| Skull Valley news |
| nuclear.com | Nuclear Power | Bookstore | Gift Shop | About nuclear.com |
|
Skull Valley FAQs
|
Skull Valley news
October 25, 2006 *
Goshutes elect new tribal leadership
* [2006-05-18] PFS site - but no transport? Spent-fuel trucks may be too big for Skull Valley road * [2006-05-12] Sponsor denies N-dump funds bill is for Skull Valley * [2006-05-09] Utah attacks PFS nuclear waste plan * [2006-05-09] PFS storage proposals * [2006-05-06] Reps ask BLM to deny PFS' access * [2006-05-05] Tooele joins fray against PFS plan * [2006-05-05] Nuke Waste in Skull Valley is Grade-A Nonsense * [2006-04-20] EnergySolutions predicts demise of Skull Valley N-waste storage * [2006-04-19] EnergySolutions Campaigns Against Skull Valley Disposal Plan * [2006-04-11] No nuclear waste at Skull Valley * [2006-04-04] Energy secretary denies looking at Skull Valley * [2006-03-27] When pigs fly: Skull Valley nuke dump still safety folly * [2006-03-19] Nuke firms seek support for Utah site * [2006-03-16] Energy Department: No Plans to Move Nuke Waste to Utah * [2006-03-15] PFS Seeks Federal Nuke Waste Involvement * 2005-03-29: Goshute admits misuse of tribal funds * 2005-03-29: Goshute leadership contender takes plea * 2005-03-25: Editorial: N-waste appeal a hopeful sign It is unclear whether state attorneys will prevail in their newly granted appeal to the [Skull Valley] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, but the door has been opened for further consideration... [O]ur preference would be to keep the waste where it was generated. If it is as safe as power plant operators contend, there would appear to be little disadvantage to keeping it on-site. Moreover, it relieves security concerns of shipping spent fuel across the country to a remote site in the West. In the post-Sept. 11 world, homeland security interests have to trump the desires of nuclear power plant operators. * 2005-03-23: Such a Waste "... most entertaining is the sight of Republican lawmakers [in Utah] suddenly in camp with leftist environmentalists..." The writer cites three who take the prize in 'LetÕs Stop Those Nuclear-Crazy Indians' sweepstakes. * 2005-03-20: Utah trying all angles to bar PFS * 2005-03-18: Utah's congressmen make push against Skull Valley * 2005-03-15: Goshute Leader Speaks Out * 2005-03-10: Goshutes file lawsuit to stop feds from dealing with disputed leaders * 2005-03-10: Bush asked to fight Goshute plan * 2005-03-10: Senators lobby against storing waste in Skull Valley * 2005-03-09: PFS not only possible source of Utah-bound nuke waste February 24, 2005 ASLB rules in favor of PFS on last two contentions, passes licensing to Commissioners Reversing a previous decision, NRC's safety licensing board for Skull Valley determined today that the risk of a plane crash into the proposed spent nuclear fuel waste site in Utah was not significant enough to halt the facility -- thus sending the proposal to the full Nuclear Regulatory Commission for final approval. Assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor said her office would continue to fight the planned facility, either through another appeal to the board, in court or in front of the NRC itself. "We'll pursue every legal avenue available to us," she said. As planned, the storage pad would hold up to 4,000 casks filled with depleted nuclear fuel - about 10 million rods - across 100 acres of the Skull Valley. The board in March 2003 stalled construction by ruling the chances of a fighter jet from Hill Air Force Base crashing into the storage pad made the project too risky. The Air Force flies thousands of training missions each year over the sprawling Utah Test and Training Range near the reservation. Under regulatory standards, the project would have to be halted if the probability of a radiation breech from a crash is greater than one in a million per year. The board initially accepted an analysis that the probability was four times greater than that. But in today's 2-1 decision, the board said further analysis showed that "even if an F-16 did crash into the site, such a crash was so unlikely to cause cask and canister damage resulting in radiological release" unless the plane were traveling at a particular speed and angle. The dissenting member said he didn't trust the calculations enough to green-light the project. "The Applicants probability and structural analyses both suffer from major uncertainties," wrote Peter S. Lam. The Utah state Attorney General's Office also argued that the U.S. Department of Energy might not be obligated to transport waste from Skull Valley to Nevada, and it would end up permanently in Utah. The state cited comments from Gary Lanthrum, a DOE official involved with transporting nuclear waste, in October saying the DOE wasn't obligated to accept waste from the site because it would be in welded canisters. The board disagreed, saying in its decision the state's contention wasn't backed up by enough facts. "The underpinning provided is essentially the state's interpretation of an 'unofficial' oral opinion by a DOE Office Director who is not directly responsible for the subject about which he spoke," the board said in its decision. [Source: Travis Reed (AP writer), "Nuke board OK's Skull Valley waste site", Associated Press, February 24, 2005 3:01 pm ET, plus update at 4:14 pm] November 6, 2004 Skull Valley - NRC license could be issued as early as January 2005 The PFS consortium in 1997 signed a lease with Goshute Tribal Chairman Leon Bear and now is seeking a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a temporary facility on the reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The 20-year license, renewable for another 20 years, could be issued as early as January. The eight utilities have about 40 nuclear reactors between them. Private Fuel Storage chief John Parkyn said PFS ultimately would transport 4,000 casks of spent fuel to the 100-acre Skull Valley site. He said 200 casks would arrive each year, which would translate to about 40 trainloads. Their ultimate destination would be the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., about 90 miles north of Las Vegas. [Source: Patty Henetz (The Salt Lake Tribune), "Officials in West scoff at PFS plan for nuclear waste transportation; Nuke waste transport plan gets panned", Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), November 6, 2004, p. A1] Skull Valley - may be progressing so quickly that eventual Yucca Mountain transport rules may be stricter The U.S. Department of Energy is working to open the Yucca Mountain site by 2010, a deadline seen as increasingly doubtful due to politics and economics. That has put PFS planning considerably ahead of Yucca Mountain, a cause for worry among officials facing the likelihood that PFS shipments will pass through their states without the level of oversight shipments to Yucca Mountain would receive. [Source: Patty Henetz (The Salt Lake Tribune), "Officials in West scoff at PFS plan for nuclear waste transportation; Nuke waste transport plan gets panned", Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), November 6, 2004, p. A1] Skull Valley might be stuck if Yucca Mountain won't accept welded casks Private Fuel Storage chief John Parkyn said PFS will accept only welded casks in Utah. Bob Halstead, a consultant for the state of Nevada notes that DOE has said it wouldn't accept fuel at Yucca Mountain in welded casks, essentially leaving PFS without an exit strategy from Skull Valley unless it's to take the waste back to the utilities that sent it in the first place. Parkyn said "Fuel that's been shipped to Utah in a certified NRC container should be accepted at Yucca Mountain." [Source: Patty Henetz (The Salt Lake Tribune), "Officials in West scoff at PFS plan for nuclear waste transportation; Nuke waste transport plan gets panned", Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), November 6, 2004, p. A1] Skull Valley - PFS promises to train rural fire departments along transport route Western officials reacted skeptically Friday to a plan to train rural volunteer fire departments along routes where 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel could be shipped to Utah beginning as early as 2007. Those emergency teams would be the first responders to any rail accident involving the nuclear fuel that a consortium of nuclear power companies wants to ship to the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation and store for as long as 40 years. Private Fuel Storage chief John Parkyn promised the officials in Portland for a conference on nuclear waste that his consortium of eight nuclear power utilities would come into communities close to the time train shipments are scheduled to come through. The training would involve "literally calling people together in regions and areas and putting on workshops for them," he said. PFS trainers also would leave copies of training material for them and offer phone numbers for follow-up questions. But representatives of states affiliated with the Western Governors' Association, including a two-person team from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, expressed doubts about Parkyn's presentation. "PFS has absolutely no obligation to provide this training," said Connie Nakahara, a DEQ attorney. The state of Utah is the most adamant opponent of the PFS proposed waste storage site. Because PFS has yet to identify rail routes from the reactors to the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, where PFS plans interim above-ground storage for the spent fuel rods in concrete and steel casks, the affected communities can't do much in the way of advance planning, said Bob Halstead, a consultant for the state of Nevada on matters pertaining to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. While he didn't draw rail routes for the meeting attendees, Parkyn acknowledged that westbound trains would have to pass through Denver or southern Wyoming, prompting a warning from a Wyoming homeland security official. "We are a pass-through state and it is a burden to us," said radiological services supervisor Scott Ramsay. "We expect the assistance to come from whoever is putting the burden on us." [Source: Patty Henetz (The Salt Lake Tribune), "Officials in West scoff at PFS plan for nuclear waste transportation; Nuke waste transport plan gets panned", Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), November 6, 2004, p. A1] November 17, 2003 Some of the Skull Valley evidence submitted to ASLB by State of Utah contains safeguards info, sez NRC The NRC Staff in the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) has reviewed the aircraft crash analyses and reports submitted to the NRC by the State of Utah ("State") in September 2003, to determine whether those documents or portions thereof should be treated as safeguards information (SGI) in accordance with Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ¤ 2167. Based on its review, the Staff has determined that the following documents contain SGI and should be handled with appropriate protective measures, in order to avert the unauthorized disclosure of SGI to persons who have not established a "need to know" the information and have not executed the non-disclosure affidavit developed for use in this proceeding: * "Criticality Safety Assessment Under Accident Scenarios at the Proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Utah," Thorne, M.C., and Khursheed, A. (Sept. 2003). * "Structural Evaluation of Impacts From F-16 Aircraft and Military Ordnance on Holtec HI-STORM 100 Overpack and Multi-purpose Canister," Hoffman, C.M., et al. (Sept. 2003). *. "Probability of Munitions Impacts and Aircraft Crashes at a Proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Utah," Thorne, M.C. (Sept. 2003). * "Radiation Dose From Potential Accidental Release of Radioactive Material at the Proposed PFS Facility," Thompson, G. (Sept. 2003). In addition, the Staff has determined that the following documents do not contain SGI and do not require to be handled with protective measures, and the restrictive markings which had been placed on these documents may therefore be removed at this time: * "Evaluation of Impact Velocity and Impact Angle for F-16 Crashes at the Proposed PFS Site," Horstman, H.L. (Sept. 2003). * "Evaluation of Military Ordnance Impacts at the Proposed Private Fuel Storage Site in Skull Valley, Utah," McDonald, L.N. (Sept. 2003). * Letter from Connie Nakahara to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, dated September 19, 2003, and the enclosures thereto. [Source: November 17, 2003 letter from Sherwin E. Turk (Counsel for NRC Staff) to Administrative Judges on Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI] Note: a PDF copy of the letter is available from NRC at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/ web-based.html, by entering accession number ML033220149 November 13, 2003 Skull Valley - unusual step in interest of efficiency: Commission Order CLI-03-16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C. Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) CLI-03-16 -- ORDER With this order, the Commission takes the unusual step, in the interest of efficiency, of calling for appeals of Board decisions that would otherwise be considered interlocutory orders appealable only at the conclusion of the underlying ASLBP proceeding. We do so to expedite the final stages of a licensing process that has dragged on for a number of years. As we said a few months ago, Òthe time has now come to make every effort to bring the proceeding to closure soon and to decide whether to issue a license or not.Ó [see CLI-03-5, 57 NRC 279, 285 (2003)] Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., submitted its application for a license to build an independent spent fuel storage installation in Utah in 1997, nearly seven years ago. In response to NRCÕs notice of opportunity for a hearing, interested parties submitted dozens of contentions that, through outright rejection, summary disposition, or resolution after a hearing, have been winnowed down to a few. Only three issues remain before the Board: the consequences of an aircraft crash into the facility, an issue which is awaiting further hearings; certain financial matters, which await resolution after various motions for reconsideration or clarification; and an issue concerning the impacts of building a rail spur, which awaits decision after an already-completed hearing. By far the largest task left before the Board is holding a hearing and rendering a decision on aircraft crash consequences. The aircraft consequences hearing is currently stalled while the applicant, PFS, conducts further technical analyses at the NRC staffÕs request. Our decision today does not apply to the BoardÕs upcoming decisions in these pending matters. But a series of prior interlocutory Board orders, many of which are now years old, may well present issues that the parties plan ultimately to bring before the Commission on petitions for appellate review. These include, for example, Board orders rejecting or summarily disposing of contentions without hearing. Ordinarily, of course, absent special circumstances, parties may not appeal interlocutory Board rulings before the end of the case [see See Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), CLI-02-7, 55 NRC 205, 213 (2002) (citing cases)]. We have repeatedly so held in this very case [See, e.g., CLI-01-1, 53 NRC 1 (2001)]. Now, though, because only a few discrete matters remain pending before the Board and because the parties have already had considerable time to review the BoardÕs various interlocutory rulings, we direct all parties to seek immediate appellate review of any interlocutory orders they wish to challenge. [We remind parties of our guidance three years ago that interlocutory Board orders linked to subsequent partial initial decisions should be appealed in connection with the pertinent partial initial decision. See CLI-00-24, 52 NRC 351 (2000). We expect to adhere to that guidance in considering future petitions for appellate review in this case.] No such appeals will be entertained later. The Commission has undoubted power to modify its procedural rules on a case-by-case basis [See National Whistleblower Center v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 208 F.3d 256, 262 (D.C. Cir. 2000)]. As we suggested above, special circumstances warrant a departure here from our usual doctrine disfavoring interlocutory appeals. The Commission has previously expressed its strong interest in expediting this case, and directed the Board to take all steps reasonable and necessary to resolve the pending hearing matters [See CLI-03-05, 57 NRC at 284-85]. By permitting immediate petitions for appellate review of interlocutory Board orders, the Commission can do its part to speed this proceeding to its resolution. In addition, a two-tiered approach to review -- interlocutory appeals now and appeals from partial initial decisions later -- has the advantage ensuring that any important issue that may have been raised by interlocutory orders receives due consideration and is not lost in the process of reviewing the substantial and complex Board decisions still anticipated in this case. We therefore direct the parties to file petitions for review of any interlocutory Board orders (other than those relating to matters still awaiting final Board decision) they wish to challenge. The petitions shall not exceed 20 pages, must be filed within 21 days after issuance of this order, and otherwise must conform to our rules of practice, including an explanation why particular issues meet the standards for Commission review [See 10 C.F.R. ¤2.786]. Answers, not to exceed 20 pages, should be filed within 14 days after receipt of any petition for review. To expedite response deadlines and Commission consideration, petitions and answers shall be filed with the Commission, and served on all counsel, by electronic means or, alternatively, by overnight delivery service. The Commission will thereafter issue an order calling for further briefs on any issue warranting review under the criteria listed at 10 C.F.R. ¤2.786(b)(4). IT IS SO ORDERED. Note: a PDF copy of Commission Order CLI-03-16 is available from NRC at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/ web-based.html, by entering accession number ML033180141 * Skull Valley status - Sept 30, 2003 (monthly letter report to Congress) August 27, 2003 Skull Valley - appellate court issues The state of Utah appealed last summer's federal district court ruling which held that five state laws intended to block the Skull Valley spent fuel cask storage project are unconstitutional. A 10th Circuit federal appeals court panel heard oral arguments in the case on August 26. The state contends that Congress never authorized the NRC to license a facility like Skull Valley. That makes it an illegal project, and as such, it is quite appropriate for the state to legislate as it has. The state even argued that, since the Skull Valley applicants aren't eligible for a lawful license, they have no standing to challenge Utah's laws on the matter. [Source: Judy Fahys (Salt Lake Tribune), "Goshutes, N-consortium face off with state", The Salt Lake Tribune, August 27, 2003] August 13, 2003 Utah hires Nevada's Yucca Mountain law firm to help look at Skull Valley aircraft crash issue The State of Utah has hired the law firm Egan, Fitzpatrick and Malsch, of McLean, Virginia, to help evaluate the consequences of an airplane crash into a spent fuel storage cask or a proposed spent fuel storage facility at Skull Valley. The State of Nevada is delighted that the firm, which expects to do some $4-million in Yucca Mountain-related work this year, will be gaining expertise on this subject while being paid by somebody else. Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, believes that this aircraft crash issue may eventually be front and center in the Yucca battle, just as it is currently seen as potential show-stopper at Skull Valley. [Source: Steve Tetreault (Stephens Washington Bureau), "Firm fighting Yucca adds Utah as client; State opposes Goshute spent fuel complex", Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 13, 2003] May 23, 2003 ASLB ruling: Skull Valley meets seismic design criteria An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board yesterday dismissed the seismic issues raised by state of Utah. The state is disappointed that NRC need only consider earthquakes of a magnitude expected once every 2,500 years. "The big one" expected once every 10,000 years, was what the state urged NRC to consider. The board ruled that "On the facts presented, we find that the applicant has met its burden of proof on all these seismic-related issues". [Source: Judy Fahys (The Salt Lake Tribune), "N-Waste Site Quake-Safe, Board Says", The Salt Lake Tribune, May 23, 2003] excerpts: * Skull Valley seismic issues - ASLB rules that PFS met its burden of proof * Skull Valley - overview of proposed spent fuel storage project * Skull Valley - 2,500-yr quake, not the 10,000-yr "big one", forms basis for NRC's seismic evaluation * Skull Valley - Goshutes glad to see project keeps moving towards license May 19, 2003 Skull Valley ASLB hearing set for May 29 The NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold a hearing on the Skull Valley proposal on May 29. The board has blocked a license to build a 4,000-cask storage dump because of fears fighter jets from a nearby Air Force base might crash into the site. PFS has asked the board to reconsider storage of 336 casks. [Source: Reuters, "Xcel nuclear storage plan gets boost in Minnesota", May 19, 2003]
|