agenc3 Warning Prignar): Division of CEM Support: Department of Public Safety Energency I'rimar3: Division of CEM Communications Suppor:: Depar; ment of Public Safety Department Natural Resoerces Department of Transportation Utah fiational Guard Utah Wing. Civil Air Patrol Department of Health Department of Administrative Services (ITS) Department of Commerce Emergency Public l'rimary : Office of the Governor information Support: Disision of CEM Es acuation l'rimary: Dnision of CEM Support: Department of Public Safety Department of Transportation Department of Commerce State Office of Education State Doard of Regents Utah Nationa Guard Department of Health Department of Human Sersices Emergene) function State Agenc3 Searsh & Rescue l'rimar3 : State Fire Marshal
- -23 2/94
. e, Support: Division ot' CEM - Department of Public Safety Utah tional Guard Pubbe Safety & Primar3: Department of Public Safety Security Support: Dhision of CEAl Ut,h National Guard Department of Transportation Medical und Health Primar3: Department of Health Support: Division of CEM Utah National Guard Department of Public Safety State Fire Marshal Department of Employment Security Department of Human Sersices Emergency Mass Shcher Primary: Amerieun Red Cross and Feedmg Support: State Ottke of Education Dhision of CEM Utah National Guard Department of Human Services State lioard of Regents Department of Health Debris Clearance Primary: Department of Transportation Support: Dhision of CEM Utah Nianal Guard Department of Ltural P'sourses C-34 2/94 l i 4 i
Damage Awssment Primar): State Division of Facilities Construction and 1,1anagement Support: Dnision of CEM Department of Natural Resources Department of Agriculture Utah National Guard Department of Transportation Utah Wing. Cisil Air Patrol Public Servise Conuninion State Office of Education Department of Health Department of Environmental Quality Department of Conununity and Economie Development Department of Human Services Department of Admini.tratise Services Department of Commerce Damage Survey Primary: _ Division of Facilities Construction and Management Suppurl: Division of CEM Department of Natural Resources Department of Agriculture Utah National Guard Department of Tr;msportation Utah Wing, Civil Air Patrol Public Sersiee Commission State Office of Education Department of Health Department of Human Services Department of Emironmental Quality Department of Administrathe Services Department of Commerce Temporary Housing Primary: Departmem of Community and Economie Development Support: Disision of CEM Department of Public Safety 1:mergency l' unction State Agency C-25 2/94
Emergency Labor l'rimar3 : Department of Employment Security Support: Disision of CEM Department of Human Recurce Managemeni la imary: State Office of Education Publie Education r Sen ice > Support: State 13oard of Regents Onision of CEM Fire Fighting Urban. I'rimary: State Fire Marshal jluul Department of Natural Resources. Stare Forester Support: Division of CEM Utah National Guard Department of Public Safety Department of Employnunt Security Department of Tra;isportation Publie Utilities l' rima r3 : Public Service Commission Restoration (minus water & sewer) Support: Division of CEM Utah National Guard State Office of Education Department of Commerce Hazardous Materiah I'rimary: Department of Public Safety (transportation incidenti Depanment of Ensironmental Quality (tised site incident) Support: Department of Ayriculture Department of ticalth sepidemiology and poison control) Disision of CEM Department of Natural Resources Crisis Counseling l'rimary : Depaitment of liuman Services Emergency l' unction State Agenc3 C-M 2!94
n, Water and Sanitation l'rimar): Department of Ensironmental Qualit) Support: Departmerir of itcalth Emergency Transportation l'rlmar): Departenent of Transportation and liighway Traffie Regulations Support: Department of Administratise Senices (Central Sen ken) State Office of Education Public Senice Comminion Department of Commerse Emergency Fuel l'rlmar): Utah Disision of Energy Allocation and Distribution hiilitary Support l'rlmary: Disision of CEh1 Support: Utah National Guard Voluntary I'rlmar): Division of CEh! Organirations Long. Range Disaster l'almar,<: GovernorN Office of Recmcry Planning Planning and Dudget Support: Disision of CEM Comumer Protection l'rimar): Department of Commerse I'l:1)l:lt Al. DISASTI:lt AS5stSTANCI: c-37 2/94 m-g = .e ---r e,
WITil(llTT A IHl:Sil)l:NTI Al, lil:Cl.AltNil()N { 1:tnergenc) function State Agent) (Sear 6h and Rewurl l'tah National Guasd (Ilood l>rotectioni Daiuon of CEM (Flood Insurance) Dahion of CEM (Rural fire Supprenion) Department of Natural Resouttes State Forester (federal liealth & Welfare Aulstance) Department of 11ealth Department of Human Sersives (Emergency Consersation Department of Agriculture Measureo (Repairs to federal Department of Tsunsportation Aid Systems Roadd t i 9 + c-le 2 94 i..
'o APPL:NDIN 2 'lO ANN 1:N C ITNCTIONALiti:SPONSiltil.ITY ASSIGNsti:N1s SI All.lTDI:HAl. "l311:ltGl:NCY" Olt "$1 A.lOlt 1115 Vill:H" OPl:H VIlONS The following uddaional functions ute unigned to certain State urencies for the conduct of soordinated State Federal Emetrency" or "htajor Disaster" telief operations. These funstions are supplemental to those emergency functions auigned in Appendis i of this unnes.- Oserall toordination of these programs with the Frderai Coordinating Officer shall le the responsitukty of the State Coordmating Officer. however, the $ tate ayency concerned shall sene at the St te's point of contact with the appropriate federal urency and will proside additional support to that Federal agency us direst (.i t>y the State Coordmating Of fner; INDIYlDUAl. AS.ilSTANCI: rituaHAniS STA10 Aul:NCY21 Emergency hian feeding and Shelter State Office of Education Emergency Health umt hiedical Senises Department of flealth Temporary llousing Department of Community and Esonomic Development Dnaster Unemployment Awlstanse Department of Emplo) ment Security / Job Senice Emetyency Apiicultural Anistanse Department of Apsitulture i ood Stamps Department of Hunun Senites Legal Senises Ofthe of the Attorney General Crim Counseling Department of fluman Senices Consumer Cornehng l>epartment of Commerce Insurance Awistan6e Department of Insuranse lliduidual & Iamily Orann DepJrtment Of HumJn Seniscs runue AssisuNei: rHuaHuis srATEAci:NcY c-39 2/94 I I l --,-e
e, e,. Community Disaster Loans Department of Comm & Econ. Deselopnwn: Encryency Protectise MeasureV Daision of CEM Flood fightiny i f Emergency Communications Daision of CEM Debris & Wreckage Clearanse Department of Transportation Repair of Restoration of Damaged Facihiies (State ow ned):
- 1. Road Systems Department of Transportation i
2, Water Control facihties Department of Natural Resourses
- 3. Public Iluildings and Division of Facilities Construction Related Equipment and Management
- 4. Public Utilities Department of Convner6e Pubhc Sersise Comminion
$. Facihties under Disision of Facilities Construction Construstion and Management
- 6. Pa:Ls & Restestional Department of Natural Resources Facilitin Nepail or RestorJtiott of DamJted Disision of facilities Construction facihties (Prisate nonprofit) and Management I
6 L Ptilli.lC ASSISTANCl; l'R(Hilt AMS SI ATl; Atil:NCY Repairs & Operating Awistance to Public State Otfice of Education c-40 2/94 l l m __,.,._,,.__,.____.,_....n
___m e, - i Elementary & Secondary 56hools Verification of Status of l'risate Lieutenant Gosernori Offise Nonprofit Organitation. Repairs to l'ublie Institutions of State floard of Repents liigher Education OTill:H l'l:DI:llAl, ASSISTANCl; l'140(iRAMS STATI: A(il:NCY Emergency Pubfie Transportation Departinent of Trarnportation and fliphway Truflic Rerulation Claims & Disbursements Division of Finance Audiu State Auditor Emergency f uel Allocation Utah Divhion of Encryy and Distribution Al'I'l:NI)lN 3 TO ANNI:V C ITNCTI(IN Al. "l:SI'()NSiltfl.1I Y ASSl(iNNil:NTS
- -42 2/94 P
l .-~
e r flOVI:RNOR'S "Si ATI: OP 1:NII:H(il:NCY" ANI) I'l:Dl:R Al. DIS ASTI:H AMISI ANUl: OPl.RAll!LS ilY Atil:NCY Sinte Agency I:energene) l' unction 1 Division of CEM Primar3: Warning Emergency Communications Es acuation hiilitary Support Voluntary Organizations Flood Insurance Search & Rescue Coordination Support: Emergency Pubile information Public Safety & Security Medical und llcalth 1 Emergency htan Shelter and Feeding Debri$ Clearante Resource Management Damage Awewment Damage Survey Temporary flousing Emerycocy Labor Public Education Sersises Iite Fayhting (uiban und rurah Pubhe Utihties Restoration liaraidous htaterials Response I'lood Protection btllle Agflic) I$ltlef gtfle) l'ulic(lott Department of Prinury: Pubbe Safet) & Security Pubhc S eeiy nm, deus uaie,iais Response C-C 2/94 l l l 1
tiranspotiation insidents) Supportt Eva$ uation Sear $h & Rewuc Medical and l{calth Fire Fighting turban) Warnmg Emergency Communications Temporary.iousing Department of l'rlmar) t Fire Suppreuion trural) State Fatester Natural Resources Suppurit Emergency Communications Debris Clearante Damage Anessment Damage Suncy llazardous Materiah Response Warning Resource Management Department of l'rlinarpt Debris Clearance Transportation Emergency Transportation und liighway Tratric Regulations Suppurit Emergency Communications Evaet stion l'ublic Safety & Sesurity Damage Awenmem Fue Fighting Hazardous Materials Response Repaiis to Federal Aid Systems Roads Dainage Sursey Resourte M.inagement State Agene) 1:mergenc3 l' unction Utah National Guard Support: Sealth & Rescue C - t. 3 2/94
-_~ .o e, Lmergency Communications Es acuation Fue Fightmg Put,lic Safety & Security Debra Clearance Emergency Mass Shelter and Ferding Damage Awenment Danuge Suncy Publa Utilities Restoration Mihtary Support Medical and Health Utah Wing, Civil Support: Emergency Communications Air Patrol Danuge Anessment Danuge Survey Department of Ilealth Primar): Medical and llealth Supporit Emergency Communications Esavuation Damage Survey Emergency Mau Shelter and Feeding Danuge Ancoment liarardous Materials Response Federal llealth & Welfare Awistance Drinking Water and Sanitation Of fite of the Gosernoi Prinur): Emetrency Public Information Putlie Senice Prhnar3: Public Utilities Commiwion Restoration Support: Es acuation Danuge Suncy Danuye Awewment State Agenc3 I;tnergenc3 l' unction State Office of Prinur): Public Education Senises c-44 2/94 1. i m -w-- .A-- ,rwe v w- -y-e-u--yer ---Myr. 9 g.- .p, ,,p.vy,., --7-y--
- =. -. -. __-.. - -_. 4 Education Suppor t: Es acuation Danure Suncy Pubhc Utilities Restoration Emergency hiau Shelter and Iceding Danuge Aucument bmergelley T atisportation Department of Ilunun l'riinar): Crni< Counschng Sen ises Emergency Food Stamps Support: Evacuation Danuge Suncy hiedical and liculth Danuye Anewment (miocconomic impart) Fedesal 11ealth & Welfare Awistance State Fire h1arshal l'tima r,s : Fier Fighting (Ultun) Searth & Rewue Coordination Department of l'rimar,t : Drinking Water and Sanitation Environmental Quahty Air und Water quality liaraidous hiateriah Response (fixed 4ite) Suppos t: Danure Suncy Danuge Auewment State lioard of Regents Suppost: Pubhe Education Senices Emergency N1aw $helter and feeding th acuation ir urtment of Primar,5 Emergency Labor Employment Security Support: Fue fighting Sledical and 11ealth Department of Support: Danuge Suncy Apticultuie Danure Awewment Enteigen(y ConserY.ltion hicasufes liarardous hiaterials Response S c-as 2/94 l l I l 1 l l' 1 .. ~...
. - -. =.. -
- o n
Department of Convnun ty Primary: Temporary ikiuung and Ikonomie Dev. Emergency Fuel Allocation & Distributwn Support: Danuge Aweament (socioeconomic unpact) State Disition of Primar) Dairuge Auenment Facilities Consuuction Damage suncy j and Management American Red Cron Primar): Emergency Mau Shelter and Feeding State Offise of Primar): Lony Range Disaster Recoscry Planning Planning and liudget Department of Suppurt: Emergency Communications Administrative Senices Emergency Transportation Department of Support! Public Utilities Restoration (minus uster) Commerte Danwye Awewment Danwyc Suncy i Public $enite Primar): Public Utilities Restoration (minus uater) Commission Department of flunun Support: Emergency Labor Resourte Management C-46 2/94
Al'Pl:NillN 410 ANNI:N C ft:Dl:HAl. Hl:SPONSI: Pl.AN AND 13ti:Idil:NCY Sl'PPulfi' l'l'NCTIONS The Federal Regense Plan (FRP) der.ribes the b.isic methanisnu and structures by which the Federal posernment plosides $ tate and local ymernments with personnel, teshnical expertne. equipment and other resources, and assumes an acthe support role in managing the tesponse to a catastrophie disaster. The FRP enables a llenible and rapid Federal response when a catastrophic disaster ens'ceds the resources of State and local governments. Respone sesources are rrt uped into 12 Emergency Support functions (E5Fh The Emergency Support Fun $tions (L5Fo are the twie funstions nevenary to sase lives protect property and public health, to maintain public safety, and initiate reemery aethities. E$Fs are denlyned to supplement $ tate and local response ef forts where a catastrophic diwier requires response beyond the State's own resourse cupabilities or because of the specialized or unique nature of the auistanse required. Thlt appendis describri the concept of cperations and responsibilities respecthe to cash Emergency Support Functiont Awitned State ugencies will coordinate activities with and recche awhtanse from Federal agency as requested by the $ tate Coordmating Officer to facihtate response to the catastrophic disaster. The twehe Emergency support Functions ate: 1:$11:Hiil:NCY SUl' pol (T I UNCllON #1 - TI( ANSPOlff ATION CoorchnJtes FederJI transportJtion support to $tJte and losal pmernment ennhet soluntar) organizations and Federal agencies performing dhaster auistante minions I:Sil:Idil:NCY SUPPul(T l' UNCTION #2 - CO\\l%ll!NICA' LIONS Prmides Federal telecommumcatiom support to Federal. State and local response etforte Gmernment furnished telecommunisations sommercially leased communicanons und telegommunications seruces I:.\\ll:lHil'.NCY SUPPOHl l'llNCllON #4 - PUltl.lC \\\\0HKS AND 1:N(ilNI:l:l(IN(i Prmides support to awist States in sning lises and protectmp property: technical advice and evaluationt engineering seru6ct construction management and inspection, emergency sentracting. repatt of wastewater and solid waste f acilitiet d 4-2/94
._._._ -. _. ~ ~ _ _ _ _. - 1 'o l -i I:hil:HGl:NCY Sl'PPORT l' UNCTION #J - I'lHl:l'lullTING f Detects und supprew wildland. rural and urban fires resulting from or occurring with a j <lisaster or other esent requiring Federal renponse, 4 i i i 1:hil:HUl:NCY SUPI'OHT l' UNCTION #5 - INI OHSI ATION AND Pl.ANNING ? Collects, procenes and diweininates infonnation about a potential or actual disaster or-eme'yency to facilitate the oserall response activities of the Federal government in providing regense unistance. Ivovides short and long term planning for response prioritien und recovery ett'otts. 1:hli:HGl:NCY SUPPORT l'UNCllON #6 - AIASS CARE Provides shelter food, and emergency first uid following a disaster; operates a Disaster Welfare information (DWI) Sptem to collect, reeche und report the status of victims und l aulst family reunification; und coordinates t. 'k distribution of emergency relief supplies Ehll:HGl:NCY SUPPOHT l' UNCTION #7 - HESOURCE SUPPORT 4 Provides lophtleulhesource support following disaster or other event requiring Federal response. I;hil:HUl:NCY SUPPORT l' UNCTION #N - lil:Al.Til ANI) SIEDICAl. SI:HYlUl:S Pemide awistance in response to public health und medical care needs. I All:HGl:NCY SUPPOHT l' UNCTION W -l'HilAN SI:ARCll AND Hl:SCUl: t Prmides locating, extricating and prmhions for the imowdiate medical uratment of victims trapped in collapwd strusturet l'.hll:HGl:NCY SUPPORT l' UNCTION #10 -II AZAHl)OUS $1 ATERIAl.S l Prmides Federal support to State und local gmernments in response to un actual or potential 4 release of harardous materials following a catastrophie dnaster. C-4a 2/94-l 5 t' _,._-.,a,_.,.,___._._.-.--
6 l'.All:Hiil'NCY SUI'I'()Hl' fUNC'll(IN #11 - H)(ll) Identities. Secures, and anantes for the transport of f ood to affccied areas, and authorizes i food stamp unistanse following a nujor disaster or emergency requinny federal respon.c. I:hil: Hill:NCY SUI'l'()RT l'UNCTi(IN #12 - 1:NI'.H(iY I:acilitates the restoration of energy systems following a disaster, provides power and fael to sae inen and protect health. safety. and property. c-49 2/94
- e For ran,h of the Emergency St.pport Functions (ESFs), primary and supporting agencies are assigned. The Federal and State primary agencies are responsible to plan und coordinate unh their support ugencies for the delivery of ESF-related assistance. The primary agencies uork with their support agencies to pronde assistance to other ESFs as may be required. The supporting agencies awist the primary agencies in providing the ESF related unistanse.
1:MI:IdiENCY SUPPORT l' UNCTION AGl:NCY 1: Transportation I'l:DI:R AI, Primar3: Department of Transportation Support: Dep.etment of Agttculture; Department of Defense: Department of Energy; Department of State: General Sersites Administration: Interstate Commerce Commioion Tennewee Valley Authority; U.S. Postal Service; STATE Pritnar3: Utah ()epartment of Transportation Support: Utah Transit Authority; Utah Department of Comn'erce: Disision of Public Utilities: 2: Conununications l'EDER Al. Prim..r): National Communications System Support: Department of Agriculture; Depar? ment of Commerce: Department of Defense: Depaitment of the Inteiior; DepJllment of Transportation; Federal Communications Coi minion: Federal Emergency Management Agency ~. General Serskes Administration; c t; 2/94
1 STA1E l'rlma r,i t Department of Put4ic Safety. Disizion of Comprehensise Emergency Managment; Support Disision of Information Technology, Telecommunications Division: Disiuon of information Technology; 3: l'ublic Wuria and Engineering FEI)EHAL l'rirnar): Department of Defense. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Support Department of Agriculture: Department of Corrunerce; Department of Energy; Department of Health and Human Senites: Department of the Interior: Department of Labor: Department of Transportation; Department of Veterans Affairs; Ensironmental Protection Agency: General Sersises Administration: Tennewee Valley Authority: STATI: l'rlmar,5 t Disision of Facilities Construction and Alanagement Support: Utah Department of Transportation. Utah Department of Natural Resources: Disision of Water Resourter.: C-51 2/94 P b d es<-.. .4 w-y w g-
Jt l'irefighting fl;DEHAl, Prititar): Department of Agriculture Forest Seruce Support: Department of Conunerre Department of Defense Department of the interior Ensironmental Protection Agency 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency STA'll; l'rlmary: Utah Disizion of Lands and Forestry Supputtt Fire Marshal'n Offke 5: Infor>. nation and I'lanning
- TEDERAI, Primar3 t Federal Emergency Management Apeney Support:
Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Encryy Department of Health and lluman Sersives Department of the Interior Department of justice Department of Transportatmo American Red Crow Ensironmental protection Agency General Senises Administration National Aeronauties and Space Administration National Communications System Nuclear Regulatory Commiwion c-5: 2/94
_ __ _..____ _-.- _ _ -. _ _.~. STAIL r - l'rimary: Dnision of Comprehensise f Emergency Management Support! Dnision of Facilities and Construction Management Utah Geological Suncy j Utah Civil Air Patrol Department of lluman Senices 61 Mau Care I'l:1)l:HAl, l'rirnar)! American Red Crow Support! Department of Agriculture [' Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Ilealtl. and lluman Servisen Department of Housing und Urt'an Development Department of Transportation Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Emefgency Management Agency General Setsises Administration U.S. Postal Senise STATI: l'timar)! Americaa Red Cron State Otfisc of Education Support! Dig tsion of Comprehensive Enwegensy Management c.O 2/94 + e r.. --4 ~ r + = -v., .-,---..m.
I 71 Resource Supgwrl l'l:lli:l(AI, Primar): General Services Administration Support: Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of flealth and lluman Senices Department of Labor Department of Transportation Department of Veterans Affairs federal Emetrency Management Agenvy National Communications System Ofike of Pet.onnel Management STATI: l'rlmar): Department of Administrative Services Support Utah National Guard Department of Natural Re.oursen N: llealth and Medial Scrilces I'l:DI:R AI, l'rimar): Department of Health and lluman Servi,es U.S. Public lie ;th Servises Suppurl: Departmect of Agiiculture Department of Defense Department of Justice Depariment of Transportation Department of Veterans Affairs Agene) for International Doelopment Amelican Pcd Crow Emironmental Protection Agency STATE l'riinar3: Utah Department of flealth Support: Utah National Guard Division of Mental llealth c-54 2/94 4 -- -~- a m-,
~- 9 9: Urban Search and Htheue IT.l W.H A l, Printar; t Department of Defense Supporit Department of Agriculture Department of Health und i:uman Services Department of Labor Department of Transportation Agency for international Develcpment Emironmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency General Services Adminhtration STNil: I Primar31 Division of Comprehenshe Emergency Management Supportt Utah National Guard Salt Late County Fire Department Emergency Services Ifh llamrdous Materlah I'l:Dl:H Al. Primar3: Enuronmental Protection Apeney Support: Department of Agriculture Department cf Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health and lluman Services Department of interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of State Department of Transportation Federal Emergency Management Apeney Ge:eral Sets, ices Adnunistration Nuclear Regulatory Comminion cd5 2/94 i
o Sta:e of Eah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS t) ".eu,u,ve Dwater'M'.,0 1664 w m med.,5w.. su uno m,,, Es Salt We C#r.(Ash s4114 $703 Artbut W.Durevit 401 M &&$$ si r. i.,a,.n msnam cr=> MEMORANDUM To: Jamie Dalton Energy & Resource Plann* From: Dave Schen Forestry, Fire & State ds 4 Date: May 27,1997
Subject:
Skull Valley - Firr Frequency h formation t The attachment lists'wildland fires for which the division has reports for the last 10 years. A legal description for the point of origin is provided (township, range, section) as wei' as the cause and fmal size. One point of caution. This is by no means an all inclusive list. BLM, the principal Federal Land Management Agency in the area, protects adjacent National Forest Lands as well as the Goshute Reservation by agreement. Our records do not include fires on federal land or the reservation that did not involve private or state lands In addition, there are many fires on the Dugway Proving Grounds that neither BLM or the division have reports on due to access restrictions. In other words, we may not be involved unless a Dugway fire moves off the military. In so far as Public Safety's request is concemed, we do not track fire location in the way they l have requested information. We do so by legal description. The fire data attached is for Skull Valley proper. It includes the area north from the Johnson Pass - Dugway road to I 80. The Stansbury Mountains form the eastern boundary and the Cedar Mountains form the western boundary. If Pubue Safety prefers to view this information in the context of 5,25, & 50 mile i radius' they can do so by plotting fire locations using the legal descriptions with the appropriate radius overlay. To be honert fires 25 to 50 miles away are not relevant. Following are several statistics drawn from these reports. Total reports last 10 years, Skull Valley - 48 (state reports only) Major cause = lightning (24 of 48) Average fires per year,last 10 years =4.8 j l Fire size, range =.1 to 7,100 acres 1 Average size = 321 meres d_m
.) i I 2-l Histode Bre return interval = 5 to 15 years i Currsnt Src retuminterval = 1 to 3 years i Natural fre regimes I:. ave been altered in this landscape due to livestock grazing, the t invasion of annuals (rheat rass), and 6te suppression. Changes in plant communities now allow a much sho ter Are retum interval of 13 years. bltlal AtMJ - typically are volunteer fire departments from Tooele County and BLM { in*tial atack forces. Volunteer Fire Departments located at Tooele, Vernon, Stockton, Rush __ Valley, We war, Grantsville, Stansbury Fark, and Terra. BLM has IA resources stationed at - Vernon ar.d oxationally at Muskrat Springs in the north end of Skull Valley. In addition Dugway ' has a military Fire Department which assists. Extended Attack Forces usually hivolve resources from the Division, BLM, and Forer; Service us interagency agreement. & Damage The risk ofwildfire is limited to June thr5u'gh October with most Fire Severitt activity occu' ring in late June, July, August, and early Septer.6er. Vrddfires are typically fast 'i moving wint driven events of moderate to high intensity and low to moderate severity. Many of the larger fin:s are lightning caused and originate m the south er.d of the valley. Spread is oRen to the north and is inauenced by winds, fbel and terr:1n. Damage is usually limited to loss of forage fo/ a season or two although there is a greater potential for loss ofproperty in the community of i Terra. The more frequent fire return hte:vals associated with the annual plants sie making it difficult to reestablish native perennial communities. Emeds to IA Forces - De pdncipal hazard would involve volatili::adon ofradio active materials. Given the proposed method of storage and fuel types, the greatest risk to IA forces will continue to be the fire itself. The fuel rods should not be combustible given they will be sealed in steel and concrete. Private lands north of the Goshute Reservation are largely irrigated and provide a natural barr*or to the spread of fire scross the valley and on the north side of the reservation. Meinures to Minir@ Alak to Firefie.su - Fuel breaks would provide an effective protective barrier to the principal storage site. Awareness training for 6te5ghters. Hensy equipment access restrictions to the immediate storage site might also be appropriate. L u
Frmy, Msy 23,1997 00 SHUTE 2 Pa0o 1 Fire Name Date Town Dir Rn Dir
- Sectier, Cause Act:s Bumed AQUIDUCT B/19/92 3.00 S 8.00 W 34,35 LT 30.00 BARLOW CREEK 6/9/94 5.00 S 7.00 W 33 SE CORNE MC 025 BIG HOLLOW COMPLEX 8/9/90 5.00 S 7.00 W 13 LT 7,090.00 BROAD CANYON 9/19/92 2.00 S 7.00 W 12 LT 0.10 BROAD CANYON 10/4/92 2.00 S 7.00 W 7,12 EQ 30.00 CAMPFIRE 7G4/88 2.00 S 7.00 W 30 CF 4.00 CHEM FIRE 8/15/89 1.00 S 7.00 W 27 LT 10.00 CHlP 6/10/90 1.00 S
7.00 W 31 DB 1.50 CONFUSION 8/25/91 3.00 S 8.00 W 4,8 LT 750.00 CONTACT 8/29/91 2.00 S 7.00 W 1 LT 150.00 DEADh%N 7/25/89 5.00 S 7.00 W 8; LT 3.00 DEEP SAND 6/12/91 5.00 S 7.00 W 28 LT 0.10 DEL RN4CH 6/23/89 3.00 S 8.00 W 33 DB 0.50 FINGER 6/26/92 1.00 S 7.00 W 23 MC 10.00 HATCH 7/21/89 7.00 S 7.00 W 22 LT 020 6/7/94 5.00 S 9.00 W 20-28-20 MC 750.00 HATCH WELL HA',' STACK 7/23/89 4.00 S 8.00 W 9 LT 0.10 HICKhW4 8/2/89 7.00 S 7.00 W 28 LT 0.40 LONE ROCK 9/16/95 1.00 S 8.00 W 16 MC 10.00 LOOOKOUT 8/30/91 7.00 S 7.00 W 11,12 LT 10.00 h%CK cat #ON FIRE 8/7/95 2.00 S 7.00 W 25 NW 1/4 LT 8.00 MP 72/l-80 7/4/88 1.00 S 7.00 W 9 EQ 0.01 MUSKRAT cat #0N 7/22/94 2.00 S 7.00 W 16 LT 0.25 MUSKRAT FIRE 9/1/25 2.00 S 7.00 W 5 LT 1.00 NORTH WILLOW 8/20/89 3.00 S 7.00 W 35 SM 0.01 PACK SPRING 7/21/95 f.00 S 7.00 W 4 LT 0.50 POST HOLLOW 9/20/87 6.00 S 9.00 W 1,2,11,12,14 EQ 4,500.00 ROCKET 7/2/90 1.00 3 10.00 W 5 IN 25.00 SAGE 7/23/89 4.00 S 8.00 W 28 LT 0.10 SERVICEBERRY 7/31/88 6.00 S 7.00 W 1 LT 10.00 SERVICEBERRY #2 8/1/88 6.00 S 7.00 W 1 LT 0.01 SKULL VALLEY 6/27/88 2.00 S 7.00 W 7 IN 025 SOUTH WILLOW 10/10/87 4.00 S 7.00 W 1 IN 0.10 TAILDRAGON 7/21/90 1.00 S 10.00 W 5 EQ 0.10 TERRA 7/2/94 5.00 S 7.00 W 33 LT 2,294.00 TERRA # 1 7/27/94 6.00 S 7.00 W 13 LT 1.00 TERRA # 2 7/27/94 5.00 S 7.00 W 15 LT 0.10 TERRA #1 7/25/89 6.00 S 7.00 W 12 LT 0.01 TERRA #2 7/25/89 6.00 S 7.00 W 24 LT 0.01 TERRA DUMP 6/26/87 6.00 S 7.00 W 4 DB 3.00 TERRA DUMP 8/29/88 6.00 S 7.00 W 4 DB 0.07 TERRA DUMP #2 10/26/88 6.00 S 7.00 W 4 MC 0.04 TERRA DUMP #2 7/9/92 $s -4 7.00 W 4 DB 020 TIE 7/2/87 1f t 6.00 W 6 IN 0.01 TIMPIE 6/10/93 i% s 1 7.00 W 9 MC 8.00 WEST STANSBURY 8/23/91 2.00 C 7.00 W 26 MC 430.00 WHfTE ROCK 10/11/89 4.00 S 8.00 W 4, 5, 8, 9 DD 1,500.00 WHTTE ROCKS 7/23/92 6.00 S 9.00 W 4 MC 270.00 t.T - L.@h W.- N Ga.e q-SM3 w 4., co-c Ob-Dehn, Sw gm - S me hiWj L l w
.y June 13,1997 DEQ Questionnaire Please complete the questionnaire to the best of you: ability. Ic Have you or yoct office had discussions with Private Fuel Storage (PFS), any of its representatives (e.g., its :onsultant, Stone & Webster) or other person or entity about providing any form of emergency response, re:ources, or coordination with respect to the proposed high level nuclear waste storagefacility to be located on the nonh west portion of the Shull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation?
- Yes, No d Approximate date of discussions:
Brie 0y describe issues discussed: 2. Have you or your office received any written information from PFS,its representatives or . any other person or entity describing emergency planning for the proposed facility? Yes No / Date you received the information: From whom did you receive the information: Please provide a copy o'whatever you received. lf you no longer have a copy, please describe the information received: 3. If you or your office have received written information, has your office made written or verbal comments on the information? Written: Verbal: - To whom did you provide comments: 'E. _ LOn what date: M Please provide us with a copy of whatever comments you made or brie 0y describe
- CD your verbal comments:
..;d . r-s 1
_ _ ~ _ ~. - -- _. ~ - 6 i BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS ) IN 1hE MATTER OF: ) STATE OF UTAH { ) 2.206 PETITION PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC ) 1 Part 72 License Submittal ) ) On June 25, 1997 Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS) filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indian reservation. ~ Even after a brief perusal of the PFS submittal, it is apparent that the application is so devoid of substantive detail as to make jts review meaningless. Accordingly, tha State of Utah requests the NRC to find the application " incomplete," return the application to PFS, and not accept an application from PFS until such time as PFS can craft an application that contains sufficient detail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72. It is a waste of time and resources for the NRC, the State, and other interested members of the public, to begin evaluating and adjudicating the merits of such a hollow application. This petition is filed by the Executive Director, Department of Environmental Quality, on behalf of the State of Utah pursuant to 10 CFR S_2.206(a) which states, in relevant part: Any person may file a request to institute a proceeding j pursuant to 5 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or.for such other action as may be proper (emphasis added). The Commission, under 10 CFR S 2.202 (a), may institute a a proceeding to modify, suspend or revoke a license or to take such other action as may be proper" by serving.an order on a person subject to the-jurisdiction of the Commission. By submitting Tn ISFSI. license application, PFS is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. i l L
It 7 i RASIS FOR THE REQUEST: In the preamble to Part 72 final rulemaking, tha Commission states that it developed Part 72 as "a one step licensing i procedure requiring only one application and one SAR [ Safety Analysis Report). " 45 Fed. Reg. 74,693 at 74,964 (November 12, 1980). The Commission went on to explain: The single license granted under Part 72 prior to the start of con.ntruction requires considerable detail in the license application, particularly in the SAR. There must be sufficient detail to (1) Support the findings enumerated in S 72.31 [ renumbered as 5 72.40) for the issuance of a license, and (2) Serve as the bases for both the license conditions applicable to i design and construction and the license conditions, including technical specifications, applicable to operations. Id. at 74,695. As to the scope of the Environmental Report, the Commission directed that it is "an evaluation of the environmental impact of the ISFSI on the regica in which it is located, including the transportation that is involved." Id. Given this direction by the Commission, the NRC staff should not be hesitant in rejecting PFS's application if it does not contain sufficient detail about ISFSI design, construction, technical specifications, and operations, and the regional effects, including transportation, of activities relating to the ISFSI. This'2.206 petition points out some obvious deficiencies in PFS's application. However, the petition does not purp irt to be a compilation of all the deficiencies in PFS's application. A. Corcorate Infggpation First of all, who is Private Fuel Storage, LLC? The License Application (LA). mentions that it is "a limited liability company owned by eight U.S. utilities." LA p. 1-3. Those utilities are unnamed; however,-PFS lists individuals from seven nuclear power utilities-as directors of PFS. LA p. 1-10. PFS states that each 2 .~
'n n member utility celects one member of the Board of Managers. SAR p. 9.1-1. Even reading between the lines one cannot ascertain the name of the eighth utility member of the consortium -- or are there now only seven members? While there is a general discussion about staffing positions and such unsupported statements as "[t]he Board will ensure the appropriate financial stability is maintained on an operating basis" (SAR p. D.1-3), there is no description of the assets of the 1.4'.ted liability company nor is there mention or copy of a limited liability company agreement. 2. Financial Information The submittal is as equally devoid of specifics about financial information as it is about the underlying corporation. For example, the License Application estimates total construction costs at $100 million, " including site preparation; construction of the access road, administration building, visitors center, security and health physics building, operati.ns and maintenance building, canister transfer building and storage pads; procurement of canister transfer and transport equipments and transportation corridor construction." LA p. 1-5. Construction costs are meaningless and cannot be evaluated unless each portion of the construction costs is specified and the basis for ecch cost estimate is provided. The application does not demonstrate that PFS *either possesses the necessary funds, or... has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funds" as required by 10 0FR S 72.22 (e). The applicant indicates that it plans for each of the eight consortium members to contribute an additional $6 million, i.e. a total of $48 million. LA p. 1-5. However, the application does not include pertinent portions ef subscription agreements or other legally binding commitments to give any assurance of obtaining necessary funds. The amount of equity contributions is dependent upon the number of PFS members; thus the amount of available funds is affected by any withdrawing utility member. In fact, tne number of nienher utilities has already decreased since the formation of the consortium. PFS was initially organized with eleven utility members. At this time, eight (or.naybe seven) utilities remain. 3
1 % .l
- Without adeq'uate documcntation, PFS has not shown it either possesses the necessary funds or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds.
PFS also plans to raise additional capital though " Service Agreements" with customers. LA p. 1-5. Based on PFS's own estiriates, at a minimum it must raise an additional $52 million to complete construction. PFS must demonstrate 'ieasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary fundc" not simply a mechanism for obtaining funds. Furthermore, the terms of the service agreements are not even provided, including items such as costs, periodic terms, liability, petlormance, and breach clauses. To show it has reasonable assurances of obtaining funds, PFS should document an existing market and the commitment of a- -sufficient number of service agreements to fully fund construction of tha f acility. The applicant implios that 15,000 MTU of storage commitments would be adequate to fund construction. LA p. 1-5. The applicant has not substantiated how storage commitments for 15,000 MTUs would be adequate. In addition, there must also be sufficient funds committed for operation, decommissioning, and centingencies for the number of casks contrteted to fund construction. PFS mentions an option to finance construction costs through debt financing secured by service agreements. LA p. 1-6. Similarly, debt financing will not be viable until a minimum value of service agreements is committed. The license applicant must show that it has the necessary funds to cover the "[ejscimated operating costs over the planned life of the ISFSI." 10 CFR 72.22 (e) (2). PFS aggregates all direct costs into one lump sum of $100 million for " initial costs to site the facility, the costs to engineer and construct the facility and annual costs associated with the Tribal lease, maintenance, operation, transportation, security, license fees, and taxes." ER p. 7.3-1.. PFS lists total life cycle cost for the facility and its operation at $1.526 billion (40 year life) or $1.125 billion (20 year life). Id. The gross direct costs listed by PFS are meaningless and impossible to evaluate and must be broken out into categories 4 l l
e n that are capable of evaluation. For example, there is no mention of the cost to lease land for the site or any other payments to the Indian tribe for allowing the siting of the ISFSI on its reservation. PFS states that an indirect benefit of the ISFSI " include payments to Tooele County as cask surcharges." ER p. 7.2-3, How much does PFS anticipate that it must pay as cask surcharges? Are there other payments to State or local covernmental entities that PFS wil' make as part of its expense 9 operate the 1SFSI, such as emergency services and other infrastructure needs? What are the tranryw . tion costs?
- Again, a meaningful review of_ financial assurance cannot begin unless all expenses are adequately described.
A Part 72 license application must include a proposed decommissioning plan that also contains a decommissioning funding plan. 10 CFR S 72.30 (o), (b). The decommissioning plan "must include a cost estimate for decommissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for decommissioning..., including means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the ISFSI.* 10 CFR S 72.30 (b). A cost estimate, mtthod of funding, and method of adjusting cost estimates are specified in the license application. L.A. pp. 1-7,8. However, the application does not provide adequate information to evaluato or substantiate the cost estimate, funding method, or method of adjusting. Nor does the application describe how it will comply with NRC Regulatory Guide 3.66. The license application does not provide any financial information beyond mere hypothetical scenarios to substantiate that PFS
- possesses the necessary funds" or " reasonable ac1urance of obtaining the necessary fundo" to warrant the NRC accepting the license application for review.
3. Legal Right to Use or control Land Another obvious and fundamental question not addressed in the submittal is what legal right does PFS have to use and control the land on which it intends to condact activities relating to the storage facility. There is no discussion or documentation about PFS's right to use land for the facility site, the transfer point, road widening or construction of a railroad spur. 5 l l l' l e 1
_... ~.. g y There is.a passing-reference to a lease between PFS and the Skull Valley Band.of Goshutes; however, a copy of the lease is not provided. The application is devoid of any documentation showing that PFS has legal authority to.use the site for the term of the license. It is useless for PFS to address facility construction, restricted areas, access roads etc., if it cannot demonstrate that it has a property right to conduct or control these activities. Such a glaring omission raises questions such as: What are the terms of the lease? Under what conditions can the lease be terminated? As the landowner of the ISFSI site, should the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes be required to be joined with PFS as the licensee? PFS merely states that the intermodal transfer point will be located at the Union Firific Railroad mainline and Interstate 80. There is no discussion about the right to construct and use any of the land at the transfer point. It appears that Union Pacific may have a 100 foot right-of-way parallel to the mainline (see 43 USC S 934); however, from the enclosed plat map, it can be seen that the major landowner around Timpie junction is cargill Inc. Exh 1. What legal arrangements, if any, has PFS made to use land to conscruct a transfer facility? PFS cavalierly states that it may construct a rail spur parallel to the existing Skull Valley Road. ER p. 3.2-5. There is absolutely no discussion about PFS's right to use any property for such an undertsking. Nor is there any discussion of PFS's legal right to undertake the required widening of Skull Valley Road to accommodate heavy haul truck transportation of the casks. The loaded haul trucks are expected to weigh 142 tons and are twelve feet wide. SAR p. 4.5-4. The existing Skull Valley Road pavement is 22-24 feet wide. ER p. 3.2-5. From the plat map it can be seen that the rail line is on the north side of Interstate 80--the proposed ISFSI would bo 24 miles to the sout?.Gb,-y Skull Valley Road. By necessity, any rail spur would htet sy be built over or under Interstate 80. The existing underpans is controlled-by the State of Utah. Moreover, the underpass is restricted in size and would need to be modified to accommodate rail tracks or road widening. Exh. 2. Any modification to the underpass requires the permission of the State and the Federal Highway Administration. The application is devoid of any meaning *ul discussion of these fundamental facts. 6 .v
c. d If PFS can overcome the constraints of moving the casks from the mainline off-loading point north of Interstate 80 to the south side of the freeway, it must then demonstrate that it has permission to use the land parallel to Skull Valley Road to construct the 24 mile long rail spur to the ISFSI. The ER suggests that the rail spur would be six feet from the existing Skull Valley Road. See e.g., ER p. 3 2-6. While the description in the ER is incomplete, one nssumet that PFS intends to use property under the control of the goaernmental entity that has jurisdiction over Skull Valley Jor.6. Assin, the application is deficient not only in adequately describing the size of any right-of-way associated with the public road, but also in providing information about PFS's legal right to use the property. Even if PFS obtained approval from the governmental entity for such a use, PFS has not demonstrated that building a rail spur in that area is permissible. If Skull Valley Road and any rights-of-way were established by easement or other permissive use, the construction of a rail spur would be outside the scope of established permissive uses and an infringement on existing property rights. The following statement in the Environmental Report is an excellent example of the applicant's inability to submit a complete and meaningful application: An analysia to evaluate two transportation corridor alternatives (Intermodal transfer point / Skull Valley Road improvements and railroad spur) for transporting the shipping casks from the railroad mainline to PFSF will be prepared. ER p. 9.5-1 '(see also SAR p. 1.4-1). There is silence on the part of the applicant as to when the analysis will be done. Understanding how PFS is going to transport the spent fuel casks from the mainline at Timple junction to the facility is an integral piece of the license application and is required by 10 CFR S 72.108. Unlike nuclear power plant licenses that require a license for both construction and operation, NRC has chosen to make an ISFSI Part 72 license a "one step licensing procedure." Furthermore, the Commission agreed with comments to Part 72 7
- v..
1 rulemaking that "the transportation involved in fuel shipments to an.ISFSI'could be an'important' consideration in an evaluation of site suitability. This might be particularly true of a large ' installation." 45 Fed. Reg. 74,693 at 74,698 (1980). The PFS application is for storage of 4,000-spent fuel casks, which is indeed a very large installation. Neither NRC nor the public can begin to evaluate the health, safety and environmental effects of t.ransportation of the casks from the railroad mainline to the proposed facility without a more meaningful neseription from the applicant. 4. Ihg,. Transfer Point In addition to failing to document that it has the legal right to use land at Timpie junction to construct a transfer building (as depicted in ER, Fig. 3.2-1), PFS has offered no discussion whatsoever about how it will handle off-loading casks from railcar to truck. PFS brushes over the issue by stating: "At the intermodal transfer point will be a short rail siding and a pre-engineered metal building, which will house a gantry crane for cask transfer." ER p. 3.2-5. The SAR 4.5.4.1 also glosses over intermodal transfer. The applicant cannot satisfy 10 CFR S 51.45, S 72.32 or S 72.108 without addressing cask handling at the intermodal transfer point. Some obvious unanswered questions are: How many casks will be shipped in each shipment and what is the shipment frequency (the applicant's anticipated yearly shipment of 100-200 casks is too vague to evaluate health, safety and environmental concerns). What steps are involved in transferring the casks from railbed to heavy haul truck? What personnel are involved in intermodal transfer? What emergency plans are associated with the transfer facility? What emergency equipment will be located on site? How long will the casks be located at the transfer point? Where will the casks be stored while awaiting transfer? What physical structures will be built to maintain security of the casks at the transfer point? What security personnel and . procedures will PFS provide to protect the casks at the transfer point? Will the-transfer facility require a separate NRC . license? 8
~. -- - - _ - ~. s. 1 PFS has failed to document how it can build a rail spur to the ISFSI and has also failed to document'the functioning of the intermodal transfer point. Taken together, these two factors alone should be sufficient for NRC to reject PFS's application. 5. continoency Measures on cask receipt, PFS states it will conduct contamination surveys after removing the shipping cask lid but before removing the canister from the shipping cask. LA, App. A, p. TS-19. If contamination is-found, PFS proposes to return the canister and shipping cask to the generating reactor for decontamination. Id. The accessible external surfaces of the canister with just lid removal will be limited and not all contamination may be detected. Thus, it is possible that PFS may accept contaminated canisters for storage. PFS has not provided procedures for returning casks to the generating reactor. The SAR indicates that the casks will be inspected for damage prior to " accepting" the cask and before it enters the Restricted Area. SAR p. 5.1-4. If the casks are damaged or do not meet the criteria specified in LA App. A, p. TS-19, where will the casks be housed prior shipment? How will PFS determine appropriate handling and preparation for shipment? By what transportation mode will the cask be shipped? Will emergency response personnel escort the leaking cask back to the reactor? PFS has not discussed what measures it will take if casks leak or contamination otherwise appears during the 20 or 40 year storage period. Sending such casks back to the reactor may not be an option for several reasons, such as PFS does not have the facilities to repackage contaminated canisters, the casks may be too contaminated to transport, or the nuclear power plant from which the fuel originated may have been decommissioned. Part of PFS's justification for the need for the facility (ER 1.2) and the facility's direct benefits (ER 7.2.1) is that reactors that have reached the end of'their operating life may be completely-decommissioned if spent fuel could be shipped off-site. See also ER p. 8.1-2,3. Accepting fuel rods from fully 9 ~
i decommissioned reactors enhances the need for PFS to adequately describe how it will deal with contaminated casks over the life of the storage facility. Another glaring omission from the submittal is the lack of contingency measures if, for some reason, the lease is terminated before the expiration of the license (failure to disclosure lease termination conditions is yet another reason necessitating public scrutiny of the lease). This situation would be critical if the nuc] ear power plant where the fuel originated was decommissioned and a permanent repository was not available. ACTION REQUESTED: The State of Utah requests NRC to not accept the PFS Part 72 licence submittel because of its gross deficiencies and incompleteness. The reasons stated above do not attempt to point out all the deficiencies in the PFS submittal, however, they do show: (1) PFS has failed to submit adequate corporate or financial information; (2) PFS has not shown that it has the legal right to use land for construction of the ISFSI or intermodal transfer facility. (3) PFS has not shown that it has a legal right to modify to Skull Valley Road to accommodate its heavy haul trucks or use of the public right-of-way to construct _a rail spur. (4) PFS completely fails to address how it will build a rail spur connecting the mainline on the north side of I-80 to Skull Valley Road on the south side of I-80 and PFS also fails to address details about the intermodal transfer option. (5) PFS has failed to develop any contingency measures for casks that may become contaminated during storage and it has not addressed what measures it will take if its lease with 10
n G-the.the-Indian tribe-prematurely or unexpectedly terminates-before a permanent repository is available or when the generating reactor has been decommissioned. The application is often simply a restatement of the.NRC regulations with a -general-commitment to nieet those requirements at some unspecified future-date. It is~a waste of NRC, State of Utah and the public's resources to review and comment on an application that lacks even the basic details required by Part 72. The Commission has directed-that NRC's one stop licensing procedure requires
- considerable detail."
The PFS submittal falls woefully short of considerable detail and shLuld not be accepted and docketed by NRC staff. DATED this Ml day of 1997 U Respectfully submitted, STATE OF UTAH BY AND THROUGH THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY f lA-( ( der.Nielspn, Ph.D. D Executive Director 168 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Plea direct c respondence to: 'An. + l /Y Denise Chancellor Attorney for Petitioner Utah Attorney General's Office 160 East 300 South, 5th Floor P.O. Box-140873 Salt Lake City UT 84114-0873 Telephone (801) 366-0286 Fax (801) 366-0293 11 4 l .e- -w ,-->r
s'- -n. CERTIFICATE.0F MAILING This'is to certify that the original of this12.206 petition was . mailed, Federal Express, to Executive Director-for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory: Commission Washington DC 20555 ti and that' copies of this petition were mailed, first class postage prepaid to the-following: ' John D.-Parkyn, Chairman of the Board Private Fuel Storage, LLC P.O. Box C4010 La Crosse WI 54602-4010 Leon-Bear, Chairman Skull Valley Band of Goshute Skull Valley Reservation P.O. Box 150 Grantsville, UT 84029 Mark Delligatti U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spent Fuel Project Office Mail Stop 06G22 Washington DC 20555-001 DATED this M / day of w , 1997. (/ 0 /An (K 4 12
i.e 'p eoen 4 Paar se SECTION 8.T I S. R 7 W.S.LB.S M. .shh fWhl ro u. TsWPsf $PRIN05 staff WILDLiff MANAGEMENT A*fA Al tt' G s s, u.. ~~ %.iw, iu.. l Y 3 s w p-gn y 11 ..: s, g.:: ..: % ~'h.._.,. g. .f - ,p ,e
- *' ss.
~ W ~ N .y, ' En. s.4 3 &c. .., s. uo.a y c s, ti. i t A4 J4 2 6 2 u,ms,se, sw h 4 64 1 3 p j ,s. sr u.
= = = =
-..s u.a.t. c. Pur espantuust
- ' *es segresol testion.1,T).). R.I.w 1
Dete: toortr COUNTY,UTAM WiD @ i2/es '** N
U.S.C.S. (Lcw. Co-op, 1995) Rioirra or WAY a Onma EAsahwxrs 43 USCS i 934 Other provisions: Savings provisions. Act Oct. 21,1976, P. L. 94 579, Title VII, 6 701(a), 90 Stat. 2786, which appears as 43 USCS i 1701 note, provides that nothing in Act Oct. 21,1976, shall be constnied as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of way, or other lat. t use right or authoriza-tion existing on Oct. 21,1976. {933, [ Repealed) HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRE (TIVES This section (Act July 5,1884, ch 214,6 6,23 Stat. IN), which related to roads across military reservations ferry landings, bridges, and driving of Ilvestock, was repealed by Act Aug. 10,1956, ch IN1, f $3,70A Stat. 647. Similar provisions appear as 10 USCS (( 4777 and 9777. 6934. Right of way through public lands granted to railroads [Cau-tion: for partial repeal, see Other provisions note] The right of way through the public lands of the United States is hereby granted to any railroad company duly organized under the laws of any State or Territory, except the District of Columbia, or by the Congress of the United States, which shall have filed with the Secretary of the Interior a copy of its articles of incorporation, and due proofs of its organization under the same, to the extent of one hundred feet on each side of the central line of said road; also the right to take, from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road, material, earth, stone, and timber necessary for the construc-tion of said ralhoad; also ground adjacent to such right of wry for station-buildings, depots, machine shops, side tracks, turn-outs, and water stations, not to exceed in amount twenty acres for each station, to the extent of one station for each ten miles of its road. (March 3,1875, ch 152, $ 1,18 Stat. 482; Oct. 21,1976, P. L. 94 579, Title VII, { 706(a),90 Stat. 2793.) HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES Other provisions: Partial repeal of section. Act Oct. 21,1976 P. L. 94-579, Title VII, ) 706(a),90 Stat. 2793, effective on and after Oct. 21,1976, as provided by & 706(a) of such Act, provides for the repeal of this section insofar as it applies to the issuance of rights-of.way over, upon, under, and through the public lands and lands in the Naticnal Forest System. Savings provisions. Act Oct. 21,1976, P. L. 94 579, Title VII, i 701(c), 90 Stat. 2786, which appears as 43 USCS i 1701 note, provides that nothing in Act Oct. 21,1976, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right.of.way, or other land use right or authoriza-tion existing on Oct. 21,1976. CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Of5cc of the Secretary of the Interior-Nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of the Interior,43 CFR Part 17. 9 L
I g ~ ~ --?m Y:T"'~*ms.ep.m, FNmr e%. t-p j y i r ag f ' :=: 1, l .. :::c
- e North side of I-80
/ L; underpass at ction 1 ~ with Skull y, ",7 t Rd. looking sout's ~- east I l t I TIS. R7w Sec. 8 l T*0 ele County p.% y (5-22-97) I w. i i 1 '_ '* 73~ >. w... ) k 4 Ii
- f k;]74 I
I I I ~ D "S '~ N' ? 4 '?' ^' ^ U ^ ?~ h ~ A ~ ~ "P'- '~ e 4 ~' bw R' 3, side f I-80 e 9 ass W- ~ ~ l (clearance 15'8" at. Junction 1 k f with Skull Valley Rd* king I t southwest-Uni F3cific RR E tracks in foreground l tww 3f%*Q:Q j
- w., _
Q% -}O (5-22-97) 1 -m s..._
- e- = % h % B ir i k ~~;g g,
l t i h .,-p.. .p. 7 ;,, W We?,g,,,'%)., e.-r. 3 a., = $, e. ~ 6 c4 w.
- ~,
Y ' y** %~'a .s, ,.' h ! '., s*.1*.. $ % ** ?y** t., Y* e +'. p*..-(t,-,.., y* g r. s r* j r'b a n, r - E g, *q#., . ~, /.gh
- _es,
- g 2.4
~,* , '.. 8 9.j 9
- e a*s 4y*,
m . u,*,.,,. t p
~ PA RC E t. No. OwNE R N t T A C. I l Aieuc cosaw ~ l i $f V+ M4 I y9 Nf'/4 s rc. 8 j 3 ge., q l t su 34*oo ) S" N ) M GIN y ) recuraa n no r h y E,u n.p. R./W_ La' e % F r q. lg )s h trourac.s ece ual~ - ~ F ,f s 1*19'to'L9 e,s,* o,o c4 ur.e. ' ~.,=.w- -~ ~ y _- ~~ -m,i its o 9 JMfRA! ajs iEx' pspipy o e6 ggp,,73c4 tw.o w # 7 * ' %,* a s og m-
- s. \\
t rad ow a 2,o p :* oo m\\ j p l'! 94*2414 ~S 20b# ?a.'M2 ?Bb4 79' --- 61 F k 1 T 18517 kl- >;'$*I?w h in? Sir h y fys c J' 5'RYew una"~J--- ~ i L 9 , y, r.,, gy- - _ u ~ ~ e,, m,,, _, a g ecllf U 7 I b __$_!T L} e I f yQ *f \\_ SUAL *. OTCU &YQ ..hE4MC.iM/A LfNi-r g__A { 1 u CNICANCC f AUr CCQ R ? y 'g)R. l D Ci*Mrs nn;t % PGUR TO STP l'WG 207 1-gg \\ l % !iNC $fCh i wai sa?' wart, Q _ .. : ~ ~ gg ggg y - g , g s q -- - \\ pygj g. s y 5 G g 2.e *ne pipt t mswy B y Q MNAIN & y Q y h % %'fa j [, y C0L 5 81* 4 6' 3 9 " G l Y SALhl OIC" UC ~ _.. Sy ? ._1 ,il j', p-i =,, ,,,7cm,em CSL62 TO S TC Par;r 237 . ( ~~ ~~ 5-- ..w" [- W~~,._ q} f.ygjpg+,.~ - xv p~ -- : g-f& { CUw'94M 'f' W 3!,- ? SPT etiu I .NOO::;.t, - I. D** g w src etc' ' dt?MM.1JUA.JLE ,[ kV&Z7 --*-----} '%m. ( I .sppy $l FAyp ~~~~ l payp 4 C l: 0'E! I p Gk? OF M LuiE '" l Il N 1 2 2864 79-y E4 4/P 'A > ? h ! YA 'b &l $$*$'"'Gh%ES P'M I Pl 12
- 6 6t*
2864 79 U ; zl 7 23a u. - 4o g i 47s ig. I l.
- ' 10 *26 3; Ufl h
,&llH U ) STA 13 00 89 1 N E V* S *
- h OE6/Al N*E* 5E y! I '
SGC 0 ! ##"# ~#' b ,I M l, 5 PO t 4334 *00 6 D L 4 W8 h' a hhbN ? $ Oj
- }R,l r
2 1 e0-7( ) 79 )rsicomeAU ,s 2 'F!1 ? Il l fl 3 llllf \\ o' c, a E i., t 84B48846 ep6 * ~~ ~
I f \\ .p,;.\\ e =
- %! l '~"
N \\ .-,,, m.;ruaw M g.pp.s+ i 8 WZ \\ J ~ t t --1 \\ 9 @e = 197/10]9 t1 19 1 O %l Y * (16 CKUll' F9 I j $(,N Ng% $U y yg N W Y" l- ~ {4# S EC.B 3 $tc.9 \\ A S h } 'y(p* f 4 \\ - 1 mnts 6 vf 40 li -
- s. sra nou oo ss' e
i i [ no WB L -==~c ) i ST SfC ( SI COYE hl \\ ( -p "*f $*.o?,W ' \\ A 2*OO~OO'L9 (*M, ,o oo. cAur u- ? $ N?4e-g 99 n n nhu u.e m y antLanumwW A e sr er ie,coow ,~ =c- _.,m0 f Q taur e Q s 4*ovoo o
- }
hl pg y,ya ey. jf Q _m, Q (* i tra es-L ser umrh v 'w t wr il Sa.so
- 7 e se, s?-
v L 772 22* u) .st s s ' orQsco er r/W v*d _3c em van d !! 49 71s9' d, w 1 u k fa_%?.t99 rJ L Q v 34-...q wa uni ~ I l j c.t an mwn., ' .gy ,.,w vg. l,\\ v2lf 'mh ,-~ ~~c- --.,y l \\ PUBLIC +3 ' ~ ~ ~ bb.-kht-, pONAIN r 7::.. ::: uwv ets q nts vs.g 7'yg,3,,- jo,vaurs' s si.wse-W \\ ,(,s,.;Leeses. cutvtri p.2. M_* W I ' ~~ ~ ~ 9 x_w,%%w._ ~ ~~ k,7 - F,o o -a , ' ', o.u < v rc creo e
==s m /9)BLIC I ~ s7 ~ p o s ?t *
- s * * **
, ru sur 56c M m t ..o, g _'t!*'.j2" " -' OO NA/N ~, . p??;,;yM^s siGi'3W' ft h [--- Y a ) -f 1
- u. -
r \\, _. L.ro esto.es ss T!UP'E c en ass a?sa we L \\ W *s T p_ ___% s roo r~ ,t s c g}+ n a; D e h9tO O <s.r: :$ E D L g Qj n Me '>ier rourr! er.. ti. '7 [. f5 \\; "N\\ ~ W '- ~. t. L. L ,,v,., WF+ .L- ._-4.- O, \\. sr.m,. ghC."issa_ &g re,s,,na esu~r nm T~ 5 m 7 w & - r ? S "' " ~ " n,I ,,,.,,,. ca, cue vser y V ,, suo sac na [9CEMY _N$ N S ,s" 4 p r t 4 - ~
- k.3g$u$$"'k,dEEh
~~> .c a eu c* v uw \\ or >L ,c u.co sa it \\ o '\\ et 34,7, g, g ,,psr t 3 .~, ~ ~ ~ - p g 00' pes +c p ppe,4 7?. %s use ,zu sy? 4 r. 1 ') pry ileass cc./ rs 'zo 's' #. yi.vs St y, gj ,a :c t 7
- s,
%9 i S C c. B w '=a h 2 u 9 ~ + h u t\\ \\ I t\\ $g J Cn\\0VO M H m Q1 <\\ o \\ \\
USO-2234-87 (August 1967) 6N REPLY REFER TQ1 UNITED STATES g 2234 V, .E DEP ARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ^**" ' BURE AU OF L AND M ANAGEMENT Land Office g Post Office Box No. 11505 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 August 30, 1967 certified Mail R,elurn Receipt _ Requested DECISION Right-o f-Way Granted Details of Granj Serial number of grant: Utah 684 (Amendment) Na ae of Grantee: Bureau of Public Roads for Utah State Dept. of Highways P. O. Box 11463 Salt i.ake City, Utah 84111 Map showing the location and dimensions of grant Right-of-way for highway across Government lanc Kap designations: Della to Timpie, Project No. 1-80-2(4)64 Tooelo Coancy Date filed: May 4, 1967 Permitted use by grantee: Pederal Aid Highway Authority for grant: Titio 23 U.S.C..' Sec. 317 Date of grant: August 30, 1967 262144 Expiration date of grant: None rA ' Or.* ED AT THE tE OF / - *1 5....ER111... I vd "' ** M-- Amount: None f
- oor '7r
.;F r.1::OCS PAGE.dfI FIL dd* h O [/ q (Id When payable by grantee: 1 i < Tooe.e County Recorder IDA JOHNSON LONG Terms and conditions of the grant are set forth on the following page.
I 684 Amend. Utah Page 2 Terms and Conditions o f Righ_t-of-Way Grant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Order No. 701 of the Pursuant Director, Bureau of Land Management, dated July 23, 1964 (29 F.R. 10526), as amended, a right-of-way, the details of which are shown on the preceding page, is hereby granted, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Applicable regulations in 43 CFR, Subpart 2234. 2. All valid rights existing on the date of the grant. Filing of proof of construction within EFFV/seven years of the date of the grant. 3. The grantee will take all reasonable and necessary precautions to protect and A minimum number of 4. preserve natural scenic values, and to prevent soil erosion. trees will Litter, debris and other " eyesores" caused by the permittee will be by burninF. Disturbance of the vegetative cover cleaned up within 60 days af ter construction.Where feasible, as determined by the BLM Di will be kept to a rainimum. Manager, soil disturbances, borrow pits and earth scars will be revegetated; ade-quate soil erosion control practices will be followed such as contour furrowing Fencing and installation of water bars to minimize concencration of runof f. standards for all fences constructed must be approved by the District Manager. Conservation measures or work necessary for maintenance will be applied to the right-of-way as required by the District Manager. The grantee will take all ressnnable and necessary precautions not to destroy or otherwise damage, as a result of construction activities, historic or prehistoric 5. sites, ruins, or artifacts on or adjacent to the right-of-way. Should such sites, ruins, or artifacts be discovered during the construction of the right-of-way, construction will immediately be suspended in the area and the Bureau of Land The District Manager shall have che Management District Manager shall be notified. area inspected as quickly as possible and issue instructions for the protection of the site, ruins, or artifacts and the resumption of construction activities. subsequent use by grantee or others of the lands or facilities 6. Any other et granted under this right-of-way must be authorized by t_his of fice. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE -- This grant is subject to the provisions of Exe 1965, and the " Equal Opportunity Clause" is made 7.Order No.11246 of September 24, a part of the grant. CIVIL RIGHTS ASSURANCE CLAUSE -- This right-of-way grant is subject to the C. See attached Civil Rights Assursace provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Clause. The United States reserves the ri5 t to dispose of leasable minerals pursuant h 9.to regulation 43 CFR 2234.2-4(a)(2)(ii)(b). l
.} i 4 i Utah M4 Am.,,, _ l Page > i -l Jubject to Otandard Italogeton Stipulation as cont.ained in n/LJ U-037441 10. i filed &tober 14, 1959.
- 1.
Terms and canditions of previous grant (March 13, 1967) are not affected by this grant. 16/ 2. E. ::.2 F. S. Kirk Catef, Adjudication Branch l Attachments I-t i t'l t I I i' I i l 1 1 1 ~ i i
s "" ).; 'i ~ Utah 684 Am.- Civil Rights Assurance' Clause ~ ENTRY AND USE OF LAND AND RESOURCES TITLE VI -- CIVIL RIGHTS'ACT OF_1964 -1. The grantee covenants and agrees that he will comply with provisions of Title VI of-the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that he will not, for the period' during which.the property conveyed by this instrument 'is used for the-permitted use or' for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, engage in any dir-criminatory actions pro-hibited by 43 CFR 17.3, to the end that no person in the United _ States shall, on grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected 'to discrimination under the program for which the. grantee received ~ Federal _ financial assistance by this grant. This assurance shall obligate _ v i the grantee, or in the case of transfer _ of the property granted herein, . :1 any transferee, for the period of this grant. a. 3tu 2. The grantee _ further agrees tha t he will not transfer the property conveyed by this instrument for the purpose designated in paragraph I hereof or for anotiser purpose involving the provisions of similar services -or benefits, unless and until the transferee gives a similar written assurance to the authorized officer Bureau of Land Msnagenent, that he will comply with provisions of paragraph I hereof. 3. The grantee agrees that the right is reserved to the Department of the Interior to declare the terms of this grant terminated in whole or in part.and to revest in the United States title to the property con-voyed herein, in the event of a breach of the nondiscrimination. pro-visiona contained in paragraph I hereof at any time during the term of this grant.
- 4. - The grantee agrees that as long as property conveyed hereby is used for the purpose designated in paragraph I hereof, or for another purpose involving the same or similar services or benefits; the obligation to comply with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall. constitute a convensnt running with the land for the term of. this
. grant, lease, etc. 5. The' grantee. agrees that in the event of violation or failure to comply with the requirements imposed by paragraph 1, the United States may seek judicial enforcement of such requirements. I-6. The grantee agrees that_ he _will, upon requent of the Secretary of l-the. Interior or.his delegate, post and maintain on the property conveyed l by this document signs and. posters bearing a legend ccncerning the applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the area or l facility granted. L L = 7. - The _ assurar.ces and covenant required by paragraphs 1 through 6, above, shell-.not apply to ultimate beneficiaries under the program for which this grant is'made. " Ultimate beneficiaries" are identified in'43 CFR 17 12(h) 1966 edition. p r gn---a.+ 7 ,,m-- ,-y,s c ,,,em.--rww,-- -,--n-o
l j 4 AleNT OF W Y ACRO $$ GOVERNM NT LAND AE4Witte FOR TWE COR$TauCTitu 0F A Phttmy Emenal As PASJECT No.1-40-t(6)64 the5W4andtheSiSt& A pareal of land situated la the Silts of 5estlen @ & the sitt of Sestlen the Wikti of 5estien 5estion(S the 515) of Section@ $ all in T. 8-8. A. 8 W. 3.LJAA.; and the Witw& and the M4 of nestion a the swi. the since of sectlan(p the siei and the MI5W6 of 5.stlea A/ all in T. I 5.. R. 7 v., S.L 4.6M. The bounderles of said parsel of lead are deserihed i as follows: Seginning at the kW. serner of the SW45W6 of sold Sostion 48 thenes North i 260 f t.. more or less, along the west line of said Sestlen 4 to a point 365 0 f t. perpendlovlerly distae' artherly from the senter line of the test seend l Genee 5. 88'41' t.19655 f t.. sore er less, to the east Lene of said projest: line of sold sostion 3: thense seeth 900 f t.. sore er less, to the St. earner of sold Sestles ); themse test 1755 f t.. more er less, along the merth lies of said i sostlen 11 to a pelat 365.0 f t. perpendisularly distant northerly from said senter line of the test Geend Lane; thence S. 88*41' E. 17832 ft. esre or loss, to e J pelat )$.0 f t. radlally distant mertherly free the center lies of Freetage need me. I of said projost at Engineer Station I)$*h).798 thense Easterly S.) ft. along the are of en l874.96 feet-redius serve to the left to e pelat 35 0 ft. t l perpendicularly distaat northerly free the senter lies of sold frestage feed at Tangent to sold serve at the point of bestenlag ) Engineer Station I)5+b6.01 (note: 09'05'57" t. $44.30 f t. to a pelat of tangemey hears 5. 89'Ol'48" t.); thonse S. foot-redlws serve to the right; thence Easterly 188.9 ft. along the with a 3093 79 arc of said serve to the southerly esisting ri p t eT any line of the Westero Pacific Aallreeds thence $. 78'a0'17" 5. 1618 ft.. C e or less, to the east lies of sold lastion 8; thence South 147 ft. more er le> b to the te serner of sold i Section 8; thence West a640 f t.. more or less, to the 9/. serner of said M&SW( of sectlen Si thence 5esth 9 ft. more or less, along tne oest line of sold M 45W4 of lestien 8 te a pelat 75.0 ft. radlally distant seetherly from the senter lies of Aag "A" of said projast; thence Westerly 70 ft. more or less, along the are of foot-redles serve to the lef t to a pelat 75 0 ft. perpendiselarly distaat a 8783 79 southerly from the senter IIns of emid reep "A" at tagineer Statica 11*00 (Note: Tangent to said surve at the point of beginning hears approminately N. 40*al' W.); themse N. 78'34'39" W.100.0 ft. themse Idesterly 600 ft.. more or less, elens a straight line to e pelat 105 0 f t. perpendlemlerly distent meetherly free sold senter line of the tast-Geund Lane at tagineer statten het$+00; themes N.88*43'W. 29.3e6.8) ft. to a point of tangoesy ulth a 7744.4 feet-redius sorse to the rights themes Westerly 560 f t., more or less, along the are of said serve to the morth 14ee of said Elst4 of Sostion 58 themse test 1510 ft.. more er less to the pelet of l heginning. Prepared by ESJ. 6-9-66 i a
y.,;.a .I- ~ s Form of Ascurance to Accompany Appilcation for Federal Finsncial Assistance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1%4 "The applicant agrees that, if this application is granted, he will comply with all the provisions of Title VI of the Civil-Rights Act of 1%4, and all requirements of regulations of the Department of the Interior issued pursuant to that title (4) CFR 17), and that he will not engage in any of the discriminatory actions specifically prohibited by 617.3 of the regu-lations issued to implement that title (4) CFR, Part 17) for the duration of the grant, to the end that ne person in the 'Jnited States shall, en the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under the program for which the epplicant is applying for Federal financial assistance. "The applicant agrees that he will not be permitted to transfer the property er, his interest in the property unless end until the transferee makes a similar assurance in writing to the authorized officer of the Bureau of Land Management. "The applicant further agrees that the United States shall at all times have the right to seek Judicial enforcement of this assurance." Agency: Utah Department of Highways .. / / [ bq WWD By: f nie - Signature' Winston 1. Nelman__
Title:
Acting Chief R/W Design Engineer ~
.,; *
- J. t i
9 8- ..W D J t .a v u-A2UID-Q (Aug.1960) STATE OF tTI/J! COUff1T OF SALT IN2 I, 1,, A. Warenaar . A Notary Public in and for the sr.id County and State, do hereby certify that on this the 13th day of 19 67 j before me personany appeared Merch v
- s. Kirk
. being to r.e persocclly well known and Chief known by me to be the Adiudfi ation Branch . Bureau of L&nd Panage= ment, and acknowledged that the foregoing instrument, Serial Ihunbar it. A RL , bearing date of March 13. 1967 was executed by him an his official capacity and by authority in him vested by law, for the purposes and intente in said instrument described and set forth, and achaovledged the same to be his free Chief act and deed as u j na < rm e i n., nenneh. Bureau of Iand Panagement. Vitness my hand and seal this isth day of March 19 67. l Y -.r,,. g e ////sM/ 'Ny Contseioa expires - . // /,9lf). j.,._ e g J .}
O .g / [;% [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - oW13464 t- .- UNITED STATES s WASHINGTON D.C. 20566M1 - y %,,,,, +# August 6, 1997 8 ggg] 6 E tmh 8 Dr.- Diane R. Nielson. Executive Director 4 [ Utah Deaartment of. Environmental Quality \\+k 16 Norta 1950 West Salt Lake City. UT 84116 agt.
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27. AND JULY 21, 1997. REQUESTS FOR ACTION . PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206 (TAC NO. L22462)
Dear Dr. Nielson:
I am responding to your Juna 27. and July 21, 1997. requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. Specifically, yau have rgested that the NRC return the license anlication submitted by Prhate Fuel Storage. Limited Liability Company ("S), to construct and operate an Inde)endent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the reservation of the Skull Valley 3and of Gosb..te Indians, a Federally-Recognized Indian Tribe. The Skull Valley Reservation is surrounded by Tooele County, UT. The Jrpose of 10 CFR 2.206 is.to permit members of the public to request that the NRC take some type of enforcement action. Your request does not seet enforcement action and thus does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206.- Rather. your request presents licensing issues regarding the adequacy of the PFS application. The NRC staff has completed its acceptance review of the PFS application and has found it acceptable for docketing. This determination that the PFS application contained sufficient information for docketing is independent of any subsequent determination on the sufficiency of the information in the application in terms of demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 72. That determination will t,e made on the basis of the staff's review of the application, and the concerns raised in your request will be considered in that context. If you have additional concerns regarding the PFS application. please contact Mark Delligatti of my staff at 301 415-8518. Sincerely. Charles J. H hney. Ac Directo Spent Fuel Project Offic Office of Nuclear Material Safe and Safeguards Docket ~72-22 i cc: . Chief Leon Bear. Skull Valley Goshutes John D. Parkyn. Private Fuel Storage ~s}}