ML20198L013
| ML20198L013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1997 |
| From: | Silberg J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#497-18550 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9710240201 | |
| Download: ML20198L013 (34) | |
Text
_ - - _ _ _ _
/26.50
' 4.
4 October 6,1997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5
6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
4 h[ OCT - 61997 DOC C ED g
flefore the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board In the Matter of
)
now.
(o "k %watese 8WF
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGF, L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72 27 e
)
'/ / fit pss s
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO Tile STATE OF UTAH'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CONTENTIONS I,
INTRODUCTION Applicant Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. ("PFS") submits this answer to the " State of Utah's Motion for Extension of Time to File Contentions" (the " Motion") concerning tne licensing of the Private Fuel Storage Facility (the " Facility"). In its motion, dated October 1,1997, the State of Utah (the " State") requests a 45-day extension of the deadline for filing its contentions, from October 24,1997 set by the Board's Initial Prehearing Order, to December 8,1997.
This motion and a companion motion to suspend' app?ar to be examples of the St-te's carrying out its self-proclaimed threat to do "everything possible to block storage of high level nuclear waste in Utah" (gg Exhibit 1) by delaying this proceeding in order to
' Seg State of Utah's Motion to Suspend Licensing Proceedings Pending Establishment of a Local Public Document Room and Applicant's Submission of a Substantially Cornplete Application, and Request for Re-Notice of Construction Permit / Operating License Application, dated October 1,1997. PFS will be filing its response to this motion later this week.
9710240201 971006 PDR ADOCK 07200022 Q
C pop
y, ;
h stop the Facility from going forward The electric utility participants of PFS, however, urgently need this proceeding to prog.ess expeditiously to its ultimate conclusion. The various participating utilities currently have limited capability to store additional spent nuclear fuel on their respective plant sites and need to ensure such storage to allow continued operations. For example, the storage capability of Nonhern States Power (one of the participating utilities) at its Prairie Island nuclear plant, as currently permitted by the State of Minnesota, will allow operation of the plant only until about the year 2002 PFS therefore urges the Board not to countenance what are likely to be repeated attempts of those opposed to the Facility to seek extended delays in this proceeding-With respect to the instant motion, the State has had more than adequate time to review the application and to identify its contentions. The State has been aware of this project since late December 1996 and by April 1997 had established a multi-agency task force and a special " Office of High Level Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition" to oppose
. and block the project. Further, it has known for more than four years of the interest of the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians (the " Skull Valley Band" or the " Band") in -
locating a spent fuel storage facility on its reservation. Moreover, the State was hand delivered copies of the application the very day it was received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") -- more than three months ago.
Thus, the State has had sufficient time to obtain the expert technical assistance that it deemed necessary to develop the technical bases ofits opposition, both generally and specifically focused on PFS's license application for the Facility. The State has not 2
O adequately explainM why it is just now engaging outside technical experts to review the application. The State should not be allowed to use its own delay in obtaining outside technical assistance to delay this proceeding.
Although PFS opposes the State's request for a 45-day extension of time, it would not oppose some modest extension of time, such as a week, provided that the prehearing conference (currently scheduled during the week of November 17,1997) can be held before the Christmas holiday season.
II.
FACTUAL B ACKGROUND PFS submitted a license application (dated June 20,1997) which the NRC received June 25,1997, to construct and operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
("lSFSI") pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 72 on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band. On that same day, June 25,1997, PFS hand delivered to the State copies of the license application. On July 21,1997, the NRC formally accepted the application as complete for review and docketed the application under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 as Docket No. 72-22. On -
July 31,1997, the NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing with respect to the application. The Notice informed all panies interested in intervening in the proceeding of the need to submit petitions to intervene and of the need to submit a list of contentions identifying the specific issues that a party sought to have litigated in the proceeding.
The State was fully aware of the proposal to build the Facili./ ong before its l
receipt of the application in June and the NRC's Notice of Opportunity for Hearing in 3
e O
July. PFS announced in late December 1996 that it had reached an agreement with the Skull Valley Band for locating the Facility on its reservation. This development was reported in the Utah papers together with statements from various State officials indicating the State's opposition to such a facility. Further, as early as February 12,1997, the Governor of Utah appeared on Utah television stating his intention to block the Facility.
Also, starting in early 1997, PFS met on several occasions with the Utah Radiation Control Board (comprised of professional and technical personnel from throughout the State) to brief the Board on the PFS project. Further, on March 19,1997 and April 24, 1997, State representatives attended meetings held between PFS and the NRC Staff at wnich PFS described the proposed Facility and, at the April 24 meeting, stated its intent to file a license application for the Facility in June. In this same time frame, the Governor of Utah undertook steps to actively oppose and block the facility. On April 15,1997 the Governor issued an Executive Order announcing the creation of a " multi agency task force that will do everything possible to block storage of high level nuclear waste in Utah." kg Exhibit 1. Also in April, the Governor formed an" Office of High Level Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition" within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to serve as a focal point for the State's opposition to the Facility.
In addition to establishing governmental structures for opposing the Facility, the State took concrete actions in the Spring and Summer to make known end to effectuate its 4
opposition. These included (1) a strongly worded letter written by the Governor to Chairman Jackson on May 19,1997 opposing the PFS project (tes Exhibit 2); (2) letters written by the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Emironmental Quality on or about June 13,1997 to the public service commissions for each of the utilities participating in PFS seeking information from each commission on the proposal; (3) the filing of 2.206 petitions with the NRC Staff on June 27,1997 and July 21,1997 requesting the NRC to reject the license application because of assened deficiencies in the application; and (4) retaining by at least early Augtist 1997 Diane Curran of the law firm of Harmon, Curran, Gallagher, and Spielberg, an experienced nuclear licensing attorney who has served as counsel on numerous nuclear licensing cases for the Union of Concerned Scientists, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and other groups opposing the licensing of nuclear facilities. These actions by the State not only reflect its opposition to the Facility but also its active review of the application and its knowledge of regulations and related issues concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel.2 Further, the State's knowledge and familiarity ofissues concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel within its boundaries and its opposition to such storage predates the PFS license application by at least several years. As early as 1993, the Governor had issued a policy statement strongly opposing the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel within Utah's boundaries. Ets Exhibit 3. Indeed, in response to the Skull Valley Band's request
' Although the State took these and other steps to oppose the Facility, it apparently failed to issue a D
request for proposals for outside technical assistance until August 25,1997.
5
for funds in 1993 to study the possibility oflocating a Department of Energy monitored retrievable spent fuel storage facility on its reservation, the Governor was quoted as saying that "(t]his is an over my dead body issue." Sig Exhibit 4.
The State has also developed general familiarity and expertise with respect to radiologicalissues by virtue ofits being an Agreement State under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C. Q 2021. As such, the State licenses and regulates the low-level waste facility operated by Emirocare of Utah, Inc. -- one of the few such facilities in the United States -- as well as other licensees within Utah that possess certain categories of nuclear materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act, III.
ARGUMENT A.
The Board's Schedule Allows Sufficient Time For The State To Prepare And File Its Contentions The schedule set by the Board in the Initial Prehearing Order allows the State sufficient time to prepare and file contentions, particularly in view of the facts set forth above. Clearly, the State has not been surprised by the prospect of a spent nuclear fuel storage facility being located on the Skull Valley Band reservation. The State has known for over four years of the Band's desire to locate such a facility on its reservation, and of the actual proposed facility since late last year. Moreover, the State has had PFS's application in hand for over three months.
6
Further, the State began to take concrete actions to do "everything possible to block storage of high level nuclear waste in Utah" as early as mid April -- more than five months ago -- by establishing both a " multi agency task force" and a special state " Office cfiligh Level Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition" to actively oppose the project. The State by mid-April had already adopted a course of.;trenuous opposition to the project.
There is no reason why it could not have undertaken steps at that time to engage outside technical assistance to evaluate the proposed project to the extent it believed such assistance was necessary. 'In any event, the State h'as its own technical expenise to draw 4
upon, both the Radiation Control Board and the Division of Radiation Control within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, which is reflected by its licensing and '
regulatory responsibilities as an Agreement State. Additionally, attorneys for the State
. have been involved from the beginning of this process; For example, a State Assistant
- Attorney General attended the March 19,1997 meeting between the NRC Staff and PFS.-
Moreover, the record suggests that the State begain its evaluation of the project well before the application was filed. The Governor's strongly worded letter to Chairman Jack' son on May 19,1997 opposing the PFS project cites the "long term risks and impacts.
which high level nuclear waste storage places on the Goshute Reservation and the State of b
. Utah," at least suggesting that the State knew what these " risks and impacts" were in May 1997. Further, the State's 2.206 Petition filed June 27,1997 reflects that the State has been exploring emergency planning issues for the PFS project at least as early as May 1997. Additionally, both 2.206 petitions filed by the State (attached to the State's 7
______i__
companion motion to suspend) reflect a detailed review of th( d 'ense application by the State as well as its knowledge of applicable NRC requirements. Indeed, the State's June 27,1997 petition was filed within two days of having received the license application reflecting its proactive review of the application and related issues Thus, the State has been a..tively opposing the Facility since early Spring utilizing its own internal technical expertise. It was delivered a copy of the license application the moment it was filed and has reviewed the application and issues related to the application.
The State now suggests, however, that it needs additional time to prepare its contentions in order to engage outside technical assistance in addition to utilizing its internal expertise.
Despite its active opposition on what the Governor has described as "an over-my-dead-body issue," the State apparently did not seek to retaS such outside technical consultants untillate August 1997, approximately four months after having established the State office foc opposing the project and two months after having received the application for the facility. The State's delay in engaging outside technical consultants can only be attributed to the State and cannot be laid at the feet of the Board or the Applicant. It should not be allowed to delay this proceeding.
B.
The State's Arguments Fail To Articulate Sufficient Reasons For The Granting OfIts Request For A 45-Day Extension To File Contentions The State in its motion makes five arguments in support ofits request for a 45-day extension of time for the filing ofits contention. None of the arguments, however, provides a sufficient basis for the Board to grant the State's motion.
8
4 1.
The State Has Had Sufficient Time To Review The Application And To Obtain And Review Technical Documents Referenced In The Acclication The State argues that it needs additional time to review the multi-volume, technically complex license application received by the NRC on June 25,1997. Motion at
. 4-5. However, PFS hand delivered copies of the application to the State on the same day it was received by the NRC. By the due date for submitting contentions, the State will have had four months to review the application.
The State also complains that its review is hampered by "various significant omissions and the superficiality with which licensing issues are discussed" in the application. M. at 4, PFS strongly disputes the State's characterization of the application, as it will set forth in its opposition to the State's companion motion to suspend this proceeding. However, even assuming the State's characterization is correct, it would not -
support its request for more time to file contentions. The State's contention under 10 H
C.F.R. Q 2.714(b) with respect to such alleged inadequacies would simply be that the 1
application fails to discuss or adequately address issues that the State believes should be covered in the application.
The State also claims that it needs more time to review a quantitative calculation package that PFS provided to the NRC Staff subsequent to the filing of the application,
- and which the State received in September. M. at 4-5. It is difficult to believe that these 9
l l
calculations will be the source of many, if any, contentions,' but even so, the State will have had more than a month to review the calculations before it is required under the Board's Initial Prehearing Order to file its contentions. Moreover, a party may, upon a showing of good cause, raise additional contentions during the course of the proceeding.
Accordingly, if the State believes that the calculations are a source of contentions that it could not raise by the Board's current deadline for the filing ofits contentions, it could, upon showing good cause and related requirements, file supplemental contentions based upon the calculations. Sec 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b). There is no basis for asserting that any possible contentions on these calculations provide cause for delaying all other contentions or the entire schedule.
The State also complains that the " time provided by the Board's September 23 Order it insufficient to permit" it to either obtain or adequately review numerous supporting technical documents referenced in the application, such as the Safety Analysis e
Reports ("S ARs") for TranStor Shipping Cask System and the TranStor Storage Cask System. Id. at 5. - The State was aware, however, by mid-March 1997 that the PFS was considering utilizing the TranStor storage and shipping casks and it could have taken' steps at that time to obtain the applicable S ARs from the NRC Public Document Room.' The
- The calculation package only provides further details with respect to information already provided in the license application.-
- The State was made aware at least by the March 19,1997 meeting between the NRC Staff and PFS that PFS was considering the use at the Facility of the TranStor Shipping sad Storage Cask Systems as well as -
the Holtec cask systems. En " Summary of the March'19,1997, Meeting Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and Private Fuel Storage,11C," dated March 24,1997. See also Exhibit 5, an April 19,1997 letter from the NRC to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality responding to the State's request to be placed on the service lists for the Transtor Shipping and Storage Cask Systems.
10
State has had months to obtain and review these documents. The State's assened need for additional time to obtain and to review documents referenced in the application is cenainly not a sufficient reason to abandon the Board's schedule set out in its Initial Prehearing Order.
2.
The State's Claim For Additional Time To Gain Access To Proprietary Documents b Equally Without Merit The State also asserts that it needs additional time to obtain the SARs for the
- Holtec storage, transport, and repository cask system and the Holtec storage and transfer --
operation reinforced module cask system relied upon in the license application. According to the State, both S ARs are proprietary and to obtain these documents the State must enter into a proprietary agreement with Holtec which "may take some time," Motion at 5.
However, non-proprietary versions of both SARs - which contain substantial amounts ofinformation concerning the cask systems -- are available from the NRC Public Document Room.L The State has been aware for years of the Band's interest in receiving -
- and temporarily storing spent nuclear fuel using cask transportation and storage systems, and it was informed at the March 19,1997 meeting that PFS was considering the use of
- the Holtec casks at the Facility ' The State certainly could have easily taken steps to 8 la its companion motion to suspend the proceeding (at page 11), the State claims that no non-proprietary versions of the Holtec SARs are available. his is incorrect. Non-proprietary versions of
_. both SARs can be obtained from the NRC Public Document Room. Exhibit 6 is an October 23,1921 cover letter from Holtee transmitting to the NRC both a non-proprietary as well as a proprietary version of the SAR for one of the Holtec casks. Moreover, counsel for PFS has been able to readily obtain the non-proprietary versions of the Holtec SARs from the Public Document Room.
- Sg Summary of the March 19,1997 Meeting.
I1
.-_-_a_. _
obtain the non proprietary versions of the two Holtec SARs at that time, or in mid April when it took up its opposition against the Facility, or certain y no later than the latter part i
of June when it was delivered a' copy of the license app!! cation.
Further, PFS has been informed by Holtec that to date the State has failed to contact it about entering into a confidentiality agreement which would enable the State to review the proprietary versions of the SARs. In a telephone conversation in early September with counsel for PFS, a representative from the State's Office of High Level Nuclear Waste Storage Opposition indicated that the State would be contacting Holtec to
. obtain the Holtec SARs. However, approximately a month has since elapsed with the State apparently taking no affirmative steps to obtain the proprietary versions of the Holtec SARs.'
Certainly, the State's tardiness in contacting Holtec to obtain the proprietary version of the Holtec SARs cannotjustify the State's request for an extension of the Board's schedule to file its contentions.
- 3.
The State Has Had Sufficient Time To Retain Outside Technical Exoerts To Review The License Anotication -
The State contends that "the time provided by the Board for filing contentions is insufficient to allow the State to retain the experts and coordinate in-State experts" needed
' The State also indicated in the same telephone conversation in earl / September that it would be contacting Sierra Nuclear Corporation to obtain the proprietary venions of the SARs for the TranStor Storage and Transportation System Casks, but again PFS has been advised by Sierra Nuclear that the State has not yet contacted it about obtaining the proprietary versions of the SAR.
12 l
to evaluate the technicalissues involved with the license application. Motion at 6. As discussed above, however, the State has known since early Spring that a license
- application would be filed for the Facility sometime in June and has had the actual license
- application in hand for more than three months. The State therefore has had sufficient time to retain outside experts and to coordinate the review of the application by its in-State experts. Although the State claims to have been proceeding " diligently" to retain outside expens, it apparently did not issue a request for bids for such expens until late August, more than four months after it undertook a course'of active opposition to the Facility.
- The State's tardiness in acting to obtain outside experts is no reason to delay the schedule set by the Board.
4.
'I he Need To Comply With The Requirements Of 10 C.F.R.
- 6 2.714(b) is Not Grounds For Extending The Board's Schedule The State also argues that an extension of the Board's schedule is warranted to allow it sufficient time to develop contentions with the required specificity and technical support. Motion at 6-7,' However, as the State recognizes, the requirement for such specificity and support is not unique to this proceeding but flows from generally applicable NRC regulations which the State should have been aware of since the outset ofits campaign against the Facility in early Spring. The State was certainly made aware of these
' 'Ibe State also suggests that additional time is needed for the preparation of its contentions because of the unprecedented nature of the Facility. Id. Here is nothing " unprecedented" about the application. ne '
Facility's design is based upon concepts of dry cask storage that has been utilized by the nuclear industry since the middle 1980s. Similar on-site facilities have since been designed and constructed at various nuclear plants throughout the country. In addition, an application for an away-from-reactor ISFSI in Goodhue County, Minnesota was filed with the NRC in August 1996. Sgg 61 Fed. Reg. 48,989 (1996) 13 l
requirements through the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing published July 31,1997 which informed interested parties of the need to submit contentions in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b). Moreover, at least by early August the State had engaged experienced nuclear licensing counsel, Diane Curran, to assist it in this proceeding. Ms. Curran has participated in many nuclear licensing proceedings, most recently the ongoing LES licensing proceeding for the Claiborne Enrichment facility,' and is certainly knowledgeable of the NRC's requirements for pleading contentions.
Thus, the State has been aware for some time of the need to develop contentions with the specificity and support required by 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) and the need to do so is not sutlicient grounds for the Board to abandon the schedule set forth in its September 23, 1997 order.
5.
The Projected Length Of The Staffs Review 0. ' ApplicationIs Nca Grounds For Delavine This Proceedine The final reason advanced by the State in support ofits request for an extension in the Board's schedule for filing contentions is that such an extension will not injure PFS because of the lengthy time currently projected by the NRC Staff to complete its review of the application. Motion at 7-8. However, the time anticipated by the Staff for its review is only a projection. PFS has articulated to the Staffits need for this proceeding to progress expeditiously, as discussed presiously, and expects to respond promptly to the
' Louisiana Energy Services. L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70-3070-ML 14 l
e Staff s requests for additional information in order hopefully to enable the Staff to
--complete its review in less time than its' current estimate, Further, the Board 'should not extend its schedule by the 45 days requested by the State even assuming the Staff s current projedion for completing its review is correct (which cannot be known at this time). The Board is charged with the duty "to take appropriate action to avoid delay." Sn 10 C.F.R. { 2,718. In this regard, the Commission's " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensina Proceedinns." CLI-81-8,13 N.R.C. 452, 453-55 (1981) directs Licensing Boards to avoid unnecessary delays by setting and adhering to reasonable schedules.
Moreover, there is much to be accomplished in this proceeding. Nothing can start until contentions have been admitted. Only then can discovery, summary disposition and other necessary tasks be undertaken in an orderly fashion. It is of no benefit to push off the start of the process. Early identification of contentions will also allow both the Staff and the Applicant to focus on those issues of concern to the parties. This it seems would -
benefit both the parties and the Board, and injures no one.
in short, none of the reasons advanced by the State support its requested extension of the Board's September 23 schedule for filing contentions.
15
[-.
IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, PFS opposes the State's motion to extend the time in -
which it may file its contentions to December 8,1997. PFS would not oppose a modest schedule extension of a week or so as long as the Prehearing Conference can still be held prior to the Christmas holidays. Any longer delay will have an unavoidable and damaging cascading effect that will significantly prejudice the Applicant's interests.
Re.gectfully submitted, A
6te J,af E/ Silberg g
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
Dated: October 6,1997 16
October 6,1997 5
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Doegerro DCT-6 m Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board rw %
g swr In the Matter of
)
g PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Applicant's Answer To The State Of Utah's Motion For An Extension Of Time To File Contentions," dated October 6,1997 were served on ti e persons listed below (unless otnenvise noted) by facsimile with conforming copies by US mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 6th day of October 1997, G. Paul Bollwerk III, Esq., Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Peter S. Lam
- Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regu!atory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Catherine L. Marco, Esq.
- Charles J. Haughney Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Acting Director, Spent Fuel Project Omce Omce of the General Counsel Omce of Nuclear Material Safety and Mail Stop O.15 B18 Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
- Danny Quintana, Esq, Omce of the Secretary Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 50 West Droadway, Fourth Floor Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff (Original and two copies)
Jan Graham, Attorney General Denise Chancellor, Assistant Attorney General Utah Attorney General's Omce 160 East 300 South,5th Floor P.O. Box 140873 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0873
- By U.S. mail only L
/ Ub4 Ja
. ilberg d
4 0
(
EXHIBIT 1
EXECUTIVEORDER Whereas, our state faces the threat of beconung the nation's dumping ground for high level nuclear waste, and Whereas, Utahns dont generate nuclear power and dont consume nuclear po ver; and Whereas, our state is being senously considered as a storage site for more than 200,000 rods of spent nuclear waste; and Whereas, nearly a dozen major utilities, most of them on the east coast, need a place to dump high lesel nuclear waste, which is a byproduct of the power they generate; and Whereas, the ratepayers of these major utilities are not willing to store somethms this tangerous in their backyards, so these companies are miling to pay a very high price to move it to Utah and Whereas, some of Utah's Goshute Indians propose building concrete containers and storing nuclear waste from all over the country in the Utah desert,40 miles west of the Waarch Front, thus makmg Utah a nuclear dumping ground ten times the size of any facility of this type anywhere in the entire United States; and' Whereas, building the biggest nuclear waste graveyard in the country is not a good quality oflife decision for anyone in Utah; and Whereas, the nuclear waste that would be brought to Utah doesnt last one yur or 20 yurs, or 100 years, but remams lethally radioactive for 10,000 years. If nuclear wute conws to Utah, chances are it won't be moved again; and Whereas, train and truck accidents do happen, contamers do break, and human lives could well be at nsk; Now, Therefore, I, Michael O. Leavitt, Governor of the State of Utah, do hereby order the following:
- 1. Create a multi-agency task force that will do everything possible to block storage of high level nuclear waste in Utah.
b
- 2. He task force shall be led by the Executive Director of the Department of Envuonmental Quality 3 The task force shall be charged with researchmg and commurucatmg all risks to all decision makers m tlus process, and coordinatmg all other efforts by the state ta oppose the siting of nucle.r waste m Utah, includmg the following:
- L etters will be sent tmmediately to the President, the Skull Valley Goshutes, the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion, Congress, the nuclear waste propnetors and others notifying them of the state's opposition, and sopealing for other attemtives.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be petitioned for standing to intervene in the regulatory process if and when a license application is officially submitted.
- The state will actively oppose the license application and will seek complete and exhaustive resiews, and reconsideration and appeals if necessary.
- All possible evaluations of the site will be undertaken l including an Emironmental !.mpact Statement.
- The fallacy of the term " temporary facility" will be exposed.
- 4. His Executive Order shall be in force until rescinded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Utah.. Done at the State Capitol in Salt Lake City, Utah, this 15th day of Apn!,1997.
(STATE SEAL)
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT Governor Artest:
OLENE WALKER Lieutenant Governor b
4
4
)
EXHIBIT 2
k.a#.
',%*, s *l /
STATE OF UTAH OFFIC E OF TH E QQVE RNOM ogg%g 5 agagn MICH Att O LtaviTT
,e,,,,,,
5 ALT L AK E CITY oovane oe e4:i4-osoi Stay 19.1997 Shirley Ann Jackson Chair Nuclear Regulatory Commission US NRC Washington DC 20 55
Dear Chairman Jackson:
ther the last metal years, I have stated publicly and unequivocally my opposition to the siting of a temporary storage facility for high level ruelear waste within the State of Utah. In 199.1, I asued a Policy Statement regarding such esforts.
I am writing to you to realGrm my streng oppmition to the efforts of Private Fuel Storage to Id store high level nuclear wa.ste at the presently proposed site on the Skull Valley Goshute n ian Rewrvation or anywhere else withm Utah. Such storage presents a number of concems, including the iollow mg.
" Temporary" storage cannot be guaranteed to be temporary. The proposed facility will o
be de3igned and constructed as a temporary facility. Howeser, there is no way to ensure that the spent fuel rods which are shipped and stored at the site will ever be removed, Need for ihn temporary storage site o not documented.
The General Accounting Office, with the concurrence of the Department of Energy. has o
determined that sufGeient temporar', capae:t> eu..t:. for pent fuel rods to be stored at custing sites, pending completion ot a permanent storage f acility.
Utah has not generated these wastes l'tah takes seriously its responsii.ility for mana gmg the storage and disposal of w aste o
problems within the state. We has e no mterest m increasmg the risk to people in ihn a by importing high level nuclear w.tste.
Health and safety issues regarding transportation of high lesel nuclear waste base not o
been addressed g}
y>
i
\\ DE. S M 0 trit o2 %
.a
~
4 Page 2 May 19,1997 I recognize tha! the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indian Tribe has a compelling int economic development. However, the long term risks and impacts which high Icvel nuclear waste storage places on the Coshute Reservation and the State of Utah far outweigh the ircentives.
I encourage your opposition to this temporary high level nuclear waste facility. I would w the opportunity to discuss this matter with you. If you would like additional informati contact Dianne Nielson, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Qual 801 536-4404. Thank you for your carefut consideration of this critical issue.
Sincerely,
,n 4 M fra (
Michael d. Davitt Governor MOL:DRN:dco 1
4 EXHIBIT 3 4
I l
I HQV.930121.0C04 Polloy Statement By Governor Leavitt on hfonitored Retrievable Storage Jan.18,1998 Aner careful review ! am announcind today my opposition to the siting of a high.
level nuclear waste storage facility in Utah. I opposs such a facility in Utah out of concern for the long term interesta of our state. for the ressons listed below.
I have informed Sun Juan County commissioners of my decialon and have-forwarded a letter to them. This action procludes them from applying for a Phase lia feasibility grant under the Dopartment of Energy's process conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Wasta Negotiator to Ond a voluntoor site for Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS).
I retognise that 8an Juan County and Southeastern Utah face economic problems.
The HRS facility would providejobs and an infusion of money But I believe the risks and problems outweigh the potential benents.
My decision is based on the follow (ng reasons:
?. Utah has already bun somewhat of a nauonal sacrifloe area as a result of nuclear activitiu. I am not willing to voluntarily bring la high. level nuclear wasta from all over the country for what will likely amouot to permanent storage.
- 2. Health and safety issuas re continue to be a problem area.ganling transportation of spent nuclear fuel I do not believe thus luuss have been adequately examined. Transportation over long distances is especially dimcult to justify if atorage capacity la available at reactor sites.
- 3. I do not believe it le in the best interests of San Juan County or Southeastern Utah to accept an MRS facility. An economic analysis by my Offten of Planning and Bud of abou*.get indicates that stata and local governments would expariance a not lose 8800.000 annually following the construeuen phau, unlus reimbuned by the federal government, because the infusion of tax dellars would not be enough to pay for the increased government services, such as education, police protection and road maintenance.
In addition, the tourism and recreation industries, which are highly important to San Juan County, would suffer signiGeantly from the stigma of being what would be characterized nationally as a " nuclear dumping ground."
9 4, I believe the MRS concept is flawed. It makes little sense to transport nuclear waste from all over the country to a," temporary" alte (to be stored until a permanent site is prepared) when adequate storage spaoo exists at nuclear POWor plan'.s. where the waste is created, for the foreseeable future.
According to numerous studies and expert tastimony, the nuclear waste can be stored safoly in special canistars for many years. If that is the case, it maken more sense to store the waste on sito, where it is produced, until a permanent storage cite is prepared. The waste would then have to be handled and transported only once,instead of twice, saving a great deal of money and reducing the chances of a serious accident.
The General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and even the Department of Energy itself hays recently questioned the need for an MRS facility. Within the federal government itself there is serious debate and quutions regarding the MRS process.
- 5. While the concept of MRS is supposed to be temporary storage, the reality is that an MRS facility will likely become permanent, it has been extremely dimcult for the DOE ta find a permanent storage site. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been chosen as the permanent site, but serious questions remain as to whether it will, in fact, ever recolve any nuclear waste. The State of Nevada continues to flght placement of waste there and serious seismie probleme salat with the site.
Thus, once a MRS site is aslected and nuclear waste la located there, the pressure will be off to nnd a permanent site. The nuclear energy industry will also stop prosauring the finderal government to find a permanent site because the waste will u gone ihm the nuclear power plants. Anyone who looks reallatically at the process agrees that an MRS site will become a pennanent storage site.
I do not believe it is in the long. term interests of Utah to have a pWanent high-level nuclear wasta storage site in our state.
- 6. The federal government has not proven itself to be a reliable partner in fulfilling its promises or following policy it has established. Although the Nuclear Waste Negotiator has stated that a volunteer sitaimay withdraw firom consideration even after receiving " feasibility grants," the repoeltory selectier process has shown that sites which have been studied are more likely to be forced into participation, eg. Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy has a track record of numerous delays, cancellations, cost overruns, and changes of direction.
This is not a process Utah should embrace, because disappointment will likely follow.
I.
EXHIBIT 4 4
ll l
\\
ff Ykf' b
l~
that may not be popular with some of the people in thes state."
7 tie t:mh.e jean psew gesg.
co's Mescalenn Apache tribe as thegoserament ade. that have advanced the furthest in a feder-an ruanced search for a storage s,ite.The atascaleres appued Aeg.
,.e og m_.8. _ _
R. Etah Goshutes Seek
- r. ap=p_=r
-1 Funds for N-Dump' Study,,J
~ = = t: =
re the pro $ect. Trs%al leaders used shot money te visst =aneiear-waste -
s l, storage faciht=s de the Utssted l.;
By Jean FeeW to get a grant les contimme the states and other eeentraes. hey t== saa:r ime me===
. seudyt met 2 shey11 g
i also met witti esperts on auclear,
Ttne 113-smeseher SkullVagry never get a paramat to snese
-g e
power-1., _
^ and sepport.
Band of the Gostantes has re. ionste over our herders."
l ers. A draft copy of thest latest L
W 32.8 maimmen to e==*===
The governer hisc' ed Sam s
studysmg the possahaitty of sear-Juss Commty's en a6 of a sisus-
- I report was released Wedamaany.
J' Qusasana clasmus the Goshute e
ing rada=a-tive speed feel press lar faremy as Jammary, argesag.
tribal councit knows enere about 8
Aamerica's suelser power piames Utabas already sacrificed j
the seerage of masclear1sente them es its Tooete County reserva- ' enough by Being in the path el "any other esemparable govern-tism.
r=d-.,e-e sament ssess the Ne-asent as the Unseed States ** He "A world-class facibey comid vada Test Site. He atos genes-
~
described as " racist" the sugges-
" he bestt Ew
- the very teamedSeesafety ofshoppsag and taan that teihat a.aders areunatde best high-tenmeangy." trahat at-storsag the =m s.a
..g to usake am 6aleibgent deci;ico en tarary Danny Quentana 'said g4 at has molegal sistherisy the safetj of this propet.
F Wednes. tar.The storage facihef ever the Geshutes. however. Jo.
The c
- a. a - 32.8 minsome would cost 31.5 htII,em to build mises tribes are sesserengua pois5-imd crease 589 permaneet jobs. enleatitassand denotered state wassid be immed to prepare decaded envera-ment studies os buildJ il ingastoragefacihtyeneneef tue. i
' 'We eendd shhae Iftah's steel
'y and Utah's world class. perunassies for thas preject.')=i=*=== mes eenphanne ahead
{
U 586aere sites en the reserwahoe.
later force and educassomat sys-preservsms the erihe's rights.
j tems to beind as interiet seurage
.We willinserm yena (Utabas].
MQggbI for'.'
. located abent 70 aniiss west cf ~
(
sait Lake cit.. soth are.est of
. faciemy see Aamerica like h of eer deessness and Lope that J
the Skull Vaney highwayand ad-shed essai se M. feedse, yee wir iserk with as se basald-
' i e
- a i * >'
'=>'- - r -
t N.
h h
rochet testang.
?ruere.Creat Besense.GermasF ing a sa '. Enrihty if, and only i' ' #
2 and nameseus esbes esmmeries.
,g,g,g,.
4<
wa=
- 4..
I c,a,e n.,,e.,,esee.i e, o,e Utah Cev. Reike Leara.tt 3 See A.2, rahaman 4, gcasetimesed fress A 1-pa.u.:
g.,,,
etal Coali ~
ties of Matswe Ame icans.said one l
E serungty appened the idesa 11 waste Mioastd be stored a the East I
"Thas as tis eromy-dead-I
' swat sleews it should be buik."E where most of Aar. erica's muelear W---,.*They stay he aide. mates messe sauer chemes Ase A7.
body assee." the geermer saed sand asse asteracy "We resisee-plaats are becated..
4 9
)
EXHIBIT 5
C' Mr. Utilian J Sinclair Director April 29. 1997 Department of Enviromiental Quality Diviston of Radiation Control State of Utah 168 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144850 Salt Lake City. UT 84114 4850 Sulk)ECT:
RES00NSE TO LETTER DATED APRIL 15. 1997
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
I as responding to your A>rtl 15. 1997. letter to Mr. Dennis Reid. in which you request that you and )enise Chancellor of Utah's Attorney General's Office be placed on the service Itst for Dockets 71 9268 (Sterra Nuclear Corporetton's application for certification of the TranStor shipping cask) and 72 1023 (the TranStor storage cask). Since the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff does not maintain service lists for either transportation casks or storage casks that are being reviewed for use under the general licensing provisions of 10 CFft Part 72. we cannot take the action you request.
Information on these types of applications can be requested from the NRC Public Document Room.
The NRC staff intends to continue to ensure that the State of Utah and other e
interested parties are provided with all a ropriate information associated with the proposal by Private fuel Storage.p>LC (PFS) to apply to the NRC for a license to operate an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation If. 4515 currently anticipated, an applicat1on is raceived from PFS and docketed, a service 1ist for that application will be established, and both you and Ms. Chancellor will be included on it. As part of its application. PFS will have to identify the cask system (s) anticipated for use at the ISFSt. The NRC staff will review the Safety Analysis Report for the cask ystem(s) identified to determine whether compitance hac been demonstrated with all applicable regulatory re W.rements. as they relate to the Skull Valley Facility.
I am the Senior Project Manager assigned to the PFS pr @ sal.
I wt11 manage the NRC staff review of any application received in this regard.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
I can be reached at 301 415 8518.
Sincerely, ortsinal stuned by /s/
Mark S. Delligatt)
Senior Project Manager Spent Fuel Project Offirc 0' 5 i) Y))
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I:
it
' button w/ incoming ilE Ele Center PtBLIC NMSS R/F SFP0 R/F CHaughney WFKane FSturz OReid LKokajko Region IV WReckley. NRR 50roogtt45.0SP TCombs. OCA SGagner. OPA WReamer. OGC ese arse, Jp7 e
seso (
e erso r/
Uteede d E k1isettt,de vttverse sees
- i
..i.%,,
dan.,
i,,
4/29797 W 7 7 Pf, p=mn gr meatcms2
We d
4 e
EXHIBIT 6
a f--~ ~ ]
E 2060 Fairian MenLe Cherry Hill. N CSC031666
{ ~~ { {
Tek one: 1609) 4:4-0999 Telex: 910 240 6663 IN T E R N A TIO N A L Teletax: i609i 4:41710 0 \\^
October 23,1995 Mr. William Travets Director of Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop 06F18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission White Flint Building 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Subject:
Submittal of Additional Copies of Revision 3 of IJoltec Intemttional Storage, Imnspon and Repository (HI STAR) 100 System Safety Ana ysis Repon for Packaging, Holtec Repon Number HI 951251 under NRC Docket #71-9261 (refer to Holtec International Project H-5014).
Reference:
1.
Hohec Letter 501443 dated September 8,1995 from K.P. Singh to Mr.
Charles Haughney (cover letter accompanying odginal submittal of Revision 3 of Holtec Repon HI-951251 made on September S,1995).
2.
Holtec Intemational Letter from Dr. Alan I. Soler to Mr. Charles Haughney of the NRC Office of Nuclear Mate. rials and Safeguards, dated June 21,1995 3.
NRC Letter from Mr. Michael Raddatz to Holtec dated October 6,1995
Dear Mr. Travers:
Holtec Intemational herewith submits additional copies of Revision 3 to cur subje:t Safety Analysis Repon for Packaging (- ARP) which was previously provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission by Holtee (Reference 1). His revision included updated material for the criticality analyses in Chapter 6 and Revision 1 of the HI-STAR design dmwings. This n vision to the TSAR was occasioned by the selection of HI STAR by Comed for defueling its Dresden Unit One reactor in 1997. Additional copies of our 10CFR Pan 72 Topical Safety Analysis Repon (Repon HI 941184) (USNRC Docket #72 1008 (Reference 2)), are also being forwarded under separate covar letter.
95100.' 0406 9510 n-
e O_"EC INTERNATIONAL Mr. William Travers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 23,1995 Page 2 Revision 3 packages werg submitted to the NRC on September 8,1995. Eight additional complete proprietary books were sent to Lawrence Livermore en October 6,1995 at the request of Mr. Michael Raddatz. The copies being submitted today are in response to Reference 3. The original proprietary affidavits submitted with Reference 1 apply to these additional copies, as well.
Please contact me if you have any questions with respect to theu additional copies.
Very truly yours, Mark Soler Senior Project Manager MS:nha Document ID: 501448
Enclosures:
1.
Six (6) copies of the Proprietary Version of Revision 3 2.
Six (6) copies of the Nonproprietary Version of Revision 3
-