ML20202J633

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Memorandum & Order (Contention Revs & Transcript Corrections).* Applicant & NRC Should Address Acceptability of Changes as Part of Reply Pleadings Re Utah Ee Through GG, Now Due on 980223.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980209
ML20202J633
Person / Time
Site: 07200022
Issue date: 02/09/1998
From: Bollwerk G
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#198-18789 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9802230184
Download: ML20202J633 (54)
v • d • e


Text

. .

x /9'789 00CMETED UNITED STATES OF AMEK1CA USNRC-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMJSS11M4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD I III *9 All:04 Before Administrative Judges:

g gy ,

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman OFFg[ry hh! g Dr. Jerry R. Kline .

Dr. Peter S. Lam i 4

In the Matter of Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C. ASLDP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel February 9, 1998 i Storage Installation) l j

.i 1 SERVED EB - 91996 e MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l (Contention Revisions and Transcript Corrections)

At the close of the January 29, 1998 session of the }

initial prehearing conference, counsel for applicant Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFS), provided the Licensing Board and f

. i:

the participants with a listing of the agreed upon revisions i to the language of various petitioners' contentions. Een ,

Tr. at 815 22. Based on that information, the Board has

]

prepared and attached to this memorandum and order a listing f of the nonproprietary and nonsafeguards contentions, as .j revised, of petitioners State of Utah (State); Castle Rock t

Land and Livestock, L.C., Skull Valley ~ Company, LTD., and i Ensign Ranches of Utah, L.C. (Castle Rock)1 Ohngo Gaudadeh 2

i

~

5 As was.noted at the prehearing conference,.Tr. at 74, Ensign. Ranches of Utah, L.C., has declared it'only supports  ;

the first.five of the twenty-four. contentions filed by  ;

fellow' petitioners Castle Rock Land and Livestock, L.C., and-  !

(continued...) l l

m==mmm., Il 11 lll.11.11 1.1 Il c roR 4; rp3,&

g C Devia (OGD); and the confederated Tribes of the Geshute Reservation and David Pete (Confederated Tribec/Pete). In addition to the language revisions provided to the Board, this listing incorporates conforming format revisions (e.g., j t'

subparts of lettered contentions are numbered, subparts of numbered contentions are lettered) and the withdrawal of I

certain contentions or portions of contentions by the l parties.8 Any participant having any objections or further revisions to the attached list of contentions should advise the Board and the other participants by pleading filed on or before Tuesday. February 17. 1998. In addition, any participant wishing to propose corrections to the transcripts for the January 27-29, 1998 prehearing sessions

(... continued)

Skull Valley Company, LTD.

8 Based on the representations of the participants at the prehearing conference, the Board understands that (1) the concern expressed in the basis for Utah F regarding mental examinations for operators has been resolved, Tr.

at 257-58; (2) the concern about the applicability of 10 C.F.R. Part 75 described as part of the basis for Utah T has been withdrawn, id. at 481-82; (3) the concerns about the 2002 Winter Olympic Games set forth in portions of the basis for Castle Rock 6 and 13 have been withdrawn, id. at 682; (4) the concern about the lack of any environmental report discussion of a legislative solution regarding high-level nuclear waste storage set forth as part of the basis for Castle Rock 13 has been withdrawn, id. at 679-80; (5) the request for the onsite radiation monitoring measures specified in paragraphs A-D of ODG G has been withdrawn, id.

at 380; (6) OGD H has been withdrawn, id. at 460; and (7) any discussion of OGD A as a basis for OGD J has been withdrawn,- id, at-505, t

3

o t should do so on or before-that same date- ERA 10 C.F.R. 5 2.750(b). Objections to any additional revisions to the 1

attached contentions or proposed transcript corrections shall-be filed onLor before Tuesday. February 24; 1998

The Board also anticipates that in the State's reply

. pleadings now due February 11, 1998, the State will address

the acceptability of the contention redrafts proposed by the applicant foricontentions-Utah EE through Utah GG and Utah Security-A through Utah Security-I. If the State makes any

(

t i contention' language revision counterproposals, the applicant i and the NRC staff-should address the acceptability of those changes as part of their reply pleadings regarding Utah EE-i through GG now.due.on February 23, 1998.8 The participants 8-The-filings required or permitted under this memorandum and order =that do not contain proprietary or safeguards:information should be served on the Board, the Of fice of: the: Secretary, and; counsel for the other participants by facsimile transmission, e mail, or other means?that will ensure receipt by close of business

-(4 :30 p.m. EST) on; the day of filing. San Licensing Board

! Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing. order) (Sept, 23,

1997)?at 5-6 (unpublished) [ hereinafter-Initial Prehearing-Order) ; Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Additional
Guidance on Service Procedures) (Nov. 19, 1997)

(unpublished), -

If, on the other hand, a filing ~ includes Lproprietary or safeguards information, it should -(1) be servedLin the' manner and on the individuals described in lparagraphs I.H.1.a.-b. of the Board's December 17, 1997

- memorandum 1and order, as amended, and include a cover letter

or memorandum that shall served on all other participants as

.describedLin_ paragraph I.H.2. of that issuance,. gag LLicensing Board Memorandum and Order (Protective Order and Schedule < for Filing Security Plan Contentions) -(Dec.17,

-1997) atn8,-9:1(unpublished) ; Licensing Board Memorandum and Order' (Additional-Amendments to Protective Order) (Dec. 23, 1997) at : 2 (unpublished) ; and (2) be served so as ensure (continued...)

0 b

c 4 .

are encouraged to reach agreement on contention language wherever possible.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR Tile ATOMIC SAFETY

  • AND LICENSING BOARD *

)

C) J o '(J lh G..s l. , l it G. Paul Bollwerk, III ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland February 9, 1998

(... continued) receipt by the individuals described in paragraph I.H.1.a.

of the Board's December 17, 1997 memorandum and order by the next business day.

  • Copies of this memorandum and order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for the applicant PFS; to counsel for petitioners Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, OGD, Confederated Tribes /Pete, Castle Rock, and the State; and to the representativa of petitioners Scientists for Secure Waste Storege/ Atlantic Legal Foundation. Copies also were sent by e-mail transmission through the agency's wide area network system to counsel for the staff.

.. l 4

s 0

l l

t -

I

!' i

\

l.

ATTACllMENT 1

__ =

Revised: As of 2/9/98 i State of Utah Contentions A through DD A. Statutory Authority ,

CONTENTION: Congress has not authorized NRC to issue a license to a private entity for a 4,000 cask, away-from reactor, centralized, spent nuclear fuel storage facility.

D. License Needed for Intermodal Transfer Facility CONTENTION: 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 ("ITP"), in violation of 10 C.F.R.

S 72. 6 (c) (1) , in that:

1. The Rowley Junction operation is not merely part of the transportation operation but a de facto interim spent fuel storage facility at which PFS will receive, handle, and possess spent nuclear fuel for extended periods of time.
2. The anticipated volume and quantity of fuel shipments that will pass through Rowley junction is a large magnitude that is unlike the intermodal transfer operations that previously occurred with respect to shipments of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plant sites. .
3. The volume of fuel shipments will not be capable of passing directly through Rowley Junction and some type of temporary storage of casks will be necessary at the site of the ITP, thus, making Rowley Junction a spent nuclear fuel storage facility. Further PFS frtls to discuss the number of neavy haul trucks that will be available to haul casks, the mechani3sl rc14.'ality of these unita, and their perfortunce 'n ai all weather conditions which is nenussary .. .nalyze the amount of queuing and storage that will occur at Rowley Junction.
4. Because the ITP is stationary, it is important to provide the public with the regulatory protections that are afforded by compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 72, including a security plan, an emergency plan, and radiation dose analyses.

T

2 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 C. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance With NRC Dose Limits.

CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to demonstrate a

}

reasonable assurance that the dose limits specified in 10 C.F.R. S 72.106(b) can and will be complied with in that:

1. License Application uses data for HI-STORM and Transtor casks that have not been fully reviewed or approved by the NRC.
2. License Application erroneously states that the loss of confinement accident is not credible. l
3. License Application makes selective and inappropriate use of data from NUREG-1536 for the fission product release fraction.

l

4. License Application makes selective and inappropriate use of data from SAND 80-2124 for the respirable particulate fraction.
5. The dose analysis in the License Application only considers dose due solely to inhalation of the passing cloud. Direct radiation and ingestion of food and water are not considered in the analysis.
6. In the dose calculation, PFS appears to assume local residents will be evacuated until contami.tation is removed, although this is not expressly discussed in the License Application.
7. PFS fails to calculate doses to children
8. PFS uses the ICRP-30 dose model which is outdated and inadequate. PFS chould be required to use the new ICRP-60 dose model.

D. Facilitation of Decommissioning CONTENTION: The proposed ISFSI is not adequately designed to facilitate decommissioning, because PFS has not provided sufficient information about the design of.its storage casks to assure compatibility with DOE repository specifications. Moreover, in the reasonably likely event that PFS's casks do not conform to-DOE specification, PFS fails to provide any measures for the repackaging of spent fuel for ultimate disposal in a high level radioactive waste repository. Moreover, PFS provides no measures for verification of whether the condition of spent fuel meets disposal criteria that DOE may impose.

e

. Revived: As of 2/9/98

8. Financial Assurance. l CONTENTION: Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. ,

SS 72.22 (e) and 72.40 (a) (6) , the Applicant has failed to I demonstrate that it is financially qualified to engage in l the Part 72 activities for which it seeks a license.

F. Inadequate Training and Certification of Personnel.

CONTENTION: Training and certification of PFS personnel fails to satisfy Subpart I of 10 C.F.R. Part 72 and will not assure that the facility is operated in a safe manner.

O. Quality Assuransco.

CONTENTION: The Applicant's Quality Assurance ("QA")

program is utterly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart G.

11. Inadequato Thermal Design.

CONTENTION: The design of the proposed ISFSI is inadequate to protect against overheating of storage casks and of the concrete cylinders in which they are to be stored in that:

1. Storage casks used in the License Application are not analyzed for the PFS maximum site design ambient temperature of 110'F.
2. The maximum average daily ambient temperatures for unnamed cities in Utah nearest the site do not necessarily correspond to the conditions in skull Valley; PFS should provide information on actual temperatures at the skull Valley site.
3. PFS's projection that average daily temperatures will not exceed 100*F f ails to take into account the heat stored and radiated by the concrete pad and storage cylinders.
4. In projecting ambient temperatures, PFS fails to take into consideration the heat generated by the casks themselves.

. I l

t 4 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 f S.

PFS fails to account for the impact of heating the concrete cooling.

pad on the effectiveness of convection '

i

..6.-

PFS.has not demonstrated that the concrete  !

-structure of_the Transtor cask is designed to-j withstand the temperatures at the proposed'ISFSI. j

-7. i PFS has not demonstrated that the' concrete i structure of'the HI-STORM cask is designed to )

withstand the temperatures at the proposed ISFSI.

5

'I. . Lack of a procedure for verifying the Presence of Helium in Canisters. '

' CONTENTION:

satisfy 10 C.F.R.

The design of the proposed ISFSI fails to  !

- SS 72.122 (f) and 10 C.F.R. S 72.128 (a) ,  ;

and poses undue risk because it lacks a procedure, to the public health and safety, or any-evidence of-a ,

procedure, ofuel for verifying the presence of helium inside spent canisters.

t i t J.

Inspection and Maintenance of Safety Components, Including Canisters and cladding.- '

c CONTENTION: The design of the proposed ISFSI fails to satisfy 110-C.F.R. SS 72.122 (f)- and 72.128 (a) , and poses undue risk to the.public health and safety, because it. lacks a-hot cell or'other~ facility for opening casks and  ;

inspecting the condition of spent. fuel. 3 K. Inadequate consideration of credible accidents. l t

CONTENTION: The. Applicant has inadequately considered  ;

-credible accidents caused by' external events and facilities  ;

1affectingLthe ISFSI, intermodal transfer site, and '

= transportation corridor along Skull Valley Road, including 7

the cumulativeLeffects of the nearby hazardous waste and military _ testing facilities in the vicinity  :

.L. Geotechnical.

~

CONTENTION: The: Applicant has not demonstrated the

-suitability'of the -proposed ISFSI site because the License [

' Application and SAR do not, adequately address site and

subsurfacetinvestigations necessary.to determine geologic  ;

-_-__J___--_-__

c 5- Revised: As of 2/9/98 conditions, potential seismicity, ground motion, soil stability and foundation loading.

M. Probable Maximum Flood CONTENTION: The application fails to accurately estimate the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) as required by 10 C.F.R. S 72.98, and subsequently, design structures important to safety are inadequate to address the PMF; thus, the application fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. S 72.24 (d) (2) .

1. The Applicant's determination of the PMF drainage area to be 26 sq. miles is inaccurate because the Applicant has failed to account for all drainage sources that may impact the ISFSI site during extraordinary storm events.
2. In addition to design structures important to safety being inadequate to address the PMF, the consequence of an inaccurate PMF drainage area may negate the Applicant's assertion that the facility area is "floed dry."

N. Flooding CONTENTION: Contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

S 72.92, the Applicant has completely failed to collect and evaluate records relating to flooding in the area of the intermodal transfer site, which is located less than three miles from the Great Salt Lake shoreline.

O. Hydrology CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to adequately assess the healtc, safety and environmental effects from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the ISFSI and the potential impacts of transportation of spent fuel on groundwater, as required by 10 C.F.R. SS 72.24 (d) , 72.100(b) and 72.108, with respect to the following contaminant sources, pathways, and impacts:

1. Contaminant pathways from the applicant's sewer / wastewater system, the retention pond, facility operations and construction activities.
2. Potential for groundwater and surface water contamination.

i i

, Reviseds As of 2/9/98

3. The effects of applicant's water usage on other well users and on the aquifer.
4. Impact of potential groundwater contamination on downgradient hydrological resources.

P. Inadequate Control of Occupational and Public Exposure to Radiation CONTENTION: The Applicant has not provided enough information to meet NRC requirements of controlling and limiting the occupational radiation exposures to as low is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and analyzing the po.ential dose equivalent to an individual outside of the controlled area from accidents or natural phenomena events in that:

1. The Applicant has failed to provide detailed technical information demonstrating the adequacy of it's policy of minimizing exposure to workers as a result of handling casks, nor does it describe the design features that provide ALARA cor.ditions during transportation, storage and transfer of waste. Specifically, if the design has incorporated ALARA concepts, the storage casks used at-the ISFSI should have the lowest dose rate.
2. The Applicant has failed to provide an analysis of alternative cask handling procedures to demonstrate that the procedures will result in the lowest individual and collective doses.
3. The Applicant has failed to adequately describe why the Owner Controlled Area boundaries were chosen and whether the boundary dose rates will be the ultimate minimum values compared to other potential boundaries.
4. The Applicant has failed to indicate whether rain water or melted snow from the ISFSI storage pads will be collected, analyzed, and handled as radioactive waste.

5- The Applicant has failed to provide design information on the unloading facility ventilation system to show that contamination will be controlled and workers will be protected in a manner compatible with the ALARA principle. In addition, procedures to maintain and ensure filter l

e

. Revised: As of 2/9/98 efficiency and replace components are not provided.

6. The Applicant has failed to provide adequate or complete methods for radiation protection and failed to provide information on how estimated radiation exposures values to operating personnel were derived to determine if does rates are ,

adequate.

7. The Applicant has failed to descrine a fully developed radiation protection program that ensures ALARA occupational exposures to radiart on by not adequately describing:'
a. the management policy and organizational structure to ensure ALARA;
b. a training program that insures all personnel who direct activities or work directly with radioactive materials or areas are capable of evaluating the significance of radiation ,

doses;

c. specifics on personnel and area, portable and stationary radiation monitoring instruments, and personnel protective equipment, including reliability, serviceability, equipment limitation specifications;
d. a program for routine equipment calibration and testing for operation and accuracy;
e. a program to effectively control access to radiation areas and movement of radiation sources;
f. a program to maintain ALARA e:cposures of personnel servicing leaking casks;
g. a program for monitoring and retaining clean areas and monitoring dose rates in radiation zones to ensure ALARA; and
h. specific information on conducting formal audits and review of the radiation protection program.
8. The Applicant has completely failed to include an analysis of accident conditions, including -

9

, Revised: As of 2/9/98 accidents due to natural phenomena, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. SS 72.104 and 72.126 (d) .

9. The Applicant has failed to control airborne effluent which may cause unacceptable exposure to workers and the public, Contention T, Basis 3 (a)

(Air Quality) is adopted and inccrporated by reference.

Q. Adequacy of ISFSI Design to Prevent Accidents CONTENTION: The Applicant hac failed to adequately identify and assess potential accidents, and, therefore, the Applicant is unable to determine the adequacy the ISFSI l design to prevent accidents and mitigate the consequences of accidents as required by 10 C.F.R. 72.24 (d) (2) .

R. Emergency Plar.

CONTENTION: The Applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected in the event of an emergency at the storage site, at the transfer facility, or offsite during transportation in that:

1. PFS has not adequately described the facility, the activities conducted there, or the area in sufficient detail to evaluate the' adequacy and appropriateness of the emergency plan, nor has PFS considered specific impediments to emergency response such as flooding, ice, snow, etc.
2. PFS has not identified adequate emeroency and medical facilities and equipment to respond to an onsite emtrgency.
a. Tooele County capabilities and equipment are not addressed adequately.

} b. No provision for extra onsite preparedness given time for Tooele County to respond, particularly in adverse weather conditions.

3. The plan was not adequately coordinated with the State or other government (local, county, state, federal) agencies,
a. PFS has not supported its claim regard!.ng absence of extremely hazardous substances and n

Revised: As of 2/9/98 that no asitr.:nce will be required external to Tooele Lc. .y.

b. PFS does not address transportation accidents or accidents at'the intermodal-transfer point.
4. PFS has not adequately described means and equipment for mitigation of accidents, because it:
a. Does not address how it would procure crane within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> for tip over cask accident.
b. Does not adequately support capability to fight fires.
5. The Emergency Plan does not provide adequate detail to meet provisions of Reg. Guide 3.67, S 5.4.1 regarding equipment inventories and locations.

S. Decon.nissioning.

CONTENTION: The decommiesioning plan does not contain sufficient information to p ovide reasonable assurance that the decontamination or decommissioning of the ISFSI at the end of its useful life will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public as required by 10 C.F.R.

S 72.30 (a) , nur does the decommissioning funding plan contain sufficient information to provide reasonable assurance that the necessary funds will be available to decommission the facility, as required by 10 C.F.R. S

70. 3 (b) .

T. Inadequate Assessment of Required Permita and Other Entitlements CONTENTION: In derogation of 10 C.F.R. S 51. 4 5 (d) , the Environmental Report does not list all Federal permits, licenses, aggravals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the PFS ISFSI License Application, nor does the Environmental Report describe the scatus of compliance with these requirements in that:

1. The Applicant has failed to show that it is entitled to use the land for the ISFSI site and if it does have such right whether there are any legal constraints imposed on the use and control of the land: the NRC must require the Applicant

lb - -Rev$ced: Ao of'2/9/98:

~

tonfully-disclose'all provisions of the Applicant's lease with the: Skull _ Valley Band in-order'to fully evaluate under what conditions that=

Applicant is' entitled to use'and control the-site.

2. =The Applicant has shown_no proof of entitlement to build a> transfer: facility at Rowley Junction or l

right to:use the terminal there; nor has it

}'

identified,the number of casks expected on each shipment,;or explained the_ effects of rail congestion or whether Rowley Junction'has the capacity-of: handling the-expected number-of casks;

-nor has it shown.that-Union Pacific'is-willing-and-capableito handle shipments to Rowley Junction.

L ~3. The Applicant has shown no. ability or_ authority-to i-:

_ build a rail spur from the-rail head at:Rowley Junction to-the proposed ISFSI site.

L' 4._ .

The Applicant has shown no basis that it is entitled to widen skull Valley Road or that'the.

proposed 15-foot = roadway would satisfy health, safety and environmental concerns nor-does the-application describe and identify State and local-

-permits or_ approvals that are' required.

5.- The proposed PFSF is subject _to Part 75'and the-Applicant must supplement'its submittal with relevant'Part 75"information.

6. The Applicant's air _qualityfanalysis does not satisfy lthe requirements _of_10-C.F.R. S 51'.45 in that the Applicant has failed to adequately analyze whether-it will_be in compliance with the

-health-based National, Ambient Air _ Quality

-Standards,.whether ituis' subject to section 111 of:

the Clean-Air Act, and whether it-is a major-stationary source of air pollution requiring a Prevention of-Significant-Deterioration permit; _ _

the-Applicant's analysis of air quality impacts in ER 4.3.3 is inadequate;1and a-state air quality approval order under Utah' Code ~ Ann. S' 19-2-108 211 be required.

-7 . -The Applicant has-not addressed the requirement-to-obtain a Utah Groundwa*.er_ discharge permit.

8. :The-Applicant's analysis of.other required water permits lacks specificity and does not satisfy the requirements inxthat the Applicant merely states that it "might" need a clean Water Act Section 404

i 11 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 dredge and :^11 permit for wetlands along the Skull Valley transportation corridor and that it will be required to consult with the State on the effects of the intermodal transfer site on the  ;

neighboring Timple Springs Wildlife Management l Area.

9. The applicant must show legal authority to drill wells on the proposed ISFSI site and that its water appropriations will not interfere with or impair existing water rights and identify and describe state approvals that are required.

U. Impacts of Onsite Storage not Considered CONTENTION: Contrary to the requirements of NEPA and 10 C.F.R. 51. 4 5 (c) , the applicant fails to give adequate consideration to reasonably foreseeable potential adverse environmental impacts during storage of spent fuel on the ISFSI site.

V. Inadequate Consideration of Transportation-Related Radiological Environmental Impacts.

CONTENfION: The Environmental Report ("ER") fails to give adequate consideration to the transportation-related environmental impacts of the proposed ISFSI in-that:

1. In order to comply with NEPA, PFS and the NRC Staff must evaluate all of the environmental impacts, not just regional impacts, associated with transportation of spent fuel to and from the proposed ISFSI, including preparation of spent fuel for transportation to the ISFSI, spent fuel transfers during transportation to the ISFSI, transferring and return,1ng defective casks to the originating nuclear power plant, and transfers and transportation required for the ultimate disposal of the spent fuel.
2. PFS's reliance on Table S-4 is inappropriate and inadequate. 10 C.F.R. S 51.52 applies only to light-water-cooled nuclear power plant construction permit applicants, not to offsite ISFSI applicants. Even if 10 C.F.R. S 51.52 applied, PFS does not satisfy the threshold conditions for using Table S-4, and its reliance on NUREG-1437 is misplaced. Since the conditions specified in 10 C.F.R. S 51.52(a) for use of Table

Revised: As of 2/9/98 S-4Lare not satisfied, the PFS must provide-"a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects of-transportation _of fuel 1 and wastes

-with-10 to and from the_ reactor" ireaccordance C.F.R. S 51.52(b).-

3.. The SAR is inadequate-to supplement _ Table S-4 in

-1 thats'

a. The Applicant fails'to adequately address the-intermodal trancier point-in that the-analysis utilizes-unreasonable assumptions-regarding rail shipment volume and its

-associated effects,

b. _The Applicant fails to calculate impacts of the return of substandard or degraded casks to the originating nuclear power plant-licensees, including additional radiation doses to' workers-and the:public,
c. The-Applicant' fails to address the environmental impacts of;any necessary
intermodal transfer required at someLof the __ _

originating nuclear; power plants-due:to-lack of rail access or inadequate crane-capability.

4.

New1information shows that Table S-4 grossly underestimates transportation-impacts.

ta.

WASH-1238, which is the basis-for Table 3S-4, uses poor and outdated data, and hence the

- Applicantfs reliance on WASH-1238'and Table S-4 is inadequate to demonstrate compliance with NEPA in that~:

b. WASH-1238 does not quantify the risks of-spent fuel transportation. 10 C.F.R. S
51. 4 5 ( c) requires that, to the extent practicable, the cost and benefits of a proposal should be-quantified.

c.-

-WASH-1238 does not address accidents caused by human error or sabotage;

d. WASH-1238 does not include up-to-date analyses of maximum credible accidents;

- - .- . .- - . - ~ . - . _ . - . ~ - - . - - . - - - - ~ . . . - - . ~

=. . g 13 ~ - ERevised: Asrof 2/9/98 4

e. - WASH-1238 does not-address the potential for_ .

degradation'of fuel ~ cladding! caused.by dry .

. fuel storage; f .. -  : WASH-1238 does not address the greater ,

' release fraction from severe accident

- consequences demonstrated in recent-analysesi 3 1

g ._ - WL1H-1238 does not address specific regional characteristics of(impacts on1the environment-i, from, transportation and therefore11s

- - . inadequate to satisfy.10?C.F.R. S 72.108; h.- . WASH-1238 does not' address' circumstances-and consequences of a criticality event of'a - .

representative rail 1transportationicask with a large capacity-(capacity greater than a- -

l critical-mass of fuel); ,

'~

i. WASH-1238:does-not contain information from the more.recent and more accurate' dose  :

F modeling RADTRAN computer program; G .j. WASH-1236 does not address a' representative

. transportation-distanceJforLthe-shipment-of-spent _ fuel ~from:the originating nuclear power i- plants. WASH-1238 assumes'an-approximate,

- distance of.1000' miles., The PFS acknowledges '

. that the-distance may be more'than-twice that

- amount.- ER at 4.7-3.~ ' t

. W. - Other-Impacts _not considered.

' CONTENTION: The Environmental Report does not

,~ "

adequately consider-the adverse--impacts of the proposed ISFSI and.thus does not comply'with NEPA or 10 C.F.R. S

51.45(b) in thatt i

i:

. 1. The Applicant has not discussed-the cumulative impacts of this facility in relationship to  ;

hazardous and industrial' facilities / activities

located-in_the region of the ISFSI site and the intermodal transfer point.
2. The Applicant has not evaluated the potential for accidents from the heavy haul trucks that could-
make up to 400 trips-per year along the Skull Valley Road, a secondary two-way paved road.

L s

,,wygv -+c-p v - g-o -

=,ry y- *wp e y

- - , . - . . . - - - - , - . . - . - .~-. -. . ~ - - - - . .

w 1

.i

-  :- 14'-- Revised: As of 2/9/98- j 3:. TheLApplicant has;not considered the impact-of Tflooding on.its facility or the intermodal

' transfer point.-

~

4..- -The App'licant has notLadequately discussed the degradation of_ air' quality and water resources due

-to construction,? operation,-and maintenance of.the ISFSI.

5. The Applicant. .s not fully assessed the_

environmental impact:of? placing 4,000 casks over a site with such complex seismicity, capable of faults and potentially_ unstable soils.-

, 6. 'i Applicant has not-adequately considered the a t t.of the visual impact of the proposed-ISFSI and of the transportation _of spent fuel by heavy

, haul trucks.along Skull Valley Road on the

- public's'use and enjoyment of the area.

X.- ~ Need for the Facility-CONTENTION: The-Applicant fails toLdemonstrate there

?is a need for the facility as is required _under NEPA.

- Y. Connected ~ Actions

. CONTENTION: _ The' Applicant fails to adequately discuss

.the rlink between this proposal and -the: national- high Llevel '

waste; program, a connected action, as is required under-NEPA..

- Z. ;NoeAction Alternative p2

. ~ CONTENTION: ThecEnvironmental Report does.not comply L -with1NEPA because'it dias;not adequately discuss the "no action" altu native.

AA. 5 Range of Alternatives 4

._ CONTENTION:~ The Environmental Report fails to comply with-the Nationa)~ Environmental Policy Act because it does

not adequately evaluate the range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

-[

e _; sany*vyawnnn M Mk w , rt reWs ae. , .,

H,i >

. Revised:L As-of~'2/9/98 j BB. ' Site Selection and Discriminatory Effects-CONTENTION:. The-Applicant's site selection process- '

does not satisfy the demands of the President's Executive ,

Order No. 12,898~or'NEPA-and theLNRC staff must be directedL ,

to conduct and thorough and in-depth investigation of the 1

Ap . cant's site:_ selection process.

CC. lOne-Sided! Cost-Benefit Analysis

, CONTENTION: Contrary to-the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

S ~ 51.45 (c) , - the Applicant , f ails. to provide an adequate

,_ balancing-of theLcosts'and benefits of the proposed project, or to quantifyLfactors that are amenable to quantification '

in that:.

. 1. ' Applicant's Environmental Report makes no attempt to objectively discuss the costs:of the project.

2. Applicant: fails'te weigh the numerous adverse environmental-- im; acts discussed,- for : example, in

-Contentions H.through P, against the alleged

benefits of the facility.
3. Applicant. fails to compare-the: environmental-costs =

of the. proposal with the significantly lower environmental costs of the no-action alternative.

4. -Applicant: fails to weigh the benefits to be achieved by' alternatives that could reduce or mitigate. accidents, environmental contamination, and-decommissioning costs,'_such ao inclusion of a.

hot cell in the facility-design.

5. Applicant makes no attempt to quantify the costs associated with the; impacts of-the facility, many of which:are amenable to quantification in that:

a, coste related to accidents and contamination

.may be quantified in terms of health effects e and. dollar costs;

b. decommissioning impacts can be quantified;
c. visual impacts can be quantified in terms of lost tourist dollars; and 4

.d. emergency response costs can be quantified based on the cost of those services.

e o

Rev1 sed: As of 2/9/98 DD. Ecology and Species CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to adequately assess the potential impacts and effects from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the ISFSI and the transportation of spent fuel on the ecology and species in the region as required by 10 C.F.R. SS 72.100(b) and 72.108 and NEPA in that:

1. The License Application does not discuss the long term impacts of construction activities on the overall ecological system in skull Valley.
2. The License Application fails to address adverse impacts of contaminated ground or surface waters on various species, and fails to provide for sampling of the retention pond for contaminants.
3. The License Application fails to include both protective and mitigation plans in conjunction with appropriate authorities for Horseshoe Springe, Salt Mountain Springs, Timple Springs Waterfowl Management Area, and' raptor nests.
4. The License Application has not estimated potential impacts to ecosystems and "important species" in that:
a. The License Application does not discuss the importance of the variety of species found in the Skull Valley ecological system, including aquatic organisms, and does not-discuss the interdependence of various species on one ancther or impact on the ecological system as a whole.
b. The License Application fails to assess the individual and collective impacts on various species, including wetland species, aquatic organisms, plants, fish, and birds from additional traffic, fugitive dust, radiation and other pollutants.
c. The License Application fails to address all possible impacts on federally endangered or threatened species, specifically the peregrine falcon nest in the Timpie Springs Waterfowl Management Area.

1

- 17 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 e

d. The License Application fails to include information on pocket gopher mounds which may be impacted by the proposal,
e. The License Application fails to determine whether " culturally or medical 13 (scientific) significant" plant species may be impacted by the PFSF.
f. The License Application fails to identify aquatic plant species which may be adversely impacted by the proposed action.
g. The License Application has not adcquately identified plant species that are adversely impacted or adequately assessed the impact on those identified, specifically the impact on two "high interest" plants, Pohl's milkvetch and small spring parsley,
h. License Application does not identify, nor assess the adverse impacts on, the private domestic animal (livestock) or the domestic plant (farm produce) species in the area.
5. License Application fails to assess the potential impacts on Horseshoe Springs, Timple Springs Waterfowl Management Area, the Great Salt Lake, and Salt Mountain Springs.
6. License Applicacion fails to include the results of detailed site-specific surveys and analyses to determine species in the vicinity of the PFSF. 10 C.F.R. SS 72.100(b) and 72.108 require that detailed surveys of species plus mitigation or prevention plans be prepared now.

4 Revised: As of 2/9/98 Contentions of Castie Rock Land and Livestock, L.C., Skull Valley Company, LTD.,

and Ensign Ranches of Utah, L.C.

1. Absence of NRC Authority.

1 CONTENTION: The Application is defective because NRC does not have authority to license a large-scale, off-site l I

facility for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel such as the proposed PFSF.

2. Non-Compliance with Regulations.

CONTENTION: PFS's Application is defective because it seeks a license for an ISFSI pursuant to 10 C.F.R, Part 72.

However, the proposed storage installation is not an ISFSI and is otherwise not licensable under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 in that:

i

a. In order to harmonize the NRC regulations with the NWPA and Atomic Ener y Act, the regulation defining ISFSI must se interpreted to exclude the proposed PFSF.
b. NRC regulations must be construed to require PFS to demonstrate maximiration of the use of existing storage capability at reactor sites,
c. NRC regulations must be construed to require PFS to demonstrate that DOE has exhausted all means for providing off-site storage capacity.
d. NRC regulations must be construed to require a showing that DOE has attempted to establish a cooperative program for on-site storage under 42 U.S.C. S 10198
3. Conflict with DOE Duties and Prerogatives.

CONTENTION: The Application must be denied because the proposed PFSF interferes with DOE duties and prerogatives under the NWPA.

4. Attempts to Evade the Requirements of the NWPA.

CONTENTION: The status of the Application suggests that DOE has either tacitly or directly agreed with PFS and

2- Revised: As of 2/9/98 its member utilities to allow the Application to proceed in l an attempt te evade'the statutory mandates of the NWPA.

5. Application For Permanent Repository.

CONTENTION: 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 in that: 4

a. no repository or other storage facilities capable of absorbing the 40,000 MTU of spent fuel to be stored at the PFSF exist, or likely will exist at the time PFS proposed to decommission the PFSF; the PFSF will function as a dg facto permanent repository and must be licensed as such; the Application is defective because it does not meet the requirements of a rermanent repository, l b. even if a permanent 7epository is operational at the time the PFSF is proposed to be decommissioned, such repository will not be able to absorb 40,000 MTU at once or at a rate that will permit decommissioning of the PFSF; the PFSF will function as a dg facto permanent repository and must be licensed as such; the Application is defective because it does not meet the requirements of a permanent repository.
6. Emergency Planning and Safety Analysis Deficiencies.

CONTENTION: The Application does not provide for reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected in the event of an emergency affecting the PFSF.

7. Inadequate Financial Qualifications.

CONTENTION: The Application does not provide assurance that PFS will have the necessary funds to cover estimated construction costs, operating costs, and decommissioning costs, as required by 10 C.F.R. S 72.22 (e) in that:

a. PFS is a limited liability company with no known assets; because PFS is a limited liability company, absent express agreements to the contrary, PFS's members are not individually

.able for the costs of the proposed PFSF, and FFS's members are not required to advance equity s

3 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 contributions. PFS has not produced any documents evidencing its members' obligations, and thus, has failed to show that it has a sufficient financial base to assume all obligations, known and unknown, incident to ownership and opcr. tion of the PFSF; also, PFS may be subject to termination p;Aor to expiration of the license;

b. the App.?ication does not adequately account for possible shortfalls in revenue if customers become insolvent, default on their obligations, or otherwise do not continue making payments to the proposed PFSF;
c. the Application does not provide assurance that PFS will have sufficient resources to cover non-routine expenses, including without limitation the costs of a worst case accident in transportation, storage, or disposal of the spent fuel;
d. the Application fails to provide enough detail concerning the limited liability company agreoment between PFS's members, the Service Agreements to be entered with customers, the business plane of PFS, and the other documents relevant to assessing the financial strength of PFS;
e. the Application fails to describe the legal obligations of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and provide assurance that third parties will have adequate legal remedies if injured as a result of the its acts or omissions; and
f. the Application fails to itemize cost estimates and otherwise provide enough detail to permit evaluation of the tenability of such estimates.
8. Groundwater Quality Degradation.

CONTENTION: The Application, including the ER, is defective and therefore raises the issue of risk to public health and safety because the proposed site of the PFSF will not, or cannot, be adequately protected against ground water contamination due to facility design, its location, contami-nants it will generate, and the nature of the soils and bedrock of the area.

4 - Revised: As of 2/9/98 3 l

9. Regional and Cumulative Environmental Impacts.

CONTENTION: The Application fails to adequately discuss the regional and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed PFSF, as required by 10 C.F.R. SS 72. 98 (b) &

(c) and 72.100, and NEPA, in that:

a. the SAR and ER fail to address the cumulative regional health and safety impact of the ISFSI and other dangerous facilities in Tooele County, including without limitation issues regarding the cumulative impact to the regional environment and population;
b. the SAR and ER fail to address the cumulative i quantitative risk to the public of numerous dangerous facilities in one area and the interrelated transportation, sabotage, and g accident risks arising from concentration of such facilities.
10. Retention Pond.

CONTENTION: The Application, including the ER, is defective and therefore raises public health and safety risks because it does not adequately address the potential of overflow and groundwater contamination from the retention pond and the environmental hazards created by such overflow, in that

a. The ER fails to discuss potential for overflow and therefore fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 51.
b. ER is' deficient because it contains no information concerning effluent characteristics and environmental impacts associated-with seepage from the pond in violation of 10 C.F.R. S 51. 4 5 (b) and S 72.126 (c) & (d).
c. 'The ER should address the applicability of the Utah Groundwater Protection Rules, which apply specifically to facilities such as the retention pond and generally require that such ponds be lined.
11. Radiation and Environmental Monitoring.

CONTENTION: The Application poses undue risk to the public health and safety and fails to comply with 10 C.F.R.

~

--'#'-pg 1

Revised: As-of 2/9/98-S 72.22, S' 72.24 and S 72.126 because it fails _to-provide for-adequate radiation monitoring;necessary.to facilitate i radiation _ detection, event classification, emergency -~ j planning,Jand-notification,-including systematic-baseline measurements.-of_ soils, forage, and water eitherinear the-

~

.PFGFcsit'e,_or'at Petitioners' adjoining lands in that:

La. PFS hasitaken;--no background radiological samples of nearby _vegetationiand groundwater.-

j

! *= -

h -b.. LPFS has-providedIno' radioactive effluent-E monitoring system-to detect radioactive C -

contamination in surface runoff water.that -

collects in a retention pond on the PFSF site.

12. Permits,: Licenses and Approvals.

' CONTENTION: The-Application violates NRC-regulations Land NEPA because the ER fails-to_ address-adequately the status of-compliance-with.all Federal', State, regional and.

ilocal permits, licenses and approvals-required-for the proposed- PFSF f acility '-(g_qc., Jlt g_,,,110 C. F.R. S S 51. 4 5 (d) and'

51. 71 (d) ) . -in -.- that :

-a. The ER does:not contain a list of.all permits,1 etc. which must be obtained as required by 10 C.F.R.'S 51,45(d).

-( b.. TheLER fails to inclut 1 discussion of the status of compliance with app 1 cable environmental 1 quality standards and requirements as: required by

'10 C. F.R. -- S 51. 4 5 (d)' in that :

1.- the discussion of-the Army Corps _of Engineers L

!-permitting requirements for construction along_the-new corridor is inadequate;

=

li '. the discussion of requirements.at the Site is inadequate;.and iii. the conclusory senter. e that no air quality permitting requirements apply is inadequate.

c. Section 9.2 of the ER discussing Utah permitting requirements is inadequate,
d. Sections 4.1.3-and 4.2.3 of the ER concerning Utah air quality permits are inadequate.

-~6 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98

e. ER discussion:of widening Skull Valley Road is inadequate.-  !
13. Inadequate Consideration-of Alternatives.

S- _ CONTENTION: The Application violates _NRC regulations and NEPA.because the ER fails to give, adequate consideration-13

^r

to alternatives,' including alternative' sites, alternative ~

technologies,_ and the-no-action alternative,-_ggg 10'C.F.R(

j

{

L S 51.45(c), in that:-

+

a.- There is no discussion in the ER on-the required topics of environmental effects and impacts, L economic, technical-and other costs and benefits  ;

of the alternatives,

b. The evaluation and: comparison of the no build or_

no action alternative is-inadequate.

_c. The analyses'of alternatives ignores every; potential negative factor with respect to the PFSF.. Such an analysis'must include:,

'i. the environmental and' safety benefits-associated with maintaining and expanding a "

decentralized, onsite storage _ system;-

li. 'the environmental and safety' impacts.and risks associated with the proposed privatsly operated, centralized' system; 111. the state-by-state,-plant-by-plant facts which create the need PFS asserts is present for moving'the spent fuel to another-loedtion;-

~

iv. the environmental impacts and safety hazards-assocL.ted with moving so many_ casks _from various locations across the country to a centralized location; and

v. the environmental benefits of a combination of expanded onsite storage and regional ISFSIs.
14. . Inadequate Consideration of Impacts.

CONTENTION: The Application violates NRC regulations and NEPA'because the EF fails to give adequate consideration

-7 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 to the adverse impacts of the proposed PFSF, including the risk of transportation accidents, the risks of contamination of human and livestock food sources, the risks of  ;

contamination of water sources (including ground water l contamination arising from leaching of contaminated soils),

the risks of particulate emissions from construction and cement-activities and similar risks (10 C.F.R. S 72.100) - in

< that:

a. Section 5.2 discussing transportation accidents contains no site specific information on the

" effects on populations in the region" as required t

by the rule

b. Chapter 4 of the ER contains no meaningful j evaluation of impact of unlined retention pond and other PFSF operations on surrounding subsoils and ground water.
c. The ER fails to give adequace consideration to the adverse impacts of the PFSF, including the risks of-contamination of-human and livestock food sources.
d. The ER fails to give adequate consideration to the adverse impacts of the PFSF, including the risks of particulate emissions from construction and cement activities.
15. Cost-Benefit' Analysis.

CONTENTION: The Application violates NRC regulations and NEPA because the ER does not contain a' reasonable and legitimate comparison of costs and benefits, 10 C.F.R. S 51.45(c), in that:

a. ER Chapter 7 cost-benefit analysis is overly simplistic and fails to account for the true environmental, safety, social and economic costs associated with the proposed PFSF in Skull Valley.
b. Cost-benefit analysis fails to account for the

" loss of property values, economic opportunitiec and other business and economic losses" imposed by mere existence of PFSF.

c. Chapter 7 of the ER fails to discuss applicant's financial arrangements with the Skull Valley Band which is essential to the cost-benefit analysis,

9

- 8 -

Re#1 sed: As of 2/9/98

d. The Castle Rock Petitioners intend to offer evidence on true costs of the proposed facilit
16. Impacts on Flora, Fauna and Existing Land Uses.

CONTENTION: The Application violates NRC regulations and NEPA because the ER does not adequately address the impact of the proposed PFSF upon the agriculture, recreation, wildlife, endangered or threatened species, and land quality of the area, agg 10 C.F.R. S 72.100(b), in that:

a. the ER fails to evaluate both usual and unusual site characteristics throughout all of Northwestern Utah;
b. the ER-fails '.o provide sufficient facts to enable one to understand t.he true impacts of the PFS on the environment, including without limitation information from a survey of endangered or threatened species in the area (including small spring parsley, Pohl's milkvetch, peregrine falcon, and the Skull Valley Pocket gopher) ;
c. the precise transportation corridor has not been identified, and thus the Application does not contain specific information about affected species in the transportation corridor.
17. Inadequate Consideration of Land Impacts.

CONTENTION: The Application violates NRC regulations and NEPA because the ER does not adequately consider the impact of the facility upon such critical matters as future economic and residential development in the vicinity, potential differing land uses, property values, the tax base, and the loss of revenue and opportunity for agriculture, recreation, beef and dairy production, residential and commercial development, and investment opportunities, all of which have constituted the economic base and future use of Skull Valley and the economic interests of petitioners, or how such impacts can and must be mitigated, see, e.a., 10 C.F.R. SS 72.90 (e) , 72. 98 (c) (2) and 72.100(b), in that:

a. the ER does not recognize the potential use of the areas surrounding the "FSF for residential or commercial development;

}

9 9 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98

b. the ER paints a misleading picture of the area i population by ignoring a majority of the Salt Lake l Valley; 1
c. the ER fails to consider the effect of the PFSF on the present use of Castle Rock's lands for farming, ranch operations and residential purposes or the projected use of such lands for dairy operations, residential development, or commercial developmenti
d. the ER provides no, or inaccurate, information on the economic value of current agricultural / ranching operations conduct on Castle Rock's lands; and
e. the ER fails to discuss the impact of placing a spent fuel stora wilderness area.ge facility near a national
18. Impacts on Public Health.

CONTENTION: The Application violates NRC regulations and NEPA because the Environmental Report (ER) does not adequately consider the impact of the proposed'PFSF upon the production of the agricultural products for human consumption by Petitioners, their tenants and others in the area (Egg-10 C.F.R. S 72.98 (b)) in that:

a. The ER fails to analyze, evaluate, or consider the potential impacts on the regional population associated with potential contamination of plants or animals destined for human consumption.
b. The ER provides no detailed description at all of the coordinated ranching, farming, and livestock production activities currently carried on by Petitioners.
19. Septic Tank.

CONTENTION: The Application violat es NRC regulations and NEPA because the ER does not adequately consider the impact of a septic k system on the ground water and ecology of the are to injure Petitione;.

d the related potential of this system

(&tg 10 C.F.R. SS 72. 98 (b) and 72.100 (b) ) , in that:

- ~

g, * .

ze

- Revised: -As of 2/9/98 a', . ' The ER1contains very little .information on how

. sewage wastes will be managed atjthe proposed facility-during both the construction and.

operation' facilities.

1

b. The ER-fails to discuss in detail:how the septic I system will:be;designediso as to eliminate the-- j risk'of contamination to groundwater and  ;

pe'.itioner's property._ 1

?20. Selection'of Road;or Rail Access to PFSF Site. i CONTENTION: .The Application violates NRC regulations

and.NEPA because it1 fails to describeLthe considerations.

governing selection of either~the: Skull- Valley Road-or-the railLapur access alternative-over-the other-and the implications of suchiselection in light of such

-considerations. Egg C. F.R. S S 51. 45 (c) - and _-72.100 (b) , . in

.that -

a. The ER is-deficient because it. fails to properl'y-
analyze the transportation alternatives.:-

b;- The-ER is' incomplete because investigations and studies have not-been performed which will have a direct bearing on the environmental: effects of the-

_ -alternative selected, c.- The ER is_ defective because PFS is considering a third option not discussed in the ER.

'd. The'~ER fails-to-mention.some significant --

environmental effects of the transportation.

alternativesisuch as increased traffic and noise.

'21'. -Exact-Location of-Rail Spur.

3.

CONTEtiTION: The Application violates NRC regulations tand NEPA because'it. fails to describe in detail the route of

.the: potential rail spur, property ownership ~along the rcute,

, , and; property rights needed_to construct and operate the rail

..spurH(agg 10'C.F.R. S 72.90(a)), in-that:

a . -. The ER_ fails _-to provide any detail concerning location of the rail. spur and impact on property rights along the route.

-s_, -.

. . . ._.__...__.m_- . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _

t r

-mw*as*%c w e w.; ., -4 t, esai1 _ .;

- Revised: As of 2/9/98.

b.- 'Upon information-and? belief,~ ER is defective-

  • because-PFS is considering two locations for the l rail' spur.
  • 22.. Road Expansion Authorizations.

. CONTENTION: The Application. violates NRC regulations' and NEPALbecause it fails-toLdescribe adequately theinature and ownership:of right-of-way that.would permit PFS's contemplated improvements of the Skull Valley ~ Road:and7 what

. permits and1 approval _from, or agreements with, the owner or owners'thereof'are needed for such improvements. Egg 10 C.F.R. Sf72.90(a).

23. Exicting Land Uses.

. . -CONTENTION: 'The Application violates NRC regulations and NEPA'because.itifails to describe with particularity, using--appropriate maps, land use patterns and' ownership as ,

to. lands in--the vicinity of the proposed PFSFsand along~the '

24' mile access. route, including without limitation,. homes, outbuildings, corrala and fences, roads and trails,

-pastures, crop producing areas, water wells,' tanks and troughs, ponds,nditches and canals. . Egg 10;C.F.R.

- SS 72 ;-90 (a); &! (c), 72.98(b), in'that l

a. -PFS fails to discuss in detail the various 1 impacted property; rights and owners around the siteTand along the 24-mile ~transportdclon corridor,
b. PFS-fails to discuss the legal basis for the right of.way along the 24-mile transportation corridor.
c. JPFS fails to identify existing structures that L would be impacted by the ISFSI and the various l< -

transportation corridors suggested by PFS.

I .d ~. PFS fails to discuss-impacts to existing grazing patterns and rights that would be impacted by the ISFSI and the various transportation corridora proposed by PFS.

e. PFS fails to discuss all impacts to those living near to the ISFSI and the proposed transportation corridors.

e 'f. The PFS application has "other deficiencies."

p I.

j'

Revised: As of 2/9/98

-24. Petitioners Castle Rock-and Skull Valley Co. by this reference adopt in its entirety each and every contention filed by the State of Utah and incorporate each herein by this reference.

l

~

Reris.9d : As of-2/9/98-Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Contentions A. Lack of Sufficient Provisions for Prevention of-and

. Recovery From AC' uts

-CONTENTION: .Tle. ase application poses. undue risk

-to public-health and i .y because-it lacks-sufficient  !

provisions lfor prever - of:and recovery _from_ accidents

_ during storage result. rom such causes as sabotage, fire,

_ cask drop and_ bend,_ lid arop damage and/or improper welds.

l~ -- 1. The license application does not address'the ot11 range of' accidents which could occur.

2. . -The license application does not adequately _  ;

address the accident impacts of human error or intentional human actions.

3. The license application does not include a " hot cell" and:the associated remote fuel. handling-equipment to safely unload, replace or reload-a=

damaged fuel canister.

.4 .- The ever-present risk of accidents will aJversely

-impact members =of-OGD.

B. Emergency. Plan'. Fails to Address the Safety of Those

Living Outside of the Facility-CONTENTION
- 'The lic'ense application, specifically the emergency plan submitted with'the license application 1 fails to address?the safety provisions ~made for those individuals

?living-outside of the facility within a five mile radius of-the-facility.- The emergency plan addresses only those

. measures that~ pertain to-employees and have not addressed the provisions _that would apply to those people living aroundLthe facility. The emergency plan does not address a warning system-such as would be implementedito put the residents: on noticef of an accident.

1. Adequate backup means for offsite communications for. notification of. emergencies or requests for assistance are not included in.the license application.
2. Means for compliance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986, Title III, Pub. L.99-499 is lacking in the license _ application.

m.

Revised: As of 2/9/98 C.- -License Application Lacks Sufficient Provisions for Protection Against Transportation Accidents a i

CONTENTION: The license _ application poses undue risk to public health and safety because it lacks sufficient provisions:for protection against: transportation accidents, including a criticality accident.

j 1

1. The license application fails to provide sufficient protection against transportation accidents because-of the design of the shipping '

cask.

2. The license application lacks sufficient measures for protection of shipping casks during-harsh summers and'sub-zero tempere'ures of winter.
3. The license application fails to consider the-historical record and consequences of spent nuclear fuel transportation accidents and

!. incidents as well as the number of incidents-that might occur given that record.

4. The license application fails to provide sufficient-information about1the radiological-characteristics of the spent fuel to be shipped:to fully evaluate the impacts and risks of_ spent nuclear fuel transportation to PFS.

5 ._ The license application fails to provide sufficient detail about the. anticipated shipment characteristics necessary for evaluation of-transportation impacts and risks.

-6. The. license application ignores the potentially severe consequences of a successful terrcrist attack against a spent fuel. shipping cask using a

'high energy explosive device . cur an anti-tank weapon.

7. The license application ignores the significant radiation exposures which members of OGD and other residents of Skull Valley may receive as.a result of gridlock craffic incidents and other routine transportation activities.

-s

-3 -

Revised: As of 2/9/98 D. License Application backs Procedures for Returning Damaged Casks to the Generating Reactor CONTENTION: The license application poses undue risk to public health and safety because it has not provided procedures for returning casks to the generating reactor.

4 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 AP. A,

p. TS-19 there is no provision for housing the casks prior to shipping the cask back to the generating reactor.

E. License Application Fails to Provide Information and a Plan to Deal With Casks That May Leak or Become Contaminated During the 20 to 40 Year Storage Period CONTENTION: The License Application poses undue risk to the public health and safety because it fails to provide information and a plan to deal with casks that may leak or become contaminated during the 20 to 40 year storage period.

Sending such casks back to the generating reactor may not be an option for several reasons, such as: PFS does not havc 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, and there are no assurances that the storage will be only " interim". The license application provides no assurance that there will be an alternative location to which canisters and/or casks can be shipped if they become defective while in storage Ct PFS.

1. The license application provides very little procedure for dealing with defective canisters and/or casks that may leak or become contaminated.
2. No alternative location is designated in the license application should a canister become defective while in storage especially if the reactor that originally shipped the canister is decommissioned.
3. The license application does not adequately address the uncertainties about the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository site, and if ever, spent fue.' stored at PFS should be shipped to Yucca Mountain.

~ . -

- __~ -. . . - ~ . - - ~ . . . ~ - - - _ . - -.~ - .~ -. . __. -

-r  :

e 4 ~~ .9e."invil : As of 2/9/98; F. License' Application Fails-to Make Clear Provisions for Punding of Estimated' Construction Costs, Operating Costs, and Decommissioning Costs-CONTENTION: -The license application fails to maxe clear: provisions for funding of estimatediconstruction *

-costs,. operating costs,-and-decommission costs. It also-fails to make clear as part of the construction costs who -- r

-the: contractors will be.

1. _ The license-application does not demonstrate that PFS;"either possesses the:necessary funds, or

, . . has reasonable assurance of obtaining the necessary funds" a- required by;10 C.F.R.

S 72.22 (e) .

.G.- . License Application _ Fails to Provide for Adequata Radiation-Monitoring

-CONTENTION: The license application poses undue risk-to public health and safety because it-fails to provide for adequate s radiation monitoring to protect the' health of1the

.public andLworkers. .t also fails to provide for_ adequate  !

radiation monitoring-necessary to' facilitate radiation

detection, event classification, emergency planning and notification..
1. LThe license application does not-meet the

' requirements of 10 - C. F.R. S 72. 32 (6) .

2. 'The_ license application'does not address releases' outside.of the ISFSI site.:

I.. The cask Design is-. Unsafe and Untested'for Long Periods of. Time CONTENTION: The-license application poses undue risk

.to public health'and safety because it calls for use of a

- cask'whose design-is unsafe and untested for long periods of time and'which has-not been certified for either.

_ transportation or long term storage'.

.1. The license application fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 72.22 (e) because the cask design is'not certified.

-2. No meaningful PIS under NEPA can be completed

-until_~the cask design is certified.

s -1 5 -

Revised: As of-2/9/98 J. The License Application Fails to Address the Status of Compliance with All Permits, Licenses, and Approvals (for the Facility-CONTENTION: The license application violates NRC regulations because-the ER fails to address the status of compliance with all permits, licenses and approvals required for the'. facility.

K. There are No Provisions for Paying for Casks That May Need to be Returned to the Generating Facility CONTENTION: The license application poses undue risk to public health and safety because it does not address how i the facility will deal with paying for or returning casks that may prove unsafe should the generating reactor have been decommissioned.

L. Operators will not be Trained forlthe Specific Job When Hired and Operators will Undergo On-the-job. Training CONTENTION: The license ~ application poses undue' risk-to public health and safety because it provides that operators will not.be trained for the specific job when hired and that operators will undergo on-the-job training, and classroom training leading to certification. .The license application states that "of necessity, the first individuals certified may have to improvise in.certain-situations to complete the practical factors." ggg, License Anolication, LA Chapter 7 p. 7.1. This doesn't protect public health and safety in any manner.

1. - The_ license' application does not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 72.327, in.that persons being' trained on the job will not be able to carry out their responsibilities under 10 C.F.R. S 72.32 (a) (7) . .

M. No Provisions for Transportation Accidents arc Made CONTENTION: The license application poses undue risks to-public health and safety because it makes no provisions for transportation accidents that might occur.

1. The license application does not adequately address the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

S 72.32 (a) (2) by failing to adtress transportation accidents near the site.

, .nm,w . nn -,

s3 Reviseu As of 2/9/98- 4 N. There may be a Leak that contaminates the Present Water-System CONTENTION _ The' license application poses undue risk to public health and safety because it fails _to address the possibility of a leak foccurring-that might contaminate the present water system _that members of'the community rely on.

The application admits that several wells are going to.have ,

to be built to meet the demand _that will be presented by the l I

facility. Neither_ contingencies to deal-with contamination nor lowering of the present water table are discussed..

O.. Environmental-Justice! Issues Are Not Addressed CONTENTION: . The_ license application poses undue risk

to public health and safety because it. fails to address

. environmental justice issues._ In, Executive Order 12898, i 3' C. F.R.~ 859 (1995) issued: February 11, 1994,- President Clinton' directed that each Federal agency "shall make achieving environmental justice-part of its mission by'

-identifying-and addressing,_as appropriate, disproportionately high:and adverse human-health or 1 environmental effects of its: programs, policies and activities on. minority populations and low-income populations in the United States."- It is not just and fair

-that this community be made to_ suffer more environmental degradation at-the hands of the NRC. Presently,-the area is surrounded by a ring of= environmentally: harmful companies and. facilities. Within a radius of thirty-five -(35) . miles the members of OGD and the Goshute reservation ~are inundated with hazardous waste from: Dugway' Proving Ground, Utah Test and Training Range' South, Deseret Chemical Depot, Tooele IArmy Depot, Envirocare Mixed Waste storage facility,'Aptus Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Grassy Mountain Hazardous Waste Landfill and Utah Test-and Training Range North.

P. Members of OGD will be Adversely Impacted by Routine

~

Operations of the Proposed Storage: Facility and Its Associated Transportation Activities CONTENTION: The ability of OGD members to pursue the i I

traditional Goshute life style will be adversely impacted by the routine operations at the storage facility. Obviouc ,

impacts resulting from the physical presence of the facility l are; visual intrusion, noise, worker and visitor traffic to and from the: storage site, and presence of strangers in the community. Those impacts that are not as obvious but nonetheless serious are; individual and collective social,

O

-7 -

hevised: As of 2/9/98 I psychological, and cultural impacts such as a sense of loss of *eell-being because of the dangerous wastes that are being stored near their homes, in t. heir community, and on their ancestral lands, j The ability of OGD members te pursue a traditional i Goshute life style will be adversely affected by routine transportation operations of spent nuclear fuel and/or the presence of truc,<s, especially very-large heavy haul trucks.

The other obvious and other effects include the same kind of effects-that are lis' d above, including fear-that a transpo,tation accidp.t might happen, fear of acts of terrorism or sabotage which could expose members of 000 and their families, their nomes, the community and their ancestral land.

s

- . . - . - ~ , . .

q ,m l

0 tevisodi As of 2/9/98 Contentions of Confederated 'Iribes.cf the Gokhute Reservation and-David Pete -

A. Decommissioning Plan Deficiencies.

CONTENTION: PY6 has not provided reasonable assurance -

that the 4dFSI can be cleaned up_and adequately restored ,

upon cessation of operations.

I B. Lack ~of Protection Against NorstLCase Accidents.

CONTENTION: PFS hae 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..

C.- Inadequate Assessment _of~ Costs under NEPA.

CONTENTION: PFS has not adequately described or weighed the environmental, social, and. economic impacts and costs of operating the ISFSI. Indeed, there is no adequate benefit-cost. analysis which even demonstrates a need for the ISFSI. On the whole, Petitioners contend that the costs of-the project far. outweigh the benefits of the proposed action'. See, e.g.,- Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire, 6 LNRC. 33, 90 (1977) .

D .' JInadequate Discussion of No-Action Alternative.-

CONTENTION: PFS has failed to satisfy the requirements uf NEPA-because it does not adequately' discuss the alternatives to he-proposed action.

E.L Failure to Give Adequate Consideration to Adverse

. Impacts on the-Historic District, i CONTEN' TION : - PFS'has failed to comply with NEPA in that

itthas not adequately discussed the impacts upon the

- historic district and the archeological-heritage of the area.-

~ _ _

?

o t

Revised: As of 2/9/98 F. Failure to Adequately Establish Financial Qualifications.

CONTENTION: .PFS has failed to demonstrate that it is financially qualified to build and oparate the ISFSI.

G.

The Goshute Tribe hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the follows contentions and the Bases stated by Castle Rock Land & Livestock, L.C.:

1. Absence at NRC Authority. The Application is dcfective-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 ISFSI.

2.- Non-Compliance with Regulations. PFS's Application is defective because it seeks a license for an ISFSI pursuant to 10 C.F.R.. Part~72. However, the proposed storage installation is not an ISFSI and is otherwise not licensable 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 requiremunts for a permanent repository.

4.- . Inadequate Financial Qualifications.

The Application does not provide assurance that PFS will have the necessary funds to cover estimated construction costs, operating 10 C.F.R. costs, and decommissioning costs, as required by S 72.22 (e) .

5. Regional and Cumulative Environmental Impacts.

The Application fails to adequately discuss the regional proposed PFSF and cumulative environmental impacts of the-as required by 10 C.F.R. SS 72.98 (b) & (c),

NEPA.

H. The Goshute. Tribe hereby adopts and incorporates by reference'the Contentions and the Bases stated by the State of Utah including without limit the following:

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 Tranafer Facility.

PFS's application should be rejected because it does not

o

- 3 -

Fev3ned:  ?. 3 of 2/9/98 acek approval for receipt, nuclear Point, infuel violation at theofRowley 10 C.F.R. Junction Intermodal Transfertransfer, an S 72.6 (c) (1) .

L

f  ;

i 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !

e-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!ss!0N j In the Matter of i PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC DocketNo.(s)72-22-ISFSI  !

o i l (Independent-Spent Fuel storage Installation) l l

CERTIFICATE OF $ERVICE  !

t

' I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&0--TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS ,

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. ,

t t

Administrative Judge

- Office of Commission Appellate G. Paul Bo11werk, !!!, Chairman i Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail stop - T-3 F23 .

. Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory commission  :

Washington, DC 20555 ,

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. KHne Peter S. Las Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail stop - T-3 F23 Mail stop - T-3 F23 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior i Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555  :

, Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Catherine L. Marco, Esq. Diane Curran Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Harmon, curran & Spielberg-Mail Stop 15 818 -2001 5 Street, N.W., Suite 430 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 2000g l

Washington, DC 20555 Denise- Chancellor, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Utah Attorney General's Office Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge >

160 East 300 South, 5th Floor 2300 N Street .NW

, , P.O. Box 140873 Washington, DC 20037 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 f

u ._- _. _..___ _ ._ __ _ _ ~ .._. _ _,,... .. . - .. _ . - , .. _ . .. - _ -.- _ , . - . - ~ .

b

, Docket No.(s)72-22-!$FSI LB M&O--TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS

)

1 John Paul Kennedy, Esq. Jean Belille, Esq.  :

Confederated Tribas of the Goshute ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Resery wion and David Pete Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 1385 Yale Avenue 2260 Baseline. Road, suite 200 salt Lake city, UT 84105 Boulder, CO 80302

{

Clayton J. Parr, Esq. Danny Quintana, Esq.  !

Castle Rock, et.al. skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians  !

Parr, Waddoups Brown, Gee & Loveless Danny Quintana & Assocs., P.C. i 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 50 West Broadway Fourth Floor  !

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT . 4101 l

Richard Wilson i Department of Physics  !

. Harvard University  !

Cambridge, MA 02138 Dated at Rockville, Md. this >

9 day of February 1998 ,

7g 4, j

[5eritarygftheCondSS0" i

h D

, , _ , , . , _ , . . . . _ . , _ , - . . . . , . . . , , .._._.,.m

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20202J633&oldid=3085178"