ML20216E106
| ML20216E106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1999 |
| From: | Dicus G, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Andrea Johnson AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216E110 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908020061 | |
| Download: ML20216E106 (7) | |
Text
Y)N e
/
h UNITED STATES l 1 0'
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 l
July 16, 1999 l
CHAIRMAN Abigail C. Johnson, Nuclear Waste Advisor j
Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office P.O. Box 714 Eureka, Nevada 89316
Dear Ms. Johnson:
In your letter of April 13,1999, you expressed concem about a proposed rule that would amend the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) environmental review requirements for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses (10 CFR Part 51); the proposed rule was published in the Federal Reaister on February 26,1999 (64FR9884). This rule is intended for the specific purpose of assessing the environmentalimpacts of the transportation of high-level waste related to applications to renew nuclear power plant operating licenses For the reasons described below, we have decided not to grant your request to extend formally the public comment period, nor to hold a formal public hearing in Nevada. Neverthsiess, we did take steps to accommodate a number of comments that were received after the end of the formal comment period on April 27,1999. As stated in the Federal Reaister notice, comments received after the end of the comment period would be considered to the extent practical. In addition, your comments and others from Nevadans were received as we were preparing to hold a series of three public meetings in Nevada from June 15 to 17,1999, related to the proposed rule that would establish the licensing criteria for the disposal of high-leve! radioactive wastes (10 CFR Part 63). We elected to expand the topics for those meetings to inc: ade a discussion of transportation safety and we shared our plans for public meetings in Nevada related to the Modal Study, As you are aware from your involvement at the meeting in Las Vegas on June 16, 1999, we provided members of the public an opportunity to present new information related to the transportation impacts issue, which is part of the environmental review requirements for license renewal (Part 51), and we committed to consider such comments in developing the final rule.
In promulgating the final rule for the environmental aspects of license renewal, the Commission recognized that it may be appropriate to address the impacts of the transportation of high-level waste on a generic basis. The intent of this proposed rule change is to reach a generic conclusion, such that licerse renewal applicants would not need to address this issue individually. Specifically, the proposed amendment to Part 51 would expand the generic findings that currently are codified in the regulations addressing the environmental impacts of license renewal to cover the transportation of spent fuel to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain during the renewal term of individual nuclear power plants.
The licensing process for Yucca Mountain requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to submit, for review and approval, an application to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repositorv. Along with the application, DOE must submit an environmentalimpact statement (EIS). In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
\\
9908020061 990716 I
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
p-.
6 1982, the NRC staff will review the DOE EIS to determine whether it is sufficient to satisfy the i
NRC's requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the EIS, the DOE l
staff will evaluate the environmental impacts, including transportation associated with the construction and use of a geologic repository. The draft DOE EIS is scheduled to be available -
for public review and comment this summer.
Given the discrete issues covered by this proposed ruto change, the Commission believes that the 60-day public comment period, which extended from February 26 to April 27,1999, was reason' ble. We appreciate your interest in this and other issues related to the transportation of a
high-level waste and look forward to your continued involvement at the upcoming public
- meetings.
Sincerely.
$s ed O eta Joy Dicus l
1982, the NRC staff will review the DGE EIS to determine whether it is sufficient to satisfy the
' NRC's requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the EIS, the DOE staff will evaluate the enviranmental impacts, including transpodation associated with the construction and use of a geologic repository. The draft DOE EIS is scheduled to be available for public review and comment this summer.
Given the discrete issues covered by this proposed rule change, the Commission believes that the 60-day public comment period, which extend 3d from February 26 to April 27,1999, was reasonable. We appreciate your interest in this and other issues related to the transportation of j
high-level waste and look forward to your continued involvement at the upcoming public meetings.
I Sincerely, Original signed by Greta Joy Dicus Greta Joy Dieus l
Originating Office: EDO Ref: CR-9s -103 Chairman Correspondence OFC SECY_/.
OCM/GJD l
NAME YWYa$s
,, I,, g DATE 7/1/99
[ %#
I OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
~
X i
(
n l.
Eureka County Yucca Mountain information Office P.O. Box 714 1
Eureka, Nevada 89316 Phone (775) 237-5372 FAX (775) 237-5708 l
April 13,1999 Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001
Dear Dr. Jackson:
On February 26,1999, NRC issued a Notice in the Federal Register seeking public comments on proposed changes to t% equirements for environmental review for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licens-fhe Notice has information on the transportation of spent fuel to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The Notice incorporates information and findings from a draft Addendum to NUREG-1437.
On behalf of Eureka County, Nevada, I am writing to request theat the period for public comment on the proposed changes contained in the Federal Register Notice be extended by 90 days, and j
that the NRC conduct a public hearing on the the proposed changes in Nevada.
I 8
We only learned of the notice recently. This is due to the misleading title of the notice which does not refer to transportation, but only to the re-licensing of nuclear power plants.
With additional time to comment, the NRC will be able to hear from the affected units oflocal government in Nevada and California as well as other local governments, the state of Nevada, tuid other interested parties.
We look forward to your reply concerning the extension of the comment period and the schedule for a hearing in Nevada on this important matter.
Sincerely,
~
Abigail. Johnson Nuclear Waste Advisor cc:
Leonard Fiorenzi, Eureka County AULGs Joe Strolin, NWPO g
0 N
2 a
s
?
O A % $ 6]at3-l \\p.
E n