Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11141995 - C79 ,l C.79, C.80 and C. 81 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 14, 1995 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None --------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Correspondence C. 79 LETTER dated October 26, 1995, from Charles Imbrecht, Chairman, California Energy Commission, 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, expressing shared concerns regarding the proposed federal policy regarding the receipt of spent nuclear fuel. ****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR, AND DIRECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. C.80 LETTER dated October 24, 1995, from Senator Feinstein, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510, soliciting input as to what the potential impact of the proposed Federal tax cuts will be on the County. ****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND AUDITOR-CONTROLLER. C.81 LETTER dated October 30, 1995, from Charles Jensen, Engineer, 2015 English Oak Court, Danville, Ca 94506, urging the Board to enact an ordinance to approved the use of plastic pipes in the building industry. ****REFERRED TO BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are approved. c.c. County Administrator ihereby certify that this Isatrue and correctCopy of Health Services; Director an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su isors on Ve date Director, GMEDA ATTESTED: It" INS Auditor-Controller f Supervisors L C OOR Clerk of tt a Boa o Public Works, Director tyAdministmtor !� B RECEIVED C,7 I qSTATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY P E WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1 9 CHARLES R. IMBRECHT ? Chairman C�iiiCBOAR OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Gayle Bishop October 26, 1995 Chair, Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1293 Dear Chairperson Bishop: Your letter to Governor Pete Wilson regarding the proposed federal policy on foreign research reactor spent fuel was forwarded to me for reply. We share many of the concerns raised in your letter, specifically the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposal to use the Concord Naval Weapons Station in Contra Costa County for receipt of this fuel. We raised similar concerns in our comments to DOE on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed federal policy for foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel (Enclosures 1 and 2). We question DOE's proposal to use West Coast ports to receive spent fuel destined for waste management sites located in the eastern U.S. We also question DOE's selection of the Concord Naval Weapons Station for receipt of these shipments, given its high population densities, heavy traffic congestion, high seismic risk, and-co-location with weapons shipments. .These factors, using DOE's own criteria for selecting ports, would appear to disqualify the Naval Weapons Station from consideration. We have requested that DOE provide a safety analysis of alternative ports and overland routes. We also expressed concern that DOE may not take title to the spent fuel until it reaches DOE waste management sites. This would leave such vital decisions as cask, carrier, shipper and route selection, as well as developing transport plans, to foreign countries who may base these decisions primarily on least cost considerations rather than safety. I would appreciate receiving copies of comments you may have provided DOE, as well as specific information on potential local impacts resulting from the use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station for these shipments. Sinc CHARLES R. IMBREC T Chairman Enclosures: 2 cc: Governor's Office (916) 654-5000 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California , 95814-5512 FAX: (916) 654-4420' %Tf _ CAltfORN1A—iFif RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govrmaf : .ALIFO- RNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CHARLES R. IMBRECHT ' Chairman �a June 20, 1995 The Honorable Hazel O'Leary Secretary of Energy U. S. Department of Energy Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue; S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Secretary O'Leary: I am writing to express my concern about the transportation implications of the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed policy on foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel, in particular, DOE's proposal to use the Port of Oakland and the Naval Weapons Station in Concord, California, for foreign research reactor spent nuclear_fuel shipments. The State of California has participated throughout the proceedings regarding DOE's foreign reactor spent fuel policy. In 1986, Governor Deukmejian wrote DOE expressing concern about the use of the Port of Long Beach for shipments of foreign reactor spent fuel from Taiwan which were to be transported by truck to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. He requested that DOE consider shipping directly to an East Coast port located closer to the South Carolina facility. In addition, the California Attorney General's Office joined the State of Washington and the Port of Oakland in legal action to require DOE to prepare an environmental assessment of the potential impacts from these shipments. DOE's resulting environmental assessment concluded that shipping this fuel via the East Coast, rather than the West Coast, decreased overall transportation risk. The State of California provided comments on DOE's Environmental Assessment (1991) and DOE's Notice of Intent(1993) calling for a transport plan developed cooperatively between DOE and corridor states. We strongly reiterate our comments made in these proceedings and recommend that DOE should: (1) ship foreign research reactor spent fuel destined for the Savannah River Site via the East Coast ports rather than the West Coast ports, to minimize overland transport and, consequently, public risk; (2) prior to the beginning of shipments, work with corridor states affected by these shipments in selecting truck and rail routes that minimize public risk; in addition, DOE should work with states in developing transport plans and procedures for these shipments, including plans and procedures for accident prevention and emergency response. They should be based on the successful nuclear waste transport safety programs that have been developed for transuranic waste shipments to WIPP and cesium shipments to Hanford, Washington. (916) 654-5000 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814-5512 FAX: (916) 654-4420 z The Honorable Hazel O'Leary Page 2 June 20, 1995 (3) reconsider the selection of the Port of Oakland in California for "Urgent Relief' foreign research reactor spent fuel shipments and the selection of the Naval Weapons Station at Concord, California, as one of three western ports for shipments of foreign research reactor fuel to the U.S. High population densities, extremely heavy traffic congestion, and co-location with weapons shipments should disqualify these ports from consideration, using DOE's own criteria for port selection as stated in the DEIS. In addition, these ports are located in some of the highest seismic risk areas in the nation. (4) to the extent feasible, take title to the spent fuel before the shipment begins to ensure that the shipment and its contents meet international and U.S. transport safety requirements. Many foreign countries may use least cost, rather than safety considerations, in planning for these shipments. - - I would appreciate your full consideration of this request before making the final decision regarding shipments of foreign research reactor spent fuel. We recognize the national security and nuclear non-proliferation reasons for the contemplated action described in the DEIS. We share the Department's goals that the ports of entry and shipment routes ultimately selected reflect all significant public health and safety concerns. S' cer , CHARLES R. IMBRECHT Chairman cc: Jackee Schafer Chief Deputy Cabinet Secretary Governor's Office & 4v.*e A, STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION CHARLES R. IMBRECHT d Chairman June 19, 1995 Charles Head, Program Manager Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (EM-37) U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Mr. Head: We have reviewed the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) recently released environmental assessment and impact statement regarding their policy on foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel'. Our enclosed comments focus on the transportation impacts of these proposed waste management policies (Enclosure 1). The State of California has long voiced its concerns regarding the transportation implications of DOE's policy to accept and manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors. In 1986, Governor Deukmejian expressed concern that DOE planned to use the Port of Long Beach for shipments of spent fuel from Taiwan to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (Enclosure 2). California's Attorney General's Office challenged DOE's failure to prepare an environmental assessment of the potential impacts from these shipments. These and other challenges led to DOE's preparation of an Environmental Assessment that concluded that shipping this fuel via the East Coast, rather than the West Coast, decreased overall transportation risk. In our comments on DOE's Environmental Assessment (1991) and DOE's Notice of Intent (1993) regarding DOE's foreign reactor spent nuclear fuel policy, we called for a safety analysis of alternative ports and overland routes. We also objected to the possibility of DOE's not taking title to the foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel before it reached the DOE waste management sites., This presumably would leave such decisions as cask, carrier and shipper selection to foreign countries who may base such decisions solely on least cost considerations, rather than on safety. 1The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel; and Environmental Assessment of Urgent-Relief Acceptance of Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel; (916) 654-5000 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814-5512 FAX: (916) 654-4420 Charles Head June 19, 1995 Page 2 After reviewing DOE's environmental assessment and impact statement on foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel, we conclude the following: 1. DOE's proposed foreign reactor spent nuclear fuel shipments to waste management sites in the East, e.g., the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS), should be made via the East Coast, not the West Coast. Spent fuel should be shipped directly to an off— loading point located near the point of destination (DOE Waste Management Site). Analyses by DOE have shown that spent fuel shipments to SRS via the West Coast pose a greater risk to public safety than shipping via the East Coast. To help ensure the safe and uneventful shipment of spent nuclear fuel to waste management sites, shipping cost considerations should not be allowed to override efforts to minimize public risks. 2. DOE's criteria for selecting ports of entry for foreign research reactor spent fuel shipments would appear to disqualify from consideration both the Port of Oakland and the Naval Weapons Station in Concord, California. High population densities, extremely heavy traffic congestion, high seismic risk and co—location with weapons shipments would appear to disqualify these ports. 3. If feasible, DOE should take title to the foreign research reactor spent fuel shipments prior to shipment departure to provide greater assurance that the casks, shippers,carriers, routes and appropriate procedures for accident avoidance and emergency response procedures (key variables for determining shipment safety) are used. 4. DOE should work with corridor states affected by these shipments to develop rail and truck transport plans and procedures prior to the proposed foreign reactor spent fuel shipments. A transportation program, similar to that used for cesium shipments and that planned for transuranic waste shipments' to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, should be developed by DOE and corridor states. Shipments should be inspected using the most recent inspection standards, e.g., Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) enhanced inspection standards developed for spent fuel shipments and transuranic waste shipments. S. Only cask designs that meet current federal transport safety requirements for transporting spent fuel should be used, i.e., the cask designs should be able to meet current spent fuel cask licensing requirements. 6. DOE should work with states to select rail and truck routes that minimize public risk and potential public impacts in the event of a transport accident. Mr. Charles Head June 19, 1995 Page 3 These recommendations and conclusions are discussed in greater detail in the enclosed comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review these documents and hope to work with the Department of Energy in developing transport plans for these shipments. incer y CHARLES R. IMBRECHT Chairman Enclosures: 2 Enclosure 1 Comments by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON A PROPOSED NUCLEAR WEAPONS NONPROLIFERATION POLICY CONCERNING FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is the result of a long legal struggle between states and DOE regarding DOE's policy to manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors. Over the past decade, the State of California has expressed concerns to the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding DOE's plans to transport spent nuclear fuel as part of the foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel policy. These concerns were communicated in letters to DOE, legal challenges, as well as our comments on environmental assessments regarding this policy. In particular, the State objected to DOE's plans to use California ports for receiving foreign research reactor spent fuel destined for the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In 1986, Governor Deukmejian wrote DOE to express concern regarding DOE's plans to use the Port of Long Beach to receive spent nuclear fuel from Taiwan for transport to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. California's Attorney General joined the Port of Oakland and the State of Washington in a legal challenge regarding DOE's failure to prepare an environmental assessment of the potential impacts from these shipments. Following DOE's preparation of an Environmental Assessment, DOE concluded that shipping this fuel via the East Coast, rather than the West Coast, decreased overall transport. risk. As a result, the Taiwanese spent fuel was shipped in 1988 via Portsmouth, Virginia. In 1991, DOE released a Finding of No Significant Impact(NOl) and Environmental Assessment on the proposed policy. The State of California provided comments on these documents as well as comments, provided in 1993, on DOE's Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. Key issues raised by California in these proceedings have included: (1) Concern over DOE's selection of the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Oakland for off—loading spent fuel from overseas; Governor Deukmejian stated that "a more direct route would further enhance the safety and security of these shipments." 1 _ 4 (2) The need for a full public disclosure, as required by law, of the potential environmental impacts and risks from these planned shipments. (3) The need for a comparative evaluation of the risks associated with alternative marine ports of entry and overland routes, including any special hazards that may be unique to these harbors or routes. Land routes from ports being considered for use in California traverse some of the most densely populated urban regions of the U.S. In addition, portions of these routes have extremely high traffic congestion, which may increase public exposure and greatly hamper emergency response activities should they be necessary in the event of an accident. Time—of—day restrictions on shipments through these areas may be required to minimize public risk. The Port of Oakland is one of the Pacific Coast's chief industrial areas and the principal distribution center for northern California and much of the U.S. (4) The need for an evaluation of alternatives that would permit this waste to be shipped directly to an off—loading point located more closely to where the fuel would be managed (DOE Waste Management Site). (5) The need for an explanation of how it will be determined that adequate safety procedures are in place and transport requirements are met during shipment. In earlier documents, DOE assumed no responsibility for the shipments until they arrive at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Countries seeking the least cost means of returning the fuel to the U.S. could sacrifice safety in order to lower shipping costs. Decisions regarding the selection of ports, routes, and packaging for these shipments were to be left to the shipper hired by the foreign country returning the fuel. (6) The need to directly involve corridor states and tribes in the planning and preparation for these shipments. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DEIS DOE's proposed policy involves the return of spent nuclear fuel from about 104 research reactors located in 41 foreign countries over a 13—year period. A typical cask of foreign research reactor fuel would contain about 900,000 curies. The DEIS estimates that about 186 cask shipments would be received at western ports of entry and about 651 cask shipments received at eastern points of entry (535 from ports and 116 from Canada). About 70 percent of the foreign research reactor fuel contains highly enriched uranium that could be diverted into the production of nuclear weapons, if it were removed from the spent fuel. 2 Routing of Shipments Spent fuel shipments intended for the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina should be shipped via the East Coast, not the West Coast. Analyses for the DEIS show that, for both truck and rail shipments, shipments to SRS via the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) in Concord, California affect the highest population densities when compared to the other ports under consideration in the DEIS. Although DOE has stated that economic factors support shipping some of the spent fuel via the West Coast to SRS, rather than via the Panama Canal to the SRS, least cost considerations should not override public safety. Contrary to presumptions of the DEIS, rail routing should not be left solely to the discretion of the railroads. Routes shown in California traverse some of the most densely populated and heavily congested areas of the U.S. These routes would begin in, and continue for hundreds of miles in, Seismic Zones 3 and 4, the highest seismic risk-zones. DOE should work with states and rail companies to select truck and rail routes that minimize public risk. 2. Need for State/Federal Cooperative Planning for These Shipments DOE should work with corridor states affected by these spent fuel shipments in developing transport plans and ' procedures (including accident prevention and emergency response procedures) prior to shipment. Such plans could be based on the successful nuclear waste transport safety programs, thereby shortening the time needed for developing these plans. For example, a transportation safety program, similar to that used for cesium shipments and that planned for shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,could be developed through cooperation between the federal government and shipment corridor states. In addition, the federal government needs to develop a program to provide shipment corridor states with the necessary technical assistance and training to prepare for the large number of spent nuclear fuel shipments. DOE and other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Transportation and the'Federal Rail Administration, should assist, cooperate with, and fund, as appropriate, activities of corridor states to ensure the safe transport of spent fuel and assure the emergency preparedness for potential transport incidents. The State of California will work with DOE in developing this transport plan. 3. Selection of Ports of Enn In 1994, DOE designated the Port of Oakland in California as a port of entry for "Urgent— Relief" foreign research reactor spent fuel. In addition, the DEIS designated the Naval Weapons Station at Concord, California as one of three western ports for shipments of foreign research reactor fuel to the U.S. However, DOE's own criteria for selecting these ports of entry would appear to disqualify the Naval Weapons Station and the Port of Oakland. Characteristics important to radiological risk from a transport accident, such as total shipment distance between shipment origin and destination and the population distribution along routes, would make NWS and the Port of Oakland less suitable ports of entry for these shipments. 3 DOE's criteria require that terminals used for foreign research reactor. spent fuel shipments should be physically separated from densely populated city centers (by several kilometers) to help ensure that the general public would be unlikely to be exposed to significant radiation doses from accidents within the port (cask drops, fires, or truck or rail accidents) and that the transport of spent nuclear fuel through large, densely populated, congested areas around the port would not be required. Shipments from,Concord travel through some of the highest density populations of the alternative ports under consideration by DOE. Another of DOE's criteria for port selection is the "absence of conflicting port activities". The NWS handles munitions, and, presumably nuclear weapons have been stored there (p. D-60). In addition, NWS is located on the edge of a very high seismic zone (with potential ground accelerations as high as 0.45 g, p. D-62.) Therefore, the NWS and the Port of Oakland do not appear to meet DOE's own criteria in evaluating alternate ports of entry. 4. Adequacy of Inspections and Enforcement The safety of these shipments depends upon the integrity of the packaging, experience and qualifications of the carrier and shippers, and whether the package and transport vehicles meet applicable transport safety regulations. Assurance must be provided through independent safety inspections to verify compliance with federal and international transport safety requirements. The responsibility for enforcing these regulations should be clearly identified and funding provided, as needed, to compensate States for additional costs incurred as the result of these inspections. Shipments should be inspected using the most recent standards, e.g., the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) enhanced inspection standards developed for spent fuel and transuranic waste shipments, developed by DOE and corridor states. DOE's environmental assessments point to the excellent safety record for Type B package shipments. However, this safety record may not reflect transport safety practices in all 41 of the foreign countries from which the spent fuel will originate. Each of these countries would be expected to have varying degrees of ability and inclination to meet transport safety requirements. Therefore, independent shipment safety inspections should be performed prior to shipment departure, including inspection of fuel loading procedures as well as cask maintenance and quality assurance programs. 5. Adequacy of Emergency Response Preparedness DOE should work with states along the proposed shipment corridors for these shipments to establish and implement an appropriate emergency response training program for potential transport accidents. Currently, only limited training is available to first responders for spent fuel accidents. 4 The difficulties of responding to a large—scale hazardous materials rail incident were recognized during the large hazardous materials spill which occurred in Siskiyou County, California in July 1991. The EIS should explain how the adequacy of rail carrier emergency response plans for spent fuel accidents or sabotage/terrorist incidents will be evaluated. In addition, DOE needs to describe how state and federal resources will be coordinated for responding to rail accidents and how onsite technical assistance will be provided to remote areas where no local hazardous response teams exist. 6. Location for DOE's Taking Title to Foreign Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Three scenarios are considered in the DEIS for when DOE would take title to the foreign reactor spent fuel: (1) before shipment begins; (2) at the Ports of Entry (at the limit of U.S. territorial waters or continental U.S. borders); or(3) at DOE Management Sites. DOE has proposed taking title to the fuel at the limit of U.S. territorial waters, or continental U.S. borders for shipments from Canada. The location of taking title to the fuel is relevant to the-safety of these shipments. Under scenarios 2 and.3, DOE presumably would be leaving such decisions to the foreign country and its contractors returning the spent fuel. Many foreign countries may use least cost, rather than safety considerations, in selecting the shipper, package, carrier, and routes to return the fuel. Since the safety of these shipments depends largely upon the integrity of the packaging, DOE or U.S. Department of Transportation inspections should be made as the spent fuel is being prepared for shipment to verify that the casks and their contents meet U.S. transport safety requirements. Taking title to the fuel at the limit of U.S. territorial waters or continental U.S. does not appear to provide sufficient U.S. oversight to ensure that the spent fuel was properly packaged and prepared for shipment. Stringent safety inspections should occur at the point of origin of the shipment. Without this common—sense safeguard, it may be possible that one or more shipments could arrive at a U.S. port of entry in a condition unsafe or unsuitable for transport by truck or rail to a DOE waste management site. Therefore, we recommend that DOE, if feasible, take title to the shipment before the shipment begins to ensure that the shipment and its contents meet international and national transport safety requirements. In addition, to clarify any uncertainty regarding liability coverage in the event of a major transport accident, DOE should publish in the Federal Register, for public review and comment, DOE's determination that accidents involving foreign reactor spent nuclear fuel shipments would be covered under the Price—Anderson Act. 5 7. Shipping Casks. The DEIS states that Type B packaging will be used for shipping foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel and naval reactor spent fuel. In the past, DOE has used Type B packaging that meets 1967 Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements for shipping transuranic wastes. These older package designs could not be licensed under current transport package licensing requirements, although they can still be used for shipping transuranic waste. (Current licensing requirements for transporting plutonium are more stringent.) The DEIS also states that the casks proposed for ground transport are not currently certified for shipping foreign research reactor spent fuel. How will the casks used by foreign countries be certified? Will they have full—scale testing? The casks used for the proposed spent fuel shipments should be required to meet current federal transport requirements for transporting spent fuel. 6 -: - r:;t tib 'ti J.�r�,..r..•-.r�.+t_.:f ���7A9 '+'tC GOVERNOR'S Orr>Ic>r_ SACRAHENTo $5814 = Lf>✓t✓t L J t I�rt -- .r.. February 27 , 1906 honorable john S. Herrington - --cretary of the Department of Energy -=- - -=^ rres tal , Forrestal Building _SOD , Independence avenue, S. 1q. - � -- ashing n , D.C} 20585 tsar lir, retary : = = Since receiving your staff ' s notification on January 17 ~_ = ?-'stat the Department of Energy has selected the Fort of Long each- for--_of f loading of spent-. nuclear fuel from overseas , - � �r office has revuested and received Department explanations 1 'oncernii.g the decision making process involved , legal tho-4Ity . and documents concerning .the safety of these h, pments . a ''I understand and appreciate federal Jurisdiction over .of this kind and your comm itipent to the safety <,ind :s[oci.ated with such shipments, I would like to Qx ir- s ly concern over your Department' s decision to use the F'o r t oz L' =tg Beach: :, r ulu like to request that your staff reconsider the s i on to use ti,e Lopt.g Peach facility, , wnd- to instead = :t eva1t,nte alternatives that Would permit these materials to ht: =' chipped directly to an off loading point located more closely to the South Caro� ina reprocessing facility. In my Judgment a more direct route would further enhance the safety and security of these shipments. would appreciate full consideration . ef this recuest before finalizing your decision to use Long Beach. T .look forward to hearing from you shortly _ on this matter . Most cordially, -_ George Deukrej ian 1' AV :;,= *' -