ML20210K301
| ML20210K301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/24/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FACA, NUDOCS 9908060063 | |
| Download: ML20210K301 (2) | |
Text
,
7-4
..u
.l NUCLEAR RES LATORY OMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555 e
o k,,,,, /
date lhitia!S j
....................e, coMMisSloNER May 24,1999 MEMORANDUM TO:
Nils J. Diaz FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
ffb
SUBJECT:
COMNJD-99-002 - NEVADA PUBLIC MEETING ON SPENT FUEL TRANSPORTATION I have considered your memorandum and offer the following comments. I strongly agree that the present schedule for the treatment of transportation issues under license renewal should be maintained and I am sensitive to the need for improved communication on transportation issues associated with Yucca Mountain (YM). However, I do not support your proposal that the staff initiate a separate effort now to conduct a public meeting in Nevada specifically on transportation issues.
First, it is unclear to me what the end product would be from conducting an NRC sponsored public meeting specifically on transportation issues that you would have " lag behind" the license renewalinitiative by 60 to 90 days. If the license renewal initiative proceeds on its current schedule, it is unclear how the staff would disposition any comments received during such a public meeting. It is also important to note that NRC did not conduct a public meeting in the Las Vegas area on the Draft Generic Environmental impact Statement (GEIS) for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Licenses issued in February for a 60-day comment period since its primary focus is on license renewal for plants located nationwide. Copies of the Federal Reoister notice were forwarded by the staff to various Nevada officials and the U.S. Bureau of indian Affairs. Also, I personally spoke to Mr. Robert Loux of the State of Nevada during the March 16,1999 Commission briefing on the high-level waste program to ensure that he knew 4
that the GEIS was available for public comment. Mr. Loux told me he was aware of it and we j
would be hearing from him on it.
I Second, the staff is scheduled to conduct a second set of public meetings in the Las Vegas I
area on June 15-17,1999 to discuss thu proposed Part 63. It is my understanding that waste management program staff will be accompanied by a transportation expert from the Spent Fuel
/0 4
Project Office and a staff member from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Transportation issues willlikely be raised by meeting attendees and the staff will address them at that time. Since you and I agree that the current schedule for license renewal not be delayed, the June meetings are an effective way for NRC to address transportation issues in the near term without negatively impacting the license renewal schedule.
990006006Y990524 OdM-bCuM h/
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
.g ~ !
g.
b 2
s Third, I'do not disagree that public meetings later this year could assist NRC in reviewing the Department of Energy's (DOE) Draft EIS on YM, scheduled to be issued for public comment this summer. - However, DOE should organize the public meetings on its own draft EIS. NRC staff should attend those meetings to help us in our review of the DOE EIS.
Fourth, as stated above, the primary purpose of NRC's Draft GEIS is for license renewal and not transportation. As a result, the Draft GELS provides a bounding or worst-case analysis of the impacts of transporting speat nuclear fuel (SNF) in the vicinity of YM that all applicants can rely on during the renewal process rather than requiring each applicant to individually address transportation impacts. It wac never_ intended to be the "end-all" for addressing the transportation issues associated with licensing YM. DOE's Draft EIS will be used to explore transportation impacts associated with the proposed repository. It is also important to note that even using worst-case assumptions, such as shipping all SNF by truck through downtown Las Vegas, the NRC's Draft GEIS indicates that the transportation risks are extremely low (i.e., less than 1/5 of a fatal cancer for the entire 60-year period or about 300,000 times less than the normalincidence of fatal cancers in the Las Vegas area over a 60-year period). Apparently, DOE's EIS will likely result in even lower risk estimates because they will use more realistic assumptions such as a combination of truck and rail routes with some shipments bypassing Las Vegas.
Given all this, I am comfortable with the staff efiv.m to date and the time line associated with the license renewal initiative including assessing the transportation impacts in a generic
. manner. I see no additional benefit in directing the staff to hold yet another duplicative meeting on transportation issues in Nevada late this summer or early fall as you propose.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Merrifield SECY OGC OCA OPA EDO L
l
.