ML20086T410
| ML20086T410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach, Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1994 |
| From: | Sinclair M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086S124 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-94-351 NUDOCS 9508030021 | |
| Download: ML20086T410 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
il IA f)
Dr. Ivan Selin, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 l
Dear Chairman Selin:
In a memorandum dated Feb.14, '94, to Asst. Gen. Counsel S. A. Treby of l
the NRC, Charles J. Haughney of the NRC Office of NMSS has requested a legal interpretation of the applicability of section 72.48 of the regulations, to general licensees as licensed in section 72.210.
As he notes in the memorandum, section 72.48 " clearly applies to specific licensees issued individual licenses' under Part t
72", i.e., to utilities.
However, the VSC-24 SAR was developed by the cask vendor an'd, therefore, section 72.48 cannot apply here.
Mr. Haughney is attempting to resolve a problem he has in the use of the VSC-24 cask, which is the first so-called generic cask to be licensed under subpart K.
His problem apparently stems from changes that must be made to this cask to permit them to be used at the Point Beach and Arkansas One reactor sites.1 am presently aware that lifting lugs must be added at Point Beach and Arkansas One requires changes to accommodate longer fuel, to its transfer cask.
and for adding non-fuel components.
However.1 would like an exolanation of all i
the chances that must be made at those sites. and the accomoanvine documents.
To allow these changes now to apply to general licensees would annul all that the NRC has done to attempt to establish the generic cask (VSC-24) which the agency claims can be used anywhere and is not site specific.
The changes in the design of the VSC-24 that must be made at both Point Beach and Arkansas One are site specific since the vendor is asking for a procedure for doing this.
j These changes would require development of new models with analyses for each part of the system that was affected.
We very strongly object to the NRC's giving general licensees permission to make changes as they please to their storage systems which have been certified as generic by the NRC.
This interpretation would preclude any public oversight when a utility wants to have changes made to a general cask Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and also would allow a utility to conduct tests and experiments on-site without prior NRC approval.
What is clear in this case is that neither of the i
utilities, involved at Point Beach and at Arkansas One can use the VSC-24 cask as designed and approved by rule in the Certificate of Compliance given to this cask, as supposedly a generic cask, in the first application of the general ruling procedure.
To change this certificate or the SAR supporting it is a rulemaking procedure.
This requires public comment and proprietary release.
If you are
,Information in this record was deleted Act, exemptions d eedom ofinformation m accordance with the Fr 950803oo21 9412di F01A-M 4 f /
g interpreting it not to be so, then it is site specific cnd there shculd be a public l
hearing on the changes made for each individual site.
Before the cask was approved in April, '93, it was known that there.were questions about the fuel length issue and transfer cask issue at Arkansas (Sept.
18, '92 meeting NRC, p. 2) and of the lifting lug issue at Point Beach (Aug. 31, 1992, technical comments from Sierra p. 2).
However, because of the rush to load the casks at Palisades, the cask design was approved "as-is* st the vendor's request on the basis of his statement that he would make changes on safety issues in the future. (Aug. 31, 1992, Sierra Comments, p.1).
Only a few weeks after final approval of the Certificate of Compliance, and after two casks at Palisades were loaded, Sierra wrote that they were now ready to take up the safety issues they asked to have postponed in their Aug. 31,'92 and also wanted to make other changes in the SAR (June 14, 1993, Sierra to NRC).
However, there is apparently no procedure for doing this because the Certificate of Compliance approved for a generic cask was supposed to have covered all U.S. reactor sites, and was made available by the NRC for use anywhere on the basis of that Certificate.
That was the whole purpo : for approving the VSC-24 as a generic cask.
As a further observation here, I would like to add that at a ' meeting of the U.S. Radioactive Waste Technical Review Board in Dallas, TX in Nov., '93, I was asked to discuss the site specific problems and cask issues at Palisades.
In a follow-up round table evaluation, Mr. Robert Bernero of the NRC was asked to comment on my presentation.
His only comment was, "I guess we can't do generic licensing," This meeting was recorded.
Just last week, Mr. John Zwolinski of the NRC wrote to inform me that the NRC has now decided to review the siting characteristic of Palisades--thus apparently reversing NRC's position that the VSC-24 can be placed anywhere without regard to the site.
1 appreciate your attention to this urgent issue.
l Sincerely, hj b h ** >
,g cc. Robert Bernero NRC 1
Frederic Sturz NRC Charles Haughney NRC Hazel O' Leary DOE Attorney General Frank Kelley Senator Carl Levin--Senator Don Reigle--Congressman Dave Camp i
l
.d
3.
.)
t NRC to in$hbW '2****O
'\\
nuke waste site c ~""
..m.t i. P But Sinclair asys the NRCh By IJSA PERLMAN anees of an earthquake that I acimowl ORAND RAPIDS (AP) - might esume motion of the sang awds2
=
Nearly a year after the Pali-beloworaround the pad?Zwo.
boost to envi
,h, sades nuclear power plant be-Enski said in a letter to Mary how been Sghti t
eask gan transferring high-level nu. Sinclair ofMidland,co< hair of storage fw an clear waste to concrete casks Don't Waste Michigan and re.
eentendig cakshawnoE alon Ene,gtheLakeMxduranshore leased NRC.
buna us askd and an federal inwatigators any The inspection, which u
fe.She s.id the i
ghiQDe7,,t of Na-they willins tfit's safe. pect the site to see will esincide with another in-g gga gw Palisades had received etion by Consumers Power adesion from the U.S. Nu ear
., will begin Tuesday and is site as a "hi risk wesion Re ulatory Commission to expected to take 30 to 60 days, bui the casks and load them asidJan Strasma,NRC spokes-aske & s @r wvenalin i
P' ICY theNRCissayingthem wie radioactive waste last follow. man. A public hearing w'll an,'i eine issues that i
i year afterit ran out of room in "While we, don't have any
""d to be asamined and that its spent fuel pool at the plant, evidence that the site is unsuit-th8 fublic has a right to a hear-naar South Haven.
84'at hkes basin is at stake 85"'Iair said Friday."Th able,there areissues there that Under NRC rules, once the need to be looked at further7 Gn design of the above-ground Strasma said.
hem.
casks was approved they cou'd Consumers Power which Sinclair's grou nd the be placed anywhere,,
owns Palisades, has sa,id it in.
Lake Michigan pede stion But the federal agency is re-ted the stability of the joined in a lawsuit ensidering and melinspect the site fore the casks wem built with state Attorney ne stora site located hetween but welcomed the additions)
Frank Ealley to try to form.68 serd unes,160 yards fron.
Lake Michigan,en which a opn-tests. The utility eventus11y NRC to submit to a publichear-l plans to build 25 casks them, on the cask storage imee as erete slab supporter eight each of which will weigh 130 we I as an environmental im-100 ton casks, said John A.
tons when loaded.
statement for the site.N Zwohnski, NRC assistant di-
" Consumers Power Co. is awsuit is now nding in meter for Region HI Reactors. sonfident of the structuralinte.
U.S. 6th Circuit ofAppe-
"I'he NRC has been looki at the behavior of the pa grity and sound design of the als. m NRC inwtigst on stora ad supporting the likely will delay or rgu under normalconditions,at the Venti Storage Cask sys-mots in he can, w a
long term effects of erosion been expected this spring.
and at the possible consequ, (See "Pallandes,,, page A2) 9,..
.s' e
0 v--w-
,,r--,
,.n
-+ -.. _..
F i
l+
April 5,1994 CongressmanJohn Dingell 2145 Raybum Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 2001F
DearCongressmanJohn Dingell:
The enclosed letter will show you that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is unable to fulfill the imposn%1e task that Congress set for the agency in the 1987 amendment to the NWPA of1982. Dat Act ll requimd the agency to devise a containment system for high level nuclear waste that was generic and j
would not require going through a public hearing.
j The fact that Congress would pass such an Act-to shut out the public from any input into the l
policy for disposing of the most lethal toxic wastes, not only in the nation but in the world,-is one of the most egregious, undemocratic and disgraceful acts that a so<alled representative gov ming body could do to its citizens.
Fortunately, tl'ere are enough people with the intelligence and determination to see that this course cf action could only lead to a surreptious way to establish a method of permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste if this course of action was not challenged by citizens every step of the way.
Licensing the VSC-24 casks to store the high level nuclear waste from the Palisades plant on the shore of Lake Michigan was to be the tour de force to implement this infamous policy. As you can see from the enclosed letter to NRC Chairman Ivan Selin, the staff of the NRC is having difficilties I
implementing the generic ruling on the VSC-24 with even its first applications. Dat is because there are so many reactor types and modes of construction at every site that changes in cask construction and handling have to be made to accommodate them. The Certificate of Compliance for the VSC-24 cask states that these casks can be used at any reactor site under the general license, i.e. without any public input. But the NRC now finds it has no procedural method of accommodating changes that have to be made to be able to use this cask-or any other cask as a
- generic" cask, as a matter of fact-because there are these many differences among reactors and their sites. Congress should get the message from this experience-this' country is not " generic"-it is widely diverse in its natural resources,- and this has to be respected.
As you can see from the news story, the NRC has had to reverse its policy of not considering site specific characteristics at Palisades itself-where it was supposed to work as the first example ofa generic
. cask storage area. hey now find that there are sie specific characteristics that they must study at that kication. We had been telling you and our other Congressional leaders that from the start. It was one of t
our key contentions in the law suit we were forced to file, at great cost in time and money to citizens with i'
few resources,just to t'rv to eet a nublic hearine on these issues.
t i
The appmach of Congress to the whole nuclear caste issue from the 1980 " Low-Level
- Nuclear Waste Pelicy Act through the 1987 amendments to the 1982 NWPA has been a dismal failure. You have to C
accept a good share of responsibility for this legislation. 'Ihis approach has been to appease the nuclear
' industry leaders-always hefty PAC contributors-and their clamor for speedy and expedient solutions that could get them on line for ever more billions of our tax dollars to launch their "new" reactors-that would produce even more nuclearwaste.
In linht of this. there is another
- r.r-rant reality to (see and that is that the entive er *= nower nroeram. in the end. will not nroduce any net enerar for the nation or the world. In=tand it will be a huse contumer of fa==il fuel enerev mad otherreenierces as we fin nv f.e. the fact afinaladne thee, weeta= literally fornet.
j As a part of my doctoral dineertation, Iinterviewed Walter J. McCarthy who was then CEO of Detroit Edison and Chairman of the Electric Power Research Institute, and inridantany, olne of your more imp 6.nt constituents. He told me that we should stop looking for a hole in the ground where we can place this waste and forget it (such as the Yucca Mt. effort), because that is not the responsible thing to do.
He said this waste must be kept in above ground retrievable storage in an arid location, and that it must be monitored and watchea constantly. "We must never lose track of this stuff,' were his words. And it may have to be constantly relocated in future centuries as the geography and climate of the world may change.
For some time many concerned citizens, environmental groups and political leaders such as our Attorney General Frank Kelley have been asking the Administration to appoint a Commission that will include all stakeholders to study the entire issue of radioactive waste disposal as the national issue that it is.
I hope that you will convey the sense of the urgency of this issue to our President.
t We will appreciate your attention to this issue.
Yours sincerely,
- y 1
Mary P. Sidlair, PhD Co chair, Don't Waste Michigan cc. President Bill Clinton Senator Carl Levin, Senator Don Riegle Congressman Floyd Upton, Congressman Dave Camp NRC Chairman Ivan Selin f
wr we--r de y-w i,
wwr wr w
.o s
$711 %ioninerset N!:dl.ind. All 4Xfilt; April 14. lW4 1.'t. hihn /wohnskt. Awniant Diret for f0
.7 for Region lli Reactors ll.S. linclear Regulator) ('oinnuwion W.ntungton.1). ( ~. ?(IWi i
i 1)earStr./wohnske l
When the new s actuunn were pubinhed th.it the NR(
- was poing to inspect the site at Pahsiiles u here the e.nks are located, a man called to intoren me th.o s.une signiticant studies on the (onwttuences l
. 'lut tu.. ting water lesch in the Great I.ikes hail been pnhhshed last ye...
I he Inter n.aional hunt i e" imwoon requested the I!.%. Army ( or ps of l npmcets to pertorm these studies
'I hese stushes mt tmk" t I. Alethods ot Aiteuattng the.\\dserw ( onwyuerices el I ha inatirig W ater i es c!s ni the Great
{
l.a kVi St. I @Ici!VV Nit Vr !IniMti,1,4ggwpr] to thg i.fip yr7!Lnyttf31i,f,G !ipt,i an.tl.t,!!v,[!ntvil Nta10 Internation.d lotut ('omiinwien. I b IW4 ' %es etal pages are entlowd that mdicate the 13 pe o' 4
mtorm.ituin einernt m thn icpirl:
128l.kiLill$.itt \\lus4Att lierrten ( 99n1), N1 chig u), J !terniinon,il):m)I Cemnus3npn [ ni,ij Kyp.irt.,
lub.jd81 e ihe I t.N..\\rtin ('orps of 1.npincers was awepnet! respuniluhues for sundus ting det.nled stuches at ses en locations on the l'.%, shorchne ot' the (ireat 1.tkes to deternnne pinential f or da nages ianwd by lluctualmg (ireat I akes water les els the l'ahsules dry cask storage site n just 4 to 4 nules north ot the liernen ('onni) hne. lherefore. the (mdmps m thn study wonld apply to ihat u hole p.ncrat area. Nes eral pages of per1 ment mtormation from that study are enclowth.
You h.ne already ret ened the Alichigan study on our operatmp nuclear plants entitled: An I A aluation of' the I our I itflhed A'idl.hleIntung.N9ilV21LhmrL1'lant Sites in Al h
h !gitn tor ('o-Lix3ttnwtel a I ou l es el Radntgin v W,olghi,;!,tt!ila [A!1$ l'repared for the hischigan I ou I csel Radio.icta e Waste Authorsty by 1.rn aronmentai Resources hlanagement. Ann Arbor. All. Slay 24,1988.
Would you pleaw nmke sure that the tonsultants you has e retamed to study the Pahsides sites recene thn mformation on those studies?
bI.1fl) thanks for your ukipeTJuon on this m.nter (1. A.
i m oges/J287 940414 Man R cl.ur. PhD.
,/
ff.(
- My PDR ADOCK 05000255 p
(
A[
6
i e
l
-? ar.
,,,, eg..a.vt.-
- -4% o*
wp g.-
. e y.
g g g,- g
.. a
~
@ rM J,1 t
- 3.,.e i
A Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States December 1993 Cc,c r1 a
1 International Joint Commission Commission mixte internationale i
i l
1 o
.. ~
e Accordingly. the Study flourd chume to update the exiAtmg datahane and damagO L
estimating method and to conduct a limited nun?ber of site. specific ntudies liowever, m $pite of concerted elTort, the Study lionrd was not able to sigmficantly improve the databa.e and estimutmg methodology as required to produce a more definitive.inalysis of shoic damages. It was determmed that significant additional time and money would hkely be required to reach more definitive conclusions on measures havmg basinwide etrects The Comminsion concluded that such an efTort was not practical for the studies under the Reference llowever,it is the Commission's view that a long term effort to gather shore. property damage data is required to provide an f
appropnate context for future analyses oflake levels issues.
i The International Joint Commission recommends that governments j
undertake a sample potential. damage survey to improve flood damage
]
estimmten.
i
(
The International Joint Commission further recommends that the first f
priority for the sample potential. damage survey be Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
I The International Joint Commission recommends that governments undertake storm and flood da nage annessn.cnts during or immediately following such events.
The International Joint Comminion recomn. ends that governments Iundertake long. term monitoring of sho.*eline erosion and bluff recession and that the information and methodolsgies dese!oped under this study be used to improve erosion damage assessment capabilities.
The International Joint Commission recommends that governments undertake without delay programs to build improved information bases in the following additional areas:
{
' m.
l comprehensive land use inventory;
' b.
Identification of shoreline areas that are particularly vulnerable to storm surge activity; Inventory of shore and near shore installations at risk, particularly c.
high risk installations.
The International Joint Commission recommends that governments undertake studies to improve forecasts of the frequency of extreme water level events, including the joint probability of combined static and storm induced water levels.
Structural Measures to Reduce Erosion and Flooding Damage 1
s Nene Water Levels Regulation Works A large portion of the study effort was devoted to trymg to find technically feasible plans to regulate all five of the Great Lakes <hve take regulation) or, alternatively. Lakes Supenor. Ene.ind Ontano ithree take regulation L i
From the results ofits studies. ne Study Ibard concluded that although it may be techmcally po% ble to build the additional engmeenng works required to regulate 8
t a
i all Ove of the Great Lakes,it would not be economically or environmentally feasible to do no To accomplish five take regulatien, massive concrete damn and control gaten would need to be built in the St. Clair and Detrmt Rivern downstream from Lakes Michigan and Iluron, and in the Niagaru River at the outlet of Lake Ene. Major deepemng of portions of the St. Clair, Detroit and Niagara Rivers, as well as further major enlargements of the i
channels in the St. Lawrence River, would also be required to compensate for the additional Down these nyers would have to pass dunng penuds of high water. In addition, downntream interesta would need tr Se protected agamst damage and losn from higher and lower levels and down resultmg from regulation of the upstream lakes.
All of these regulation and protects ar. worki: would cost billions of dollars to matall and hundreds of millions of dollars annually to operate and mamtain. Yet for all their cost, these works would not permit full control oflake levels. The best that could be
(
expected is to reduce the range oflevels fluctuatu.n by moderately reducing the peak l
levels and raising the low levels. Compressing the range oflevels on one lake, however.
tends to increase the range of fluctuations oflevels and flown on downstream lakes and nvers often in an exaggerated fashion.
An exarr.ple of the limited abihty of humans to control water levels occurred on Lake Ontano in the Spring on'1993 when the level of this " regulated" lake began to nse dramatically.This occurred because no much snow and rainfall was received in the lake basin in a short penod of time that it was impossible to drais.1e water from the i
}
lak. fa.t enough without flooding and etoding mterests downstream in the St. Lawrence River. In response to the emergency situation, the Commission acted ? ensure that the mterests of nparians were given pnanty consideration as regulatory u. 4sions were made. As a result, severe flooding on the lake was avoided by obtaining the cooperation of the downstream interests to mamtam extraordinanly high flows in the river and the decision of the shippmg authorities to temporanly reschedule navigatwn ; the seaway.
All of this was necessary because the control structures m the St. Lawrence l
River at Cornwall, Ontario and Massena..'.'ew York are not capable olfull control 4 the l
levels and flows m the system. They are capable only of moderating the fluctuations in l
the levels and (h.ws and keeping them withm certain bounds when water supplies to the l
!al e are within the range for which the project was designed. Further, there is no l
effective control oflevels and Dows m the nver below Cornwall ar.d Massena. Riparian communities and other intarests in that part of the river are completely vulnerable to level and flow variations from upstream regulation as well as to mflows from the Ottawa River.
The futility of human aspirations to control levels and flows in a major watercourse was also demonstrated tragically by events on the Mississippi River in summer 1993. The flood that occurred on that system breached hundreds oflevees, g
flooded thousands of acres of fannland, demolished countless homes and devastated whole towns, some of which may never be rebuilt. The extensive channeling, diking and control structures throughout that system could not stop the extraordinary damage that occurred. The Commission encourages all governments to review recent events in the Mininippi River basin to see whether there are acful lessons that can be learned about how to deal w,th the efTects of fluctuntmg water levels.
The Study Board determmed that the five take regulatwn plan that would prm,de the greatest comprenion in the levels of Lake > Mich.gan. Huron and Eric would 9
o l
I DETAILED SITE STUDY S
BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN FINAL REPORT l
July 1993 i
i International Joint Commission Great Lakes Levels Reference Study Board Working Committee 2 Potential Damages Task Group i
i I
t
~
~
-,,s w
- - + - - - -
Page Dl"I All.ED SITli STUDY Numbei BliRRil!N COUNTY h11Cll!GAN ENECUTIVE SUS 151ARY 5
17 The U.S. Army Corps of Engmeets (USACE) has beer, assigned responsibilities for 19 conducting detailed site studies at seven locations on the U.S. shoreline of the Grt.at Lakes.
21 The ute studies have been conducted in detail to determine the potential for damages 23 caused by Ductuating Great I.akes water levels One of the seven sites is Berrien County, 25 hiichigan, selected to focus on residential riparian damages caused by erosion.
27 29 Berrien County. Michigan is comprised of seven townships, located along the eastern shore 39 of 1.ake Michigan and is the southern most county in the state. It is bordered on the north 57 by Van Buren County, Michigan, and on the south by LaPorte County, Indiana. The principal problem along the Berrien County shoreline is bluff recession which translates into economic loss of property value in the coastal zone. Erosion of becches and bluffs generally occurs throughout the county's shoreline, particularly during periods of high water.
1 4
land use in Berrien County is primanly sesidential riparian (71.29 ), with small percentages 7
of commercial (2.1G), public (2.79 ), and agricultural (OAG). The remaining 23.6% fa!!s 8
into an other/ undeveloped category, being predommately sand dunes, woodlands, and 9 I outdoor recreation facilities. Continued land use development is expected as long as any 4
undeveloped property remains available.
11 15 Bernen County's shore tvpc is predominantly high all bluff witn beach (55.99), fo!! owed
..3, by high till bicff ( > 15 meters)(3100 L The majonty of the shorehne has minor protection 3S (60.39) and the subaqueous nearshore compnition is 78.89 sand / gravel lag over cla.s.
4.*
44 Long term (> 30-year) mean rece>sion rates in Berrien County vary from recession of 1.1 44 meters per year to accretion of 2.2 meters per year. Mean recession rates are greater than 45 0.3 meters per year for 700 of the shoreline.while very few kilometers experience accretion 55 at all. An erosion sensitivity model was applied to evaluate the impact of water level changes on shore types. Results of the erosion sensitivity analysis showed that as an effect of a 50*c reduction in the range of water levels through control of Lakes Michigan-Huron outflows, approsimately 600 of the shoreline would have a moderate (5 20c'c) reduction in bluff recession. 22G would have no reduction in current recession rates, and 189 would be 65 unaffected, since no recession currently exists in these areas.
69
. 73 An inundation and erosion damage es a!uatmn model wa.s developed during the Inis.nanonal lake Ene Regulation Studv in the her 1470's. It is based on shoreline reaches around the Great Lakes. Bernen County is part of Reach 7006 used for histonc damage estimates.
The erosion and inundation stage-damage cunes were updated for all reaches along the U S shoreline in 1991 to include damage information from the high water period 1985-19C in IW2. the stage darnage curves for Reach iMr> were reevaluated in greater detail.
t ni I
i
To determine the adequacy of the results of the erosion stage damage etuves, an alternate methodology of determining potennal damages was completed as part of this detailed site study. Ilistoric recession data for Berrien County were used to determine a projected 50-year recession line. The recession data were then adjusted based upon erosion processes modeling of expected impacts from a 50% reduction in water vel range to determine a
" modified" long term recession line projection.
1.0 The two reccssion lines were plotted relative to the current bluff line to determine the The number of structures that would be expected to be lost over the next 50 years under the Inter current water level range, and consequently the number of structurcs that potentially could Stud.
be saved under a 50% water level range reduction scenario. The number of structures were of ali then multiplied by average township market values, and summed with estimates of the losses IJC e to developed and undeveloped lands, and losse> incurred to roads. This was used to Com:
determine the potential damage and resultant benefits expected as a consequence of l
implementing this alternative water level regulation measure.
Warl envir A comparative analy*.is of this alternative approach and the stage. damage model revealed withi that ice erosion stage damage model may underestimate actuallmses by a factor of 1.6 for estab i
this liwation. This inconsistency may be attributed to the inadequate reporting of losses to undneloped properties in the past. This comparison also is based upon assumptions that The1 i may be contested. Another evaluation was conducted based on the potential benefits that and n would be expected from a 50% reduction in water level range. The results of this analysis to e..
indicated that the historic stage-damage model may underestimate benefits derived by the mana alternative mtthodologv by a factor of 2.7 for this location. Technical considerations cast doubt on the validity of this analysis, particularly if these results were applied in system-wide Thei cost / benefit analyses of alternative water level control measures.
evalu; shore A variety of land use management practices could be, or in some cases have been, select undertaken in Berrian County to either reduce the potential for damage to existing shoreline Great property or limit the damage potential due to improper future development. Practices that should be considered include remedial measures for existing development (relocation, TheI acquisition, insurance, and/or structural and non-structural shore protection) and accur.
preventative measures (such as setbacks, development controls, habitat preservation projects, 50 ye:.
and shoreline alteration regulations) to insure that the damage potential is act exacerbated scena:
in the future due to a lack of foresight.
to co:
evalu:
Private property owners in Berrien County have attempted shore protection using steel sheet s!!ern piling, revetments, groins, sand traps, seawalls, and riprap. However, the protective consid structures are often too scattered to present a common barrier or are damaged and no charat longer serve their purpose. Further study is warranted to determine iflarge-scale structural shore protection measures could be cost effective for Berrien County's shorelines, and to determine the social, environmental, and engineering consequences of this option.
Non structural shore protection, such as beach nour:shment and shoreline stabilization, are also used in Berrien County on approximately 5 5% of the shoreline. Beach nourishment programs appear to have mitigated erosion impacts immediately downdrift of the federal harbors at St. Joseph and New Buffalo.
Iv
i1
'o i
Lake N1ichigan stuneline, with new development typically being second-or first homes. 'lhe l longevity of these structures willlikely vastly exceed the 30 year setback limitation placed on new construction along the shoreline. Erosion and bluff recession wil! continue, regardless of lake level controls or structural shore protection measures. Ifenci. even with l 30 year setbacks in place for flerrien County, this measure will simply forestall economic w
7 lowes into the future.
Itelocation of dwellings involves the movement and subsequent relocation of dwellings out of the flood and recewmn harard zones. Relocanon> can be permanent or temporary. In 1985 N1ichigan enacted its Emergency llome Atoving Program (FilNfP), Public Act 108, which s; cified that relocatmg structures away from erosion hazards was the preferred alternxive. The program was overseen by the 51DNR who was authorized to provide grants or loam to property owners to relocate their homes inland of a sethack line. !!omes that were witlun 10.7 rueters (35 feet) of the bluff, in " imminent danger", were eligible, thereby not wailmg until the damage had occurred The program provided a 3G subsidy on 30-year loam of up to $25,000 per project, or a one time grant of 50% of the project cost, up to
$3,50tt During the initial phase, between August 19S6 and February 1987, the state received 273 applications, of which 199 were found potentially eligible. Sixty five relocation projects were certified as eligible, and saty two homeowners actually moved for a cost of 5267,000, with an average payment of 53,700. During the second phase in approumately 1987, the state receiseJ 46 applications, of which 25 were found potentially eligible. Six relocation projects were certified as eligible, and four homeowners actually moved for a cost 524,000, with an average payment of 54,000(Ecologistics,1992). The U.S.
of apprmimately H:parian Survey mdicated that out of 85 respondents on Lake Niichigan, 4.4% had participated in some form of moving of buildings. The number of homes relocated under the hiichigan program in 13errien County is unknown at the time of this report.
Cmts of implementation of a home relocation program, such as that used in Stichigan, can be variable depending on the value of the stmeture and the extent of the relocation. New foundations and utility connections may have to be prepared, and possibly additional land purchased. Son e property owa.ers may not find this a viable alternative if their lots are not deep enough to allow relocation to the muimum setback distance, and they cannot afford or do not want to relocate to another lot. Some homes, such as those with slab foundations, p concrete block walls, or estensive brick or stone work are many times not considered movable (Ecologistics,1992;.
Ilome relocations, although costing initially more than the constmeti.n of shore protection, on! 7ecur once during the life of the home. He long term cmts of maintaining a shore pron. tion project would he avoided, with an uit mate lower cost to the property owner over the long term. A University of hiichigan SeaGrant research program determined that most property owners in the State of 51ichigan would > pend more money on shore prote: tion, over 20 years, than they spent purch,rmg their propert,. adjusted for inflation (licologistics, 1992).
50
l e
o Comparison of these costs with projected erosion damages for the same 50 year period indicate that implementation of structural shore protection measures at the most critically susceptible shorelines in Berrien County would have a benefit / cost ratio of approximately 8.5 o 1. These results are preliminary and warrant further investigation.
Implementation of structural shore protection comprehensively along the Berrien County shoreline is not a panacea. Revetments can impede access to beaches, reducing recreational opportunities; construction of groins, revetments, and seawalls can significantly disrupt human and natural environments; significant implementation of groins and revetments will starve beaches downdrift by robbing the natural sand sources (effectively moving the problem onto others); and, all of these measures can encourage (instead of discourage) furti.er development in the recession hazard zone.
I The long term effectiveness of structural shore protection measures can also be questioned Cmis in ihn study are based upon well engineered and consistently maintained structur:.1 shore protection. Most of the shore protection currently in place can not meet these standards.
An example of a large-scale, well engineered and maintained structural shore protection project is the CSX RR / MDOT groin /reverment system immediately south of St. Joseph harbor. Figure 10 is an aerial photograph of a section of this system. This system was built in the early 1970's to protect an area with high beach erosion and bluff recession. This system has been effective in controlling bluff recession during both of the high water periods 4
of 1973 76 and 1985 87. Some bluff failure is evident on recent photograr'is behind this system which appear to be caused by land drainage patterns.
[
r
!t is questionable whether the CSX RR / MDOT system may be able to maintain its effectiveness over its entire design life. The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a pilot study in 1991 using <ide scan sonar and other sophisticated bathymetric sounding equipment to map coastal changes between St. Joseph and Michigan City. Preliminary results from this i
study indicated that the nearshore area immediately south of St. Joseph harbor and i
immediately offshore of the CSX RR / MDOTsystem has undergone as much as a 4 meter erosion of lake bed since 1964-65 (USGS,1992). This erosion has been speculated to be a transfer of wave energies from onshore erosion to vertical erosion of the lakebed. In this particular case, the structural stability of the revetment may be affected, potentially causing a need for more maintenance expenditures than anticipated over time. A detailed study of this particular area may be justified.
f 8r i
Sb
.lJC LevelRe f erence Study Berrien Count j Detailed Site Study Typical Long-Term Recession Mapping l
p.
' s"5:.9).I,.,,
.~
l
.m. nj,
.1
'\\
+'
t
^
.t.
t 4
,,9
- y 2
s lE;!.,i
\\.
. 7.r..
s s
l I.$,
"y l ' ::c.%.
g,
~i o
L'?.f*.
I fk r.
'99i5horen'ne Position
48
,k,*s',,.,sfg.
- 99 6ve t uno t
'- - )tgg woolfiec 50*Veor necession Line
- r ",
,,m
- %.Y eor a oroge tecession Line s
{,
p
' ' 4 I
n,,..
h.5 *., *,, -
8 j
P
.u,,w s.\\,,,-
e
<.n a
f n ',,*
/ ~
"~'
[.{ 3,$
f W >-
t r..
..g e
y 7[.. J)&..
,J
/<
Sccie 1:6.000 4' A~
\\
a.
9,' '
1
.s.,,
e
- [
e
.e i
m..... lI'k_
f91 i
En
\\
h@',;'.,';3,,
rigure 9 i
t 4
~. -.. --
I e
e r
FILE: 703 01 FINAL REPORT 9
An Evaluation of the Four Licensed and Operating Nuclear Power Plant Sites in Michigan for Co-Location of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Isolation Facility May 24, *1988 PREPARED FOR:
MICHIGAN low-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AUTHORnY DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET P.O. BOX 30026 i
HOLLISTER BUILDING i
LANSINC, hD 48909 li I
PREPARED BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 2000 HOGBACK ROAD SUITE 2 ANN ARBOR, AUCHIGAN 48105 L
d
O 0
SECTION FOUR Conclusions This study found that none of the four nuclear power plrnts in Michigan are stJtable sites for co locauon of a low level radioacuve wasie isolautn facility Based on the available informadon listed in Secuon Five of this report, the nuclear power plant sites and immediately adjacent areas did not meet several key exclusionary criteria. These critena include those in which areas of intense geologic proce*s such as mass wasung. erosion and the like must be excluded, areas with high values of soil permeability must be excluded, areas exhibtung poor drainage and ponding must be excluded. and areas designated as wetlands mu:;t be excluded.
Although some specific detailed informauon nuout the sites was unavailable.
the informauon that did exist was c 4ough for a proper injual evaluation as requested by the Authority.
' Die goal of the stung enteria is to select a site with outstanding natural aners in the event of a leak or spill breaching one of the many engmeered barriers of the actual facility and disposal process.
Relying only on the available informadon that was reviewed, a low level radioacuve waste disposal facility would not meet the goals of the Siung Critena Advisory Comnuttee. Act 204 of 1987, the Authonty's and the NRC's 8tung objecuves and criteria and the overall goals of the NRC's performance objecuves. All of the sites are located near either populated or popular seasonal resort areas of the State and are located adjacent to one of the Great Lakes. These sites do not offer suitable natural protecuon from an inadvertent spill or undetected leak of the anucipated waste mixture.
Finally, the shorcisne setung of each of the nuclear power plants does not offer the safety and security of alternauve non-shore sites.
Wind dnven flooding and seiches will undoubtably play an imponant role in the integnty and longevity of the site and facility throughout its hfe.
i i
l 41
)
t
[
$711 Summerset Dr.
Midland. MI 48640 April 20.1994 Mr. John Zwolinski. Assistant Director for Region 111 Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washint.on. D. C., 20555
Dear Mr. Zwolinski:
'I h;s is in response to your letter of March 25. '94. I would like to clarify, with specificity, the facts that surround many of the issues that you have described in general terms in your letter.
You listed a number of allegations that I had made before the Final Rule was promulgated on April
- 7. '93 on the first page of your letter. You refer to the numbers of NRC's responses to those allegations m the Final Rule in the footnote of page 2 of your letter. I will explain why those responses are inadequate in each instance, and why they should be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing. These allegations and my evaluation of NRCs responses are as follows:
- 1. The casks were untested. NRCs response in #35 is inadequate because it does not take into account the statement made by F. Sturz of the NRC in a letter to J. V. Massey, the vendor of the cask,in the Revision of the Proposed Certificate of Compliance (July 8, '92) that says: "This preoperational test is view ed by the NRC staff as necessary because the fuel clad temperatures predicted by the vendor is only 4 degrees F. below the design criteria for off-normal conditions. Also, the concrete temperature is very close to the design criteria under the same conditions." It also tumed out that Consumers Power Co. did not hase the type of fuel that the NRC was prescribing for that test load on site of the first MSB-it was of a low er temperature. (See Consumers Power Co. comments, Sept. 9, '92) Therefore, a verification of the heat removal capacity of the VSC system has yet to be made. His important function of this cask must be tested at yet another site that has higher temperature fuel, as, for example, at Point Beach.
Response #37 was not adequate because an NRC inspection of the construction of the casks on site after most of them were built-prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance-founc that the construction workers did not know they should be following a code and did not know what the ACI code was. (Inspection Rept. dated 6/22/92) Furthermore, in a comment by B and W Fuel Co., it was pointed out that the NRC staff had failed to identify a significant safety issue,i.e., closure welds of the interior metal basket holding the fuelare not sufficient to meet the structural strength requirements of ASME Sec.
l
!!!. pressure vessel. De response further states that the NRC did not rely on the VSC 17 tests in Idaho for approval of the cask, but a letter from Gordon Gunderson of the NRC (NIJS-129) states that the cask i
designer did use the information in the VSC-24 design. We need to kn'o'w what the implications are of bb[Ub8 A
gZh)
W
.sse<2strsos-enO420 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
PDR l
l
4 1;
I f
I Page Two l
NRC's refusing to use the results of that test in Idaho, and the fact that vendor did use these results in the i
design of the VSC 24 cask.
I I
- 2) The manufacturer had refused to endorse use of the casks for the storare of soent fuel NRi Response #70 is inadequate because it does not bear out that NRC made any effort to find out the reasons why Pacific Nuclear, the original designer and manufacturer of the VSC-24 cask, divested itself of all i
interest and participation with Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates (now Sierra Nuclear) and the VSC-24 cask design. In its letter on this matter to C. Haughney of the NRC, the company offered to give reasons, saying, "Please let us know if you would like any additional information related to the divestiture." De NRC made no such inquiry and therefore, NRC's response that it "is not aware of any safety, negligence, liability or legal concerns
- for the divestiture is simply a self-serving statement, based on mere speculation - I and no investigation.
- 3. The NRC had failed to orecare an environmental imoact statement on the action.
NRC's respome #61 claims that all potential environmental impacts were fully considered in an
'i Environmental Assessment (with a finding of no significant impact). His was inadequate since this environmental assessment was largely based on NUREG-0575, Final Generic Environmental Imoact i
Statement on Handline and Storare of Spent Licht Water Reactor Fuel,1979. At that time, the impact of a national dry cask storage could not be assessed since the Department of Energy was only beginning its :
investi ation of the use of dry cask storage for commercial operators. Adding the VSC-24 as a generic F
cask to the list of approved casks was a major Federal action that can significantly affect the human l
environment. Alternatives to continued generation are different today than in 1979. Economic altemative energy sources, demand-side management, and fossil fuel combustion plants other than coal fired plants
)
are available today that argue for a new comparison to be made of the economics of nuclear power and.
f alternative energy sources. De increase of spent fuel storage at reactor sites nationwide has significant economic and environmental impacts that should have been considered. De recent indepth studies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Michigan of high risk soil erosion areas in the Great Lakes region should have been reviewed.
I 1
- 4. The oniv oublic hearing NRC was willing to have was without legal fcecc. NRC's response i
that their staff technical reviews and public comments are sufficient to address all public health, safety and t
environmental issues overlooked the fact that there are significant site specific issues at the Palisades site j
that were identified as requiring an adjudicatory hearing. The fact that the NRC has now hired two expe; to review the conditions of the site and the storage pad confirms that our views were correct.
t l
- 5. The NRC. by allowing construction of casks to begin prior to the issuance of a "cenificate of compliance." had failed to follow its own reculations. We have already shown that this breach ofits own
~'
~
rules led to serious quality control pro' lems in the construction of the casks (see #1 response above). We j
b also note that about a month after the Final Rule was issued and 2 casks were already loaded, the vendo' J. V. Massey, wrote to the NRC and stated he was now ready to take up safety issues that the NRC had J
1
I:
I
.j Page Three l
stated needed review in Aug. cf 92, during the comment period, and months before the Final Rule was issued in April. 93. At that time ( Aug.,92), Massey had stated that he preferred to have the casks approved "as is" so the work at Palisades could be completed in speedy fashion, and he would be attend to these safety issues later. "Ihe NRC agreed to that course of action. In other words the casks were to be attended to after the casks were built and loaded.
- 6. The casks were to be insoccted visual!v rathat than continualf v monitored. _ Responses #
- 18 in the Final Rule confirm the fact that the NRC requirements for monitoring the VSC-24 do not comply with their rule that requires the licensee to be able to determine at all times whether corrective t
action needs to be taken to ensure safe storage. We have already pointed out that the NRC failed to identify the fact that the closure welds for the MSB do not meet the structural strength requirem ASME code. (Response #1 above) Furthermore, NRC assertions in the past that there would be no degradation mechanism that would cause reactor parts to fail have been glaringly wrong--c corrosion of steam generators and pressure vessel embrittlement withinjust a fraction of the licensed operating time period. A Pxific Sierra Report states that corrosion rates are exacerbated by irradiation where metal cannisters are placed in a wet climate--and that is the case on the shore of Lake Mich
~1. The casks were to be located 150 vards from 12ke Michigan NRC's response #12 is not supported by the indepth studies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer of that area edicating the highi erosion potential of that area of 12ke Michigan's shoreline. It does not take into account an made for the Michigan Low-level Radioactive Waste Authority whose consultants found that no nuclear reactor site in the state of Michigan was suitable. including the Palisades site, for the co-location of a low-level radioactive waste facility as required to meet the needs of the Midwest compact of states. If
]
Michigan's reactor sites are not suitable for a low-level radioactive waste facility, how can the suitable for a high level nuclear waste storage facility?
In addition, on page 2 of your letter, I should like to emphasize that my telephone comments to M John Jacobson of NRC's Region 111 staff that the concrete pad was built on " shifting dunes was not the first time I had brought this up. I had pointed this out repeatedly in previous statements and in my comments long before the Final Rule was issued. It was a major reason why I was so interested in details on the constmetion of the storage pad in that area and its ability to hold 25 casks each w tons over a long period of time. We have not been able to find this information. We appreciate the action the NRC has taken to examine the site and to get this information for the pu~alie.
While I did not ask about the consequences of an earthquake in the area, I have noticed that Consumers Power Co. is required to make an annual status repon for Individual Plant Examination of Externa 1 Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (IPEEE) which includes development of seismic hazard curves as well as soil failure eva!uation. In their Sept. I,93 letter to the NRC on this state that their original schedule for this was to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 1993, b they would not have it done until the end of October. In other words, this was not done in time to be i
I t
Page Four i
useful for the completion of the Final Rule. Their soil failure evaluation was also behind t schedule.
Also, your letter states three reasons why you believe there is no undue risk by the use o at this time. You state that the casks have been evaluated to assure their safety if tipped o Feb.1,'94 letter from F. Sturz of the NRC to J. Massey, the vendor, states, "A tip-over is not a acceptable occurrence and must be prevented." Please provide me with the documents that evaluat l
casks' safety if tipped over, and whether the NRC position on this has changed since Feb.1,'9I what reason.
Second, your letter states that the " casks have been evaluated to assure safety if all ve blocked, as, for example,if the casks were to be enveloped in sand." Please send me the docu this evaluation. Why have the vents at all, since they represent a hazard,if the cask ca they are blocked?
Your letter states that "any erosion of sand under the pad would be a very slow process a be readily detectable." Please supply documents for this evaluation. Generally speaking, i of crosion is not readily detectable, but a rapid one is. How does the NRC evaluation of the erosi process in this area compare with the studies that ;he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has made whic indicates substantial crosion can take place in that area in the next several decades?
in your reference to *new questions" being raised in this letter, I am assuming you a NRC's evaluation of the cask site and pad and to Consumers Power Company's additional technic efforts. Please provide me with all the correspondence and any other documentation that is a how these "new questions" were initiated. To what extent are DOE and EPA responsibili brought into this decision?
The lener from Consumers Power Co. that you included with your letter states that it was recognized that "before the VSC-24 cask would be approved for use under a general Heense,it wo analyzed and its functional capability v ould be evaluated under the most stringent seismic crite locations in the United States". Was this,in fact, done by the NRC? If so, why is the v for changes in seismic design for a revised VSC Safety Analysis Report? (Sierra Nuclear Nov.11,1993)
In addition, Consumers states that they will provide data to demonstrate that, in the event of a design basis (0.2g) seismic event, "the surrounding sand would not engulf the cask and preven ventilation function".
- Dais seems to contradict NRC's position, stated in your letter, that the NR already determined that the casks will be safe if all vents were blocked, for example, if they w enveloped by sand. We need documentation for all of these matters.
It is disturbing that all evaluations for the pad to maintain its structural ability and th dunes slopes to remain in place under all possible conditions were not done before the casks were i
l u
t
Page Pive i
'I t
appfoved and allowed to be loaded, as Consumers Power Co. now s
- determining.
Small carthquakes, high winds, and atmospheric changes are k occurred in the Great Lakes--sonne have occurred on Utke Michigan.
frequent and well documented phenomena in the Great Lakes' dun They can occur as the result of heavy storms and high winds I
change the external shape of the dunes. Many have occurred on t Dort and D. F. Eschman, Geofeev of Michican. University of M where seiches or
- blowouts' will occur.
c Many thanks for your concerns on this important matter.
0,.*>A;,,
Mary P. Si lair, PhD Co chair. Don't Waste Michigan u
I l