ML20205R497
| ML20205R497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1988 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7426 OL-1, NUDOCS 8811100050 | |
| Download: ML20205R497 (19) | |
Text
?
ft{ N CCLKE1D November 2, 1988 L"M C UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOh NOV -3 P1 :54 ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gry . - x u. W /
AW
) uGCM + M h In the Matter of h"k
)
) '
Public Service Company of )
New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1
) 50-444 OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) ONSITE EMERGENCY
) PLANNING & TECHNICAL
) ISSUE; NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S CONTENTIONS ON APPLICANTS' DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, MOTION FOR STAY.0F LOW POWER OPERATION, AND MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD I. Introduction and Motion for Stav of Low Power Oceration The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
submits below its contentions regarding Applicants' plan for decommis,sioning the Seabrook reactor following low power opera-tion. The contentions challenge the Applicants' decommissioning schedule, their ostimates for the costs of decommissioning, and I the lack of reasonable assurance that adequate funding will be available for decommissioning.
The issues raised in those contentions vividly underscore the fundamental folly of permitting Seabrook to operato at low power now, given the fact that the plant will not go to full power operation any timo soon, if at all. In light of the very short timo period necessary to test the reactor, thoro is no great bonofit to be gained from rushing ahead with low power operation. On the other hand, the potential costs of low power operation are enormous -- millions of dollars in decontamination and disposal costs, and the protracted expenso and public safety s 3
$$k1$Dob ft [h60 0
hazard posed by the need to store spent fuel reprocessing byproducts and contaminated reactor parts on the Seabrock site.
In addition, Applicants would have the commission take the unprecedente' Jtep of approving an export license for the rep'ocessing of spent fuel, an action that would raise serious foreign policy questions with respect to the United States' posi-tion against international proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Even if Applicants could demonstrate the existence of ade-quate funding to finance the enormous costs of decommissioning --
and we submit that they have not -- there is no public policy justification for allowing these immense costs to e incurred by a bankrupt utility that may ultimately be unable to pay them.
Nor can"the Commission justify setting a precedent for approving international shipments of spent fuel and its reprocessing byproducts, including plutonium; or creating the potential that Seabrook will becomo a long-term radioactive waste dump.
! Thereforo, NECNP respectfully moves that as a matter of policy, the Commission stay low power operation until such timo as Applicants are substantially closer to the point of receiving a full power operating licenso.1 l,
I l 1 In making this argument, NECNP does not abandon its posi-l tion, asserted previously before the commission, that under the Atomic Enorgy Act, the commission may not permit low power opera-tion prior to completion of hearings on all issues rolovant to full power operation.
II. Contentions Contention 1: Applicants' decommissioning schedule is unrealistic, and fails to assess the situation with regard to radioactive wasto disposal, as required by the decommissioning rule. Moreover, given the lack of committed disposal capacity for Seabrook's radioactive wastes, Applicants' election of the DECON option (removal and transportation offsite of reactor parts and fuel) is inappropriate.
Basis: As the Commission noted in the proposed version of the decommissioning rule, "the aso of DECON assumes the availability of capacity to handle wasto requiring disposal." 50 Fod. Rog. 5600, 5603, Col. 3 (February 11, 1985). Egg also 53 Fed. Reg. at 24,041, Col. 1. In the final rule the Commission explained that "(ajlternative methods of decommissioning cre available including delay in completion of decommissioning during which timo there can be storage of wastes." Id.
In the decommissioning rule's Statement of Considerations, the commission notes that spent fuel disposal, although not included as a decommissioning activity, "could nevertholoss impact on the decommissioning schedulo." 53 Fed. Reg. at 24,041, Col. 3. According to the Commission, Licensoos will have to assess the situation with regard to wasto disposal as part of the decommissioning plan which they submit according to the requirements of 10 CFR 5 30.36, 40.42, 50.82, 70.38, and 72.38.
53 Fed. Reg. at 24,041, Col. 1.
L
7n .,
-4 -
Applicants have failed to make this assessment. They have failed to show that actual, committed capacity exists for dis-posal of spent fuel reprocessing byproducts and contaminated reactor parts. They give no consideration whatsoever to poten- i tial difficulties in disposing of radioactive wastes from Seabrook, including both disposal of spent fuel reprocessing i byproducts, and the contaminated portions of the reactor.
Finally, they have failed to address th. Assues raised by their ,
proposal to ship spent fuel to France for reprocessing, including national policy considerations involved in licensing Applicants L
j to ship nuclear fuel overseas, or to store spent fuel reprocess-ing byproducts, including plutonium, at the reactor site for an .;
. l l indefini'te period.
l l a. spent fuel In their decommissioning plan, Applicants state their inten- l tion to ship the Seabrook fuel to France for reprocessing. How- i over, Applicants include no provision for storage of the radioac- {
tivo vasto yielded by the reprocessing of the fuel. Uased on French national policy that it will not accept other cou ,. J' j i
f
, s 1sto, the French reprocessing entity "Cogoma" ten i ropa e sing byproducts to the customer, either imm- iately or I i
after a limited time of storage at the customer's expense. ERS f I "How Cogoma interprets its Reprocessing Contracts," published in l December 5, 1983, issue of "Nuclear Fuel." Attachment 1.
The commission assumos in the decommissioning rulo that
"(d]isposal of spent fuel will be via geologic repository." 53 p
- I l
l Fed. Reg. at 24,040, Col. 2. Obviously, this capacity does not yet exist and is not likely to exist until sometime in the next i
century. Monitored Retrievable Storage, an intermediate measurc, is still in the investigatory stages. Congress has not yet made a decision on the need for MRS, let alone the design and location f of a facility.2 Thus, for an extended period into the future, there is no j 1
possible storage location for the byproducts of spent fuel ,
reprocessing, other than the Seabrook site itself. Y 4t ,
Applicants fail to describe the manner in which they 5 b] store r the radioactive waste, or the measures they will take to protect ,
the public health and safety during the storage period. It 5
! should be notad in this regard that, given their different con-figuration from apent fuel, spent fuel reprocessing byproducts, which will include plutonium, may require special storage condi- ,
tiens.
?
1 i
4 l
i i
i 2 A special Commission ostablished by Congress to evaluate the 4
nded for MRS and make recommendations to Congress is not sched- .
uled to submit its report to Congress until June of 1989. Egg 42 [
U.S.C. E 10163.
]
In 1987, the Dopartnant of Energy estimated that it would take twelve years aftet Congresr,1cc'l authorization of MRS con- :
l struction before a facility boc>ee operationaf.. U.S. Department j
- of Energy, Of fico of Civilian Rao '.oactive Waste Management, f
- "OCRWM Mission Plan .im9ndment," June, 1987, at 46. Attachment 2.
Thus, MRS is not likely to be available, if at all, until somo-timo after the turn of the century.
e
?
i
- b. contaminated reactor parts In their decommissioning report, Applicants claim that they .
will ship contaminated reactor parts to a low-level radioactive l waste disposal facility. However, Applicants fail to idantify [
any such facility, or to show that capacity would actually be -
available for Seabrook reactor parts.
At present, there are three licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the United States: Barnwall, South ,
Carolina; Richland, Washington; and Beatty, Nevada. Federal law f 1 imposes limits on the amount of radioactive waste that each of these facilities may accept from commercial reactors. San 42 U.S.C. 2021e(a) -
(c). The amount of waste that can be accepted differs'for nach facility. Id., 5 (b). It also changes over tine. Id., 5 (c). Applicants have provided no analysis of whether they can satisfy these criteria over a period of years.
Contention 21: Applicants have underestimated the costs of i
decommissioning Seabrook, because the estimated costs do not include packing and transportation of spent fuel and spent fuel reprocessing byproducts, post-processing storage of spent fuel products, or long-term onsite storage of contaminated reactor parts.
Basis: Applicants claim that under the rule, the cost of disposing of spent fuel from the Seabrook reactor is not consid-I cred a decommissioning cost, and therefore need not be considered j in this proceeding. However, it is quite clear that when the 1
1
--'-' * - , , , - - - , , _ . , _ ~ , , , - _ _ _ , _ _ _ __
i Commission promulgated the decommissioning rule, it excluded con-sidotation of spent fuel disposal costs because it assumed that high level waste storage capacity would be available pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the federal government would take title to Seabrook's spent fuel at the reactor site, and costs of transportation and stord; would be paid out of a High Level Waste Trust Fund financed by nuclear utilities. Under those circumstances, the cost of spent fuel disposal to utilities would be nonexistent.
No such waste disposal facility or guarantecd payment of disposal costs is at hand here. In such a situation as this, the decommissioning rule envisions that reactor wastes will be stored onsite until offsite disposal capacity becomes available. 53 Fed. Reg. at 24,041, Col. 1. The Commission apparently never considered that a utility might opt to send spent fuel overseas for reprocessing.
In effect, Applicants' plan falls outside of the decommis-sioning rule because it proposes actions never contemplated by the rule. In fact, to apply the letter of tne decommissioning rule in this case would achieve an absurd result never intended by the Commission -- i.e., that by virtue of removing the spent fuel from the Seabrook site, Applicants would be absolved of all responsibility to show their ability to dispose of it. As the Commicsion stated in CLI-88-07, the "reasoning" of the decommis-sioning rule must be applied to the "unique and unusual circum-l l'
stances of this case." 311p op. at 2. The Commission should find the decommissioning plan deficient for failure to address the costs involved in shipping reactor fuel to France, and in shipping reprocessed fuel and reprocessing byproducts back to Ceabrook.3 The decommissioning report also fails to mention the cost of onsite storage of reprocessing byproducts that are returned from France. As discussed in Contention 1 above, prolonged onsite r I
storage is the only option currently available for disposal of high-level waste.
Contention 2): Applicants have not demonstrated that ade-quate funds are available for decommissioning, given the inevitable delays in obtaining space in waste disposal facilities.
Basis: App.1 1 cants assert that decommissioning vill be com-plated in 52 months. Letter from Edward A. Brown, PSNH, to U.S.
NRC, NYN-88142, dated October 20, 1988, at 3. However, as dis-cussed above, Applicants have not adequately accounted for inevitabic delays due t) the current unavailability of storage a space for spent fuel reprocessing byproducts, which will have to r
3 Some of these costs may alreasf be included in Applicants' [
estimate of $320 to $390 million in alleged non-decommissioning '
costs relating to the termination of the Seabrook project. The list of non-decommissioning costs include- an unexplained item called "disposal of fuel." Letter from Edward A. Brown tc U.S.
NRC, NYN-88142, dated October 20, 1988, at 6.
be stored onsite. In addition, Applicants have not demonstrated that they have obtained committed space in a low level waste facility. Thus, decommissioning of the Seabrook reactor is likely to be delayed for a protracted period. The costs of such long-term storage are not calculated in Applicants' decommission-ing plan.4 III. Motion to Reocen the Record The NRC has a three-part standard for reopening an evidentiary record a) whether the issues could have been raised earlier, b) whether the motion addresces a significant safety or environmental issue, and c) whether a materially different result would have been likely had the new eviuence been considered ini- ;
tially. 10 CFR 5 2.734(a). The regulations also require that i
motions to reopen must be accompanied by affidavits setting forth l
l the technical and factual bases for the movant's claim that the standard for reopening has been met.
I NECNP satisfies this standard. First, the issues raised by NECNP's contentions could not have been raised earlier. This proceeding began months before promulgation of the final decom-missioning rule, with petitions for waiver of the financial ,
qualifications rule. At the time the decommissioning rule was 4 Applicantr calcu? ate only the cost of storing spent fuel during the nonths after completion of decontamination and removal of the reactor veste. aid associated equipment and before it is (
shipped to Frtoca. Letter from George S. Thomas to U.S. NRC, NYN-88144, dated October 28, 1988, at 2, note 1.
issued, in June of 1988, the Appeal Board was considering appeals of the Licensing Board's denials of Intervonors' and Massachu-setts' financial qualifications rule waiver petitions. It was the Commission which decided that the issues raised by the Attorney General were more appropriately addressed in the context of the decommissioning rule. Thus, this proceeding was the first opportunity for l'ECNp to address these issues.
Second, the :ontentions' filed by NECNP raise significant safety and environmental issues. As discussed at length in the body of the contentions, Applicants have not demonstrated che capability to dispose of spent fuel or radioactive teactor parts at Seabrook. The potential that Seabrook may turn into a long-term nuc' lear waste storage dump for spent fuel fission products, plutonium, and contaminated reactor parts, raises serious safety and environmental questions. Moreover, Applicants have not demonstrated that they can pay for this long-term storage or assure that the public health and safety will be protected during that period. Given the grave uncertainty that Seabrook will over be licensed, it is of utmost importance that these issues be resolved before Seabrook is allowed to operate at low power.
Third, litigation of this issue is likely to result either in the denial or delay of authorization to operate Seabrook at low power, or at lecst in the establishment of provisions for funding decommissioning and storing nuclear wastes onsite if the reactor does not go to full power. These important conditions
would not have been imposed on Applicants before promulgatjan of the decommissioning rule.
Although NECNP is unable to retain an expert to support its claims, that should not defeat this motion. Most of the argu-ments made by NECNP in its contentions are legal in nature, relating to government-established schedules for development of nuclear waste storage facilities, whether Applicants'have ade-quately factored in the long storage times for nuclear waste, and whether they must show the ability to cover the costs of shipment and disposal of spent fuel. To the extent that NECNP's conten-tionr; raise cechnical issues requiring expert analysis, NECNP intends to rely on the expertise of consultants retained by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
IV. NECNP Meets the Late-filed Contention Standard.
In considering late-filed contentions, the commission must weigh a) good cause for late-filing, b) the availability of other mecns to protect the petitioner's interests, c) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, and d) the extent to which the petitioner's interests will be represented by other parties, and e) the extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden the issuen or delay the proceeding.
A balancing of these factors weighs in favor of admitting NECNP's contentions. First, as discussed above with relation to the standard for reopening the record, the issue of Applicants'
-v - ---w , - - e . - - , , . - , , _ _
6
- 12 -
compliance with NRC decommissioning requirements could not have been raised earlier because of the recent promulgation of the deccmmissioning rule.
Second, there are no other means to protect NECNP's inter-ents in this proceeding. No other proceeding exists in which NECNP's interests could be vindicated. Moreover, while other ,
intervonors have filed contentions on these issues, each represents a different constituency'with separate memberships, priorities, and interests.
Third, NECNP's participation may reasonably be expected to lead to the development of a sound record, in that it will vigorously oursue the question of whether Applicants have given sufficient consideration to the scheduling ano cost problems raised by the current unavailability of high level nuclear waste storage capacity, and limited avail' ability of low level waste storage capacity. In addition, NECNP will press for an account-ing of the costs of transportating spent fuel and reprocessing l
byproducts to and from France.
Finally, while this litigation will broaden the Seabrook ;
proceeding and delay low power operation, it is extremely unlikely to have any ffect on the ultimate schedule for full power operation of seabrook, as the Licensing Board has only ,
recently commenced litigation of the complex issues related to ,
the Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts Communities and the emer-gency planning exercise conducted this summer.
- 13 -
t CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should grant -
NECNP's motions to stay low power operation of Seabrook and to reopen the hearing record, and admit NECNP's contentions on Applicants' decommissioning plan for Seabrook.
Respectfully submitted,
$i_f gj Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 November 2, 1988 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 2, 1988, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by hand, overnight mail, or.first-class mail on all parties to this proceeding, as designated on the attached service list.
.1 Diane curran CK-4
L OU.i ill
&C SEABROOK SERVICE LIST Onsite Commission
'88 NOV -3 P134 Richard A. llampe, bq.
Atornac Safety and Ikensmg Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman Appeal Doerd Panet Board of Selectmen llampe and McNicholas
- lando W. Zach US Nuclear Regulatory Comminion Tomm of Sahstifyf MA 01950 . 35 Pleuant Street Otairman '
Washington, D C 2055$ OLC6l ' Y- Concord, N1103301 US Nuclear Replatory Cornmmaon Washington, D C 20553 f biNt t Atomic Safety and Licensing Rep. Roberta C Pestar Gary W. Ilolmes, Esq.
'Thornas M. Roberta Doar! Panel Dnnkuster Road llotmes & Dlis US Nuclear Regulatory Commission llampton Falls, Nil 03844 47 Winnacunnent RoaJ Commmioner U i Nuclear Regulatory Commmion Washington, D.C 20555 llampton, N1103842 Wuhington D C 20555 Docketing and Serdce Dranch Phi!!ip Ahrer.2, Esq. William Armstrong US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anistant Attorney General CMI Defense Director
' James R. Cumsa Commmioner Washington, D C 20555 State llouse, Station #6 10 Tront Street Augusta, ME 04333 Exeter, N!! 03133 U1 Nuclear Regulatory Cornmmaon Wuhtston, D C 20555 Michael Santosuopo, Chairman ' Gregory A. Derry, Esq. Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Doard of Selectmen Ofncs of General Counsel Board of Sv.atmen
'K2nneth M. Carr Je=tli Street, RIT) # 2 U.S. Nuclear Reguistory Commiuson 1315 New M3rket RoaJ Commmaoner South flampton, N1103M2 wuhington, D C 20$$$ Durham, N1103M2 UX Nuclear Regulatory Commmion Washcgton, D C 20555 Carol S. Sneider, bquire Allea lamprt William S. I.ord Selectman
- Kenneth C Regers Assatant Attorney General Cm1 Defense Director Tomm llat!- Friend Street 1 Ashburton Place,19th floor Toms of Drentommd Amesbury.MA 01913 Commmm3ne r U i Eclear Regulatory Commmaon Ikuton.MA 02108 Eacier. Nil OM33 Wuhington, D C 20555 .
Stanley W. Knomics Matthew T. Brock, Esq Jane Doughty ;
Alan i Rosenthal, Chairman Doard of Sciectmen Shaines & McEachern SAPL Ateense Safety and Lkensing P.O. Dos 710 P.O. Dos 360 5 Market Street North llampton, N11 03A26 Maplewood Avenue Portsmouth. N11 OM01 Arpe:IIkurd U1 NRC Portsmouth, N11 03801 Wuhington. D C 20533 Sandra Gavutis R. Scott il,Il Whdton J P. Nadeau Tce of Rye RIT) 1, Dos 1154 lagoulis, Clark, lhil-Whdton llamard A.Wiltwr Atornie Safety and LAensing 155 Washington Road Fast Kensington, N1103a27 and McGuire Rye, New Itampshire 03870 79 State Street Appe llkwrd U S. NRC Neuburport MA 01950 Eluhirfton, D C 20555 Senator Gordon J llumphrey Judith II. Mitne r, bq Diana Ssdetwham Sheldon J Wolie. Chairman US Senate Shergiate. Gertner, et al. RfD e 2 Do 130 Atomx Safety and lkensing Daard Wuhmgton, D C 20510 E8 Dread Street Putney, VT 05M6 U S Lclear Regulatory Commme (Attn. Tom Durack) Dosion.MA 02110 Wuhington. D C 20555 Senator Gordon J llumphrey "nomas G. Dignan. ly 1 Dgie 5;uare, Sie 507 RX Gad II, E2q. 'By caernight t Dr. Emmeth A.14etike '
Atomac Safety and lacensmg floard Cone >rd. Nil 03M1 Rctes & Gray 55W rnendship Ibulevard 22.5 franklin Street Apartment 1923N Daston, MA 02110 Chesy Chase MD 20815 CaMn A. Canney Robert A. IMus. 044 Dr. Jerry llartwe C4ry '4 anage r 1ksckwa Meyer & Solonwa Atom c Safety and tiensmg Ikurd City 11411 111 Lomelt Street US Nclear Regulatory Commmon IM Daniel Street Manchute r. N11 0310$
Wuhin6 ton. D C 20553 Portsmouth. Sll DM01 Charles P. Graham, Fa George Dana Babee, E.q McKay. Merphy and Graham Geoffrey M. Iluntington,11; ;
/
100 Main Street Offee of the Attorney General Amesbury,MA 01913 State llouse Annen i I
Concord, N11 03301
ATTICIM mr 1 i
. the Cogema source says,"we talk about it* to resolw them.
Up to now none has been sent to Eurodif.but there are pro- If they prove insurmountable.then the cust:mer has to take vtaions for that. his fuel back,and has to pay for the time it wu stored in the -
Cosema and its customers are discusans the speciaca. pool at La Hague.
tions for waste conditioning and packastag. The contracts Return of plutonium is a bit trickfer. Cosema mys that call for Cogema customen to agree on waste conditioning spe. it wiu **fouow our gowrnment's lastructsona"in this matter.
cifications two years before the fuelis reprocessed. Customers One source says the major potential problems haw to do with got the proposed specificauons at the end of 1982;they are the means of shipment. From Cogema's viewpoint, the custo-now co.uudenng the specificattens and makmg suggestions mers and Cosema have to agree on the packagmg used for the
(;r adapting them to individual needs. A Cogema offletal says Pu. Meanwhde Cogema is budding a facdity for Pu storate at Dgema wul send defirutive spectications for HLW in "one or La Hague. Half of it wiu be under IAEA safeguards, dedicated two years." after further tests. to storage of fore:gn<orista Pu.
As for low and medium level wastes, that official says la Tokyo, menawhile, ofScials say Japant.se policies and the recommendanons of the Castams report (i.e. to find a measures regard!ng wastes to be shipped back t y Cogems and l
better way to immobillze them than m concrete or bitumen)BNF1.have always been blueprinted - and panly imF emented won't have any effect on the conditforung of foreign wastes -on the anticipation that sendback wn! start in the 1990s,
> - Cogema is contmums to proceed according to custing 1992 or 1993 at the latest.
safety regulations which authorue the concrete and bitumeni- A Japanese government source understands that, stnctly ration processes. speaking, Cogema has an option" to send back the UP 3 For allkmd:of waste.customen must give Cogema thett wastes to cilents. it wtB opt for the shippmg back because, he approvaluf the company's proposed methods for waste con. says."nobody wants to keep truh." UP 3 contracts of 10 citomns before the fuelis reprocessed. If there are differences.
HOW COGEMA INTERPRETS ITS REPROCESSING CONTRACTS 1his is a bnef restew of the different rypes of contracts Catema has signed with gem.t h1st document of!are 1981.
thereaftetto have the sper hasapproved by their own
. Contract Type 1: These contractacon 314 toimes U (MTU1 safety authonnes. If they didn't, Cogema was to have the op-i' of spent fuel,includmg 151 MT from Kansai Dectnc Powertion of transformme the reprocesans contracts into intertm Co. The majonty of th2s has already been reproceued. This spent 4uel storage contracts. In such cases, Cogema would f type of contract had fixed pnce. guaranteed nme of sernce, contmus to accept spent fuel unnl the end of 1990, and the and, as ontmally stated left the wastes with Cogema. About customers would have to take it back by the end of 1995.
half of the contracts sete renegotuted later to provide for Cosma says that this clause is dessned to deter foreign utd- 4
, higher pnce and waste return. including those itses the frc,m and regulators Kep- from refuams French wute condiconmg co spent fuel, sp d ca ens.
Contreet Type 2: "UP : ontracts" cover a total of 713 MT The preceding clauses are backed up by genrnment-of forelan tpent fuel, have much higher pnces, no guaranteed to-government letters in which foreign gonrnments have time of service, and provutons for return of all wastes resujg. comfrutted thempives not to oppose the return of waste
'Ing from reprocesung beguuung in 1990 (the year in which from their utdities' rpent fuel the customer countnes were projected to have adequate stor, Uranium and plutotuum remain the customers' proper.
age capacities). If the wastes cartnot be accepted by the cus. ty,too. In general, plutonsum is not to be sent back to coun-tomer, the contract provides for a staff penalty - Cogsma's try of ortsm unless the gonrnment of that country demon-100.000 francs per day labout $12.500/ day) strates its trnmediate peaceful use (e.g., fabncanon of fuel documents say elements for ctvdian use),under (AIA or f.uratom control.
a be paid to Cogema by the offendmg utdity untd the ham at m custands e n, s wastes can be sent back. ,", ,
Contract Type 3: Known variously as UP 3, UP3 A."$190" !! the custJmer does not take his uranyl futrate wtth-or **baseload customers" contracts, these cover about 8$in three months ofits eut from the plant Cosema has the of total foreign rpent fuel to be reprocessed by Cogema.nght Una to convert it into an apprognate form for storage and der these contracts, the 30 foretsa customets pay all the in-vestment costs and operanns cows of the UP-3 plant (now can d.ehver UF6 back to the client if it gives that not ce. Plutoruum is to be given back in the form of clie y,,f, under construcuen) for the (ht 10 years of operatton, dur-ing whuh time the plant is projected todehvery, reprocess 7.000 MTU Pu0:. or whatever c of spent fuel. The customen must stick to firm debiery In addition to all these clauses on waste, there La one schedules for thett spent fuci, and reproccasma pnce ta on refernas to the ase in wruch a customer mtsht renege on a cost plus fited4ee base. The contracts provtde for the re- hts responubuities (e.g., breach of contract). It says that tf a moval from France of all tae wastes from reprocessms, both customer fads to meet contract obliganons for :S days of process m utes and technologssal wastes (e.g.. contamanated more. Cogema .5 releued from tts responnbdices vis+vts huus, gloves, etc.), for storage m a ute of the customer s the customer unless it finds a subsutute customer, m which chace, case the subsutute pays the fint customer for his part of the In pracuce. Cogema was supposed to subnut to its cus- contract. More sistuficantly,if one customer ds(aults. Co-tomers the specificac2ons for waste condittentng approved by French safety authenties by Jan.1.19 A: ut actuany did ttgema has the nght to suspend tts obtisa at the end of 1982). The customen were to have two years NuclevFuel - Dece-ster 3. I933 - II
~~~_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _
1 >
I r e tic a. v n 2 == 28 i
~
YAKIMA INDIAN l NATION -
l i -
JU" 2 010S7 .
] ,
D NUCl. EAR W ASTE
-l __
,2,
) ,
F
- 4 4
l II k s h I.t e
i i
.:.u
' f . . \
y.
2 4 '
7< p 4.
! "l _
t,E *l, With Comments on the Draft Amendment l and Responses to the Comments t
4 .,
f l[ l I
i
-f '
}
I j
. .g 1 i
..e.d.,
- 3 June 1987 ei l U.S. Department of Energy l Otfice of Civilian Radioacthe Waste Management t Washongton. DC 20S85 9
i
~-
U gn I
i h
l
. I
. i l l I' i l
The !
Tennessee, in turn, appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. I t
Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 30, 1987, and, as a result, the DOE, / !
havir.g overcome all legal impediments formally submitted the proposal to the Congress on March 31, 1987. l I
.t :
As explained in the 1985 Mission Plan,' the DOE had hoped to have an I MRS facility ready to start receiving waste in 1996. This date was based on i the facility l the assumption that Congrensional authorization to construct l would be received in mid-1986. Prompt authorization would still permit the start of MRS operations in 1998, To allay concerns that the MRS facility j l l could become a substitute for a permanent repository, the DOE preposal recom- i mends that the Congress limit the storage capacity of the MRS facility to l
15,000 metric tons of uranium and specify that the MRS facility cannot start receiving spent fuel until a construction authorization for the repository has l
j, been received f rom the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. , i f
I i 1 E I
I l j
C.5 INSTITUTIONA1. RELATIONS i l l Critical to the successful implementation of the MRS facility will be the l
establishment of an effective working relationship with the State of Tennessee l
j The DOE's proposal to the Congress outlines a compre- , !
j and local governments. ;
j hensive approach to institutional relations. One of the proposed measures is l' l
the establishment of an MFS steering committee consisting of persons repre-
t !
the purpose of this committee would be to oversee the operations of the facil-ity. Another measure is the immediate development of a consultation-and- l f
) cooperation agreement with the State of Tennessee to delineate a framework for l i cooperation among all involved parties. ! !
J 6 l l In addition, the proposal recommends financially compensating the State )
l of Tennessee and the local communities for the impacts of the MRS facility. l would ;
The proposed compensation, which is not currently authorized by the Act, be equivalent to the taxes that a commercial facility of the same value would
- l l
pay to the local and State governments. It is estimated to total about $15 j j million per year and would begin the year Congressional authorization is , ,
received. '
1 $
4
, ! l l
) !
t t
l l
1 !
. l i
} l t !
!, j i
L Sh George Dean, Esquire ->(Thomas C. Dignan, Esquire N U.eldon S. NRCJ. Wolfe, Chairman Assistant Attorney General JeffreyP.Troug,7Isquire Washington, DC 20555 One Ashburton Place Ropes & Cray T w 19th Floor 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02108 MA 02110 Boston,'88 NOV -3 P1 :56 unn, , , -
00CMEl m . N or.;
y Dr. Jerry Harbour Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Andrea PerstetA Esquire U.S. NRC City Hall Diane Curran, Esquire Washington, DC 20555 Newburyport, MA 01950 Harmon, Curran & Tousley 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 W Dr. Emeth A. Luebke. Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman 86Cregory A. Berry, Esquire 4515 Willard Ave. Board of Selectmen office of General Counsel Chevy Chase,}p 20815 Town of Salisbury U.S. NRC Massachusetts 01950 Washington, DC 20555 V Atomic Safety & Licensing Senator Cordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros, Board Panel U. S. Senato Chairman U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20510 Town of Newbury Washington, DC 20555 -
Town Hall (Attn. Tom Burack) 25 High Road Newbury, MA 01951
-Atomic Safety & Licensing Judith H. Mirner, Esquire soffrey M. Huntington, E Appeal Board ?anel Silvergate, Gertner, et al Office of the Attorney Ge U.S. NRC 88 Broad Street State House Annex
- Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02110 Concord, NH 03301
- Docketing and Service Rep. Roberta C. Pevear Richard A. Hampe, Esquire U.S. NRC Hampe and McNicholas Washington, DC 20555 Drinkwater Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Concord, h1 03301 Jane Doughty Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Matthew T. Brock Esquire SAPL Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern 5 Market Street State House P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Station #6 Maplewood Avenue Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801
~ Sandra Cavutis 4 Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner l RPD 1, Box 1154 U. S. NRC l East Kensington, Nil 03827 Washington, DC 20555 l r Charles P. Craham, Esquire (Thomas M. Roberts.
McKay, Hurphy and Crahan- Commissioner .
100 Main Street U.S. NRC Amesbury, MA 01943 Washington, DC 20555 I WJames P. Curtiss, Thomas S. Moore.
(hanissuner ;
. S . N?iC. U.S. NRC '
r Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 ,
l i
- I.
l Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman ,
! U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 j >
i f
-Howard A. Wilber U.S. NRC 1 Washington, DC 20555 [
i 3 !
1 t
i M Lando W. Zech, Chairman ,
- U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555 ;
' l i
i i I.
l [
W5enneth C. Rogers, i Commissioner [
l i U.S. NRC Weshinaton, DC 20555 i i
, t w.____