ML20196F563
| ML20196F563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bryan R SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906290244 | |
| Download: ML20196F563 (6) | |
Text
g g
UNITED STATES Distribution:
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WTravers g
g WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001 MKnapp 9,
FMiraglia June 18, 1999 PNorry JBlaha CHAIRMAN SCollins, NRR AMarkley, NRR KCyr, OGC PLohaus, SP CPaperiello, NMSS EMerschoff, RIV G19990222 The Honorable Richard H. Bryan ED0 r/f United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2804
Dear Senator Bryan:
I am responding to your letter of April 25,1999, in which you expressed concern about documents related to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) efforts to streamline requirements for the license renewal of commercial nuclear power plants. Specifically, the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Reaister on February 26,1999, (64 FR 9884) that would expand the generic findings in the regulations to include the cumulative environmental impacts of transporting high-level waste (HLW) to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
In promulgating the final rule for the environmental review of license renewal applications, which was published on December 18,1996 (61 FR 66537), the Commission recognized that it may be appropriate to address the impacts of the transportation of HLW on a generic basis. The intent v the current proposed rule change is to reach a generic conclusion, so leense renewal applicants would not need to address this issue individually. Specifically, the proposed amendment would expand the generic findings on the environmentalimpact of transportation of HLW from a nuclear power reactor. These findings are codified currently in the license renewal provisions of 10 CFR Part 51. This expansion would cover the transportation of HLW to a single destination (the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain) during the renewal term of individual i
nuclear power plant licenses. Public comments on the treatment of various radiological waste issues, including the issues addressed in the current proposed rule, were solicited on June 5, 1996, in a Federal Reoister notice (61 FR 28467) that presented an interim final rule. After reviewing the comments received, the Commission stated in the December 18,1996, Federal Reoister notice its intent to consider generically the cumulative impacts of transportation to a single destination at Yucca Mountain, in a December 1997 paper, the staff informed the Commission of the staff's preliminary view that its analysis of the generic and cumulative impacts of the transportation of high-level wastes supported a reasonable technical and legal determination that the analysis may be adopted in a license renewal application. In a January 1998 memorandum to the staff, the Commission directed the staff to proceed with the i
rulemaking and the staff subsequently informed the Commission of its plans for amending Part 51, The December 1997 staff paper and the January 1998 Commission memorandum,_
i m
were made publicly available in January 1998.
'CC I
l i
in your letter, you requested an extended comment period. Given the discrete issues covered by the proposed rule change, the Commission believes the 60-day public comment period,
. L/- l K'3 e
I
- 030 g.jj3 Originated by
[AMarkley,NRR]
y
\\
9906290244 990618 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR J
r 1
4 4
February 26 to April 27,1999, for both the proposed rule and the staff's supporting analysis (NUREG-1437, Vol.1, Addendum 1) was reasonable and consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and NRC rulemaking policies and procedures. As stated in the Federal Reaister l
notice, however, the staff will consider comments received after the end of the comment period to the extent practicable.
You also stated in your letter that the Commission appears to rely on an outdated and incomplete factual record in analyzing the risks related to the transportation of waste. Please note that we have just begun the proccss of evaluating the public comments we received on the proposed rule and the staff's supporting analysis and have not yet determined the final agency action to be taken. As stated above, all comments received, including comments relating to your concern, will be addressed in the final rule.
I in addition, you stated in your letter that the NRC did not consult with State or local governments or with affected communities. In adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act and agency procedures, we issued a Federal Reaister notice on February 26,1999 (64 FR 9884) and mailed copies of the proposed rulemaking to the Nevada State Liaison Officer, the Nevada Public Service Commission, the State Clearinghouse, and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and its reg;onal offices. However, the NRC recognizes that State and local governments and other stakeholders receive and review numerous announcements and documents from Federal and State agencies, other States, and other entities. In light of the number of documents received and the fact that the title of the Federal Reaister notice in question indicated only the license renewal focus of the document, it is understandable that some agencies may not have recognized immediately that the document contained data of interest to Nevada. Accordingly, the rulemaking may not have received the appropriate priority for review. The NRC is considering whether additional steps are necessary to ensure that Nevada stdeholders will be currently and accurately informed of information pertinent to their interests, including Yucca Mountain issues.
We emphasize that the licensing process for Yucca Mountain requires that the Department of Energy (DOE) submit to the NRC, for review and approval, an application to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repository. Along with the application, DOE must submit an environmental impact statement (EIS). In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the NRC staff will review the DOE EIS to determine whether it is sufficient to satisfy the NRC's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. In the EIS, the DOE staff will evaluate the environmental impacts, including transportation, associated with the construction and use of a geological repository. The draft DOE EIS is scheduled to be available for public review and comment by July 1999.
It is worthy to note that NRC's Draft Generic EIS for license renewal made very conservative assumptions about how spent fuel shipments would occur in the Las Vegas area (e.g., truck transport through Las Vegas over a 60-year period, no use of the future beltway around Las Vegas, and no rail transports bypassing Las Vegas). All of these assumptions tend to increase risk estimates. Even with these conservative assumptions, the draft report concluded that both radiological and non-radiological risk to the public are extremely low (i.e., less than 1/5 of a fatal cancer or about 300,000 times less than the normal incidence of fatal cancers in the Las Vegas area over a 60-year period).
. ~ Let me assure you that in pursuing its health and safety mission, the NRC takes seriously its
~
responsibility to keep the public informed and to facilitate public participation in its regulatory development and change process. We are constantly working to improve public confidence and our public information activities by using new and more accessible media. We value your comments and will strive to improve our effectiveness in this area. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
l Sincerely, b
A-~
4 I
i l
I l
)
p-s DISTRIBUTION: Green Ticket 19990222 Ltr. R.' Bryan fm S. Jackson Dated' Central File (w/ incoming)(GT19990222)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)(GT19990222)
EDO r/f (w/ incoming)(GT19990222)
RGEB r/f (w/ incoming)(GT19990222).
RLSB (w/ incoming)(GT19990222)
NRR Mailroom (w/ incoming)(GT19990222)
WTravers MKnapp l
FMiraglia j
PNorry I
JBlaha DRathbun, OCA SBurns, OGC PLohaus, OSP l
CPaperiello, NMSS -
EMerschoff, RIV SCollins/RZimme: man WKane BSheron DMatthews/SNewberry CGrimes CCarpenter MMalloy DCleary -
AMarkley MManahan I
l L
'+
j f'g G O 9
gdfW!RJE'i a., -
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM DUE: 05/11/99 EDO CONTROL: G19990222 DOC DT: 04/25/99 FINAL REPLY:
I Scn2ter Richard H. Bryan TO:
Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF :
COMMENTS REGARDING EFFORTS TO STREAMLINE NUCLEAR Travers POWER PLANT RELICENSING Knapp Miraglia j
Norry i
Blaha
, Burns DATE: 04/28/99 Lohaus, SP Paperiello,NMSS
]
ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
Cyr, OGC l
,_NRR Col 1 ins _
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
l m g 4 eiu s d p l M 97 m Maj: n / a,waJ w-u
~
g, i.-
!A 9 -
J
+
i
r.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
(
PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-99-0395 LOGGING DATE: Apr 27 99 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO i
AUTHOR:
RICHARD BRYAN, SEN AFFILIATION:
U.S.
SENATE ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE:
Apr 25 99 FILE CODE: M-20
SUBJECT:
TRANSPORTATION OF HIGH LEVEL WASTE THROUGH NEVADA....
ACTION:
Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: OCA TO ACK CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
OCM #18157 DATE DUE:
May 13 99 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
upis 5s on If' b l
l EDO --Gl9990222
)
04/26/99,.MpN,17:22 FAI
@ 002 l
l I
Gmt 1
racHAP.D BRYAN
- 8' *'"* 8 '""
I tEVADA Suret702 Rswo, NV t9501 l
COMMfffFts:
poti se6S70 11nited Statts 5tnatt m.;;;-
FLNANCg
=, = -
269 RUS$ ELL SENATE OFFICE SUILDING Ds Vacas, Nv 09101 cowuenct,scismet. AND 002 m m W NS M TAT @N WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2804 NTELUGENCE
{202) 224-624d i
em E=ev Nw staat SJTE 304 Cumon Ctry, NV 89701 0 02) 885-9111 April 25, 1999 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building l
11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Chairman Jackson:
Recently, I became aware of a disturbing action by the Commission related to transportation of high-level nuclear waste through Southern Nevada.
In documents related to the Commission's efforts to streamline l
relicensing of commercial nuclear power plants, the Commission i
has purported to analyse the health and safety impacts of the transportation of high-level nuclear waste.through Southern Nevada to a nonexistent repository at Yucca Mountain.
In analy::ing these risks, the Commission appears to rely on an outdated, incomplete factual record.
Even worse, the Commission has issued this document with absolutely no consultation with any representative of state or local government, or any other input from the affected communities.
Through either ineptitude, deception or a combination of the two, i
the' Commission has sought to trivialize the transportation of high-level waste through Nevada, and attempted to do so out of the sight of those most likely to be affected.
This most recent event only adds to a series of Commission actions.which continue to erode public confidence in the Commission in Nevada.
I urge.the Commission to reconsider its decision, and to provide a suitable comment period during which the public may develop suitable comments on this issue of grave importance to Southern Nevada.
l
'ncerely,
// #7/
Richard
. gr n
United S ates enator m
W 1
uA S
a
- A r% \\Y h
g M
CQWW v v
L