ML20199K826
| ML20199K826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1997 |
| From: | Kennedy J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#497-18636 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9712010213 | |
| Download: ML20199K826 (13) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 s.
.c
/7634 00CKETED USHRC November 23,1997 w NOV 25 P5 :11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$0,Ny 7-ggneARY suw<m.a - o BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSUKlBOARD"b OIN in the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC
)
Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI
)
(Independent Spent
)
Fuel Storage Installation)
)
STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS ON BEllALF OF Tile CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF Tile GOSliUTE RESERVATION AND DAVID PETE Petitioners, the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation (herein,"the Goshute Tribe") and Dasid Pete, by and through their counsel, John Paul Kennedy,1385 Yale Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105, in accordance with the "gulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hereby submit the following State a of Contentions wwh respect to the foregoing matter and as a supplement to the Petition earlier filed by them.
INTRODUCTION On August 29,1997, a Petition to Interveae was filed by the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation (herein, "the Goshute Tribe") and David Pete, individually and as Chairman of the Goshute Tribal Business Council. A supplemental memorandum in support of the Petition was filed on October 15,1997.
2-3s0
{
2 Petitioners contend, as more fully set forth below, that applicant Private Fuel Storage (herein "PFS") has not complied with the required standards established for licer. sing an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("lSFSl"). In fact, the license application is substantially incomplete. Petitioners therefore respectfully submit that this license application should be denied.
STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS:
A.
Decommissioning Plan Deficiencies.
PFS has not provided reasonable assurance that the ISFSI can be cleaned up and adeqt.ately restored upon cessation ofoperations.
B ASIS: The Plan is inadequate in the following respects:
1.
Inadequate costs analysis. The relative unavailability of disposal sites raises substantial costs factors which are not fully considered by applicant. For example, according to DOD, there are no sites currently available for the disposal of mixed wastes.' No information has yet been released on the consideration being offered to the Skull Valley Band for permission to locate this facility on the Band's Reservation. Other sites (if they could be found) may be much more costly. The application should include realistic cost figures for disposal of the radioactive materials at the conclusion of the operation of the ISFSI.
2.
Until PFS has a specific plan for disposal of the stored radioactive materials, there is no rational basis for assuming that those materials will in fact be disposed of prior to the daommissioning of the ISFSt. The license application should be rejected because it does not 8
Defense Emironmental Matagement Study, Drafi #13, at 11.
J
l 3
provide a reasonable assurance that PFS knows how the stored radioactive materials will ultimately be disposed of or how much such disposal will cost.
3.
No specific information has been provided to define the amount of funds required to be allocated to $sure the adequate and timely handling of the eventual decommissioning of the ISFSI See,10 C.F.R. {70.25 and {72.30(a), (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." Section 72.30 (b). Thi*. has not been done. PFS should be required to more adequately explain the derivation ofits anticipated costs to demonstrate that its estimates are rational and accurate.
4.
PFS's description of the decommissioning process is not adequate. The application should be amended to include full details of decommissioning and dismantlement of the ISFSI, '.ncluding whether PFS :.itends to leave building = standing that may have been radioactively contaminated.
11.
Lack of protection against worst case accidents.
PFS has violated both NRC regulations and NEPA requirements by not adequately dealing with certain reasonably foreseeable accidents and failing to fully evaluate their potential impacts on health and the environment, to protect against them in an adequate manner, or to provide adequate emergency response measures, BASIS:
Under NEPA, PFS must assess the consequences of reasonably foresceu.le low probability worst case accidents. NRC emergency planning regulations at 10
_m_m_____.-______________._
4 C.F.R. {70.22 require license applicants to descrit'e "cach type of radioactive materials accident for which protective action may be needed." For such accidents, the applicant must also submit a classification system, means of timely detection, means for mitigation, and means for assessing releases.
PFS has not satisfied such requirements in the following respects:
1.
No adequate plan for protection against accidental mishandling of storage containers has been provided.
2.
No adequate plan for protection against terrorist attack (by ground or air) which could result in the rupture of the storage containers has been provided.
3.
No adequate plan for protection against mishaps or terrorism during transportation of radioactive material to the facility has been provided.
4.
No adequate plan for emergencies has been provided. PFS has not secured commitments from local emergency responders. See exhibit 2(1) and (2), attached to the State of Utah's Motion to Suspend Licensing Proceeding.
5 No adequate plan for handling the impacts stemming from natural disasters such as wildfires has been provided. It has been noted thst in the short span of only ten years there have been 48 wildfires at Skull Valley. See exhibit 2(5) attached to the State of Utah's Motion to Suspend Licensing Proceeding. Italf of those fires were started by lightning strikes. Id.
Ilefore the license is approved, such information and plan must be supplied to the NRC and an opportunity should be granted to the public to respond to any new issues raised.
C.
Inadequate Assessment of Costs under NEPA.
PFS has not adequately described or weighed the environmental, social, and economic impacts and costs of operating the ISFSt. Indeed, there is no adequate benefit-cost analysis which even demonstrates a need for the ISFSt. On the whole, Petitioners contend that the costs of the project fer out'veigh the benefits of the proposed action. See, e.g., Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 6 NRC 33,90 (1977).
IIASIS:
NEPA requires the NRC to fully assess the impacts of the proposed censing action, and to weigh its costs and benefits. PFS has failed ta adequately meet this standard in the following respects:
1.
Failure to discuss the environmental impacts caused by the storage of a large amcunt of radioactive waste, for which no realistic disposal options currently exist.
2.
Failure to discuss the environmental impacts cause by creating an ISFSI without an adequate decommissioning plan for the facility.
3.
Failure to discuss the environmental impacts resulting from severe low probability accidents which may cause the release of discharges which exceed legal limits.
4.
Failure to adequately assess the environmental impacts stemming from underestimating the costs associated with decommissioning the project.
5.
Failure to present a complete or adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the ISFSI on ground and surface water. Groundwater is the sole source of drinking water for all of the residents of the Reservation and for many of the surrounding communities. In addition, groundwater and surface water provide much of the i
6-drinking water for wild and domesticated animal life in the area. Natural drainage from the area flows toward the Great Salt Lake.
The erwironmental repon should fully evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on the ground and surface water in the area, and discuss in detail the manner in which such waters will be kept free from contamination.
6.
The ISFSI will also have a dramatic economic and sociological impact on the minority community residing on the Skull Valley Reservation. The proposed siting of the ISFSI in a minority community follows a pattern noted in a 1987 study by the United Church of Christ,
" Toxic Wastes and Race In the United States, A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Ilazardous Waste Sites."' The study found that
" race proved to be the most signiacant among variables tested in association with the location of a
commercial hazardous waste facilities. This represented a consistent national pattern." Id. at xiii. It also found that "in ecmmunities with one commercial hazardous waste facility, the average minority percentage of the population was twice the average minority percentage of the population in communities without such facilities. The ISFSI in this case does not vary from this unfonunate pattern. No attempt has been made in this instance to avoid or mitigate the disparate impact of the proposed facility on this minority community residing on the Skull Valley Reservation. No assessment of the imps. cts upon Indian religious ceremonies or visits by Indians to the Skull Valley burial ground has been made.
2'
- A copy of this report was submitted by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash in its
. Contentions filed in Docket No 70-3070.
7 in the face of potential costs to the Skull Valley community, there is no mention of the amount of the benefit which the community will derive from the project. The amount payable to the Skull Valley Iland has not been disclosed, making it impossible to do a benefit. cost comparison.
D.
Inadequate Discussion of No Action Alternative.
PFS has failed to satisfy the requirements of NEPA because it does not adequately discuss the alternatives to the proposed action.
IIASIS:
NEPA, as implemented by 10 C.F.R. 51.54, requires that environmental reports must include at least a discussion of" alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental efTec, " PFS has failed to satisfy this requirement in that it has failed to discuss the no action alternative. In view of the significant enviromnental costs of this project and the fact that PFS has not demonstrated a need for the facility, this alternative should have been given substantially more attentior E.
Failure to Give Adequate consideration to Adverse Impacts on the Historic District.
PFS has failed to comply with NEPA in that it has not adequately discussed the impacts upon the historic district and the archeological heritage of the area.
IIASIS:
NEPA requires a complete assessment ofimpacts upon the historic and archeological aspects of the area. While the area is rural, this does not mean that it is devoid of historic significance For example, the historic Pony Express Trail passes only about ten miles
{-
i
.l i
>-8-.
- south of the Skull Valley Reservation area. PFS has not adequately evaluated the impact of the facility on the historic character of the area.
i F.
Failure to Adequately Establish Finar.cial Qualifications PFS has failed to demonstrate that it is financially qualified to build and operate the -
t ISFSI.
q BASIS:
The applicant is required to show that if the license is approved, it will be able to build and operate the facility in a financially responsible manner. The applicant must "either possess the necessary funds or... have reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funds." 10 C.F.Rf 672.22(e). This standard has nct been met as indicated below:
1.
The License Application (LA) states that PFS 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 1-10. PFS states that 1
each member utility selects one member of the Board of Managers. SAR 9.1-1. PFS does not clarify the obvious discrepancy between the numbers of supposed member companies with the number of directors. Perhaps there are now only seven participating companies. The initial I
number of participants at organization was eleven companies. No evidence has been presented that the consortium will be able to hold its present eight (or seven) members. Moreover, while there is a general discussion about staffing positions and such unsupported statements as "the Board will ensure the appropriate financial stability is maintained on an operating basis" (SAR p.
9.1-3), there is no description of the assets of the limited liability company nor is there any mention or copy of any limited liability company agreement.-
j f
h
.n,vm r
1 1-m w a,, a
.-n,.
nn-c,v,,,.m
9 2.
Similarly, there is no detail prosided with respect to the basis for the estimated construction costs of $100 million. The LA simply lumps " site preparation; construction of the access road, administration building, visitors center, security and health physics building, operations and maintenance building, canister transfer building a.id storage peds, procurement of canister transfer and transport equipment, and transponation corridor construction" into one mass of undefined expenses. LA p.1-5. No effort has been niade to show that the component costs have been legally pinned down with binding agreements.
3.
Likewise, while PFS indicates that it intends to obtain an additional $6 million from each ofits participating companies, it has failed to provide any subscription agreements or other legally buiding commitments which give any assurance of obtaining the necessary funding.
PFS has failed also to show that the participating companies have any long term commitment to remain with the project to provide needed financial stability in the future.
4.
PFS has also failed to provide any documentary evidence that shows it will be able to raise the additional $52 milliori of additional capital through " service agreements" with customers. LA p.1-5. Simply identifying the mechanism for seeking funds does not establish any assurance that the funds will be obtained. In addition, the terms of such service agreements have not been provided to show the rational support for the generation of such additional capital.
5.
As already noted, PFS has not provided any information which would show the amotmt to be paid to the Skull Valley Band for rental ofits lands. Since this amount is unknown, it follows that it must also be unknown whether PFS has the financial capacity to meet this fundamental cost of the project.
. G.
The Goshute T1'.be hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the following Contentions and the Ilases.itated by Castle Rock Land & Livestock, L.C.:
1.
Absence of NRC Authority. The Application is defective because NRC does not have authority to license a large-scale, off-site facility for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel such as the proposed ISFSt.
2.
Non-Comollance with Regulations. PFS's Application is defective because it seeks a license for an iSFS1 pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 72. Ilowever, the proposed storage installation is not an ISFSI and is otherwise not licentsble under 10 C.F.R. Part 72.
3.
Application for Permanent Repository. The proposed PFSF is properly characterized as a de facto permanent repository, and the Application fails to comply with the licensing requirements for a permanent repository.
4.
Inadequate Financial Oualificatinn The Application does not proside assurance that PFS will have the necessary funds to cover estiman-d construction costs, operating costs, and decommissioning costs, as required by 10 C.F.R. 72.22(e).
5.
Regional and Cumulative Environmental Impacts.
The Application fails to adequately discuss the regional and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed PFSF, as required by 10 C.F.R. { 72.98(b) & c), NEPA.
11.
The Goshute Tribe hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Contentions and the Ilases stated by the State of Utah including without limit the following:
i 1
, A.
Statutory Authority. Congress has not authorized NRC to issue a license to a.
private entity for 4,000 cask, away from reactor, centralized, spent nuclear fuel storage facility.
B.
License Needed for Intermodal Transfer Facility. PFS's application should be
. rejected because it does not seek approval for receipt, transfer, and possession of spent nuclear fuel at the Rowley Junction Intermodal Transfer Point, in violation of 10 C.FA Q72.6 c)(1).
Dated; November 24,1997.
Respectfully submitted, c
,/
J kn Paul en edy ttorney for Petitioners G
.- ribe and David Pete 1
14
.I
.e 000KE1ED
- 12 USH3C Certificate of Service
,97 KN 25 P5 :11 1 hereby certify that copies of the above Statement of Contentions were served upon the SI m persons indicated below in the manner stated on the date stated:
OfgFiCF yY ADbiCAIKM SI/fF Attn: Docketing & Service Branch Dr. Jerry R. Kline Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hiail Stop 016G15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike One White Flint North Wasi.:ngton, D.C. 20555 Rockville, hiD 20852-2738 emailJrk2@nrc. gov (original and two copies - Fed. &. Only)
G. Paul Bollwerk,11!, Chairman Dr. Peter S. Lam Administrative Judge Ac'ministrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Coard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 cmail gpb@nrc. gov email psl@nrc. gov Oflice of the Secretary Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudication Staff Catherine L. hiarco, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oflice of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission (Fed. &. Only) hiail Stop: 0-15 B18 Washington, D.C. 20555 Fax: 301-415-3725 email SET @nrc.80V Jay E. Silberg, Esq Jean Belille, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 2300 N Street N.W.
2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20037 8007 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Fax: 202-663-8007 Fax: 303 786-8054 jay silberg@shawpittman com landwater@lawfund.org Danny Quintana, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
50 W. Broadway, Fourth Floor Harmon, Curran & Spielberg Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Fax: 801-521-4625 Washington, D C. 20009 Fax: 202-328-6918 dicurran@aol.com
13 ~
- i Denise Chancellor Utah Attorney General's OfHce i
P.O. Box 140873 l
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810 l
Fax: 801366-0292 -
dchancel@ state.ut.us -
- i Connie Nakahara, Esq.
f
- Utah Dep. Of Environmental Quality'-
168 North 1950 West -
P.O. Box 144810 -
= Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810
+
- Fax: 801 536 0061 i
Clayton J. Parr, Esq.-
Kimball, Parr, Waddoups, Brown & Gee
' 185 S. State #1300 i
-- Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 0019 Fax: 801532 7751 l
- kjohnson@kimballparr.com Dated: November 24,1997.
l r
=
d
[
r,Y. '
_ /
s J m PaufK n
~
i f
)
j 2
h i
-(-
f a waa 4
b' w
p.r-e-
.--,e e 5
, w - i, --
1- - W '. t h y- +
e-re
+ry'- e ait
~
e r r--..cw a v s, s *. v ve g of+~e+f==
t--