ML20339A519
| ML20339A519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 12/04/2020 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | Jeff Baran, Annie Caputo, Christopher Hanson, Kristine Svinicki, David Wright NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 72-1050-ISFSI, ASLBP 19-959-01-ISFSI-BD01, CLI-20-13, RAS 55890 | |
| Download: ML20339A519 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman Jeff Baran Annie Caputo David A. Wright Christopher T. Hanson In the Matter of INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC Docket No. 72-1050-ISFSI (WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
CLI-20-13 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Today we address Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalitions (SEEDs) appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards denial of SEEDs motion to file a late-filed contention in the proceeding regarding Interim Storage Partners LLCs (ISPs) application to build and operate a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) in Andrews County, TX.1 For the reasons described below, we affirm the Boards decision.
I. BACKGROUND ISP proposes to locate its CISF adjacent to an existing low-level radioactive waste disposal facility owned and operated by Waste Control Specialists, LLC, which has partnered 1 See Interim Storage Partners LLC, License Application, rev. 2 (July 19, 2018), at 1-1 (ADAMS accession no. ML18221A397 (package)) (License Application).
with ISP in the proposed CISF project.2 If licensed, the CISF would be authorized to store up to 5,000 metric tons of waste in NRC-approved packages for up to forty years.3 The NRC published notice of ISPs application in August 2018 and offered interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing.4 SEED joined several other organizations (collectively, Joint Petitioners) in filing a hearing request with several contentions.5 The Board found that SEED demonstrated standing but denied Joint Petitioners hearing request because none of the proposed contentions were admissible.6 Thereafter, SEED filed with the Board a motion for leave to admit an additional contention (Contention 17) based on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB)
September 2019 report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy.7 The Board denied SEEDs motion and found that SEED had not shown good cause for filing proposed Contention 17 after the deadline and that Contention 17 was inadmissible.8 In affirming the Boards decision on 2 See id. at 1-4, 1-5.
3 WCS Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Environmental Report, rev. 2 (July 19, 2018), at 1-1 (ML18221A405 (package)) (Environmental Report).
4 Interim Storage Partners Waste Control Specialists Consolidated Interim Storage Facility, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,070, 44,070-75 (Aug. 29, 2018), corrected, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,680 (Aug. 31, 2018)
(correcting the deadline date for petitioners to request a hearing to October 29, 2018).
5 Petition of Dont Waste Michigan, Citizens Environmental Coalition, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Public Citizen, Inc., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, and Leona Morgan, Individually, to Intervene, and Request for an Adjudicatory Hearing (Nov. 13, 2018).
6 LBP-19-7, 90 NRC 31, 39,87-109 (Aug. 23, 2019).
7 See Motion of Intervenor Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition for Leave to File Late-Filed Contention, and Contention 17 (Oct. 23, 2019), at 1-2 (SEED Motion); U.S.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation:
Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (Sept. 2019) (ML19297A235) (NWTRB Report).
8 LBP-19-11, 90 NRC 358, 362-68 (Dec. 13, 2019).
appeal, we do not reach the question of whether SEED has shown good cause for filing proposed Contention 17 after the deadline because SEED has not shown error in the Boards determination regarding the admissibility of Contention 17.9 II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Our regulations allow a petitioner whose hearing request has been wholly denied to appeal.10 We afford substantial deference to the Boards threshold determinations on contention admissibility unless an appeal demonstrates an error of law or abuse of discretion.11 B. SEEDs Proposed Contention 17 In proposed Contention 17, SEED asserted that ISPs Environmental Report was insufficient because it did not account for the findings of the NWTRB Report.12 SEED argued that the NWTRB Report significantly alters . . . the scope of this proceeding beyond the question of whether ISPs application to build and construct a proposed CISF meets our regulations.13 SEED asserted that, based on the NWTRB Report, a range of potential waste transportation and packaging issues must be addressed.14 According to SEED, these issues include: improvements to highways and rail lines that might be used for shipments; the deployment of dry transfer systems (DTSs) at reactor sites to repackage fuel into standardized 9 Notice of Appeal of LBP-19-11 by Intervenor Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition and Brief in Support of Appeal (Jan. 7, 2020) (SEED Appeal).
10 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(c).
11 See, e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3),
CLI-17-5, 85 NRC 87, 91 (2017); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-16-9, 83 NRC 472, 482 (2016).
12 See SEED Motion at 5-20.
13 Id. at 4.
14 See id. at 5-7.
transportation, aging, and disposal canisters that DOE may develop in the future; and the actual timing and cost of future shipments, especially those involving high-burnup fuel.15 SEED claimed that ISP must evaluate these additional issues or the environmental effects of waste transportation to the site will be impermissibly segmented from those associated with building and operating the proposed CISF.16 The Board rejected SEEDs argument and found that proposed Contention 17 did not raise a genuine dispute with the transportation evaluations already contained in ISPs application. The Board found ISPs Environmental Report addressed the potential environmental impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel to the proposed CISF but that SEED did not challenge the discussion in the Environmental Report and moreover fail[ed] to acknowledge or dispute any safety analyses, aging management plans or quality assurance programs described in ISPs application.17 The Board ruled that proposed Contention 17 therefore did not meet the threshold admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).18 The Board also found proposed Contention 17 to be outside the scope of this proceeding. ISP did not seek approval for waste transportation, packaging, or repackaging activities like those addressed by the NWTRB Report.19 Instead, the Board determined that the proposed CISF would accept only NRC-approved transportation and waste packages, which the 15 See id. at 5-7, 9-11, 19-20.
16 See id. at 11-13.
17 LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at 367. ISPs evaluation of the environmental impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel (including high-burnup fuel) is set forth in its Environmental Report. See Environmental Report at 4-9 to -10, 4-12, 4-16, 4-23.
18 LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at 367.
19 See id. at 366-67.
NTWRB Report acknowledged are currently in use and could be shipped in the near term.20 New transportation and waste package designs would be reviewed separately under our regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 71.21 Further, the title holders of spent nuclear fuelwhich include private companieswould be responsible for transporting waste to the proposed facility, not ISP.22 Accordingly, the Board found SEEDs assertion that ISP must evaluate the impacts associated with the development and deployment of future packaging systems and transportation to be outside the scope of this proceeding.23 On appeal, SEED argues (as it did before the Board) that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires ISP to further evaluate the environmental effects of waste transportation and repackaging.24 SEED also asserts that the Board impermissibly raised SEEDs burden to demonstrate the admissibility of proposed Contention 17.25 However, SEED does not challenge the Boards finding that ISPs Environmental Report has already evaluated the expected impacts of transporting waste in NRC-approved packages to its proposed facility.
SEED therefore does not show that the Board erred.
SEED also argues on appeal that proposed Contention 17 should be admitted because the NWTRB Report includes materially different information than what is in ISPs application.26 Specifically, SEED states that the NWTRB Report discusses DOEs potential development of 20 See id. at 366; see also NWTRB Report at xxiii, xxvii (noting that commercial spent nuclear fuel currently stored in NRC-approved dual-purpose storage and transportation canisters likely could be shipped within a year or two of developing a destination site and obtaining funding).
21 LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at 367-68.
22 Id. at 367.
23 Id. at 367-68.
24 See SEED Appeal at 17-19.
25 See id. at 19.
26 See id. at 15-17.
standardized waste canisters and the need for at-reactor DTSs to load waste from existing packages into those canisters, while ISPs application does not.27 But as the Board explained, the NWTRB Reports recommendationsadvice to DOE on how to advance its plans for nuclear waste transportation, storage, and disposal solutions at the Federal leveldo not determine the scope of ISPs project or this licensing proceeding.28 The NWTRB Report does not provide a legal basis to expand the scope of this proceeding beyond what our regulations require.29 We see no error in the Boards reasoning.
Further, we do not agree with SEED that the Boards refusal to admit proposed Contention 17 will result in an incomplete evaluation of the projects environmental impacts under NEPA. As we have noted, ISPs application already evaluates the impacts of waste transportation to the proposed CISF during the proposed license term.30 Moreover, the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, as codified in our regulations, evaluates the environmental impacts of DTS construction and waste repackaging beyond the proposed license term.31 We would require separate safety and environmental reviews before we approve any future license application from DOE (or another 27 Id. at 16.
28 See LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at 366-67.
29 Id.
30 See note 17, supra. Although ISPs application does not analyze the impacts of building and operating a DTS to enable spent fuel repackaging at its facility, the Board found ISP was not required to do so; ISP does not seek authorization to construct or operate a DTS. See LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at 368. Our regulations do not require an applicant to address the impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage beyond the license term. See 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b).
31 See Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Final Report), NUREG-2157, vol. 1, ch. 5 (Sept. 2014) (ML14196A105); 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b).
The environmental impacts described in NUREG-2157 are deemed incorporated into the environmental impact statement for an independent spent fuel storage installation. 10 C.F.R.
§§ 51.23(b), 51.80(b)(1).
entity) for new transportation or storage packages or for the construction and operation of a DTS.
II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Boards decision denying SEEDs motion for leave to file proposed Contention 17.
For the Commission Annette L. Digitally signed by Annette L. Vietti-Cook Vietti-Cook Date: 2020.12.04 12:12:15 -05'00' Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of December 2020.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC ) Docket No. 72-1050-ISFSI
)
(WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-20-13) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O16-B33 Mail Stop: O16-B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov Hearing Docket E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul S. Ryerson, Chair Joe Gillespie, Esq.
Administrative Judge Sara Kirkwood, Esq.
E-mail: paul.ryerson@nrc.gov Mauri Lemoncelli, Esq.
Patrick Moulding, Esq.
Nicholas G. Trikouros Kevin Roach, Esq.
Administrative Judge Carrie Safford, Esq.
E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Thomas Steinfeldt Rebecca Susko, Esq.
Dr. Gary S. Arnold Alana Wase, Esq.
Administrative Judge Brian Newell, Senior Paralegal E-mail: gary.arnold@nrc.gov E-mail: joe.gillespie@nrc.gov sara.kirkwood@nrc.gov Ian Curry, Law Clerk mauri.lemoncelli@nrc.gov Stephanie Fishman, Law Clerk patrick.moulding@nrc.gov Molly Mattison, Law Clerk kevin.roach@nrc.gov E-mail: ian.curry@nrc.gov carrie.safford@nrc.gov stephanie.fishman@nrc.gov thomas.steinfeldt@nrc.gov molly.mattison@nrc.gov rebecca.susko@nrc.gov alana.wase@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov
WCS CISF - Docket No. 72-1050-ISFSI COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-20-13)
Counsel for Beyond Nuclear Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition Diane Curran, Esq. Karen D. Hadden Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg Executive Director, 1725 DeSales Street NW, Suite 500 605 Carismatic Lane Washington, DC 20036 Austin, TX 78748 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com E-mail: karendhadden@gmail.com Mindy Goldstein, Esq.
Emory University School of Law Counsel for Interim Storage Partners LLC Turner Environmental Law Clinic Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1301 Clifton Road 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Atlanta, GA 30322 Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: magolds@emory.edu Grant Eskelsen, Esq.
Timothy Matthews, Esq.
Nuclear Information and Ryan Lighty, Esq.
Resource Service (NIRS) Paul Bessette, Esq.
Diane DArrigo E-mail: grant.eskelsen@morganlewis.com 6930 Carroll Avenue timothy.matthews@morganlewis.com Suite 340 ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Takoma Park, MD 20912 paul.bessette@morganlewis.com Email: dianed@nirs.org Chris Hebner, Esq. Counsel for Fasken Land and Oil and City of San Antonio, TX Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners P.O. Box 839966 San Antonio, TX 78283 Monica R. Perales, Esq.
E-mail: chris.hebner@sanantonio.gov 6101 Holiday Hill Road Midland, TX 79707 E-mail: monicap@forl.com Counsel for Sierra Club Wallace Taylor Kanner & Whiteley, LLC 4403 1st Avenue S.E. 701 Camp Street Suite 402 New Orleans, LA 70130 Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Allan Kanner, Esq.
E-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com Elizabeth Petersen, Esq.
Cynthia St. Amant, Esq Conlee Whiteley, Esq .
Counsel for Dont Waste Michigan, et al E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com Terry Lodge, Esq. e.petersen@kanner-law.com 316 N. Michigan Street c.stamant@kanner-law.com Suite 520 c.whiteley@kanner-law.com Toledo, OH 43604 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Krupskaya T. Digitally signed by Krupskaya T. Castellon Castellon Date: 2020.12.04 12:16:35
-05'00' Dated at Rockville, Maryland, Office of the Secretary of the Commission this 4th day of December 2020 2