ML23152A143

PR-050, 072, 170 - 54FR19379 - Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites

ML23152A143
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/05/1989
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-050, PR-072, PR-170, 54FR19379
Download: ML23152A143 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 05/05/1989 TITLE: PR--050,072, 170 - 54FR19379 - STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-050,072, 170 54FR19379 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF 1 PROPOSED RULE: PR-050,072,170 RULE NAME: STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STOR AGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 54FR19379

,PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:. 05/05/89 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 274 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 06/19/89 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 55FR29181 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 07/18/90 OTES ON: FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

TATUS :

OF RULE PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050,072,170 RULE TITLE: STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STOR AGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 89-084 SRM DATE: 04/05/89 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 04/28/89 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 90-178 SRM DATE: 06/22/90 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 07/12/90 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: WILLIAM PEARSON MAIL STOP: NLS 129 PHONE: 492-3764 CONTACT2: J. Telford MAIL STOP: PHONE: 492-3796 PRESS PAGEUP TO SEE STATUS OF .RULEMAKING PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

In the Matter of STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STOR AGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/02/89 04/28/89 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 06/05/89 06/01/89 COMMENT OF HELEN BURGESS ( 1) 06/06/89 05/31/89 COMMENT OF H. SILVERBLANK-FORST AND JOHN FORST ( 2) 06/06/89 06/01/89 COMMENT OF DALE SALTZMAN ( 3) 06/07/89 06/02/89 COMMENT OF JAMES STEWART ( 4) 06/09/89 06/07/89 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE (D. 'ARRIGO) ( 5) 06/12/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF SANDRA YOUNG ( 6) 06/12/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF KATHIE F. LEISERSON ( 7) 06/12/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF MARION MEAD ( 8) 06/12/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF SUE ECKMANS ( 9) 06/13/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF PRISCILLA SMITH ( 10) 06/14/89 06/06/89 COMMENT OF GILLIEN FRASIER ( 11) 06/14/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF WILLIAM FEIUSILVER ( 12) 06/14/89 06/11/89 COMMENT OF DORIS BEDELL ( 13) 06/14/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF E. JENKINS ( 14) 06/15/89 06/09/89 COMMENT OF ALORIE YOUNG ( 15) 06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF BARBARA HECKMANN ( 16) 06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF RUTH WILKS ( 17) 06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF BERNARD FORER ( 18)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF BEA THORPE ( 19}

06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF DONALD MILLER ( 20) 06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF CAROL CLIFFORD ( 21}

06/15/89 06/10/89 COMMENT OF ANGELA DEE COATES ( 22) 06/15/89 06/11/89 COMMENT OF MARIE MCCUISTION ( 23)

- 06/15/89 06/11/89 COMMENT OF BEATRICE STIGER ( 24) 06/15/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF HUGH BARKER ( 25}

06/15/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF L. DAVID FERRARI ( 26) 06/15/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF RUTH STAHL ( 27) 06/15/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF REV. KENNETH T. FARNELL ( 28) 06/15/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF LEE KLASS ( 29) 06/15/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF DOUG DECKER ( 30) 06/15/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF ROBERT BURKE ( 31) 06/15/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF MRS. CHARLES W. HOLMES ( 32) 06/15/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF MR. AND MRS. E. L. BROWN ( 33) 06/16/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (C. W. FAY, VICE-PRESIDENT) ( 34) 06/16/89 06/12/8~ COMMENT OF JOHN MCKEE ( 35) 06/16/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF MICHELE SCHLICK-HARRIS ( 36) 06/16/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF DETROIT EDISON (B. RALPH SYLVIA, VICE-PRESIDENT) ( 37) 06/16/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF ALLIED CITIZENS OPPOSING POLLUTION (GARY WONDERLIN, PRESIDENT) ( 38) 06/16/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF WINIFRED S. COLWILL ( 39) 06/16/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF STEVE HICKS ( 40) 06/16/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF JOANN HARRINGTON ( 41)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/16/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF ANNE BLILER ( 42) 06/16/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF JANE WINN ( 43) 06/16/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF EDWARD AND MAY DEMIN ( 44) 06/16/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF PETER FORMAN, STATE REPRESENTATIVE ( 45) 06/16/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF KATE O'BRIEN ( 46)

- 06/16/89 06/16/89 06/16/89 06/16/89 06/16/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF CLAIRE AND RICHARD DONAHUE (

COMMENT OF JANE FLEMING (

COMMENT OF LAURA MAHONEY (

48) 49) 47) 06/16/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF JESSICA LEARY ( 50) 06/16/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF LAUREN AND COURTNEY DINAN ( 51) 06/19/89 06/09/89 COMMENT OF MRS. JERALD MEDSKER ( 52) 06/19/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF BARBARA BAYER ( 53) 06/19/89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF IRENE E. FRY ( 54)

- 06/19/89 06/19/89 06/13/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF PACIFIC SIERRA NUCLEAR ASSOCIATES (JOHN MASSEY, GENERAL MANAGER) ( 55)

COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY (SUSAN HIATT, OGRE REPRESENTATIVE) (

• 56) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF PATRICIA WHALEN ( 57) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF GLORIA MASTERS ( 58) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF SUSAN POOL ( 59) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF DOUGLAS HILL ( 60) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF OONALD CALE ( 61) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF MARGARET STONE ( 62) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF MICHAEL KIRKLAND ( 63) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF WILLIAM MULLEN ( 64) 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF CAROLE TASHEL ( 65)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/19/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM

{G. C. SORENSON, MANAGER) ( 66) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF STATE OF NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJ.

(ROBERT LOUX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) ( 67) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS (DIANE CURRAN) ( 68) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF TOM MASTERS ( . 69)

\

06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF CHARLOTTE HARMON ( 70) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MARILYN E. STUBBENDICK ( 71) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF KAREN M. INLOST ( 72) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF K. MORGANA SAARIKOSKI ( 73) 06/19/89 '06/15/89 COMMENT OF SUSAN SHELLAR TRUSE ( 74) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMEnT OF JUDY THOMPSON ( 75) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MOLLY BRIGHAM ( 76) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF CASEY RYAN ( 77)

- 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF THERESA NOONE ( 78) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF LEONA LUBA ( 79) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF DWANNE EHLEE ( 80) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF DEDE SCHUHMACHER ( 81) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MELODY SUMNER ( 82) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF KENNEDY SAEZ ( 83) 06/l9/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF ANNA TEMAGLIA ( 84) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF AMANDA FERN ( 85) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF CHRISTINE CLINE ( 86) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MICHELE F. BEUDER ( 87) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF DR. AND MRS. DOUGLAS STONE ( 88)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 {54FR19379}

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF JANICE MOHR-NELSON { 89) 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MICHAEL SUMNER { 90}

06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF STEVEN R. NELSON { 91}

06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MARTHA CALLANAN { 92}

06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF STEVEN P. FEHRINGER { 93)

- 06/19/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MICHAEL HARBURG AND SUZANNE VANCE { 94) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF ANYA BANQUER-BRAUN ( 95}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF PAMELA AND DENNIS MCLAUGHLIN ( 96}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF DEBORA BLUESTONE { 97}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF MR. AND MRS. JOE WHITE { 98}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF STATE OF OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL'S DEPT.

{JAMES WILLIAMS, LIAISON OFFICER} ( 99}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF KRISTIN NOVASWAN RYAN { 100) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF STAFF OF GOLDEN EYE { 101}

- 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF ANN-MANE DRYDEN { 102) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF PATRICIA PORTERFIELD { 103) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF GARY MURRAY ( 104}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF JOSEPH F. STAMPFER { 105}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF DIANE BRIGHAM ( 106}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF DAVID AND COLLEEN SCHOENHARD ( 107) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF BENJAMIN SWET ( 108) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF CHITLIN PHILIPS { 109) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF JOHN HERMAN ( 110}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF SUSAN MCDUFFE ( Ill}

06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF DAVID DOHERTY { 112)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF MARGIE, STEPHEN, AND IAN HUGHES ( 113) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF SISTER SANDRA SCHANK ( 114) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF PAMELA LADAR ( 115) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF MARY WISBOCH ( 116) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF NUTECH (W. J. MCCONAGHY, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 117)

- 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF STEVE KAUFFER ( 118) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF SUSAN BRIGHER* ( 119) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF SYLVIA MCKALE ( 120) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF LINDA FRISONE ( 121) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF B. CAHICO-HICKERY ( 122) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF M. WALZ AND K. GIBSON ( 123) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF CHERYL UNGLERT ( 124) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF LINDA R IUOR ( 125) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF ANNIE HALL ( 126) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF D. A. HAYES ( 127) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OFF. NICHOLSON ( 128) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF KAREN GAYLORD ( 129) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF JEFF STONE ( 130) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF TERESA C. CARBAGAL ( 131) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF EDWARD R. KRASNER ( 132) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF CARNION HONF ( 133) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF NORMA LEE SCHMIDT ( 134) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF THE KIUSTEAD FAMILY ( 135) 06/19/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF JO GIDDENS ( 136) 06/19/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF SOUTHWEST RESEARCH & INFORMATION CENTER (CAROLINE PETTI, NUCLEAR WASTE PROJ.) ( 137)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/19/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF NORAH PIERAM ( 138}

06/19/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF JANE FLEMING ( 139) 06/19/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF DUXBURY CITIZENS URGING RESPONSIBLE ENG.

(EDWARD LAWSON, ESQUIRE) ( 140) 06/19/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ATOMIC AFFAIRS (DONALD EDWARDS, DIRECTOR) ( 142)

- 06/20/89 06/11/89 COMMENT OF MODENA BAKER ( 141) 06/20/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF PAULA CORMIER ( 143) 06/20/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF JANET BERG ( 144) 06/20/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF~INGHILT TRAENKLE { 145) 06/20/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF L. CLAXP ( 146) 06/20/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF CASSANDRA FRANKLIN ( 147) 06/20/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF ISABELLA BROWN ( 148) 06/20/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF PAT AND DOUG HALUNEN ( 149)

• 06/20/89 06/20/89 06/20/89 06/16/89 06/16/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION (PATRICIA BIRNIE, CO-DIRECTOR) ( 150)

COMMENT OF FORREST WHITE SR. ( 151)

COMMENT OF CONNIE JANSSENS ( 152) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF LISA WILKES ( 153) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF CONNIE EICHSTAEDT ( 154) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF EALINE GIVANDO ( 155) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF SUSANN BAKER ( 156) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF KERRY J. RADECKI ( 157) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF JUDITH BLAISE ( 158) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF KATHRYN SCHEPPS ( 159) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF MAHABBA J. KANFFMAR ( 160)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF JULEE STRASSBURGER ( 161) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF RANDY EDWARDS ( 162) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF RITA REYES { 163) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF MARGARET YOUNG { 164) 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF ~AVID MARTINEZ ( 165)

- 06/20/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA QUlNN ( 166) 06/20/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR ASSURANCE CORPORATION (CAROL THORUP, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 167) 06/20/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF CAROLINA POWER &LIGHT COMPANY

{L. I. LOFLIN, MANAGER) ( 168) 06/20/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

{M. H. RICHTER, ADMIN.ISTRATOR) ( 169) 06/20/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF GE STOCKHOLDERS' ALLIANCE

{BETTY SCHROEDER, SECRETARY) { 170) 06/20/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF PUBLIC CITIZEN CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJ (SCOTT SALESKA, POLICY ANALYST) ( 171)

• 06/20/89 "06/19/89 COMMENT OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE

. (JOHN KEARNEY, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 172) 06/20/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF AMY BEITELLI ( 173) 06/20/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF CAROL FARLAN ( 174) 06/20/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF JAMES WILKES ( 175) 06/21/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF FW ENERGY APPLICATIONS, INC (B. K. AGARWAL, PROGRAM MANAGER) ( 176) 06/21/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF STEVEN LANDSBERG ( 177) 06/21/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF EDWARD YOUNG ( 178) 06/21/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF ROBERT'DRYDEN ( 179) 06/21/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF LISA CREWEY ( 180) 06/21/89 06/18/89 COMMENT OF BILL BURKS ( 181)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 {54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/21/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF JILL PARHAM ( 182) 06/21/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY

{H. B. TUCKER, VICE PRESIDENT) { 183) 06/21/89 06/21/89 COMMENT OF MARY KEY { 184}

06/22/89 06/20/89 E. LAWSON OF WESTON, PATRICK, WILLARD & REDDING ON BEHALF OF DUXBURY CITIZENS URGING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SUBMITTED CORRECTED COPY TO COMMENT 140 06/22/89 06/14/89 COMMENT OF JAMES HOLMES { 185) 06/22/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY

{H. B. TUCKER, VICE PRESIDENT} { 186) 06/22/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF KAREN WOLFE { 187}

06/22/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF KAREN BALAW { 188) 06/22/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF PATRICIA WAU { 189) 06/22/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF BELLE CARPENTER { 190}

06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

{C. 0. WOODY, ACTING VICE PRESIDENT} { 191}

- 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF SUZETTE BUIDER { 192}

06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF GLORIA COEQUYT { 193}

06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF PETER PFLAMITZER { 194) 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF DICK BINDER { 195}

06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF ALEXIS MCNAUGHTON { 196}

06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF MERYL LIEBERMAN { 197}

06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF ULEUE AITEU { 198) 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF JUDY CHADDICK { 199) 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF JOE HORSE CAPTURE { 200) 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF CHRISTY WEBER { 201) 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF MARCIA REIFMAN { 202}

\

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF MORNING HEGRANES ( 203) 06/22/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (J. D. SHIFFER, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 204) 06/22/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF URIEL NELSON ( 205) 06/22/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF DEANNE LUNMAN ( 206) 06/23/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF MARY LAMPERT ( 207) 06/23/89 06/16/89 COMMENT OF CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK (STEPHAN BRAM, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 208) 06/23/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF JIM AND PAT COLE ( 209) 06/23/89 06/17/89 COMMENT OF CYBELE CARPENTER ( 210) 06/23/89 06/18/89 COMMENT OF MARIAN COOLEY ( 211) 06/23/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF BffiINA BINDER ( 212) 06/23/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF TOLEDO EDISON (DONALD SHELTON, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 213) 06/23/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF HARRIET LEVINE ( 214)

- 06/23/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (ROBERT QUILLIN, DIRECTOR) ( 215) 06/23/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF TOM CALLANAN ( 216) 06/23/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF J. DEALEY ( 217) 06/23/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF EUNICE HARDSETH ( 218) 06/23/89 06/20/89 COMMENT *oF ROSE MARI POINT ( 219) 06/26/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (PETER AGNES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY) ( 220) 06/26/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF DONNA ROBERTSON ( 221) 06/26/89 06/20/89 COMMENT OF DAYLE STRONG ( 222) 06/26/89 06/21/89 COMMENT OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (M. J. RAY) ( 223) 06/26/89 06/21/89 COMMENT OF MARYA WELLS ( 224)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/26/89 06/21/89 COMMENT OF MATT SCHULZE ( 225) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF DIANA MANHOFF ( 226) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF DAVID FRAWLEY ( 227) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF KINTREE WHITECLOUD ( 228) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF STEPHEN DEA ( 229)

- 06/26/89 06/26/89 06/26/89 06/22/89 06/22/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF KATHY MYERS ( 230)

COMMENT OF C. RUSSELL ( 231)

COMMENT OF BLAINE BENNETT ( 232)-

06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF HOLLY DEAN ( 233) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF PAMELA SUHRE ( 234) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF RESIDENT ( 235) 06/26/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF MAUREEN HARVEY ( 236) 06/26/89 06/24/89 COMMENT OF PETER AUSSSSLESTAD ( 237)

- 06/26/89 06/28/89 06/28/89 06/24/89 06/23/89 06/26/89 COMMENT OF LISA TARANTO ( 238)

COMMENT OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER (W. L. STEWART, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 239)

COMMENT OF A. LARRY BRON ( 240) 06/28/89 06/26/89 COMMENT OF ALICE LADAS ( 241) 06/29/89 06/15/89 COMMENT OF SUSAN LITTLEFIELD ( 242) 06/29/89 06/21/89 COMMENT OF RENEE LA BERGE ( 243) 06/29/89 06/22/89 COMMENT OF MARVIN LEWIS ( 244) 06/29/89 06/26/89 COMMENT OF BARBARA DREISBACH-TOWLE ( 245) 06/29/89 06/26/89 COMMENT OF JAMES A. DREISBACH-TOWLE ( 246) 06/29/89 06/26/89 COMMENT OF JOEL SPOONHEIM ( 247) 06/30/89 06/29/89 COMMENT OF DONNE ADLER ( 248)

DOCKET NO. PR-050, 072, 170 (54FRI'9379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/05/89 06/28/89 COMMENT OF ELIZABETH SESSIN ( 249) 07/06/89 06/30/89 COMMENT OF BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (GEORGE CREEL, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 250) 07/07/89 07/03/89 COMMENT OF ELLEN REAVIS ( 251) 07/10/89 07/05/89 COMMENT OF TOM MASTERS ( 252) 07/10/89 07/05/89 COMMENT OF MARY POOL ( 253) 07/10/89 06/28/89 COMMENT OF STATE OF WISC. DIV. OF EMERGENCY GOVT.

(RICHARD BRAUND, ADMINISTRATOR) ( 254) 07/10/89 07/07/89 COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (W. G. HAIRSTON, III, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 256) 07/10/89 07/07/89 COMMENT NUMBER 55 WAS A FAXED COPY OF COMMENT NUMBER 56.

• 07/11/89 07/05/89 COMMENT OF BEATRICE WATKINS { 257) 07/14/89 06/12/89 COMMENT OF MARYANN O'BRIEN { 258) 07/14/89 07/06/89 COMMENT OF MAURICE FRANK { 259)

• 07 /17 /89 06/13/89 COMMENT OF ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

{WILLIAM CONWAY, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 260) 07/17/89 07/13/89 COMMENT OF MARY VANT HULL ( 261) 07/19/89 06/19/89 COMMENT OF LINDEN AND PATRICIA HAMILTON ( 262) 07/20/89 07/13/89 COMMENT OF SARAH SISK ( 263) 07/21/89 07/18/89 COMMENT OF ALAN HAMILTON ( 264) 07/25/89 07/24/89 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (SAMUEL ROUSSO, ACTING DIRECTOR) ( 265) 07/31/89 07/25/89 COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION

• (M. W. LAGGART, MANAGER LICENSING) ( 266) 07/31/89 07/27/89 COMMENT OF KATHERINE LAGE ( 267) 07/31/89 07/27/89 COMMENT OF WAYNE BUCKNER { 268) 07/31/89 07/27/89 COMMENT OF DIANE MORRIS { 269)

DOCKET NO. PR-050,072,170 (54FR19379)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 08/04/89 08/01/89 COMMENT OF PRISCELLA LOGON ( 270) 08/08/89 07/29/89 COMMENT OF LISA SCHMIDT ( 271) 08/28/89 06/07/89 COMMENT OF DALE SALTZMAN ( 272) 08/28/89 08/24/89 COMMENT OF MIEL CASTAGNA ( 273) 10/16/89 10/10/89 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RECORDS MGT. ASSOC (KAREN LEDBITTER, PRESIDENT) ( 274) 07/16/90 07/12/90 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

.. :r NUMBER

• ,;.;POSED RULE PR 5 OJ 7Z fir/ 7 0 c..o 'f ;:-,e. 1<137'1)

DOCKETED USNRC

• 90 JUL 16 P7 :45

[7590-01]

i I NUCLEAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170 RIN: 3150-AC76 Storage of Spent Fue l in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Power Reactor Sites AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license on the site of any nuclear power reactor provided the reactor licensee notifies the NRC, only NRC-certified casks are used for storage, and the spent fuel is stored under conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compli-

- ance. This final rule also provides procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: [Insert a date 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John L. Telford, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (Telephone: (301) 492-3796) or John P. Roberts (Telephone: {301) 492-0608), Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commission published the proposed rule.on this subject in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379). The rule proposed to amend 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for storage of spent fuel on the sites of nuclear power reactors without the need for additional site-specific Commission approvals, as directed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). Section 218(a) of the NWPA directed the Department of Energy to establish a spent fuel storage development program with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the NRC might approve for use at civilian nuclear power reactor sites without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission. Section 133 of the NWPA directs the Commission to establish) by rule, procedures for licensing any technology approved under Section 218(a). The approved technology is storage of spent fuel in dry*casks.

The final rule is not significantly different from the proposed rule. In order to util~ze an NRC certified cask under a general license, power reactor

- licensees must (1) perform written evaluations showing that there is no unreviewed safety question or change in reactor technical specifications related to the spent fuel storage, and that spent fuel will be stored in compliance with the cask's Certificate of Compliance; (2) provide adequate safeguards; (3) notify NRC prior to first storage of spent fuel and whenever a new cask is added to storage; and (4) maintain the records specified in the rule.

2

Public Responses

• The convnent period expired on June 19, 1989, but all of the comments received were considered in this final rulemaking. The NRC received 273 comment letters from individuals, environmental groups, utilities, utility representatives, engineering groups, States, and a Federal agency. Among the comment letters were 237 from individuals, including several signed by more than one person. Many commenters discussed topics that were not the subject of this rulemaking, e.g., that the generation of radioactive wastes should be stopped and that environmentally safe alternative sources of power should be developed.

The Western Governors 1 Association recently passed a resolution expressing their position on the storage of spent commercial power reactor fuel. In this resolution the governors endorsed at-reactor dry storage of spent fuel as an interim solution until a permanent repository is available. This resolution was forwarded to NRC Chairman Kenneth M. Carr in a memorandum dated December 5, 1989.

- Included in the comments received was a 11 petition 11 addressed to the CollVllission, which was signed by 188 people, who are opposed to the proposed rule and who specifically oppose:

1. Storage at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant of spent fuel generated at other reactors,

2. Storage of spent fuel in casks outside the reactor building,

3. Storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site, and

4. Storage of spent fuel without requiring any specific safeguards to prevent its theft.

3

Many of the letters contained comments that were similar in nature. These comments are grouped, as appropriate, and addressed as single issues. The NRC has identified and responded to 50 separate issues that include the significant points raised. Among the comments that discussed technology, the majority expressed a preference for spent fuel storage in dry casks over wet storage.

On August 19, 1988, the Commission promulgated a final rule revising 10 CFR Part 72 (53 FR 31651), which became effective on September 19, 1988. Among the changes made in that final rule was a renumbering of the sections. These revised section numbers are the ones referenced in this rulemaking. Because many people interested in this rulemaking may not have a copy of the newly revised Part 72, sections referenced in this Supplementary Information section are followed by a bracketed number that refers to the corresponding section number in the old rule (43 FR 74693, made effective on November 12, 1980).

Analyses of Public Comments

1. Comments. Elimination of public input from licensing of spent fuel

- storage at reactors under the general license was discussed in 237 letters of comment and 52 of the commenters were opposed to the rule for this reason.

Many of these comments were opposed to the NRC allowing dry cask storage without going through the formal procedure currently required for a facility license amendment that requires public notification and opportunity for a hearing. One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not guarantee hearing rights mandated by the Atomic Energy Act, and, therefore, the proposed rule must be amended to provide for site-specific hearing rights before it can be lawfully adopted. Another commenter stated that, by proposing to issue a general license before determining whether license modifications are required 4

in ord~r to allow the actual storage of spent fuel onsite, the NRC apparently intends to circumvent the requirement for public hearings on individual

• applications for permission to use dry cask storage. This comment continued that this approach would violate the statutory scheme for licensing nuclear power plants, in which the NRC must approve all proposed license conditions before the license is issued. This comment further stated that the_NRC cannot lawfully issue a general license for actual onsite storage of the waste without also obtaining and reviewing the site-specific information that would allow it to find that the proposed modification to each plant's design and operation are in conformance with the Atomic Energy Act (the Act) and the regulations.

Response. This rule does not violate any hearing rights granted by the Act. Under 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and.7~, interested persons have a right to request a formal hearing or proceeding f9r ~he granting of a license for a power reactor or the granting of a specific license to possess power reactor spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). However, h~aring processes do not apply when issues are resolved generically by rulemaking. Under this rule, casks will be .approved by rulemaking and any safety issues that are connected with the casks are properly addressed in that rulemaking rather than in a hearing procedure.

There is a possibility that the use of a certified cask at a particular site may* ~ntail the need for site-specific licensing action. For example, an evaluation*under 10 CFR 50.59 for a new cask loading procedure could require a Part 50 license amendment i~ a particular case. In this event the usual form~l hearing requirements would appl~. However, generic cask approval (issuance of a cerificate of .compliance) would, in accordance with Section 133 of the 5

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), eliminate the need for site-specific approvals to the maximum extent practicable.

Under the rule, actual use of an NRC certified cask will require reviews by individual facility licensees to show, among other things, that conditions of the certificate of compliance for the cask will Pe met. These reviews and necessary follow-up actions by the licensee are conditions for use of the cask.

For example,. licensees must review their reactor security plan to ensure that its effectiveness is not decreased by the use of the casks. But these require-ments for license reviews do not constitute requirements for Commission approval prior to cask use; that is no Com111ission finding with respect to these reviews are needed prior to use of the casks. Therefore, no hearing rights will accrue to these reviews unless, of course, the reviews point to the need for an amendment of the facility license.* The Commission is satisfied that public health and safety, the common defense and security, and protection of the environment is reasonably assured without the requirement for Commission approval of these license reviews because conservative requirements apply, such as a safety analysis of cask designs, including design bases, design criteria, and margins of safety; an evaluation of siting 'factors, including earthquake intensity and tornado missiles; an application of quality assurance, including control of cask design and cask fabrication; ~nd physical protection. These conservative requirements and stringent controls assure safe cask storage for any reactor site.

2. Comments. The NRC apparently intends to exercise no systematic or mandatory review*of applications to store spent fuel in dry casks, despite the numerous changes involved in the reactor 1 s design and procedures. This commenter further stated that the rule should provide for mandatory_ submission 6

t

• and review by the NRG of technical documents required in§ 72.212 and that these documents should be placed in the public document rooms for inspection by the public.

Response. A condition of the general license 1s that a reactor licensee must determine whether activities related to storage of spent fuel at the reac-tor site involve any unreviewed safety question or require a~y change in tech-nical specifications. This written determination becomes part of the reactor licensee 1 s records. Under 10 CFR 50.59, an unreviewed safety question is*

involved.if (1) the probability of occurrence or the consequences*of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased; or (2) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaJuated previously in the SAR may be created; or (3) if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced. If the evaluation made under 10 CFR 50.59 reveals any unreviewed safety question or if use of a cask design requires any change in technical specifications or a facility license amendment is needed for any reason, then casks of that design cannot be used to store spent fuel

- under the general license. The reactor licensee must apply for and obtain specific NRC approval of those changes to the facility license necessary to use the desired cask design, use. a different cask design, or apply for a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72. If the reactor licensee chooses to make changes to accommodate the desired cask design, e.g., revise technical specifications, an application for a license amendment would have to be submitted under 10 CFR

, 50.90.

3. Comments. It appears that a hearing would be mandated under the Act, as spent fuel storage under the general license would involve a license amend-ment. The commenter argued that nuclear power reactor licenses contain a 7

clause stating that the facility has been constructed and will operate in accordance with the application and that the application includes the FSAR (~O CFR 50.34(b)). If the FSAR does not describe cask storage of spent fuel, then a facility using cask storage would not be oper~ting in accordance with the application and the license, necessitating a license amendment.

Response. According to 10 CFR 50.34(b) each application for a license to operate a power reactor must include an FSAR. The FSAR must include information that describes the facility, presents the design ~ases and limits on its operation, and presents a safety analysis of the structures, systems, and components of the reactor. A power reactor is licensed to operate under

)

the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50. If spent fuel is stored in an ISFSI on a reactor site, this storage will be licensed under the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72. The ISFSI may share utilities and services with the reactor for activities related to the storage of spent fuel, e.g., facilities for loading spent fuel storage casks. A power reactor FSAR will contain a description of cask loading and unloading, because reactor fuel (both fresh and spent) must be handled for operation of the reactor. If no amendment of the operating license

- is necessary (e.g., there is no problem in fuel handling concerning heavy loads and there is no unreviewed safety question), then spent fuel may be stored under the general license. The authority for storage of spent fuel in the certified cask would be derived from the general license, not from the Part 50 license.

4. Comments. The NRC should reconsider the indiscriminate storage on a reactor site of spent nuclear fuel that was generated at other reactor sites.

One commenter stated that there should be a restriction to permit only transfer of spent fuel from plant to plant within a utility-owned group of plants.

8

Another commenter stated that storage of spent fuel from two or more reactors inevitably makes the host site-a de ,facto regional repository, without the same benefit of review and discussion given *the regional site. Ano*ther commenter suggested that the amount of spent fuel stored on a site should be limited to that amount produced by the site's reactor operations. The major concern of these commenters appeared to be that spent fuel from a number of reactors would be deliberately accumulated and stored at one reactor site under this general*

license.

Response. This rulemaking is not concerned with transfer or shipment of spent fuel from one reactor site to ~nother. As explained in the discussion of the proposed rule (54 FR 19379), transfer of spent fuel from one reactor site to another must be authorized by the receiving reactor's operating license.

Such authorization usually will require a license amendment action conducted under the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50. The transportation of the spent fuel is subject to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 71. This rulemaking ~snot germane to either spent fuel transfer or transportation procedures. The NRC anticipates that, beginning in the early 1990s, there will be a significant need for additional spent fuel storage capacity at many nuclear power reactors.

This was a major reason for initiating this rulemaking at this time. Dry storage of spent fuel in casks under a general license would alleviate the necessity of transferring spent fuel from one reactor si'te to another.

5. Comment. The Commission should reconsider a petition for rulemaking submitted by th~ State of Wisconsin. The petition requested that the NRC expand the scope of its regulations pertaining to spent fuel transport 11 to ensure that both the need for and the safety and environmental consequences of 9

.propo,sed shipments have been considered in a pub 1i c forum prior to approval of the shipment and route."

Response. As explained in the response to comment number 4, this rulemaking does not apply to transportation of spent fuel. Transportation of spent fuel is the subject of 10 CFR Part 71, under which the issues raised by this petition were considered. There is no reason to reconsider this petition in terms of the issues under consideration in this rulemaking.

6. Comment. How would the rulemaking process for cask approvals be implemented?

Response. The initial step would be taken by a cask vendor submitting an application for NRC approval of a cask design. The NRC would review the cask safety analysis report (SAR) and other relevant documents. If the cask design is approved, the NRC would initiate a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to add certification of the cask design*: The NRC would also revise the NUREG contain-ing the Certificates of Compliance for all approved storage casks to add the new cask's Certificate of Compliance.

7. Comment. The proposed 10 CFR 72.236(c) would establish a criterion that casks must be designed and fabricated so that subcriticality is maintained. This seems to suggest*that the actual fabrication takes place before cask approval. Otherwise how could NRC find that the cask has been fabricated to maintain subcriticality?

Response. Findings by the NRC concerning safety of cask design are based on analyses presented in the cask SAR. In the case of criticality analyses, the SAR must include a description of the calculational methods and input values used to determine nuclea~ criticality, including margins of safety and 10

benchmarks, justification and validation of calculational methods, fuel loading, enrichment of the unirradiated fuel, burnup, cooling time of the spent fuel prior to cask storage, and neutron cross-sectional values used in the analysis. Further, in order to obtain approval of a cask design, the vendor must demonstrate that casks will be designed and fabricated under a quality assurance program approved by the NRC. As an example, if neutron poison material were part of the cask design to prevent inadvertent criticality, the quality assurance program would have to ensure that the material was actually installed as design~d. The NRC will not inspect fabrication of each cask, but will ensure that each cask is fabricated under an NRC-approved quality assurance program. Thus, there is reasonable assurance that the cask will be designed and fabricated to maintain spent fuel in a subcritical configuration in storage.

8. Comment. Each utility should be required to present a plan *for inspecting the casks in the storage area.

Response. Surveillance requirements for spent fuel storage casks in the storage area are required and are described in the cask's Certificate of Compliance. Also, periodic inspections for safety status and periodic radiation surveys are required by the certificate*.

• Further, licensees will have to keep records showing the results of these *;nspections and surveys.

9. Comments. The 20-year limit on approval of cask designs seems unduly restrictive and was not supported by any discussion of safety or environmental issues in the preamble of the proposed rule. One comment stated that unless there are overriding institutional issues or a defect in a cask model, which would preclude providing adequate protection of the environment or public 11 ..

health and safety, there would be no need to revoke or modify a Certificate of Compliance. Three commenters suggested that the criteria for cask design reapproval should be limited to safety and environmental issues related to the storage period, because there may have been proprietary information involved in the initial approval that might not be available for ~eapproval. Another commenter stated that the licensing period for spent fuel storage casks should be extended to be at least equal to the operating license of the reactor.

Another commenter stated that because a 100-year period is being considered by

• the Commission in its waste confidence reviewt an extension should be considered for a cask certification period.

Response. The procedure for reapproval of cask designs was not intended to repeat all of the analyses required for the original approval. However, the Commission believes that the staff should review spent fuel storage cask designs periodically to consider any new information, either generic to spent fuel storage or specific to cask designs, that may have arisen since issuance of the cask 1 s Certificate of Compliance. A 20-year reapproval period for cask designs was chosen because it corresponds to the 20-year license renewal period currently under Part 72.

10. Comment. It is conceivable that, after 20 years of storage, the regulations could force the transfer of spent fuel at the reactor to a new cask or a different cask design only because it better conforms to OOE 1 s preference.

If considerations such as safety risks and occupational exposure from spent fuel transfer are not a significant factor, this potential uncertainty should be removed from the rule.

Response. The Department of Energy (DOE) will be the ultimate receiver of spent fuel. If a cask design were not compatible with DOE's criteria for 12

receipt of spent fuel, then measures would need to be taken so that spent fuel could be transferred offsite. What these measures might be would depend on the cask design and DOE 1 s criteria.

11. Comment. The practice of permitting e~ch vendor to not seek reapproval of the cask design after a 20-year period seems 11 fragile and irresponsible."

Response. This comment is interpreted to mean that the Commission should require each cask vendor~to submit an application for reapproval of their cask design. The Commission 1 s authority over corporate entities is limited to licensing matters and it cannot control the economic status of spent fuel stor-age cask manufacturers. The NRC can not require that a cask.vendor submit an application for renewal of a storage cask design if the vendor is no longer in business. A cask vendor who remains in the business of manufacturing spent fuel storage casks.is required to submit an application for renewal of a cask design. Otherwise the cask's Certificate of Compliance would expire and that cask design could not be used to store spent fuel. Licensees cannot use any cask that does not have a valid Certificate of Compliance. If a cask vendor goes out of the business of supplying spent fuel storage casks, it would not invalidate NRC appro~al of the spent fuel storage casks that were manufactured by this vendor and remain in use. That is the reason the Commission will .

permit general licensees or their representatives to apply for cask design reapproval. Accordingly, the Commission will keep appropriate historical records and conduct inspections, as required, related to spent fuel storage in casks. Cask vendors are requested to notify the Commission if they do not intend to submit an application for reapproval of a cask design. Also, vendors are required under 10 CFR 72.234 to submit their composite record to the NRC 13

of casks manufactured and sold or leased to reactor licensees if they permanently cease manufacture of casks under a Certificate of Compliance. In any case, the cask design renewal procedure will be coordinated through historical records, inspections, and communications with cask vendors.

12. Comments. The requirement in proposed§ 72.234(c) that cask fabrication cannot start prior to receipt of the Certificate of Compliance is unnecessarily restrictive. The commenter indicated that a vendor should have

- the option of being able to start fabrication (taking the risk of building a cask that may not ever be licensed) prior to NRC issuing the Certificate of Compliance.

Response. Section 72.234(c) is not intended to prevent vendors from taking a risk. The Certificate of Compliance provides the specific criteria for cask design and fabrication. If a vendor has not received the certificate, then the vendor does not have the necessary approved specifications and may design and fabricate casks to meet incorrect criteria.

13. Comments. Requiring a submittal for reapproval of cask design 3 years before the expiration date of a Certificate of Compliance *seems excessive. Another commenter suggested that a procedure similar to that used for renewal of materials-type licenses could be used, which is that when a licensee submits an application for license renewal in proper form not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the license that the existing license does not expire until the application for renewal has been finally determined by the Commission.

Response. Current regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 require that applications for license renewal be submitted 2 years prio~ to the expiration date of the 14

license. This was a major consideration for setting the date for submittal of a cask design reapproval .application_ in the proposed rule. The NRC has recon-sidered this requirement and believes that the period required for cask design reapprova1 can be reduced. The final rule has been revised to incorporate lan-guage similar to that for other materials-type license renewals, which would allow a Certificate of Compliance to continue in effect until the application for reapproval has been finally determined by the Commission.

14. Comments. No spent fuel dry storage should be allowed at sites that do not have fully operational State approved emergency preparedness plans.

Another commenter stated that, for emergency response purposes and for proper inclusion in emergency planning, the utility must notify State and local governments simultaneously with the NRC when spent fuel, storage is begun.

Another commenter inquired whether or not States would be notified of spent fuel storage at the reactor site in order to minimize emergency ' response planning impacts.

Response. The new 10 CFR 72.32(c) [no section in the old rule is applicable] states that 11 For an ISFSI that is located on the site of a nuclear power reactor licensed for operation by the Commission, the emergency plan required by 10 CFR 50.47 shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this section." One condition of the general license is that the reactor licensee must review the reactor emergency plan and modify it as necessary to cover dry cask storage and related activities. If the emergency plan is in compliance with 10 CFR 50.47, then it is in compliance with the Commission's regulations with respect to dry cask storag,e. Thus, the utility does not need to separately notify State and local governments before beginning spent fuel storage.

15

15. Comment. What extra information, beyond that currently required 1n safety analysis_ reports, *will be required in topical safety analysis reports for cask certification?

Response. Currently a Topical Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) is submitted to obtain spent fuel storage cask certification. NRC procedures _allow applicants and licensees to reference appropriate Sections of a TSAR 1n licensing proceedings, which reduces investigative and evaluation costs for them. Under this final rule, applications and a Safety Analysis Report (SAR)

• (equivalent to a TSAR) will have to be submitted for cask design certification .

There will not be any this rulemaking.

11 extra 11 information required in an SAR as a result of Guidance on the information to be submitted in an SAR for cask design certif1cation is contained in Regulatory Guide 3.61, "Standard Farmat and Content for a Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Spent Fuel Ory Storage Cask. 11

16. Comment. One comment stated that it is unclear from the proposed rule as to whether full-scale or scale model testing is required for cask certification.

Response. The safety of cask designs is analyzed in the SAR. The staff reviews cask design bases and criteria. The design and performance of the cask and the means of controlling and limiting occupational radiation exposures are analyzed. Appropriate functional and operating limits (technical specifications) are developed. However, in instances where cask design, construction, or operation can not be satisfactorily substantiated, the staff may require that some component or system testing be performed. During the first use of a certified design the licensee, in conjunction with the vendor, may be required to conduct preoperational testing on the first cask and submit a report to the 16-

NRC. This preoperational testing would assess the extent to which data supports the critical aspects of design, for example, the resultant cask temperature, pressure, and external radiation. Full-scale testing ~snot currently required for spent fuel dry storage cask design_ certification. However, testing of systems and components important to safety is required, and is specified in the Certificate of Compliance.

17. Comment. Can the NRC provide examples of acceptable means of

- demonstrating that a cask will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and accident conditions?

Response. Certification of a cask design is based on analyses described in each cask 1 s SAR. These analyses must show how radioactive materials will be confined through evaluations of the cask's systems, structures, and components, and the designed margins of safety. These analyses are performed on an indivi-dual case basis considering each cask 1 s design, materials of construction, cask sealing systems, fuel basket critic?lity considerations, and gamma and neutron shielding mechanisms. Thus, analyses are the. acceptable means of demonstration.

18. Comment. The NRC should use this amendment to provide guidance or criteria on use of burnup credit in criticality analyses.

Response. Evaluations of burnup credit are dependent on parameters such as fuel design, exposure, and characteristics. These evaluations are best con-ducted on an individual case basis, because the variables that must be evaluated are closely related to the individual case history of the spent fuel.

Thus, guidance on such evaluations would be more appropriately set forth in regulatory guides, rather than in regulations. To date allowance for burnup 17

credit has not been accepted in reviews conducted under 10 CFR Part 72, however, regulatory guides may be issued in the future.

19. Comment. What will a current reactor licensee have to d.o to obtain a general license?

Response. As specified in§ 72.212(b), a power reactor licensee must (1) perform written evaluations establishing that spent fuel storage will be in compliance with a cask's Certificate of *compliance*and that there is no unre-viewed safety question or change in technical specifications involved in activities at the reactor related to the storage of spent fuel in casks, (2) provide adequate safeguards for the spent fuel in storage, (3) notify NRC prior to first storage of spent fuel and whenever a new cask is used, and (4) keep records of spent fuel storage and related activities.

20. Comment. Could the.general license be used to store spent fuel beyond the term of the reactor operating license? Several utilities hold operattng licenses at more than one site; thus, clarification is needed as to when an operating license is terminated and how licensees may use a general license.

Response. A licensee who holds reactor operating licenses at more than one site must notify NRC for each site involved. A licensee who holds operating 1i censes for more than one reactor 1ocated on a single. site need notify NRC only once.

Spent fuel can be st_ored on a site only as long as there is a power reactor with a valid license or the possession of spent fuel is authorized under some other regulation or form of license. This could be an amended license issued under 10 CFR 50.82, under which any reactor licensee may apply for termination of the operating license and to decommission the facility.

When the reactor is put into a condition in which it cannot operate, the 18

operating license would be amended to permit the licensee to posses~ the byproduct, source, and special nuclear material remaining on the site. Storage of spent fuel in dry casks under the general license could continue under the amended license, which is often called a "possession-only" license:

Decommissioning means to remove a facility from service, reduce the residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the license, and release of the site for unrestricted use. Spent fuel stored under a general license must be removed before the site can be released for unrestricted use

• (i.e., decommissioned) .

21. Comments. The proposed rule is unclear as to when the general license would terminate if a cask model has been reapproved by NRC following use of the cask for a period of up to 20 years. One commenter also suggested that § 7-2. 212(a)(2) .be changed to read: 11 The general 1icense for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate bf Compliance shall terminate eithe*r 20 years after the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel, or, if the cask model is reapproved for storage of fuel for more than 20 years, at the conclusion of this newly-approved storage period, beginning on the date that the cask is first used by the 1 icensee to store spent fuel. 11 Response. The intent of proposed§ 72.212(a)(2) is that spent fuel may be stored under a valid Certificate of Compliance for a particular cask for a period of up to 20 years starting on the date the cask is first used for stor-age of spent fuel by the licensee. If a cask design is reapproved, the 20-year storage period begins anew, including casks of that design that remain in use.

The 20-year storage period will also apply to new casks put into use after a Certificate of Compliance is reapproved. If a particular cask's Certificate of 19

Compliance expires, the spent fuel stored in casks of this design must be removed after a period not exceeding 20 years following first use by the general licensee of a particular cask. Revisions have been made to 10 CFR

- 72.212(a)(2) to more accurately reflect this intent.

22. Comment. The $150 application fee shown in§ 70.31 should be included in the total fee for the-license and not required to be submitted at the time of the application.

• Response. The Federal Register notice for the proposed rule was in error in that it indicated a revision to§ 70.31; the revision is actually being made to§ 170.31. Th~ Commission agrees that the $150 filing fee is not required to be submitted at the time of the application. The necessary changes to eliminate the filing fee have been made in§ 170.31. This is consistent with a similar change made with respect to filing fees in§ 170.21 effective January 30, 1989. There is no application fee for the general license.

However, the Commission has decided that it will assess fees for those inspections conducted under the general license(§ 72.212(b) (1) (iii)) .

23. Comment. Cask vendors, some of which are small businesses, will be affected by the rule and should be considered in the Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification statement.

Response. Under this rulemaking the NRC will recover full costs, which are currently estimated to be between $250,000 and $300,000 for cask vendors.

No other significant incremental impacts are anticipated, because the criteria fof cask design approvals in this final rule are not significantly different from those currently required under Part 72. The Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification Section of the final rule has been revised accordingly.

20

24. Comment. Some qualification is needed for the requirement in

§ 72.212(b)(2) that a licensee perform written evaluations showing compliance with the cask's certificate for the anticipated total number of tasks to be used for storage. There is no certainty regarding when any spent fuel will be accepted by DOE, and this uncertainty should be clarified in the final rule.

Response. Each cask SAR includes an analysis of cask arrays, and licensees must consider these ana*lyses in their selection of a cask model.

Multiple storage arrays may be used if additional spent fuel storage capacity is needed. However, it was not intended that licensees be required to anticipate- how much storage capacity would be needed before DOE begins accepting spent fuel for storage or disposal. Thus, revisions to§ 72.212(b)(2)

I have been made to clarify the intent .

. 25. Comment. Spent fuel should be required.to be stored in the reactor fuel storage pool for a minimum of 5 years prior to dry cask storage. Such a provision would place considerably less thermal stress on the storage casks.

Other comnenters also questioned why this was not made a requirement.

Response. It is likely that the spent fuel will be stored in the reactor fuel pool for at least 5 years before storage in a cask. However, it is not necessary to make this a requirement, because casks can be designed to safely store spent* fuel having a wide range of previous pool storage times.

26. Comments. The language in proposed 10 CFR 72.230 should be changed to reflect the condition that an application for certification of a storage cask must be made available to the public.

Response. The language in this section parallels the language in§ 72.20

[§ 72.13] on which it is based, i.e., that "Applications and documents 21

submitted to the Commission in connection with applicati?ns may be made available for public inspection in accordance with provisions of the regulations contained in Parts 2 and 9 of this chapter. 11 In general, applications will be made available except to the extent that they contain information exempt from disclosure such as proprietary or classified information.

27. Comments. The proppsed rule should be modified to include 4t alternative storage technologies. Two_cornmenters indicated that the proposed rule approval of only one storage technology (i.e., spent fuel storage in dry casks) provides an unfair competitive advantage to suppliers of these systems.

Response. The reasons for Commission approval of spent fuel storage in dry casks are discussed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

An important consideration is that free-standing casks, being very strong and massive structures, are independent of the effects of site-specific natural phenomena. For instance, in a worst case scenario considering the effects of earthquakes, a cask could topple. Forces from this fall would be well within a cask 1 s design limits for safe confinement of radioactivity. Importantly, site-specific approvals would not be required by the Commission, provided conditions in Subpart Kare met. One system specifically mentioned in the comments is NUHOMS (registered trade mark by NUTECH Inc.), which consists of storing spent fuel in sealed canisters and storing the canisters in concrete modules.

Another system mentioned is the Modular Vault Dry Store (FW Energy Applications; Inc.), which consists of storing the spent fuel in sealed containers and storing the containers in racks set in concrete or earth for shielding. A major reason that these spent fuel storage systems, which are being considered by the Commission for use under a general license, are not 22

being approved at this time is that they have components that are dependent on site-specific parameters and; thus, require site-specific approvals. For instanc~ the concrete storage modules used in the NUHOMS system and the racks and concrete shielding required by the Modular Vault Dry Store system, which are structures and systems important to safety, are usually constructed in-place and require site-specific evaluations of earthquake intensity and soil characteristics.

28.' Comment. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of "Discussion" in the proposed rule Federal Register notice did not include NUHOMS topical safety analysis rep*orts (TSAR), although they have been approved by the staff.

Response. Two topi ca 1 safety ana l_ys is reports for NUHOMS systems have been reviewed and approved by the NRC staff. Approval of a TSAR allows an applicant for a specific license under Part 72 to reference the d9cument, instead of having to develop separate safety evaluations.

29. Corrments. A licensee should be required to register use of casks prior to actual use of the cask, rather than- within 30 days. Another connnenter stated that the Commission has not demonstrated that the requirement to report initial storage of spent fuel in a cask. within ,30 days is the least burdensome necessary to achieve the Co111nission 1 s objective. This commenter suggested that this information could be reported.at the annual inventory.

Response. The purpose of the registration notice in§ 72.212(b)(l){ii) is to enable NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to establish and maintain a record of the use of each cask. If safety issues arise during storage of spent fuel under the general license, they will be reported under

§ 72.216. The purpose of the records related to spent fuel inventory, required 23

under§ 72.72 [§ 72.51], is to enable NRC 1 s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to inspect for compliance with safeguards regulations. The information submitted under§ 72.212(b)(l)(ii) is necessary to enable the NRC to take appropriate action in a timely manner on any issue that may arise.

30. Comments. The proposed rule requires that spent fuel storage cask designers give consideration to compatibility of cask designs with transporta-tion and ultimate disposal by DOE. Some commenters favored this consideration

- and others questioned its advisability, unless specific criteria could be pro-vided. Some commenters indicated that NRC should also address the lack of consistency between Parts 71 and 72.

Response. Specific design criteria for spent fuel disposal' may not be available until ,a repository design is approved. However, cask designers should remain aware that spent fuel ultimately will be received by DOE and that

• cask designs should adopt DOE criteria as they become available. This does not mean that cask designs previously certified by NRC will have to be recertified

- for this reason in order to continue to store spent fuel.

It is not necessary that storage casks be designed for transport of spent fuel (i.e., to meet requirements in Part 71), because the spent fuel could be unloaded and transferred into transport casks approved under Part 71, if neces-sary. However, in the interest of reducing radiation exposure, storage casks

• should be designed to be compatible with transportation and'DOE design criteria to the extent practicable. Transportation compatibility wilJ be attainable to the extent that cask designers can avoid return of spent fuel from dry storage to reactor basins for transfer to a transport cask before moving it off-site for disposal.

24

31. Comment. Section 72.238 should be revised to read "The criteria in

§ 72.236(a) through (i) and (m). 11 Response. Section 72.236(m) states that, to the extent practicable in the design of casks, consideration should be given to the compatibility of the dry storage cask system and components with transportation and other activities related to the removal of the stored spent fuel from the reactor site for ulti-mate disposition by DOE. DOE is developing repository storage designs that will be acceptable for use at their permanent spent fuel storage facility.

However, specific criteria for designing spent fuel storage casks for compatibility may not be available until the design for a high-level waste repository is complete. Revision of§ 72.238 is not considered to be appropriate at this time, although requirements in proposed~ 72.236(m) have been retained separately.

32. Comment. The environmental assessment fails to conform to the requ1rements of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Response. The Commission 1 s*regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of NEPA in a manner consistent with NRC 1 s domestic licensing and related regula-tory authority under the Atomic Energy Act are set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.

These regulations were revised in March of 1984 (49 FR 9352), taking into account the guidelines of CEQ. The environmental assessment for this rule was performed in conformity with the agency 1 s environmental review procedures in 10 CFR Part 51 and thereby conforms to NEPA requirements.

33. Comment. While the public notice provides a list of documents which contain current informationi a supplemental environmental impact statement is 25

required in order to inform the public as to the nature of the information and to allow an opportunity for public comment.

Response. Potential environmental impacts related to this rulemaking were analyzed in its environmental assessment, in previous rulemakings related to revision of Part 72, and in the Commission 1 s waste confidence proc~edings that resulted in publication of the.Waste Confidence Decision in the Federal Register on August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34658). In its waste confidence proceedings the Commission found that it has reasonable assurance that no significant

- environmental impacts will result from the storage, of spent fuel for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of nuclear power reactor operating licenses. As a result of its Waste Confidence Decision, the Commission revised its regulations in 10 CFR 51.23 to eliminate discussion of the environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor storage p~ols or independent spent fuel storage.

installations for_the period following the term of the license. In addition, the Commission. recently published a review of its waste confidence decision (54 FR 39765; September 27, .1989). Accordingly, an environmental assessment, e rather than an environmental impact statement, is considered suitable for this rulemaking. Also all of these.documents were published in the Federal Register to allow an opportunity for public comment.

34. Comment. The NRC has misrepresented the requirements of the* NWPA.

The environmental assessment and finding of.no significant environmental impact states that the NWPA directs the Commission to approve one or more technologies for use of spent fuel storage. While the demonstration program is mandated, the adoption of one or more technologies is not.

Response. Section 218(a) of the NWPA does not direct the Commission to approve any spent fuel storage technology. However, the objective of the 26

demonstration program is clearly meant to provide the basis for C011111ission approval of one or more technologie~ for use at civil,ian nuclear power reactor sites. Section 133 of the NWPA directs that the Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Comission under Section 218(a). Thus, the NRC has properly represented the directives of the NWPA. The environmental assessment explains this relationship in the section entitled 11 The Need for the Proposed Action."

35.

• Comments. The NRC failed to discuss the consequences of a failure of its assump~ions. The NRC states that the potential for corrosion of fuel clad-ding and reaction with the fuel is reduced 11 because an inert atmosphere is 11 expected to be maintained 11 inside the casks. Further, the NRC anticipates that most spent fuel stored in the casks-will be 5 years old or more. 11 What are the consequences if the Jcenarios the NRC 11 anticipates 11 dpes not happen?

Response. The potential consequences from off-normal and accident conditions involving spent fuel storage were discussed in the proposed rule.

Licensees are required to store spent fuel, under the general license, in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 and the cask's Certificate of Compliance. Part 72 prohibits the storage of spent fuel that is less than 1 year old. The Certificate of Compliance~requires that the spent fue~ be stored in accordance with the technical specifications developed in the safety analysis report. These specifications set forth the *ge, number of fuel assemblies, maximum initial enrichment, maximum burnup, and maximum heat generation rate of the spent fuel. In general terms, the longer the spent fuel is aged, the greater the capacity of the cask. Cask atmospheres w111 be required to be filled with an inert gas and provided with monitoring systems to detect leaks in the cask sealing system. If the redundant seals and the 27

.monitoring system fail, oxidation of the fuel cladding could- occur if the inert gas leaked out, atmospheric air leaked in, and the internal cask temperature increased markedly. But, there would not be any significant increase *in radioactivity, because any release of radioactive particles from the fuel rods would remain confined within the cask. If the redundant seals fail and the monitoring system does not fail, the monitoring system would detect the failure and the seals would be promptly repaired. If removal of the spent fuel were required, unloading procedures call for checking the cask 1 s atmosphere before removing the lid and the radioactive material within the cask would be retained by the reactor fuel handling facility containment systems with no significant release to the environment.

Improper load~ng of sp~nt fuel aged for less than 5 years is readily detectable by spent fuel assembly identification, independent verification, and monitoring procedures. If an improper fuel loading should occur, the results would be limited to a marginally higher storage temperature and possibly a slight increase in radiation from the cask. Any significant increase in

• temperature or radiation would be detected through procedures for cask monitoring, which have been added to the requirements in the Certificate of Compliance.

36. Comments. The criteria for locating storage cask sites, for ensuring adequate cooling for casks, for evaluating the adequacy of radiation shiel~ing, or for other aspects of cask designs in the proposed rule have not been assessed for environmental impact.

Response. These technical crjteria have been assessed and are currently used by the NRC for approval of cask designs under Part 72. As previously mentioned, the environmental impacts related to storage of spent fuel under 28

Part 72 ~ave been generically evaluated under two previous rulemakings and the Co1D1Rission's waste confidence proceedings. Thus, these potential environmental impacts need not be reassessed.

37. Comment. The environmental impact of decommissioning contaminated casks after the 20-year storage period has not been assessed.

Response. The decollVllissioning of contaminated casks was discussed in the environmental assessment for this rule, which points out that decommissioning of dry cask spent fuel storage under a general license may be carried out as part of the power reactor site decommissioning plan. Decommissioning would consist of removing the spent fuel from the site and decontaminating cask surfaces. Alternately, this decontamination could take place at a DOE operated facility. In either case, the decontamination solutions would be combined with larger volumes of contaminated solutions resulting from decontamination of the reactor or DOE facility; thus, environmental impacts from decommissioning casks are expected to be a small fraction of the overall decommissioning impacts.

• Also the incremental costs associated with decommissioning casks are expected to represent.a small fraction of the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power reactor. It is noted that, if the decommissioning of a reactor presents no significant safety hazard and if there is nQ significant change in types or amounts of effluents or increase in radiation exposure, then this decommissioning is covered by a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22.

38. Convnent. The fire in the spent fuel storage pool subsequent to the major accident at Chernobyl has not been considered in the proposed rulemaking.

Response. ln the early stages of the Che_rnobyl accident a hypothesis was developed that a fire occurred in the spent fuel pool. This hypothesis was not 29

based on observation of any real fire at the Chernobyl installation, but rather inferred from fallout spectra observed_in eastern Europe. "Officials of the USSR have confirmed that indeed a fire did not occur in the spent fuel pool at Chernobyl. In fact, a fire_ in a spent fuel storage pool is not credible and, therefore, was not considered in the proposed rulemaki.ng.

39. Comment. The NRC has studied responses of loaded casks to a range of sabotage scenarios. The four casks that are referenced in the background information are all metal casks, and there is limited reference to concrete systems. Because the referenced study is classified, we do not have any indication that this study specifically addressed concrete dry storage systems with respect to small arms, fire, and explosives.

Response. The referenced study di~ not specifically consider concrete storage systems. However, the general conclusions of the study could be extended to concrete storage systems because of the difficulty of using small arms, fire, or explosives to 1) create respirable particles and 2) cause those

• • particles to be spread off site. These difficulties derive from both the inherent resistance to dispersal of the spent fuel and the massiveness of the storage casks required to provide both shielding from radiation and protection of the spent fuel from earthquakes and tornadq missiles, which are requirements that all designs must meet.

40. Comments. Safeguards requirements were either inadequate or too stringent. One commenter stated "that the safeguards system for the existing site cannot be considered adequate for the additional burden of spent fuel cask storage. Unless a utility commits to a location for cask storage adjacent to the reactor.building, the existing safeguards can be compromised and any cask 30

storage area should be located greater than 100 meters from the nearest public access (roadway, park, beach, etc.). Another coJT111enter suggested that*

terrorists need targets and that above-ground storage of spent fuel provides terrorists with a target. It further stated that a small bomb dropped from a light plane or helicopter could spread the contents of an above-ground cask over many states. Another cormienter stated that there is no reason why the licensee should be exempt from§§ 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and 73.55(h)(5), which require that guards interpose themselves between vital areas and any adversary, and respond usi-ng deadly force if necessary. Another co1T111enter stated that

§ 73.55 requirements are not needed for a spent fuel storage area that is a new protected area separate from the existing reactor protected area. This coTI111enter further stated that the background material for this proposed rule indicates that requirements should be significantly reduced from§ 73.55 requirements for storage areas within a new separate protected area and, specifically, that§ 72.212 should specify the requirements instead of referencing exemptions from§ 73.55.

Respo~se. As described in the proposed rule (54 FR 19379), none of the information the staff has collected conftrms the presence of an identifiable domestic threat to cask .storage facilities. Despite the absence of an identi-fiable domestic threat, the NRC considered it prudent to study the response of loaded casks to a range of sabotage scenarios. After considering various tech-nical approaches to radiological sabotage, and experiments and calculations, the NRC concluded that radiological sabotage, to be successful, would have to be carried out using large quantities of explosives, not a small bomb dropped from an airplane, and that the consequences to public health and safety-would be low because most of the resultant contamination would be localized to the storage site. (See response to cormient 39 above.) Thus, the condition to be 31

protected against is protracted loss of control of the storage area. For that reason, protection requirements were proposed to provide for (1) early detection of malevolent moves against the storage site and (2) a means to quickly summon response forces to ensure protection against protracted loss of control of the storage area. Given these conditions, exemptions were provided for those§ 73.55 provisions not essential to early detection of malevolent acts and for summoning local law enforcement agencies or other response forces.

With the exception of one change 1n the rule that is being adopted (which is.

consistent with the intent of the proposed rule and is discussed in Comment 46), the NRC does not believe that these comments provide any new information or sufficient rationale for changing the proposed rule. Further, 10 CFR 72.106(b) requires that the minimum distance from the *storage facility to the nearest boundary of the controlled area shall be at least 100 *meters.

41. Coirnnent. Could the cask body be the protected area boundary?

Response. No, because that would not meet the _requirements in§ 73.55(c) for an *isolation zone. An isolation zone must be maintained adjace_nt to the physical barrier and must be of sufficient size to permit observation of the activities of people on either side of the barrier in the event of its penetration. Thus, the cask body cannot be the physical barrier.

42. Comment. Please clarify the requirement for a periodic inventory of the special nuclear material contained in the spent fuel.

Response. It is the same as the current requirement for periodic inventory of special nuclear material that is required by§ 72.72 [§ 72.51].

Cask records must show the contents of the cask, including the special nuclear material. In lieu of periodically opening a cask, a licensee may use tamper 32

indicating seals to show that the cask has not been opened. If any tamper indicating seals are broken, then the- contents of the cask may have to be verified.

43. Comment. The requirements for vital areas are delineated in other paragraphs of§ 73.55, and all vital area requirements throughout§ 73.55 should be exempted in 10 CFR 72.212(b}(5)(i1), not just§ 73.55(c).

Response. The NRC agrees with this comment. Proposed§ 72.212(b)(5){11) states that storage of spent fuel under this general license need not be within a separate vital area. If spent fuel is not stored within a vital area (i.e.,

rather in a separate protected area), then regulations that pertain only to vital areas would not apply to a spent fuel storage area.

44. Comment. Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of§ 72.212 should distinguish between the security requirements for an existing protected area that 1s expanded and a new protected area. In the case of a new protected area,

-§ 73.55(h)(6) should not be required. Instead, the requirement should be only an alarm assessment via CCTV, guard, or watchman.

Response. The NRC agrees with this comment. For an existing protected area, the current requirements wi11 continue. Proposed§ 72.212(b)(5)(111) and (iv) have been revised to apply only to new protected areas. Proposed

§ 72.212(b)(5)(iv) has been revised to allow a guard or watchman on patrol in lieu of closed circuit, television to provide the necessary observational capability.

45. Comment. For purposes of this rule, if the licensee is exempt from

§ 73.55{h)(4)(iii)(A) and (5) (i.e., neutralize threat), then§ 73.55(h)(3) requirements {i.e., number of anned responders) should also be exempted.

33

Response. The general li.cense presumes that the same essential physical security organization and program will be applied to spent fuel storage as are currently applied to protection of the reactor. Paragraph (b)(S)(i) of

§ 72.212 requires that the organization and program be modified as necessary to ensure that there is no decrease in effectiveness. Accordingly, additional personnel need be added only if it is necessary to ensure that there is no decrease in effectiveness. The rule does not require an independent application of§ 73.55(h)(3), which specifies the minillllm number of armed responders for a spent fuel storage area.

46. Comment. The requirement in§ 73.55(d)(l) that searches for firearms and explosives be accomplished by equipment designed for such detection should be deleted when a new protection area is added that is not contiguous with the existing protection area. The only requirement in this case should be to per-form a visual search for bulk explosives. This 1s supported by the discussion 1n the Federal Register notice.

Response. The NRC agrees that searches for firearms and explosives for the purposes of a general license under this rulemaking need not be conducted using equipment capable of detecting these devises. Accordingly, the final rule has been revised to allow the use of physical pat-down searches, in lieu of detection equipment, for firearms and explosives searches.

47. Conments. Is the use of the word adefect" in§ 72.216(a) consistent with the definition of "defect" in 10 CFR Part 21? What is the purpose of the reporting requirements in proposed§ 50.72(b)(2)?

Response. Section 72.216(a) states that cask users must report defects discovered in storage cask systems, structures, and components important to 34

safety and any instance in which,~here is a significant reduction in the effec-tiveness of a cask 1 s confinement system. This information 1s necessary to inform the NRC of potential hazards to the public health and safety. Proposed

§ 72.216(a). is not being revised to replace the word defe~t, because the definition of 11 defect 11 in 10 CFR Part 21 is compatible with the intent of this reporting requirement. However, proposed S 50.72(b)(2) is being revised to clarjfy such reporting, in order to avoid an apparent duplication of reporting requirements.*

48. Comment. Proposed§ 72.234(d)(3) requires a composite record for all casks to be maintained by the cask vendor 11 for the life of the task. 11 It further states that the vendor would not necessari,ly be *in a position to know how long the general license will be extended; thus, this provision should be clarified.

Response. The intent of this section is that cask vendors .should maintain a record of a11 casks that are fabricated and sold or leased to power reactor licensees. This record would be used by_ the NRC to confirm information supplied by cask users and to determine whether or not a cask vendor will suomit an application for cask design reapproval. The commenter raised a valid poin~, thus,§ 72.234(d)(3J has been revised to *require only a composite record of casks fabricated.

49. Comment .. The Commission has not demonstrated the practic~l utility of requiring cask fabrication initiation and completion dates to be included as part of the cask record in§ 72.234(d){2)(iv) and (v).

Response. The purpose for including the cask fabrication initiation and completion dates in a cask record is.to ensure that any safety problem that 35

might arise related to fabrication procedures of a particular cask 1ROdel can be traced and corrected in all casks of that model. For instance, if a faulty batch of steel is fabricated into closure bolts, which could be discovered through quality assurance procedures, these fabrication dates would enable the staff to determine which specific casks were involved._ Thus, corrective actions could be taken, if necessary, based on this information.

50. Comments. Although§ 72.6(b) (§72.6) provides for issuance of a general license,§ 72.6(c) might be interpret~d to disallow storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI by a licensee under the general license, unless the holder of such a license also had a specific license for that purpose. One commenter suggested that existing§ 72.6(c) be revised or clarified to specifically provide for storage of spent fuel under a general ,1.ice*nse without the requirement for a specific license, as long as the provisions of Subpart Kare met.

Response. Paragraph 72.6(c) has been revised to make an.~xception of spent fuel storage under a ge~eral license according to the provisions of Subpart K. Subpart K sets forth conditions under which the holder of a power reactor operating )icense may store spent fuel under the general license being promulgated by this ru1emaking. Conditions set forth in§ 72.6 are now considered sufficieht.to allow storage of spent fuel under the general license.

However, it is not intended that this rule serve as authorization for storage of spent fuel in amounts or for durations beyond those provided for in a power reactor license.

Having considered all comments received and *other input, the COfllllission has determined that the following final rule should be promulgated.

36

Finding of No Significc1r.t.E1,vironmentai Impact: Avai1<<:.b, Hty The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action signi-ficantly affecting the quality of the: humcs.n environment, and therefort: a.n Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The finding is premiseu 0;1 twe, c.ctic.,r,s, which are (i) the: licensin£ c.f an opt:ratrng reactor for a particular site for which an EIS has b1:en previously prepared ana ( 1*i) tt1e independent certification of spent fuel storage casks for use at any reactor site. Thus, the rult:: does not add an)' si9nificant environmeutii ir.ipacts and does not change any safety requirernem. s. The environmental as*ses~nient and finding of no significant impact on which this determir,at1on is based are available for in,spection at the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Lcv~1), Washington, DC.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information* collection requirements that are subj~ct to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget with approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0132.

Public reporting burde~ for this collection of information 1s estimated to average 134 hours0.00155 days <br />0.0372 hours <br />2.215608e-4 weeks <br />5.0987e-5 months <br /> per response for a power reactor licensee and 2,448 hours0.00519 days <br />0.124 hours <br />7.407407e-4 weeks <br />1.70464e-4 months <br /> per response for a cask vendor licensee including the time for reviewing instruc-tions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintuining the data needed, arid completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 37

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Bran~h (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C00111ission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0011 and 3150-0132), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis

• The Commission prepared a preliminary regulatory analysis for the proposed rulemaking on this subject. The analysis examined the benefits and impacts considered by the ColTlllission. The Col11Tliss1on requested public corrments on the*

preliminary regulatory analysis, but no conrnents were received. No changes to the regulatory analysis are considered necessary, so a separate regulatory analysis has not been prepared for 'the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibi*lity Act Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605{b)),

the Commission certifies t~at this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects licensees owning nuclear power reactors. Owners of nuclear power reactors do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small ent1ties 11 se~ forth in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Only one cask model is currently being used to store spent fuel under 10 CFR Part 72, but an additional three cask models are being certifi-ed under 38

§ 72.214 of this final rule. Companies involved in the desi.gn, manufacture, and sale of casks arf large private entities employing more than 500 persons and having sales in excess of $1 mil lion. Some companies involved in the actu'a 1

- sale of these casks may not employ over 500 persons, but have sales in excess of $1 mil lion *. These companies may fall within the scope of "small entities" as defined above, but there are not a substantial number of them. The Pre-liminary Regulatory Analysis, wbich was made available for public eomment when

• the proposed rule was published, analyzed potential impacts on cask vendors.

No colilTIE!nts were received on the analysis. In any case, cask vendors will decide whether or not to submit applications for cask design approval based on their analysis of the potential market.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has* determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

• apply to this final rule, and, thus, a ba~kfit analysis is not required, because these amendments do not contain any provisions which would impose backfits as definded in§ 50.109(a)(l}.

List of Subjects Part 50: Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, and Repprting and recordkeeping requirem~nts.

39

Part 72: Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and heal~h, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

Part 170: *Byproduct material, Non-pay,nent penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear pow~r plants and reactors; Source material, Special nuclear material.

For reasons set out in the preamble and und~r the authority _of the* Atomic Energy Act of 19~, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as

• amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as a11ended*, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and

• • 553, the NRC is adopting the following revisions to 10 CFR Part 72 and conf~rming amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 170.

PART 72 - LI.CENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The au~hority citation for Part 72 is revised to read a~ follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 1~1, 182, 183, 184, 186,

• • 187, 189, ~8 Stat. 929, 930, 9~2, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec; 234, 83 .Stat. 444, as amended ( 42 U.S. C. 2071, 2073; *2077, 2092 ~

2093, 2095, 2099, 2111,- 2201, 2232, 2233 1 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282)~ se~.

274, Pub. L. 86-373~ 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841,. 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub.

L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332);* secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, P~b. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155~ 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under*se~s. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L.

100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c)(d)).

40

Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec.

134, Pub. L.97-425,'96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.

10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a),

141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101,.

10137(a), 1016l(h)). Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 96 Stat~

2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 {42 U.S.C. 10198).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);

§§72.6, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28(d), 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a), (b)(l), (4),

(5), (c), (d)(l), (2), (e), (f), 72.48(a), 72.SO(a), 72.52(b), 72.72(b), (c),

72.74(a}, (b) 72.76, 72.78, 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c), 72.148, 72.154, 72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186 are issued under sec. 16lb,'68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 220l(b)); §§ 72.lO(a)~ (e), 72~22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 12.30, 72.32, 72.44(a}, (b)(l), (4), (5), (c), (d)(l), (2), (e),

(f), 72.48(a), 72.SO(a), 72.52(b), 72.90(a)-(d), {f), 72.92, 72.94, 72.98,

• , 72.100, 72.102(c), (d), (f), 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c),. 72.142, 72.144, 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154, 72.156, 72.158, 72.160, 72.162, 72.164, 72.166, 7~.168, 72.170, 72.172_,

72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.186, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 16li, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and§§ 72.lO(e),

72.11, 72.16, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(b)(3), (c)(S),

(d)(3), (e), (f), 72.48(b),(c), 72.SO(b), 72.54(a), (b), (c), 72.56, 72.70, 72.72, 72.74(a), (b), 72.76(a), 72.78(a), 72.80, 72.82, 72.92(b), 72.94(b),

72.140(b), (c), (d), 72.l44(a), 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154(a), (b),

72.156, 72.160, 72.162, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.174, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 41

72.186, 72.192, 72.212(b), 72.216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.234(e), and (g) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2. In§ 72.6, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised to read as foll~ws:

§ 72.6 License required; tyPes of licenses.

{c} Except as authorized in a specific license and in a_general license

• e under Subpart K issued by the Commission in accordance with the regulations in this part, no person may acquire, receive, or possess

3. In§ 72.30, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.30 Decommissioning planning, including financing and recordkeeping.

(b) The proposed decommissioning plan must a1so include a decommissioning

- funding plan containing information on how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI or MRS. This information must include a cost estimate for deconvnissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for decommissjoning from paragraph {c) of this section, including means of adjusting cost*estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the ISFSI or MRS.

4. New Subparts Kand Lare added to read as follows:

42

Subpart K - General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites Sec.

72.210 General license issued.

72.212 Conditions of general license issued under§ 72.210.

72.214 list of approved spent fuel storage casks.

72.216 Reports.

72.218 Termination of licenses.

72.220 Vio 1at ions.

Subpart L - Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.

72.232 Inspettion and tests.

72.234 Conditions of approval.

72.236 Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval.

72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Complianc~.

72.240 Conditions for spent fuel stQrage cask reapproval.

Subpart K - General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites

§ 72.210 General license issued.

A general license is hereby issued for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation at power reactor sites to persons 43

authorized to possess or operate nuclear poJ~r reactors under Part 50 of this chapter *.

§ 72.212 'Conditions of general license issued under§ 72.210.

(a)(l) The general license is limited to that spent fuel which the general licensee is authorized to possess at the site under the specific license for the site.

(2) This general license is limited to storage of spent fuel 1n casks approved under the provisions of this part.

{3) The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance .terminates 20 years after the date that the particular cask is first used by the general licensee to store spent fuel, unless t_he cask s Certificate of Compliance is renewed, in which case the 1

general license termi.na-tes 20 years after the* cask's Certificate of Compliance renewal date. In the event that a cask vendor does not apply for a cask model reapproval under§ 72.240, any cask user or user's representative may apply for a cask design reapproval. If a Certificate of Compliance expires, casks of that design must be removed from service after a storage period not to exceed 20 years.

(b) The general licensee shall:

(l)(i) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory C01T111ission using instructions in

§ 72.4 at least 90 days prior to first storage of.spent fuel under this general license. The notice may be in the form of a letter, but must contain the licensee's name, address, reactor license and docket numbers, and the name and means of contacting a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under this general license. A copy of the submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear 44

Regulatory Comn1ss1on regional office listed in Appendix Oto Part 20 of this chapter.

(ii)' ,-Register use of each cas~ with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no lat~r than 30 days after using that cask to store spent fuel. - This registration may be accomplished by submitting a letter using instructions in

§ 72.4 containing the following information: the licensee's name and address.

the licensee's reactor license and docket numbers, the name and title of a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under this general license, the cask certificate and model numbers, and the cask identification number. A *copy of each submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter.

(iii) Fee. Fees for inspections related to spent fuel storage under this general license are those shpwn 1n* § 170.31 of this chapter.

(2) Perform written evaluations, prior to use,'that establish that (i) conditions set forth in the Certificate of Compliance have been met; (ii) cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static load of the stored casks; and (iii) the requirements of§ 72.104 have

~

been met. A copy of this record must be retained until spent fuel is no longer stored under the general license issued under§ 72.210.

(3) Review the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) referenced in the Certificate of Compliance and th~ related NRC Safety Evaluation Report, prior to use of the general license, to determine whether or not the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquake intensity and tornado missiles, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered in these reports. The results of this review must be documented in the evaluation made in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

45

(4) Prior to use of the general license, determine whether activities .

related to storage of spent fuel under this general license involve anr unre-viewed facility safety quest1on or change in the facility technical specifica-tions, as provided under§ 50.59. Results of this determination must be documented in the evaluation made in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(5) Protect the spent fuel against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with the same provisions and requirements as are set forth in the licensee's p_hysfcal security plan pursuant to_§ 73.55 of this chapter with the following additional conditions and exceptions:

(i)- The physical security organization and program for the*faci11ty must be modified as necessary to assure that activities conducted under this general license do not decrease the effectiveness of the protection of vital equipment in *accordance with§ 73.55 of this chapter.

(ii) Storage of spent fuel must be within a protected area, in accordance with§ 73.55(c) of 'this chapter, but need not be within a separate vital area.

Existing protected areas may be expanded or new protected' areas added for the pijrpose of storage of spent fuel in accordance with this general license.

(iii) For purposes of this general license, searches required by

§ 73.55{d)(l)*of this chapter before admission to a new protected area may be performed by physical pat-down searches of persons 1n lieu of firearms and explosives detection equipment.

(iv) The observational capability required by§ -73.55(h)(6) of this chapter as applied to a new protected area may be provided by a guard or watchman on patrol in lieu of closed circuit television.

(v) For the purpose of this general license, the licensee is exempt from

§§ 73.55(h)(4)(ii1)(A) and 73.55(h)(5) of tnis chapter.

46

(6) Review the reactor emergency plan, quality assurance program, training program, and radiation protection program to determine if their effectiveness is decreased and, if so, prepare the necessary changes and seek and obtain the necessary approvals.

(7) Maintain a copy of the Certificate of Compliance and documents referenced in the certificate for e.ach cask model ~sed for storage of spent fuel, until use of the cask model is discontinued. The licensee shall comply with the terms and* conditions of the certificate .

(8)(i) Accurately maintain the record provided by the cask supplier for each cask that shows, in addition to the information provided by the cask vendor, the following:

(A) The name and address of the cask vendor or lessor; (B) The listing of spent fuel stored in the cask;,and (C) Any maintenance performed on the cask.

(ii) This record must include sufficient information to furnish documentary evidence.that any testing and maintenance of the cask has been 9 conducted under an NRC-approved quality assurance program.

{iii) I.n the event that a cask is so 1d, 1eased, 1oaned, or otherwise transferred to another registered user, this record must also be transferred to and must be accurately maintained by the new registered user. This r.ecord must be maintained by the current cask user during the period that the cask is used for storage of spent fuel and retained by the last user until decommissioning of the cask is complete.

(9) Conduct activities related to storage of spent fuel under this general license only in accordance with written procedures.

(10) Make records and casks available to the Commission for inspection.

47

§* 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

The following casks are approved for storage of spent fuel under the-conditions specified in their Certificates of Compliance.

Certificate Number: 1000 SAR Submitted by: Gener~l Nuclear Systems, Inc.

SAR.

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the Castor V/21 Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)

Docket Number: 72-1000 Certification Expiration Date: [Insert the month and day which are 30 days after publication in the Federal Register], 2010 Model Number: CASTOR V/21 Certificate Number:* 1001 SAR Submitted by: Westinghouse Electric Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the Westinghouse MC-10 Cask for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage. Installation (Dry Storage)

Docket Number: 72-1001 Certification. Expiration Date: [Insert same date as is in certificate number 1000]

Model Number: MC-10 Certificate Number: 1002 SAR Submitted by: Nuclear Assurance Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Storage/Transport Cask for Use at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 48

Docket Number: 72-1002 Certificate Expiration Date: ,[Insert the same 'date as in certificate number 1000]

Model Number: NAC S/T Certificate Number: 1003 SAR Submitted by: Nuclear Assurance Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Storage/Transport Cask Containing Consolidated Fuei'. for Use at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Docket Number: 72-1003 Certificate Expiration Date: [Insert the same date as in certificate number lOOOJ Model Number: NAC-C28 SIT

§ 72.216 Reports~

(a) The general licensee shall make an initial report under§ 50.72(b}(2)(vii) of this chapter of any:

(1) Defect discovered in any spent fuel storage cask structure, system, or ~omponent which is important to safety;*or (2) .Instance in which there is a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage cask confinement system during use.

(b) A written report, including a description of the means employed to repair any defects or damage and prevent recurrence, must I

be submitted using instructions in§ 72.4 within 30 days of the report submitted in paragraph (a) 49

of this section. A copy of the written report must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix D to Part 20 of this Chapter.

§ 72.218 Termination of licenses.

(a) The notification regarding the program for the management of spent fuel at the reactor required by§ 50.54(bb) of this chapter must include a plan for removal of the spent fuel stored under this general license from the reactor site. The plan must show how the spent fuel will be managed before starting to decommission systems and components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping this spent fuel.

(b) An application for termination of the reactor operating license submitted under§ 50.82 of ,this chapter must contain a description of how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the reactor site.

(c) The reactor licensee shall send a copy of submittals under§ 72.218(a) and (b) to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix D to Part 20 of this Chapter.

§ 72.220 Violations.

This general license is subject to the provisions of§ 72.84 for violation of the regulations under this part.

Subpart L - Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks

§ 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.

50

(a) An application for approval of a spent fuel storage cask design must be submitted in accordance with the 1nstruct1Qns contained in§ 72.4. A safety analysis report describing the proposed cask design and how the cask should be used to store spent fuel safely must be included with the application.

(b) Casks that have been certified for transportation of spent fuel under 10 CFR Part 71 of this chapter may be approved for storage of spent fuel under this subpart. An application must b~ submitted in accordance with the instruc-tions contained in§ 72.4. A copy of the Certificate of Compliance issued for the cask under Part 71 of this chapter, and drawings and other documents refer-enced in the certificate, must be included with the application. A safety analysis report showing that the cask is suitable for storage of spent fuel for a period of at least 20 years must also be included.

(c) Public inspection. An application for the approval of a cask for storage of spent fuel may be made available for public inspection under

§ 72.20.

(d) Fees. Fees for reviews and evaluations related to issuance of a spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance and inspections related to storage cask fabrication are those shown in§ 170.31 of this chapter.

§ 72.232 Inspection and tests.

(a) The applicant shall pennit, and make provisions for, the Co1T111iss1on to inspect the premises and facilities at which a spent fuel storage cask is fabricated and tested.

(b) The applicant shall perform, and make provisions that permit the ColTlllission to perfonn, tests that the Co11111ission deems necessary or appropriate for the administration of the regulations in this part.

51

(c) The applicant shall submit a notification under§ 72.4 at least 45 days prior to starting fabrication of the first spent fuel storage cask under a Certificate of Compliance.

§ 72.234 Conditions of approval.

(a) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of a spent fuel storage cask must comply with the requirements in§ 72.236.

(b) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of spent fuel storage casks must be conducted under a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of Subpart G of this part.

(c) Fabrication of casks under the Certificate of Compliance must not start prior to receipt of the Certificate of Compliance for the cask model.

(d)(l) The cask vendor shall ensure that a record is established and maintained for each cask fabricated under the NRC Certificate of Compliance.

(2) This record must include:

(i) The NRC Certificate of Compliance number; (ii) The cask model number; (iii) The cask identification number; (iv) Date fabrication was started; (v) Date fabrication was completed; (vi) Certification that the cask was designed, fabricated, tested, and repaired in accordance with a quality assurance program accepted by NRC; (vii) Certification that inspections required by§ 72.236(j) were performed and found satisfactory; and (viii) The name and address of the cask user.

52

(3) The original of this record must be supplied to the cask user. A current copy of a composite record of all casks manufactured under a Certificate of Compliance, showing the information in paragraph (d)(2) of this section must be initiated and maintained by the cask vendor for each model cask. If the cask vendor permanently ceases production of casks under a Certificate of Compliance, this composite record must be sent to the Convn1ssion using instructions in§ 72.4.

(e) The composite record required by paragraph (d) of this section must be available to the Commission for inspection.

(f) The cask vendor shall ensure that written procedures and appropriate tests are established prior to use"of the casks. A copy of these procedures and tests must be provided to each cask user.

§ 72.236 Specific reguirements for spent fuel storage cask approval.

(a) Specifications must be provided for the spent fuel to be stored in the cask, such as, but not limited to, type of spent fuel (i.e., BWR, PWR, both), maximum allowable enrichment of the fuel prior to any irradiation, burn-up (i.e., megawatt-days/MTU), minimum acceptable cooling time of the spent fuel prior to storage in the cask, maximum heat designed to be dissipated, maximum spent fuel loading limit, condition of the spent fuel (i.e., intact assembly or consolidated fuel rods), and inerting atmosphere requirements.

(b) Design bases and design criteria must be provided for structures, systems, and components impo,rtant to safety.

(c) The cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel fs maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions.

(d) Radiation shielding and confinement features must be provided sufficient to meet the requirements in§§ 72.104 and 72.106.

53

(e) The cask must be designed to*provide redundant sealing of confinement systems.

(f) The cask must be designed to provide adequate heat removal capacity without active cooling systems.

(g) The cask must be designed to store the spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years and permit maintenance as required.

(h) The cask must be compatible with wet or dry spent fuel loading and unloading facilities.

(i) The cask must be designed *to facilitate decontamination to the extent practicable.

(j) The cask must be .inspected to ascertain that there are no cracks, pinholes, uncontrolled voids, or other defects that could significantly reduce its confinement effectiveness.

(k) The cask must be conspicuously and durably marked with:

(1) A model number; (2) A unique identification number; and (3) An empty weight.

(1) The cask and its systems important to safety must be evaluated, by appropriate tests or by other means acceptable to the Commission, to demonstrate that they will reasonably maintai~ confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and credible accident conditions.

(m) To the extent practicable in the design of storage casks, consideration should be given to compatibility with removal of the stored spent fuel from a reactor site, transportation, and ultimate disposition by the Department of Energy.

§ 72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Compliance.

A Certificate of Compliance for a cask model will be issued by NRC on a finding that the requirements in§ 72~236(a) th~ugh (i) are met.

§ 72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage cask reapproval.

(a) The holder of a cask Certificate of Compliance, a user of a cask approved by NRC, or the representative of a cask user must apply for a cask

• model reapproval .

(b} The application for reapproval of a cask _model must.be submitted not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Certificate of Compliance.

When the applicant has submitted *a timely appli~ation for reapproval, the existing Certificate of Compliance will not expire until the application for reapproval has been finally determined by the Commission. The application must be accompanied by a safety analysis report (SAR). The new SAR may reference the SAR originally submitted for the cask model approval.

(c) A cask model will be reapproved if conditions in§ 72.238 are met, and the application includes a demonstration that the storage of spent fuel has not, in fact, significantly adversely affected structures, systems, and components important to safety.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

5. The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233,' 2236, 2239, 2282);

55

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-691, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 are also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 5q.23, 50.35,

• 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.-C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

- 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);

§ 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are *1ssued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); § 50.i(a), 50.lO(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c),

50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c), (d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a),

(1), (i)(l), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and (y), *5o.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e),

{g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(c), 50.64(b), and 50.BO(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and

§ 50.49(d), (h), and {j), 50.54(w), (z), (bb), (cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b),

50.6l(b), 50.62(b), 50.70(a), 50.71(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b),

50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 u.s.c 2201(0)).

56

6. In§ 50.72, a new paragraph (b)(2)(vii) is added to read as follows:

§ 50. 72 Invnediate notification regu.irements for operating nuclear power reactol"s.

1t (b)

(2)

(vii) Any instance of:

(A) A defect in any spent fuel storage cask structure, system, or component which is important to safety; or (B) A significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage cask confinement system during use of the stol"age cask under a general license issued under§ 72.210 of-this chapter.

A followup written report is required by§ 72.216{b) of this chapter including a description of the means employed to repair any defects or damage and prevent recurrence, using instructions in§ 72.4, wi~hin 30 days of the report submitted in paragraph (a). A copy of the wri'tten report must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix Oto Part 20 of this Chapter.

PART 170 - FEES FOR FACILITIES ANO MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

7. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L. 92*314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.

5841).

57 *

8. In§ 170.31, a new category 13 is added and footnotes l(b), (c), and (d) are revised to read as follows:

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory* services, including inspections.

1t Category of materials licenses Fee2 ' 3 and type of fee 1

• 13.

A.

Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance

,)I(

Approva)s Full Cost Amendments, Revisions and Supplements Full Cost Reapproval Full Cost B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance Routine - Full Cost Nonroutine Full Cost C. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under§ 72.210 of this chapter.

Routine Full Cost Nonroutine Full Cost 1 Types of fees - ***

(b) License or approval fees - Fees for applications for new licenses and approvals subject to full cost fees (fee Categories lA, 18, 2A, 4A, 58, lOA, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(b). (e). and (f).

58

(c) Renewal or reapproval fees - Applications for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that fees for applications for renewal of licenses and approvals subject to full cost fees (fee Categories lA, 18, 2A, 4A, SB, lOA, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(d).

(d) Amendment fees - Applications for amendments to licenses and approvals, except those subject to fees assessed at full costs, must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for each license affected. An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply. For those licenses and approvals subject to full costs, (fee Categories lA, 1B, 2A, 4A, 58, lOA, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) amendment fees

• are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12(c).

An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new category.

An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licensee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.

59

C> ...

Applications to terminate licenses authorizing small materials programs, when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fee .

t(

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this t1:::.,_~ay , 1990.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J . Chil ,

Secretary of t Commission .

60

@ mRmA Nuclear Information and Records Managef1n(ZntAssociation Inc.

210 5th Avenue, New York, N.Y.10010 'J (212) 683-9221 DOCKET NUMBER PR ~ QI 7'JJ /?O P3 :16 PROPOSED RULE  !..!.?-- * --

October 10, 1989 ( s 'I F~ I q 3? 9) Cr e*

[}(JC!

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

RRS #89-15 Following review by ment>ers of the Regulations Review Subcomnittee and consideration by the NIRMA Board of Directors, I submit the following comnents to the subject docllllent:

o Supporting Statement* 72.232 Cc)

The proposed amendment raises the question of how the vendor's QA program assures that the casks are used in accordance with the applicable quality assurance measures.

Estimate of Burden Probably minimal.

o Supporting Statement* 72.234 Cd) (1) (3) and Cf)

The proposed amendment requires the vendor to keep a record for the life of the cask. As such, a reporting mechanism would have to be developed and implemented from the user to the vendor.

Estimate of Burden The record keeping burden could double.

Thank you for providing NIRMA the opportunity to respond to this docllllent. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and strengthen the regulati ons which govern our industry.

ren L.

President, Nuclear Information and Records Management Association

Enclosure:

Comnents WD\l 6 t989--

~cknowredged by ~ r d ~.... .;;;~

S, : . < ) j , ilr;f

., ._ td,,.

A, * -'- ~ . *' ': . I * * * - ,)

NOl.l:::'l~ ;C ,.\' ,,; *c *' , * . ..,ua NOI SSWNVO) Ac.")c i .,. * , ,; *3 UIIN -~*r.

' .- " Date: 6 I I6 / 89 RRS # 89-15 NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION REGULATIONS REVIEV SUBCOMMITTEE

.R!VIEV SHEET I. Title of

Attachment:

0MB Supporting Statement - Licensing Reguire~E_~B for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclea~ Fuel and High Level -

Radioactive Waste.

II. Instructions: The sections of the attached proposed regulation listed in Part III have been identified for you as having potent1.al impact on recordkeeping and information collection. Please follov these instructions when commentini on the proposed rei'llation.

1. Read the entire proposed regulation first.

2. Carefully reread each section itemized in Part I l l and prepare a c;Qmmtnt.

3. If you agree ¥ith the itemized section of the proposal, write ACCEPTABLE.

4. If you disagree vith the itemized section, vrite UNACCEPTABLE and state vhy in the comment $pace provided.

5. Write any additional comments in the space provided on the reverse side of this sheet.

6. Return ~~ur __completed reviev_ ~~ desi~nated Subcommittee Member ROBERT E. FINCH WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER __SUPPLY SYS.

3000 GEO WASHINGTON WAY P.O. BOX 968 MAIL DROP 185 RICHLAND, WA 99352 vithin 10 calendar days of receipt or by I I III. Comments:

1. Section 72,212 , page(s) 2-4 > paragraph(s) __________

Comment: Acceptable-No comment

2. Section 72,2)6 , page (s) 4 paragraph(s)

Comment: Acceptable-No conment NIRMA VORK PRACTICE Information Collection Requirements Reviev ATTACHMENT 1

f

. Section 72.218, page(s) ______4...__, paragraph(s)

Comment: Acceptable-No comment

4. Section Comment:

72.230, page(s) !f&5 Acceptable-No comment

, paragraph(s)

s. Section 72,232, page(s) __s__., paragraph(s) ____(._c...)_ _

Comment: Unacceptable- How can the Vendors QA program ~ssure that the cask is used in accordance with the applicable quality assur-ance measures?

6. Section 72.234 , . page(s) 5&6 , paragraph(s) 3 (d)( 1,3~(.f)

Comment: Unacceptable- (2nd paragraph) If the Vendor is required to keep a record for the life of the cask, then a reporting mechanism will be requ i red from the user to the Vendor.

7 *. Section 72,236, page(s) _ _..,5__ , paragraph(s)

Comm@nt: Acceptable-No comment

8. Section 72.236 , page(s) 6 , paragraph(s)

Comment: Ac,eptable-No comment F.or Additional ColI1Illents (Use Next Page).

NIRHA VORK PRACTICE Information Collection Requirements Revieq ATT11CHMENT 1

IJ(' r.t. R G!J' .\TO~Y coMKi\"ISSI cn~rT!1' 1C: f( rsi. /ICE ::crtON 0  :* ,'. -:-* ~ ~?-i R't

. I '* I I I i OS.

• 0 Ad cial D

~ ,-~ ~ ~ w-~

~-ft1 Otct- ~ . . . .- 0 OL ~ t\..Q/m /J'f__c_,

~01/1, (fl,UUL.e., h::A: ,IYN__ ~ 6~ ~ U l'hcvitk~)

SIM~

• !)£A- /<- f) A

/V ,

1 (J

(_

1A-' r 11A r2 fVI 't;; rvi {.)

-r t:: /L >

('

J DOCKET NUMBER P,RQPOSED RULE PR IP ?J.

r A/ llE SPo/1./r- /

>-c ro 3tl9'37q ~~L t S'-1 fR ;q3')q 11 1/0tl/l.. £.OE,4 o;:: j)/2.'f S'TO/l..A-6-£ IS C!I<* rH£ Hlf-1-/ Lt=l/E-c..

Wl/-5 Tl: Ml/5 T 13£ S"TtJ/2.-G P ~ 8 v J9 tftlJfiJ9-z_P 2~~ ,1/r/N JGt>

E-FFtJILT TcJ i>l'lt?l)VcE" wt1-STf;" /4fri. .Tf-lE pqwE12. ,-::>LA-A.ITS

. - *oocKL , . *1 *

• I> 5 E If.I,{'/; L. /;- S ~ //-l'VL> (._fl v 5 E s St/ 'ft!')P-?l-/;(/6- UIHI c !+ u// L-L

{ oIV Tl 1// l/ E TO / /l/ C /l ,;- t1- .{ ~ ,1-s r I/ E pLJf /VT:: 13 £ c,,ou ~ o L OC/4 t;;A-( J-1 ?l/-1 A/7  ; .s Now A/1/ c/1/ s; TE STC/2_/16-t 711 c i LI r 1

- SO / I M /tr/:::£ S >-c/f/ >/; TO >To ,i> P~o l>v c T;DN oF

/vi/ C.L-£ A /L W/f STE/ Trfk &- S-TO ck oF C1/fft4-T3' o/V H/fNiJ If/VI;) SE;r v? TffE PILo/>£/'L. 5' To/l!f-tf-E 7-"lf c1L/r1Es WE '/LE Tll-t-;c//4/6- t?F fV//fA//f&-E~£v7 Ft?/'L Mrf/lJ~

11- v N olLE-1> s o ;::- t1 E-1'!-/L s so o u /L ~P i;,1-- s t;) r P;;; /2 ME-A//;-/\/ T ti- 4 L-l-- '( ;f// 13 ,1- NS W ?- A/EE Z> TO lt1 tJli/  ;-roa Tlf'G-SE MlfTE/l/4-LS" /fN[) i:E-EP TffEM

- IN r!-StJM'E"1.JH-4-T F~wf(j>LE >T4TE/ Tlf-F- j)/l-Lj C Afk5" F- IT /'1./ iO rfl-r J Pl C TU/2- t

• ColVf £ ON N. 12:C . M ~418 G/L ~ v5E y'OV/2- 5 P/l<TUli L

,111 A-'!) s M Irk{;-- r lfE c fflf N 6--E >1 s-rr1-n_.r u 5 °u T ri-6-lf //U 1 J\) 6-fL i ,1 r A- A// E /L , C/f-N r IL/4- ~-::i j r1 o /L) / 6-E- r r I fl-E1::> 1 F:P\ v T fC No vU '-/ tJ v IL fl'[ w ,4--/LP .J tAJ I L-L- ts E .I U 5 T. FtJ i'L p cJ (LT r-{ c /I_ LO /t.t tvt FN7 0 R l- L/LI-J-L / r~ c4-,; oA.J vtJ /L/ IE P1r~E 51'!-L TZ-M/1-/1/

3 Oo/ I 1..f r C~o /1--'f S 7 ,

CfO/2-f=_ ttPlU~ rt*TS A.,) Lf *

( {) .Jf J

c.o

.j C)

UJ

~

en I

0  %

w  :::I O")

cc 22

--::q JJrr:;;;~ -

_Jff-d ~f I a 'J!:>ad

-* LPP>t

- I ~:-i!tlo:.,

~

hJ-l -f I Wl~°ti

)

')

:,_,oo

} '

t1*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 AUG -8 P3 :58 uP*

Dear Sirs,

u0LKE.i I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not *place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, St. l1 \

nowledged by card ..

J. §. M}(]EAP. fic~f**_jf, , Y CdMMl~!ION 00 :'ETI 'G " ~,~v*cr SECTION (J, *.

• l'""~T R,'(

I ,

1-J q--..J i

-) - - -

' ~;J}{J J!_L)]f

_ ______£, .ea.rs"

oocKEr NUMBER PR s-vJ -JJJ ;1 u PROPOSED RULE ) ~-

( ~V F'f!- /°1311 Rt. 2 Box 305-62; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Santa Fe, NM 87505 Docketing and Service '89 AUG -4 Washington, D.C. 20555

, i ~

GO~Kt.

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

iJ,S. IL TO DO F T OF THE C Docwn nt C:t,tisf cs Postmark D le _:-}-~9 Copies d Add' I Copi s Repro J ctld -,4-..,.--..-- - -

pe c: iaI Distribution ) Of r

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE p 50~ 1~ )?O *=

)' 1 l ~ Yf R. I q3 'J 1.J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 JUL 31 p4 :J 6

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincere!

.  ;;J-( ;u lb( . g:;<<;O 9' P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

"§£P 1 1 1989 .

~e\<no~ \edged by card-:;.,.. ..... *'"'°'

J. S. NUClfAl? ~EC: ;, n '! COMMISS DOCKH!, G & S~ .V!':"f ~KT!O

. OFFICE ~:- *1:: :-~:-~'- rr .. ,

OF "" ii( ~,";~~! ~*:" t ... .

Postmark D:it-e Copies Re n,. * ,

Add' I Cor :,

Special Ois tr***.

DOCKET NUMBE PROPOSED RULE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (5 9 ff< I 'I 31'1) ,.

Docketing and Service

• a9 JUL 31 P4 :36 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and giye nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

jt.r' 11 1989

.e nnw d d by care!,-

r

... I J

• 1

0. t i~

D01...ll.l.:J i,"~ & c. t ,;.v1CE SECTION omr E or THE SECRETARY Of r:,E c*:* V...lv ISSION Pos'm?irlc Dal ~

Copies Re:,. : , , ,;

Add ' I CopL; *, : **

Special Distrib~ii ,:-c,

oocKET NUMBER PR rOJJ- )Jo PROPOSED RULE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( 5 l/ f /( ) q ~ I 't_)

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• a9 JUL 31 p 4 :14

Dear Sirs,

• . OFf. t.,

• DOCK L , *.,_

~' ~l I I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result. thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more , rather than less , to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land , air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Comm ission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC .

• Thank You, Sincerely, SEP* 1 1 7989 cknowledged by card ,=:::...__..;;;;;;,==-::mn:i9

81S. NUCUAR .REGULATORY, COMMIStO.

OOCl(ETING & SE~VICr SECT ION Oft~ICf df TH ( SECf~tT ARY or T** , ,. ,V.,\ ' !: ' ION r..

Cop1:,1 , ,

Add ' ! ,. ,

• Spe,i.il r;, Sl r

===:r*--

GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear '89 JUL 31 P4 :34 One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 UF F Writer's Direct Dial Number.

ooc~. : i If.:, r . (201-316-7968)

July 25, 1989 C320-89-217 U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-2 19 Proposed Rule Storage of spent Nuclear Fuel in NRc-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Reactor Sites We have reviewed the subject proposed rule which appeared in Federal Register on May 5, 1988.

The proposed rule includes all forms of independent spent fuel storage

- installation (ISFSI) that are generically licensed under 10 CFR 72; however, the wording throughout the proposed rule uses "casks approved by the NRC" only. Since the discussion in the proposed rule mentions storage vaults and dry wells, it appears that the intent of the rule includes other forms of storage and is not limited to casks. We suggest that the scope (or definition) of the proposed rule be broadened to include all forms of dry storage modules .

Very truly yours, M. w. Laggart Manager BWR Licensing MWL/crb SE 11 l ...

by card ......,.

• cK1 oNI GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

,I d/Ci.C

A~ REGUt.fi.fo:n (OMMISSIOM

-,cr,(f 1'f:IG~ & SfRVf<'.e 5tCT I 0FFICE ( :;{ fHE SKRETA~'r

~ THI ~BMMl;SIG

.f.SS tn Jf1.;.

C--op;.

l_), h~

R : ..., _;

dd'I C'"/i*. :-. ,

o;,,, .. _;1 n

'89 JUL 25 P4 :01 JUL 2 4 1989 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear sir:

The Department of Energy (DOE) has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites," publ ished May 5, 1989, 54 FR 19379. Although the proposed rule does not impact on the licensing of any potential DOE facilities, we would like to submit the following comments on the proposed rule for your consideration.

1. We believe that the purpose of the proposed rule, to streamline the process authorizing the use of certified storage casks by providing for a general license for reactor licensees to use such casks, is a positive one. However, as drafted, it appears that the proposed rule will be unable to achieve this purpose, due to the content of 10 CFR 72.6, which suggests that the general license will not be sufficient and that a specific license will also be required.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, at page 19382 of the Federal Register notice, the NRC states:

"The scope of this rule is to allow holders of nuclear power licenses to store spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites under a general license using certified dry storage casks, because use of these casks is essentially independent of site characteristics. The Commission has evaluated and approved, in specific licenses issued under 10 CFR Part 72, other types of dry storage modules. These methods may be approved in the future for use under a general license."

The clear implication is that the issuance of a general license should streamline the process of authorizing spent fuel storage at reactor sites. However, 10 CFR 72.6(c) (1), which has not been proposed for amendment, states that:

SEP 11 1~ ,.,

lr:1<'1'~"", .'d!'!~*lbv*card .*

11.S. N ,r,~

oo-. ' . "

i:, rr,* ,,

T(')nV ro~ MISSIO

- E -.ErTION o*

,_0 c1..n ? 1 ~* ics Ad ., I ,: 'I *, - ., -

Special C.* ,

2 "Except as authorized in a specific license issued by the Commission in accordance with the regulations in t his part, no person may acquire, receive, or possess spent fuel for the purpose of storage in an ISFSI."

This would appear to make issuance of a specific license under 10 CFR 72 a prerequisite to obtaining the general license that is the subject of the proposed rule. This, in turn, would seem to call for a site-specific and detailed review by the Commission which the proposed rule intends to render unnecessary through use of a general license. Therefore, we would suggest that section 72.6 be amended to make it clear that no Part 72 specific license is required when a 10 CFR 72.210 general license has been obtained by a reactor licensee.

2. The preamble to the proposed rule, at page 19381, refers to the findings of the Waste Confidence Decisions of August 31, 1984, that there would be no significant environmental i mpacts from the storage of s pent f uel f or a period of 30 years beyond the expiration date of reactor licenses. During the April 25-28, 1989, meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW),

the ACNW Chairman reported that one of the possible findings of the Waste Confidence Review Group is that spent fuel can be stored for 100 years. Although the anticipated schedule for issuance of the final rule on waste confidence is the end of December, the staff may wish to give consideration to the potential revised findings of the Waste Confidence Review Group in the subject final rule on spent fuel storage. For example, these findings may provide a basis for extension of the length of time for which casks might be certified. If such a basis is provided, the DOE considers that the extension should be incorporated into the regulation.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking.

Sincerely, Waste Man cc:

M. Novak, NE-1

oocKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR s;o fJJ ()O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissr~ v FR- I 9 3? ~

Docketi ng and Service '89 JUL 21 P4 :23 Washington , D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our *land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,p _ /j-- ....-,(../.- ( Ac-. 4 tv tl1'-M1<-TON) gr z ,9Cfy .,y

~ c. o/ /Vhl '7?S:-s-2_ knowledged by ca P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

0, . NUCLEA P.EGULATORY COMMISSIOJI DOCK Tl G & SERVICE SECTION O:= i(t O'= T!-!F. SECRET ARY, Of Hi

• COMMISSION Do<:*m~nt St.. tistics Pbst at - P- 1 Coles Re*c1veu _ _.L]_ _ _ _ __

Add' I Copbs Reprod ced . .:J=------

Special Distribution lb/JR /2/QI'

.J p ..ans <l b

DOCKET NUMBER P,ROPOSED RULE PR J co ?~ /0 D

, l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com rr6s~it n FR f q37~ J Docketi ng and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUL 20 P6 :23

(.F'~ ! .

DuCK£ . :, * - I I r

Dear Sirs,

1 'iH~,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

Sincere ly,

~~ JUL 2 4 1989 leknowfedged by caret. :-:.;;;;;:;;.,;;a;a~-

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

0. UctEAR ~FG 00 Cf(ET L G ,&. CT.l t:nr. 'J; y b:-: T;!i: N C'c;,,;un ..ml S!_.':s,ics Postmar'-  !):!t..1 ____ 7--JJ ~8'f topies rs, ~cl

'Add' C , 1 , P. .. .-* ~ **.icd _? ..,____,,___,___

6~c 1 , Dis: ,b:.ition ~ (2 /2- /}) f' y') J 11' ~6.,(:S °'>-

~

n Ir L 19 I rcr-p f:33 0

I~ v P. ~__,u~"1f

-rVJ!'6A1 Jh Q '1 ~ 1 r.:r-u-w A-v£ FR £/J, frJ IJ, tR I? o I 1

I.I. s. NUCUA!t RfGUt ATQ!{Y roMM DOCKETING & SER'/ICE SECT IC*,

OFFl(E OF r: 11: sr~~-r \RY OF Tf-1E CO.'J ' *1 ~ ,... tJ

' os tmerk Date _{--:f (J

opies R1:ce:v~ i ~ _/

\ dd ' I Copit>s R, p,*,du<d 3 ipecial Oistributiof'I _ /JJJ ~ £.J/JF

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?:Porth

DOCKET NUMBER PR 5.U:I ') di J? ()

PROPOSED RULE . )

( 5V Ff< ICJJ?1 MEMO~DUM C

From the Office of

• ag JUL 17 P4 :58 The City Commission Bozeman, Montana uF Date --~~-~Y.---~~-L--~~-~-~---

To the U.S.

00(,

~.

IG

~

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Re: Licensing process requiring public comment As a public official myself, I think public comment is absolutely essential, and an integral part of our American form of government at ell levels.

It is therefore essential that public comment be allowed to continue in the decision-making process for radio-active waste storage permits. People often know more about safety problems that could occur in their area than do the so-called experts.

Experts have proven themselves time and time again to be short-sighted, or politically motivated, or worse.

Please continue to allow public input.

Sincerely, l'lary Vant Hull City Commissioner JUL 2 4 1989 Mary Vant *Hull 416 E. Story Boz n MT 59715

l1I.

\

0

• I I I I <::

7l e'-- C

,,,., *'* 0

.,.,. -~

0: 3 G)

> ..n

' Qi 0 ~

• a -:;;

0 1 "~ J '"I

!.u 0

a.

'ci 0

~

~ ~

l

.J . :i. 1>1UUFAR ~EG ULATOR , COMv\lSSIO 0OCKHI. 'G & S~RVICE SECTIO OHICf :.;: P~E ::ECRETARY c,~ 1 1.E CC.\\ 1S$1v~

Postr, , 1-- J3: l'I Copies v -:l Add ' I r r r Special D1strib1..tion

oocKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE ~ - - - J PR s*o. J 110  ; )

C£Vf~ /93?°1 I

Arizona Public Service Company P.O. BOX 53999

• PHOENIX , AR IZONA 85072-3999

'89 JUL 17 P4 :58 WILLIAM F. CONWAY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR 161-02034-WFC/SKW .:i n .

June 13, 1989 oocr ~;, 1 ,

rr ./ \!1 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Proposed Rule on Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRG-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactors FILE: 89-055-026 Arizona Public Service (APS) has reviewed the proposed rule on the referenced subject. APS believes the rule would be beneficial to the industry and endorses this rule.

Please contact A. Carter Rogers of my staff at (602) 371-4041 for any questions you may have.

WFC/SKW/jgn kknowledged by caret.:-; * ;;;~;;;~~-

Cl. t. NUClEA~ ~tGUtA10~Y COMMIS~IOII DOCKETING & SER.VICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Documenl Statistics Postmark Date Cop1.;,s Rec"'i ved Add' I Co;::i~s Rc- prodJced Special Distribution

~~OPOSfo"~llLE Rso ?J no

!_ 51/(Je- I 93?9)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 '89 JUL 14 PJ :52 on, *.

D'rJCKt .. * .

Dear Sirs,

ru,N*L I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves.without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less. to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy,.an informed. active and empowered citizenry.

~Ut 2 4 1989 Aci<nowfedged by card - --

• **.--*.....-....;;;;-...,q-.._

0.f; MJCl.fM ftEGUUlO~Y COMMIS51QN DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stati;ti cs Posfmark r,.e ___ 1- l-cPJ ___ _

Copies R,,.:.,., :e :! J.

Add't Copi:'s R-,;r.:id,:cd ] _ ..,,_..__ _ __

Special Dd ribution /J ll

-=-.::.:,.....;..,.._J..::,..µ.t...1-_ _

t,.

'89 Jut 14 ?3 :53

~~ (;1, /93}1 2/4 ~EA,t 7cv~An>7 ~o//~So.J~

/#-;-/v:,e-A-e Je($.(.N. AT1'o/ o,Yo/'/.5.S ON~

--::Je-ee- ~r1/ p,eol'°o.s e;-;) /;)1=;0 o, (J'v'7;',,,Jt> rNs-Pf/dL l'C... ~vr "~ r-Ne )ec/..S/C,J- ,,.,,;()~/N6- P~o -

o,,-:- ?Ai),,oAJcr,,,- & WAS?""~

...:Sn:,A!,,otS-c P E ~ ~ / r ..S

/ /~ 0 V T;'eA7t:scOc/.$1/ ~o~/..s.N!

~No v L 2) TH-'..S

,,,~~A eve~ aeco"Ye "-~~

A.i!L 77,,,,,___

~._.

,,.., ,,,,, ,, ,..-,~,

,,..,v,0 -....- ... ~ W/'T"N /7-". .PA..S..SA7Ci=

~,r,t,e,,~i) 8E ~.,.r,E,r /,./ 77,l'E rACE u//rN -"" .0t!'";f1~1/

?ATr~ £ ~..-v.,c1'£., ,,l()A/2> oe- F_,¥P£cr~l:J Nor 7b eve-,,./

~/,./CN. / N/..$ /$ (!D7'/0A4;t1.0I..,: 7Z> WH-oT' TH;Y A t!f')(.Pacr,,rv't;. r/et>~ '77-/e PV.t11L.1c,.. eA.1.NE";V / :r co,y.$

7"0 -P~O/OOJ~~ vA/, .ICEAl~c .b ...S77!!J~.,o(i; e" 0 P=

4,l/"7'0VT

I J I rr,~q*t<; ~,o

~ I ~ ,;cc**oN

.(

' l s

C 0 l Nf 3

S,eci .. l /!_jJ R-,J l. L{l[_

_ _ _ _ f.Jec G? P:c:

oocKET NUMBER

• BRO.P.OSED RULE PR ~ 1J rJo u:s. Nu'clear Regulatory Commission ( b YfflJ i3~? ~)

Docketing and Serviqe Washington, D.C. 20555 - ~89 JUL 1'1 PJ:03

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

• As it is now, . federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore i

public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselve:; without any independent

• oversig.ht do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands ~f people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the

~- citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the !

. Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give . nuclear-reactor operators blanket

• permission to *store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This fo~lish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~ ( { ) m P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receiye public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill

. the basis of democracy,'an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Iv ., .

COMMISSION S CTIO ETARY IQ

Georgie} Power Company 333 Piedmont Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 526-3195 Mailing Address:

40 Inverness Center Parkway r ::ic~ i *,

- 11:.

Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 868-5581

'89 JUL 14 P4 :22

.t:i. the southf;,rn ~ leq'l_c sy~m W. G. Hairston, Ill 1uA' lOfY f~~tll(A 'J-frJ-~Cf Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations July 7, 1989 lJOL

• HL-628 ELV-00674 Docket Nos. 50-321 50-424 50-366 50-425 Certified Ma i1 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on the Proposed Rule: Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Reference Federal Register Pages 19379-19387.

Dear Sir:

On May 5, 1989, the NRC issued for public comment a proposed rule in the Federal Register entitled Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC Approved 11 Storage Casks at Nuclear Reactor Sites 11

• Georgia Power Company wishes to make the following comments on the proposed changes to 10CFR72:

(1) Proposed Subpart K to IOCFR72, General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites, issues a general license for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites to persons authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under Part 50. However, existing Section 72.6 (c) of Subpart A states that except as authorized in a specific license issued by the Commission in accordance with the regulations in Part 72, no person may acquire, receive, or possess spent fuel for the purpose of storage in an ISFSI.

Although Section 72.6 (a) provides for issuance of general licenses for storage of spent fuel, Section 72.6 (c) might be interpreted to disallow storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI by a licensee under such a general license, unless the holder of such a license also has a specific license for that purpose.

Therefore, we suggest that existing Section 72.6 (c) be revised or clarified to provide for storage of spent fuel under a general license, without the requirement for a specific ISFSI license, as long as the provisions of proposed Subpart Kare met.

Ir ~. ,,.. ,... , ,..

UO!tnq111S\C I !) i:fg pcJ-:: o.c', *., s,".fo) I ,PPV.

---

~-+--- ':'-,:, '~~: ;; s~~dO)

'o8 L G'~a :;1C?w1sod NOlSSIWWOJ ~"l :!O

'.Ui /H:D3S 3H l ~C .'.::;.!J:10 N011J3'.; ;)IA.:'.'l'.; -;: !:);~1-1 .JOO OISSIWWOJ Ab01V111!:Jj. i! J'fl)ON 'S *i,

Page Two (2) The proposed rule Section 72.212(b)(4) requires the general licensee determine, pursuant to I0CFRS0.59, whether activities under that license involve any unreviewed safety question. Section I0CFRS0.59 (a)(2) states that a proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question" ... if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created." Storage of spent fuel in an approved cask at the reactor site may create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of equipment that is not related to the other licensed activities at the site. However, we expect that the potential accidents and malfunctions involving use of the cask for storage, but not related to other plant specific activities such as loading and movement of the cask prior to storage, would have been addressed by the cask vendor and the NRC in the cask certification process.

We interpret Section 72.212(b)(4) as requiring the I0CFRS0.59 analysis only for those issues relating to systems and components used both for reactor operations and spent fuel storage activities, such as cask handling and movement of the cask prior to storage. But, because the wording of Section 72.212(b)(4) is not completely clear, we suggest that either 72.212(b)(4) be revised appropriately or that clarifying language be included in the Supplementary Information for the final rule.

(3) We do not understand the technical basis for the proposed rule's use of the renewal process for storage cask Certificates of Compliance to establish the dates (after the initial 20 year storage period) when the general licenses would expire. We interpret the proposed rule to mean that, Certificates of Compliance are the cask vendor's permission to manufacture spent fuel storage casks. The time interval covered by a certificate's approval or reapproval does not necessarily correspond to the total time for which fuel storage in the cask can be safely accomplished. The fuel storage time interval which is justified in a cask's Topical Safety Analysis Report would be a more technically sound basis for establishing the expiration date of the general license to use that cask.

(4) The proposed rule is unclear as to when the general license for storage of spent fuel would terminate in cases where the cask model has been reapproved by NRC, following use of the cask by a licensee for a period of up to twenty years. We believe that the first sentence under proposed Section 72.212,(a)(2) should read:

"The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall terminate either 20 years after the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel, or if the cask model is reapproved for storage of

Page Three fuel for more than 20 years, at the conclusion of this newly-approved storage period, beginning on the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel."

The existing wording in this section ties expiration of the general license to "the revised certification date", which could, in fact, be earlier than the original 20 years. The proposed revision would meet the intent of the rule to extend use of approved casks for as long as each cask design is certified for storage, but for at least 20 years after initial use of each cask.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. We are confident that the NRC will consider and respond appropriately to these matters.

Sincerely, vJ./J- ~

W. G. Hai rs ton, I II WGH,III:KGT/ls c: Georgia Power Company Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President - Plant Hatch Mr. H. C. Nix, General Manager - Nuclear Plant (Hatch)

Mr. C. K. McCoy, Vice President - Nuclear, Plant Vogtle Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager - Plant Vogtle GO NORMS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash i ngton, D. C.

Mr . L. P. Crocker , Li censing Project Manager - Hatc h Mr. J. B. Hopkins, Licensing Proj ect Manager - Vogtle U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, Region II Mr. S. 0. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. J. E. Menning, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch Mr. J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Operations - Vogtle

Alabama Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham , Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 868-5581 W. G. Hairston, Ill Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations fix tofy re

• a9 J~ll ~,

<*~t~ '1 -I -~q l\L 1

.J r. '* the southern electric sys<rem (1~

July 7, 1989 G.:c Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Certified Ma i1 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Comments on th e Proposed Rule: Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Reference Federal Register Pages 19379-19387.

On May 5, 1989, the NRC issued for public comment a proposed rule in the Federal Register entitled "Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Reactor Sites". Alabama Power Company wishes to make the following comments on the proposed changes to 10CFR72:

(1) Proposed Subpart K to 10CFR72, General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites, issues a general license for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites to persons authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under Part 50. However, existing Section 72.6 (c) of Subpart A states that except as authorized in a specific license issued by the Commission in accordance with the regulations in Part 72, no person may acquire, receive, or possess spent fuel for the purpose of storage in an ISFSI.

Although Section 72.6 (a) provides for issuance of general licenses for storage of spent fuel, Section 72.6 (c) might be interpreted to disallow storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI by a licensee under such a general license, unless the holder of such a license also has a specific license for that purpose.

Therefore, we suggest that existing Section 72.6 (c) be revised or clarified to provide for storage of spent fuel under a general license, without the requirement for a specific ISFSI license, as long as the provisions of proposed Subpart Kare met.

(2) The proposed rule Section 72.212(b)(4) requires the general licensee determine, pursuant to 10CFR50.59, whether activities under that

~l 24

~t(now!edi?ed by card .*":.

• • .

    ;

    '..

    ;:;:;:;:=~'l'ftlil

'J . S. NUCLEI;.: ~fGl ! .<\T0P.Y COMMI SSION O... TrTJ, G ~ ~r. ">'ICE SF.CTION r- ~l( c .,F Im 5K RET,-\RY Or Tl C *:o /.\MIS!'"ION

Page Two license involve any unreviewed safety question. Section 10CFRS0.59 (a)(2) states that a proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question" ... if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created." Storage of spent fuel in an approved cask at the reactor site may create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of equipment that is not related to the other licensed activities at the site. However, we expect that the potential accidents and malfunctions involving use of the cask for storage, but not related to other plant specific activities such as loading and movement of the cask prior to storage, would have been addressed by the cask vendor and the NRC in the cask cert i fication process.

We interpret Section 72.212(b)(4) as requiring the 10CFRS0.59 analysis only for those issues relating to systems and components used both for reactor operations and spent fuel storage activities, such as cask handling and movement of the cask prior to storage. But, because the wording of Section 72.212(b)(4) is not completely clear, we suggest that either 72.212(b)(4) be revised appropriately or that clarifying language be included in the Supplementary Information for the final rule.

(3) We do not understand the technical basis for the proposed rule's use of the renewal process for storage cask Certificat es of Compliance to establish the dates (after the initial 20 year storage period) when the general licenses would expire. We interpret the proposed rule to mean that, Certificates of Compliance are the cask vendor's permission to manufacture spent fuel storage casks. The time interval covered by a certificate's approval or reapproval does not necessarily correspond to the total time for which fuel storage in the cask can be safely accomplished. The fuel storage time interval which is justified in a cask's Topical Safety Analysis Report would be a more technically sound basis for establishing the expiration date of the general license to use that cask.

(4) The proposed rule is unclear as to when the general license for storage of spent fuel would terminate in cases where the cask model has been reapproved by NRC, following use of the cask by a licensee for a period of up to twenty years. We believe that the first sentence under proposed Section 72.212(a)(2) should read:

"The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall terminate either 20 years after the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel, or if the cask model is reapproved for storage of fuel for more than 20 years, at the conclusion of this newly-approved storage period, beginning on the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel."

Page Three The existing wording in this section ties expiration of the general license to "the revised certification date", which could, in fact, be earlier than the original 20 years. The proposed revision would meet the intent of the rule to extend use of approved casks for as long as each cask design is certified for storage, but for at least 20 years after initial use of each cask.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. We are confident that the NRC will consider and respond appropriately to these matters.

Sincerely,

()).,/~~

W. G. Hairston, III WGH,III:KGT/ls cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. G. F. Maxwell

Tommy G. Thompson Mailing Address:

Governor Post Office Box 7865 James R. Klauser Madison, WI 53707-7865

• '-',~ @

Secretary Phone: 608/266-3232 Q'CKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR s-o l)J }JO

!.....!.!..-__:::..-__ _ , State of Wisconsin l ~ ~ f R / q 31q) Department of Administratio~ 9 JUL 10 P6 :53 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 99A

• Madison, Wisconsin uF~,:

OOC hL - I~, ) * ' './ I .r June 28, 1989 i\" ,\IL Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir /Madam:

This is in regard to the proposed rule regarding storage of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plant (NPP) sites published in the Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 86, dated Friday, May 5, 1989. We are not in a position to formally comment on behalf of the State of Wisconsin at this time.

However, we are in general agreement with the concept of streamlining on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel elements, while awaiting the DOE completion of a high level repository.

We need clarification on three items:

I. We would like to know if there will be any opportunities for state involvement in the inspection, transportation or compliance items on the general license.

2. Since it appears likely that these dry casks may be used for transportation of the spent fuel to a high level repository site sometime in the future, we would like assurance that problems associated with cask inspection for removable contamination will be rectified in the cask design and certification process.

3. Will the states be notified, appraising them of dry cast storage at the NPP site, in order to minimize emergency response planning impacts?

If you have any further questions, please contact Lawrence J. McDonnell, Chief of the Section of Radiation Protection at (608) 266-5181. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to your response.

s~~

Richard I. Braund, Administrator WISCONSIN DIVISION OF EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT cc. Steven Morstad, Deputy Administrator Lawrence J. McDonnell, DHSS Radiation Protection Tom Johnson, DHSS Bureau of Environmental Health (NRCRESP.doc-1)

0. .

J- s- }1 -=-

A ) ~-=-=---**

p t) f)) l. , o?.J D~lf._

f-c" ( u_._ _ _

nocKETNUMBER PR oO r;~ 110 PROPOSED RULE .* -)

{ £ L/ F f-2 I ~ 301 U.S. Nuclear Regulato ry Commission Docketing and SeNice Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUL 10 P6 :23

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

P. , ~V COMMISSIOff SECTION t TARV 1011

' lidli~

Ad pee

• I C 1- ) ~q I

11 f P RJ 11:lM.

/J~clO-,-..,_

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service

• s9 JUL 10 P6 :22 Washington, D.C. 20555

\,

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

e We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a _damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

JUL 2 4 1989

0n VI "'O C

'O 0.. 0 ID a.. "!!. ~ U'l n

• . Q 3

§.:.

r.-

Oz Oc

c

?

,. r,

("\

oocKET NUMBER PR so 1J J7 O PROPOSED( R~ L~ .[R.

19 J? ?)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit froni the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

ELLEN REAVIS 1616 YOUNG STREE1 SANTA FE, NM 8750

• i" i 'I. NUCLE,t. R REGULATORY COMMI SS:

l)GCK~ ING & ~F.RVICE SECTION Off .E OF 1HE S(C"'ETARY OF THE COMMISSION

,6$trnark Oahi }-'j-J1-=--c~......;.------=:-

Copies ; 1 1ed

}

A.dd' I Cop1e~ 'eprd Speci1ol Diilributlon

'89 JUL -6 Pl2 :19 CHARLES CENTER* P.O. BOX 1475

• BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 GEORGE C . CREEL VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR ENERGY (301) 260-4455 June 30, 1989 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Aoproved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Gentlemen:

The following comments are submitted by the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company in response to the Federal Register Notice of May 5, 1989 (54FR19379), concerning the proposed rulemaking for 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170.

We support your proposed regulations to permit holders of power reactor operating licenses to store spent fuel in NRC-approved casks under general license. However, we encourage you to apply this change to other approved storage technologies.

Specifically, we believe the proposed rule should include Multi-Element Sealed Canisters (MESCs), such as the NuTech Horizontal Storage Module.

The discussion of the proposed rule cites extensive experience with the dry storage of nuclear fuel. With the exception of that at Surry power station and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, none of the experience cited is with metal casks. Indeed, the technologies cited more closely resemble MESCs. Both metal casks and MESCs are passive storage systems. Both metal casks and MESCs have approved Topical Safety Analysis Reports. At the present time, both metal casks and MESCs have exactly one facility licensed for their use. Additionally, MESCs have a significant cost advantage over metal casts so you may expect more license applications for use of MESCs than for use of metal casks.

We would like to know if other dry storage technologies will be reviewed for inclusion under a general license and the proposed schedule for that review. In answering this question, the NRC will be providing some guidance to utilities in choosing among dry storage alternatives.

,1 .. Ntv*1 ~" (' rur1n qc"(v co \MISS IO

• oo*-:-~. i. **; ~- :["::'.'IC!: SECTION

().:-~ ..  ;~ ,*i-~:. [,. 1tit/(. . Y, Cor- *. _ _) _ __ __

Add' I :, *' ." .j Special Dist r,:.,!..lior. f.,,..'iJ

-;-,R..-J__,f__,_/_Qf f'e0cra c

Secretary of the Commission June 30, 1989 Page 2 In addition to our own comments, we endorse those comments provided by the Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program (UW ASTE) on this proposed rule.

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

GCC/BDM/dlm cc: D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra, NRC S. A. McNeil, NRC W. T. Russell, NRC H. Eichenholz/V. L. Pritchett, NRC T. Magette, DNR

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~~ ~)- )10 P,ROPOSED RULE *-* )

Cf;l/ Ff 19 30q _ ~: i t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '"

Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *a9 JUL -5 A10 :35

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this cou ntry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law .

• Thank You ,

Sincerely, fA 2.;le.Tl .&~ ss , n 13(:7 x 38' S"

~ s u u e, ti. 1-t. 87S 71-1 P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~L 24 t

)

I

DOCi(ET UMBER P,ROPOSED RULE ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com mission { St/ r f) qJ?q)

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 30 P4 :J6

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, f)~Z-~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.It NUCLEN' REGUlATO~Y COMMISSIOH DOCKET G & SERVICE SECTION O "fk..E 0F TH [ SECRETARY OF Tl :t COMMISSION Doc ,r '11 5,'l!i ti cs 0

Postmark lo Cop.. s r:  ;.,, d dd' I Co I I . rod uc .J

-,-.-.i,l* - - - -

5pecl I 0 1slri ;.1t1on

DOCKET NUMBER p S-0 ry;;. l;D PROPOSED RULZ S!l/L_F_, R .J,-q

-37 q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *ag JUN 29 P4 :17

'JF* ..

• OOCI\: ! fj l ,, F

Dear Sirs ,

f A *-**

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely~ J ~~

~o<, \ 7f 00~/ WI

')....o 5"<:\. (o.. w1 *1rtD pi r,J;;Xe '?

~A- ,t -t"~ f'.e I IV/Vl f:> TGD!?

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

ut't R REC"tAW~V COMMt5S10H OC K~'I ING & 10 F ' _E OF Y OF lH C Oo ,,.

lopi es Rec i ve l Add' I Cop1 ~ ptod.

lpecial Oisfribution t

DOCKET NUMBER PR so ?J- J7) /)

PROPOSED RULE -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cr; LJ r R I ct 3,q Docketing and Service 0 Washington, D.C. 20555 89 JUN 29 P4 :17

( F'- I~  : '

DOCKL' ,. I ' ' . : f

Dear Sirs,

£: nJ1 I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

kn vr,

• if-5y*:7.:=-

~~-

)

A NOID3

0) A~Ol'v'ili

. . ,N. '

\ ..

DOCKET NUMBER PR S'O ?J l'JO PROPOSED RULt .£'/ ({< } q3'J 'l)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketi ng and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 29 P4 :17

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the' nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don 't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed , active and empowered citizenry.

f, l 2 4 1989 mf!llffi'WlfflWfsted bv ea?1if..;:...,::;;:-;.;;;;;..;~~

f,-

• I r ,.

DOCKET NUMBER f; o r:; r;;;_ JI O BROPOSED RULE -

• __J

[SL/fl/1309)

• a9 JUN 29 P4 :19 OFF ',

DOCKL 1!N , , *-: r* , *e, Marvin I. Lewis  :,..l,NL;,

7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Philadelphia, PA 19152 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention : Docketing and Service Branch

- the matter of l.0CFR parts 50,72 and l.70.

i** or*age c,f Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC apprc,ved Stc,rage

Casks at Nuclear Power Sites.

Dear Mr. Secretary; Mr. William R.Pearson stated that my comment could be considered even if they are a few days late. I respectfully request that you consider these late filed comments due to their importance to this particular proceeding.

I respectfully jc,in thr~ comments of the Nuclear Infc,rmatic,n and Resource Center. Their comments are correct and appropriate.

I agree in spirit and letter with their comments. I also file the following comments on my own.

Their are two very serious deficiencies in the proposed rule:

1. Terrorism is not given proper concern

• The fire in the spent fuel pc,c,l subsequent tc, the majc*r

• cident at Chernobyl is not considered as a lesson learned.

Terrorism needs targets. Above ground storage of spent nuclear fuel provides terrorists with a most effective target. A small bomb dropped from a light plane or helicopter could spread the contents of an above ground cask over many states. The radioactivity contained in these storage casks is as much as produced by several large nuclear bombs. Bombing from light plane or helicopter is not unknown in the Philadelphia area and was perfc,rmed upc,n a grc,up called "Mc,ve" by the Philadelphia Pc,lice Department only a few years ago. The same type of bombing could easily be performed at any nuclear power plant by terrorists.

At Chernobyl, a nuclear power plant had a severe accident.

Several days later, a fire started in a fuel pool at Chernobyl.

The lesson to be learned is to assure an adequately safe storage during an accident. There is a lack of assurance that the above**ground fuel storage will be adequate for all accidents.

I respectfully request that this proposed rule be disallowed and eliminated.

Re s Jll y submitted

(

'Hf C Mc=:<.rv:i.n I .. Lt"?V*J ii**.

Postr ;:ir'

• 6-- ~t_/~J C s

'4.dd I -: 3 )-

IJ:!ecial D /J.D ~J (( J)1J IZ C..14.I.J..

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service D Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PR ~I) ?J /9 PRoPos(~R t r r< -;q 37 'I) *a9 JUN 29 P4 :18 OFF !...,*  ::. "r

Dear Sirs,

DOCK E11N, & 'tr'\* U 6 A L I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Comm ission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

Thank You, Sincerely,

tu;/~

/: tJ. ~/;( _3jf?-

/U7, Jo/6ft//7l~

Jmowredged by e~r'cf . *;;::::;:;:;;;,;;;;;;,;;-.~

/57/

. !r. NLJ\.. L~/\.~ t**.r; I, fCRY COMMg;,'u, ,}

oorvrr 1,-l , /l- :;~":'llCE srcT ION (Vr :(: ;F fl !f. :,[CK!:TARY

":: *11-'.E COMM l:iS tON

~~~~6\rou:sc: P £t?d:J /1o Babcock&Wilco/~t/

a~M~cD;;;erm~ot~t c;;om~pa:;ny~~ -- - - ~

fR /q371 . .

• -~* ~- ,~r _ __

bt~ti~y SUSAN UTTLEAELO tVENUE *

~~

02332

• 59 JUN 29 p 4 :17 ....A

~ Stu ,

iJF' 1l*

DOCK ~ I . ~ ';

~15'/11¥1, J ~ ~ -Jk~ Ma ~

bj -flu- A/RA wJtld U'6ui p,'v11id ,/lff{dtu 'J ~ I

/2cL1.dM UflWll'i'k,) ~.J!,Ut,JM A ,,.:t:lA1L ¥!-j)td j;t£.l .,(, <<_,

W& . v [' fVxl6-fl.,t,J .ff we'll.£ ,be au..ll,1t.t-A-l h .MtJ..wt1td

<Jpt1vf .,f~ rM ,,/U;. -~ .£'/...., ,.,,(})A_,,c/1 . uiL£l-i,t:C aLLa.-1 J

C id .1*1,u..,, ,l:J, Jt~_f* 41/e ,t ,(! ', ,1r1 .Ii ct:.

. c.

r u"o/ ha J.'ri.J Jo, tlidJ1 fv:m ,fu,,)'1.,:J, <<>. ,jJ:.,_ ,Ct &I ,clct,1_j 1

.Jt-r U* ,U,J,U'( ,l,r; '_ ,,"-;/2; ,* /1, , , -, 1., ,;-/ , .b, t , 7 /4Wt..b uJ.d ,U t ,Ix A,,(/

1 it(!~

jt, ,.;;I' I t1t4; ,;(/; 7t !II./,.J.cl,/,. ,

I *' t'tt.

. -I

/1.tltJ ' .J lu.. ' ta,c,.,e.,

li"::!;':f-1 .J:r- ,V./HIJ, ~ ),YJ,Ol6 ' *O tU~ '-i'luj d/1 fd ,,,/,tt,/J6, <

-1t (, , ,

_v li.l)if. tt,1,/' ,x;!O /fJ1.4 *~// .(! lt K, Y1 f.&P cf.. A,,. t, W.t f,j {JA/, U., II.{).

• tL{, ,cf r ,,-.

1iue

. .J/tu,,/1/r,1,t"- t /libk,, cl .

1, 1: i,.i 4:, ,,111,a,,r'.L

.fa,1 M v11..a '/.'1 . *Ju.tl,,zk&J ..t.tJt. 1G w-ttNfw J / lv r!J,r: 'fr 1_,. , ~..l.fll'j ;,/k bl ~ ,m,. x:J-Ur. /41 (1;,}.h,,IL/ ftfr J,, " £J 10 0 l.,.1/1,,1* , _, ta, Wf! t*liw-ta .J l d /1,(,f. /UJ ~,c I .1' ,.,.,_., I '

~ ...uuu..- (;' a,,1,.&-ilr1..r M 'wJd V

If},, , ti> I.(, it 1.1;;"' y/._fr.. '. /2/Ia.du - 0

/J!:!}__,-f .I- wµ'>l>>Ail ail-Ju(£ 1.

/J.Jl v/..il.)1.__ ~t 1~~10\ L"l,f,,{(lJJ!Ld;J_~ /2 v;iJ<-<--//uJ ~lt£1.Ai.

/;, 'J. (J/j; y,} / Illt.e It tu i r_ , 'if_ ~ ,1UWltr2 J.u.a.-tzc'-,c..,'

• 'fju<JI_, ,~1.dlu a ~~ ~ m-, ,/;e,d-

~ a,/ /ipg,t). *-f;l.tav.E ~ t..J/1uwh. A"~

. y/w;v;t/f._ L/tf2J ~ i .J:1-J11J£.t1 I,/)

. N1l ::1r1~

oor1, C

, - .~ , , .

,.L . '~

Pos tn~ 1r!* r 1- JI- ti_

Ccr,i c~

• I Ad d' I ..._, 3 Special DL,r i6L.t1.:,n /7.LJ ~

- - - - -- ~ 4-r-J-P-A-

DOCKE.T t ~

P Ov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 28 P4 :16

,jf F ..,

• DOCK[ .*

Dear Sirs,

t t *~

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, liu-cet~

un Cl'W V/A1 C- IOOVf P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

DR . ALICE KAHN LADAS L

241 CENTRAL PARK WEST* NEW YORK, N . Y . 10024 Ack,,o.v

DOCKET NUMBER PR -.....~?~ J')O EDRULE ------* .

P,ROPOS * [SI./ fl(, / 9J?~)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 28 P4 :16 OP1: .*

Dear Sirs,

DOCK[ .

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

e Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

IJI. S. t-1\'.JctE* .R RFCUI.A *foRY CCA M(SSK>N DOCKETl~ 1G & SE~VJCE <;ECTION OF, !Cl: OF TW SECRETARY OF THE COMt-.\lSSION Postmark Date Co pies Recei ed Add' I Copies Reproduced ~ ,--:;;' - - - -- - -

6pecial Distributi on

oocKEr NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR =-~

- / 1

_Q 1?o

( r;yfK_Jq?,?1)

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY [ OPff -

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 U- tii-June 23, 1989 "89 JUN 28 P4 :15

• JF~ !..

• Secretary s~~rf:d ;N,Q ** ,' .89-383 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PES/MLS:vlh Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES Virginia Electric and Power Company supports the recent proposed rule published by the NRC on Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. As the utility which has participated in the Cooperative Agreement with the Department of Energy under NWPA Section 218(a) to license and demonstrate dry spent fuel storage in metal casks, we are pleased to see that information accumulated during this program has been used by NRC in forming this proposed rule.

Virginia Electric and Power Company supports the statement in the proposed rule that "The Commission believes that a prudent concern for overall activities related to the back-end of the LWR fuel cycle dictates that consideration should be given to the compatibility of spent fuel storage cask designs with the transportation of the spent fuel to its ultimate disposition at a DOE facility." In fact, our proposal to the DOE (letter from Mr. R. H. Leasburg to Mr. Richard B. Wallace dated August 22, 1983) for a Cooperative Agreement under NWPA Section 218(a) requested that consideration of development of dual purpose storage/transport casks be included as part of the Cooperative Agreement. Unfortunately, DOE activities associated with the development of dual purpose casks have been deferred and near term resolution of the issue of compatibility between storage and transport systems is not being actively pursued by any government agency. We therefore support and encourage any NRC initiatives, cooperative research, and/or policy which would further near term development of dual purpose casks.

Compatibility between utility and DOE systems offers substantial advantages in terms of simplified operational impacts, reduced personnel exposures, and potential future cost savings. However, because of the present uncertainties associated with DOE developmental plans and the long time before DOE will accept spent fuel, changes in DOE policies as well as in NRC regulations are needed to encourage the systems compatibility discussed in the proposed rule. We believe to accomplish the objective of compatible storage and transport systems that DOE needs to be presently and

• L 2 4 1989

U.S. N '(' " " r-rr;L 1l Tr"\ Y COi'*\MISSIO~

DO(v.TT1 ;,-- & S VI:=[ Sf:CT ION O ' ' Tl I: sr~-r-.ET.t\RY oc

• 11. C M~ I . S ')N Pos tmar' Add' I Cc,)ics R.,)rod , d Special Distribution - -~ --

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f_c ~r Jl b

directly involved in their development. Changes in NRC regulations are also recommended to improve consistency between storage and transport regulations. For example, require ments for pre-shipment inspection and tests after extended storage need to be clarified to preclude the additional handling required to unload casks prior to shipment. Virginia Electric and Power Company believes that without further changes beyond the proposed rule to encourage consideration of compatibility, the majority of utilities are likely to select the lowest initial cost storage-only system.

We support adoption of the proposed rule as being responsive to the requirements of the NWPA and as an important initial step in encouraging compatibility and standardization of spent fuel storage and transport systems. We have attached several detailed comments regarding the proposed rule which we provide for your consideration .

Very truly yours, 0.t.~-

w. L. Stewart Senior Vice Preside nt - Power Attachment cc: Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS 6-A-4 Washington, D. C. 20555

ATTACHMENT SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES

1) While, as stated in the proposed rule, vendors of storage casks have "indicated their intent to pursue certification for their cask as a shipping container for offsite transportation under 10 CFR Part 71," current NRC and DOE policies do not adequately address compatibility as a significant factor nor does regulation encourage addressing storage and transport in one design. A change in DOE policy would be required to increase the emphasis on compatibility. If NRC wants utilities to consider compatibility, then NRC should likewise encourage DOE to share in the initial cost of at-reactor storage systems, such as dual purpose casks, that are designed for compatibility with the DOE system. At the end of the storage period dual purpose casks could then be transferred to DOE for use in the waste system along with the fuel stored in the cask.

2) NRC should also consider changing its regulations to encourage greater consistency between storage and transport licensing. For example, changing current NRC regulations to have the Certificate of Compliance for transport of dual purpose casks issued with the same twenty year expiration date as the proposed rule for storage, and with similar provisions for renewal, would reduce licensing uncertainty for casks designed to store fuel for longer than five years before transport.

3) As an example of NRC licensing actions that need to address compatibility between storage and transport regulation, the recent NRC decision to allow credit for boron in the water for criticality analysis during loading storage modules needs to be clarified (NRC topical approval for NUTECH horizontal modular storage system dated April 21, 1989). If the approval for boron credit in criticality analysis will also be accepted for transportation licensing, the circumstances under which this transport approval could be granted need to be simultaneously specified as well. If the approval applies only to storage, it may provide an economic advantage that will act as a disincentive for the compatibility being advocated by the proposed rule.

PR SUV 0~ }'*

fc:VfEJ93)qj U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, O.C. 20555 26 P4 *03

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, \'OU now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens nf this co1 intrv.

- Th 9 Nr !clear Renuf,:itol"' Commission must rnt b '=,:.--0rn~ thP

~ ~

Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a pprmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~-~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

l have many friends who n1~ed to know of this attempt of yours to sl1ort circuit and kill the basis of democracy, ari informed, active and empowered citizenry.

PR 6~ 1~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,',S I/ (If /13 9qJ Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *89,'26P /4

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the dtiums nf this country. The Nt*!.'k;iar Reg* ,,8.!cry Ccrn!:lisslo'l must r10t become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,9rmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

oocK[T NUMB'-R nD s-o J J.. 11 D PROPOSED R~' l r;l/ .(~ ;9 3'71)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service

.89 JUN 26 P3 :56 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

/7ol( ~ ~J

~J.e,._ re NJ/167so 1 C.'1"*"'

• * * * ' - * * ....... . - ~ " l j ~ ~ ~

DOCKET NUMBER PR S-o0~ )?D PROPOSED RULE )

(~l/ fRJ937q ,., :.... ~

'" '-i**,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 JU 26 P3 :48 Washington, D.C. 20555

,jP

Dear Sirs,

OOCKli

... ' .. "Cf I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, p~ ~ ~

• 2.. ~ +-6'

~;1- ~, ~"'1--1 / ~ :} ~ " /

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.s. l'fll("IFH PF(: 1 11 , ... ,...._y (()1., 1 M ISSIO DC' ' r 10

~ .(

Postri:-irk ,

Cop1<'s R c Add' I Co,:,

• Special D1stribt.t1on

oocKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR ro 0~ J0o

.J J )

( ~ l/ FKJ9 3?q U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 26 P3 :56 OFF:.,*

DOC K[ i1~,

Dear Sirs,

!l11LN~H I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a Pfrmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~

~ -

A. \.

s ~

Pamtfa.Sufur.~JtCTW 155 c,aUe 'Don Jose Santa 1"t, 9{J-,{ 87501 P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

l.. 2

Sp Cl 1s!r u*1 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 2Dro

{sv l'/c /937</) y I".*

,.f I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 26 P3 :56

,JF~ *.;*

uljCKi 11-1

Dear Sirs,

, . f, I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commissio'n and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRG.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

R~r-1.t TORY roMMISSIOlli l SERVl(E SECT IOh&

• ..HE SEC ETAR'G C fill: COMMISSION /

Pc> t ' ' D \

Co ,

Adrl' I C,

• Special Dis r1bullon

DOCKET NUMBER FROPOSED RULE PR fl4. -~I; *l 10

. IS~ ff<. / q31}f)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissiorJ:

• Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 '89 JUN 26 P3 :57 er r

Dear Sirs,

DUCK[ ; i ' l 5f>t:\

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health. and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a Pfrmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

\ ...

u. REGULA TORY COMMI S5108

~, 1 G & S,R'.'!CE sccTION OF TµE Sl'CRETARY OF THE COMMISSION o... ~ ~~ C i-t*cs Post rlc _6- }..~ ~

r pie Add' I C ' rodu ..:d Special D,stribuhon

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE R~o. n/~1 /Zo

( GlJ rt<. J1 3?t:t J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 26 P3 :57

,..,F'- " .

Dear Sirs,

DdCK.i. ,.

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

- We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their he.alth and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Si ncerely ,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

"ub /J II A Jdrr.fl

(b

"'O

~ V, n '-;

~  ? "?;

S""

9. -, ( ) =j

~

... r , ,.,

V" .., -4>

§.. Cl ;;o 0

, q. ,

... ,. , -=

\

1 I'  ;,o ~

-,~Q

, r,

'nm-<

Ill ~ ~ u, n 0 :;;() 0 Z;o~ 3:

=< 0 ~

iZ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissiJn S" V Ffl Docketing and Service

• a9 JUN 26 P3 :57 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves *without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rat11er than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about t~e*health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRG.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

/1, v 6

...,,.,,.~rr-j ' J<,J)reJ i

• t

,I, NUCL AR "REGULATORY COMMISSIOl'i DOCK TING & SERVICE SECTION OF~ ICE OF T~E SECRET ARY THE COMMISSION Do~u ,t r * *cs Postmark Date t _ _,)J.-<?~ ~ u A.~ kcu Copies Received Add' I Copies Reprcd* iced..,.,...,.....----:::--- - -

5pecial Distribution ~ f,,/[Jf' f -e,4cSd h, I

• DOCKET NUMBER PR so. 1) ). )) r; /)

PROPOSED RULE (SL/FR /937q U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service

• a9

' 1-: .

I 4 ,~

JUN 26 P3 :57 Washington, D.C. 20555

• f

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppos~ your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Comm ission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

JUL 2 4

' CLEA R'E ..,UL TO Y CO MISSIOti DOCKETING 8. SERVICE ECT!OH OFFICE OF THt SEC ETAR'i OF TH: COMMISSION Doc *m nt S t*.1icl Postm rk Date Cop <:)S Rer 'y J Add' I Copies :" r, ,; J1 ~

&pecial Distribution ~ {dN_ _

- - -- - -~ I..____

DOCKET NUMBER PR P,ROPOSED RULE ~ -

co

.J~

1 1 '1 /

f)

<7=J

?O

(_ sl/ (RI q37q) ,,

t I

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 26 PJ :sa u F* :l iJOCK c ; , . ' .*

Dear Sirs,

~ ,\NL 1 I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely ,

f/>z~~ /t)/;c~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed , active and empowered citizenry.

KinTree Whitecloud 1616 Young Street Santa Fe, NM 87501

D. . N (If r.  !'~1,l 'l TOPY t o~SS DOrK~TI r- & !'-.rRVICE ~ECTIQij 0 Fl..: CF i' ' SF.:: LTA Yi OF T ,_ CO, '.-,i,!S:..IOH Dor c ~ * ,t cs Po Irr ,r~ C'

• G--->)-~

Cr s

--)1-- -- -

Ad-l' l C pi*~ , c;,ro ,

Special Di st ribution

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR so n/ cf. ?o

{rl/f~ 1937'1)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 26 P4 :30

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.. . ,- .~u.t ~

" 4 ....

It. *** '"l-.

..

• t, -,: ti .. J

• I

\

G\.IL TORY COMMIS

& SE VI CE SECT ION F TH: S~C~.ETARY F THE COM, 1.ISSION DocurnMt ~'citi,tics Postm rk [\ te Copies Peceived

~dd' I Copies Rcprodurnd Special Distribution

- =-----~

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

,a ..£0. i noa) csv r f. ;q 3 7 ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN26 P4:03

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

'f . M lSSI

!OH y

cumen ..,

• i d

.:! ... ' 1 C ~ e ccial istribution

DOCKET NUMBER PR ! P1~ J? O PROPOSED RULE O'

( 5V flc)q371J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 26 P3 :58 Of:.! L DUCK[ ,

t /z1/t1

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, // {a /( JC,~

La 0t/4..?/~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

11a t t Schu1ze P O BOX 729 JUL 24 19~

TESUQUE NM 87574

0. . , COMM ISS!Oli 0 ECTION ,.-,

/

l \ cs t-J-}_t,_

- )-----

3

DOCKET NUMBER PR *SJ2 J J1o PROPOSED RULE . 1j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( § lj..f/( Jq] 7f Docketing and Service *a9 JUN 26 P3 :55 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Marya Wells P/lllf.QMercado 116 w. &m Francuco iffrA719, N.M. 81301

.!. NU(LFA~ R_C,.: COMM IS~I oocyq' ' s er 10N 0* ! ETARY OF , ION

, t i cs Postmark Dute t - })- {i Copi es Rece, v d Add' I ( <';:-ies Reproduc d Special Distribution

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA , TENNESSEE 37401 DOCKET NUMBER PR r() 7 ~dJJ1 O BR0£0SED RULE J I SN 1578 Lookout P1ace *59 JUN 26 P3 :25

{ 5 1/ FR )13?q) JUN 211989 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk. Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington. D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Ch11 k:

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) PROPOSED RULE 10 CFR PARTS 50, 72.

AND 170. STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE; CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER

• REACTOR SITES The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has reviewed and is pleased to provide comments on the subject proposed rulemaking recently published in the May s. 1989. Federal Register (54 FR 19379-19387).

TVA strongly supports the adoption of this rulemaking as it could provide significant near- and long-term benefit to meeting our additional spent fuel storage needs. The proposed general license and associated licensee requirements would establish a very efficient process for providing additional spent fuel storage capacity as required at TVA's nuclear sites. In addition, this rule fs also addressing the intent of the Nuclear Waste Pol fey Act by fostering the development of spent fuel storage options. and in turn.

addressing the needs of nuclear utilities for implementation of these options.

In addition to our general support of this rulemaking effort, we offer the following comments for your consideration,

1. Extension of the proposed general license approach to other storage options should also be considered at this time or in future rulemaking.

There appears to be no major restrictions to effectively applying this same approach beyond the referenced dry cask technology.

2. The requirement ill 72.236(9) for a minimum storage desJgn life of 20 years is in general very achievable but seems unduly restrictive as a mandatory requirement. This requirement is not necessary for ensuring safe storage and might preclude the development and utilization of otherwise attractive storage technology. In general, the length of time fuel will require storage under this regulation will vary extensively and in many situations might be much less than 20 years. A 10-year requirem~t should be considered with provisions for monitoring, replacement. or duplication of critical time-dependent components. ~

An Equal Opportunity Employer

tl, S. NU*-l~ n "'rr.*.11 11 "n~YCO MISSIOl'i Dor:, r: crcTION 0., ) . *T RV:

(.,

C, ** . tics Postn*ar(, D - NJ)

Copi-:s Add' i C

' - J-- . . ------

.J Special Di.1riL,t.t1on P.)J (C llt !JI'

/J et1 'l[ rh-..

I

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk JUN 211989

3. In the past, an increase in site storage capacity required a license amendment under 10 CFR Part 50. This rulemaking should discuss/clarify the need for this action as a result of utilization of storage under the genera 1 11 cense.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment.

Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

• - Ma~ ? c ~ llcenslng and Regulatory Affairs cc: Mr. William R. Pearson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Hhite Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

DOCKET NUMBER P,ROPOSED RULE PR '-'rul J 1-"u LblJ (~JqJ79)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service

• 59 JUN 26 P4 :03 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs ,

r I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~-

Jr~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULS PR J/1 ();)._ //)

0-LJ,,,J - . I 0

(_ sv I K11311) '. rd.. ; i

, ~1.. L

• a9 JUN 26 P3 :56

I

• 4 I

Mil. NUCLEA~ R~ IJL T""i>y COMMISSIO DOCKETING & S' 'CE SECT ION OFFICE 0'." T : * *cRETARY OF n,: COMMISSION Docu. ~nt C' f ics Postmar~ Date __ _& - )1 - ~

Copies R,,c, *vod Add'I C !.i~s R~prod1.ic d= ~ ~-

Special Di st ribution f)) '/t {3/4 /Jt_

- -- -- -- ----4:f-l.,~ .IJ.P- -

DOCKET NUMl:3t.K RStJ:J_ J. 1 0 PROPOSED RULE, ( S 'I f,R IJ) ? q) ~

~o/Mftea& o/~ac£tMe~ l ,, ~

rJ°zectHt66 ~ce o/ ~&'c £:~?  :.

Michael S. Dukakis

{j,,fj d.li'a.4on fYYace *ag JUN 26 P3 :4 7 Governor

~~/on~ ~~acA~d~ (J,l)/{JJ' Charles V. Barry Secretarr, June 19. 1989 Mr. Samuel Chilk. Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

I am writing in regard to a proposed change in existing rules under consideration by the U.S. Regulatory Commission which would permit the storage of spent reactor fuel on site in dry casks rather than in a storage pool.

We are opposed to any proposed rule change which directly or indirectly might diminish public safety and security. In the case of the proposal regarding dry cask storage of spent fuel our concerns include questions about the transportation and storage of such material as well as the impact of such a rule on the search for a permanent high level waste disposal site. Therefore. this rule.

if adopted should address the specific manner of storage for the dry casks. That is. it should be specified in the rule that casks will be stored within an enclosed structure sufficient to minimize, if

- not prevent. the risk of theft and erosion of the casks.

Further. we are opposed to any rule change might encourage one nuclear power plant site to become a storage facility for more high level waste than produced by reactor operations. either on a temporary or long- term basis. We are particularly concerned that the transportation of high level waste poses a potential threat to the public. and. thus, its movement from one site to another should be discouraged. It would be advisable for any such rule to be accompanied by a policy statement that indicates the rule is not intended to encourage licensees to seek permission to store high level waste produced by another facility and that no change is contemplated in the standards for approval of such applications.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule.

Sincerely.

'JUL 2 4 1989

~knowTedged by card.--:..;:-;.°WT'r;;;;.;:;:._;;;;;;:~_....-

Peter W. Agnes. Jr.

Assistant Secretary

U.S. NL*-rc,., rcr-,J tTO"V COMMISSIO

(': \/ rE ".ECT ION Ti S r *~TARY.

, 1\1 ... ION De. u Postm;_irk te Copi < "

Ad,-1, C 1 _

I '

' ,: *11 I\ - .l\, _ __., _ _-'-'----'-

Special o;r tri/i( ut'.P,11; ~I -, , ~~--

v ~~, f) 0 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

(~4 f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PR K )'1 3 7q) ,.

,_ .., .. Ii Docketing and Service "89 JUN 23 All :Q6 Washington, D.C. 20555

,)F * , .

DOCK[ I ': ': I

Dear Sirs,

~r n.L--

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from .the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn ,about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. Tile Nuclear Regulatory Commjssion must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and em_powered citizenry.

7

~- M.Ptewr .

,ttt:, S: '/5X Z'I ~

SA-Nf,4 ~

11/Mf 7~/,

,

• NUCI i:

DO '. . . "' r, 0;

0 D C Postm rk C Cops Add'I Cc , ~ ...

Special Distribution

DOCKET NUMBER PR !:UJ1J J? 0 PROPOSED RULE

• ctl1 r< 193 7q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 23 A11 :07 11 ( l

Dear Sirs,

DOCKE i . ' It r r ~- ..

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sin~~~~,:\\~ ~

~ ~ 1-\

s~Q L~\/ ~

~ J _ ) ~ . \'(\ . t, so, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

JUL 2 4 1989

~~~~~d~~~~~T~~~~~~~

• .;> . NI J("I r An f r"II" I II M"V r0MMISS IOti o~ *:r10N

- , ,Y N

Port 1.

c~ '

Ad Speci I Dr ,

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR so '.) d )JO

-> J

( ~4 Ff<J9 37 CJ)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 23 1\11 :27

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this countiy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

, (,,.. - ~ I'.)~IOI'-,

..  :-:~ 1*)1

\,._Y

. . ,-1 i'

C A

Sp I ,t1on

DOCKET NUMBER PR f; ()J1d; )1 D PROPOSED RULE )

ll'I f fr I 9 3 7 9 . x ~L,,

U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Comm1ss1on  :.~fr Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 23 All :27

. OF* *L ~

Dear S1rs,

DOC K[ 1 N . ,. . rf M t, NL I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry .

1ul\A ~lklA.

l-f2fo ~ ~ll~., 'Sr .

~ti.. i-c, ~u

(

C j-).J/d'j

-r- - - ~

Qj_f)

Qf_~OLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 421 0 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Phone (303) 320-83)3 *a9 JUN 23 A1 1 :22 Roy Romer (f Governor Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.

Executive Director June 19, 1989 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch The State of Colorado provides the following limited comment or proposal amendments to the NRC regulations on spent fuel storage.

The proposed rule provides a general license for irradiated fuel storage in NRC approved casks. While the suggested protection of the fuel is not inconsiderable, two issues of significance are raised.

1) Clarification is needed as to the when an operating license will be terminated after decommissioning when fuel is stored on site under a general license. In other words, is there a process to convert a general license for spent fuel storage on site to another form of license where an operating license terminates and site security and oversight is reduced but fuel storage is to continue.

2) What type of conditions would there be placed upon a licensee for such long term fuel storage providing there is no available location for ultimate spent fuel disposal?

I Robert M. Quillin, Director Radiation Control Division RMQ/msm JUL%{ 1989'

_,..;-~.

Acknowtedged by cart!.~.;;-~;;:;;;;.-;;ill!ll.=a****

\

CO ~MIS IQ ION

{

r: ,I s Pott op r

El 6-*~- - )~

A.d 'I C l_

Speci I 1.tr1Lut on

U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Docketing and Service "89 JUN 23 A11 :07 Washington, D.C. 20555 tJ ~ .' * -

DUC K[ i ~ , , lt.f

Dear Sirs,

l:R, ~ '

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~

4

/ ~ 9'l1/1/

(/-0 ~ T 5,t,-,.1; h I IV, fl P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill th~ sis_ ; :ocracy, an_inform: : : : andj owere: : :en~ ~

., I 'I

• T('"V ('0, 1*,\MISSIO~

~--:r:oN

'RY

-H Postmark C, t, Copies ~. *. j Add' I Ccp'1;,< F.vpvCUC 5pecial Distribution .J

Docket Number 50-346 -@ ED1°soN License Number NPF-3 *a9 JUN 23 Al 1 :22 A Centerior Energy Company Serial Number 1677 Of~ I DONALD C. SHELTON Vice President-Nuclear OUlKL  ! ' (419] 249-2300 June 19 , 1989 £:i r, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Comments on the Proposed Rule on Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Gentlemen:

Toledo Edison has reviewed the subject pr oposed rule which was issued in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989, (54 FR 19379). The proposed rule would allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at the reactor site without additional site- specific reviews. Toledo Edison provides the following comments:

Since the spent fuel pool at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) is projected to reach its currently approved spent fuel storage capacity in 1995, the issuance of this proposed rule would provide a licensed alternative to increasing the capacity of the DBNPS spent fuel storage pool. Toledo Edison supports this proposed rule and requests the NRC to expedite approval of the rule to allow Toledo Edison to evaluate dry cask storage as a licensed alternative to increasing the capacity of the DBNPS spent fuel storage pool.

10CFR70.31: The proposed r equired $150.00 appl ication fee should be included in the total fee for the license and not required to be submitted at the time of the application. A similar change was recently made to the operating license amendment request process which removed this inefficient administrative requirement (10CFR170).

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. R. W. Schrauder, Nuclear Licensing Manager, at (419) 249- 2366.

Very truly yours ,

(}-eftvv~

GBK/dlm Acknowfcd-,.,.r i..,,..,:,

cc: P. M. Byron, DB- 1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator, NRC Region III T. V. Wambach, DB- 1 NRC Senior Project Manager THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43652

-*

• i r'"'w cm.u-A1 ss1oti

,.. .  : S~':TI ON Postr, I" ) f, 6~cri)_g9

( ,:,-* '

A

(;.

~

Special u, r: , ,1on /!ld-f!:. /l ...,..

(Q~J -

_ _ _u._ e..f&.L.J,-.. . ...,__ __

DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE  ::..:=--...--

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 23 All :27 Of~ fl

Dear Sirs ,

DOCK£;  ! ~,u

'. ,A~H_;H I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, &-r"o/7,, n4 '7/-INO~

? 0 . fh:>~ 11(:,1 0 C. '1' rt /?1 ,4 I' P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

,.., C"OMMI SIO TIO RY IN

{ - ) ~- f j

) --

A D, Irit.ut, n

... .... - I

..... . , ~ * ,,, . ..... ***1 '

.f

&~ l ../4. ;

JJ ~~ _/~:_ ~

~ /k~ ./4 J - a__ ./u~ .z'

~2.- ~ < L- ,<'.!.~z..<!_r. z.....n-..L..- -7 ~"'L'~

-o/afi-~ ~ ~v -.J cf

~-ua..6.-A- .--<-~ . .f' de> ~

~ /> L~L C ~.c:L - _/4.L ,<L.C.4 ~~

-~~ --/4- _z ~ ~

q__~

.,ct_,c,~,d ...::LJP-e.. ~ c:l... ~z.-~

U.1- ~ -.ea/ /4- ~2 '-<L-~

_t2 ~ . . r H - ~ ~ ~c/ ~ ~

__.c<,*~ r~ ~ ~~ ~~

./4 ~ ,,,--;ne-Jz -./.AL4- err----~~

__L,~

)-y1a--u.a..-..,

,.. v.~!SSIO

~. iO l y

Pas *'

A:l' I Special D

1 DOCKET NUMBER PR SJJ. J J')O ~

PROPOSED RULE )

L59 Fl<- J Cf37, 0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• 59 JJN 23 A1 1 :28 If

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. A_s a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the b~sis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Cybele ~arpen-ce1*

1468 Canyon Road .. . .

anta Fe , .N.M.

8 7 501

o. ur, i: "" ocr;uLt-.TORY coMMISSIOtil 00,- 1 G & ~ipv!CE SECTION /

0 OF THE ccRET ARY, Or T '. COMMISSIO D Cl .,

• cs Postmark D le Cop,e Re , , *

&-'}1-~1 :.....,\-

) -><--+---..,.J Ad...!' I Cop Spe,;,1 o;,,,,b,,;..

r.: --.roJ

• g ~f!!

i lI

[.p 3 lo 5f't ~ .

~~

~ llW~~,JL - ~ .C~ :.. i S 3113

~- *a9 JUN 23 All :2a -

1Le{LJ)_Q_ ~ -..L~ Ldg~ *~. 'r_, rl..: I ,'-*

• ;!,f.-

1,:

~ ~~m.Q__JJL____.1Du_.1.L

1.J , ; , NUCLC RfGtJl.A ORY COMMISSIOII OOCl<fTlt :G & 5H Vlr.E "ECTIO~

OFWl: r TIIE S t:R' AP.Yi rtk

,~,rn rk Date (:

• Ji - f J

~ pies R ce, v<JJ

~ d' j Cq 1 ! ~e ir,, J ,., 3

• Oi~tnbution - -{___

.,_- -LS

Stephen B. Bram Vice President Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Indian Point Station Broadway & Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Telephone (914) 737-8116 June 16, 1989 Re: Indian Point Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Comments on Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170 Regarding Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc . (Con Edison), as owner and operator of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, is pleased to submit comments on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170 as published in the May 5, 1989 Federal Register (54 Fed Reg 19379).

In the second paragraph of the "Safeguards" discussion (page 19382), it is stated that "no specific safeguards measures to protect against theft are proposed other than maintaining accounting records and conducting periodic inventories of the special nuclear material contained in the spent fuel." The term "periodic inventories" is unclear. This statement could be interpreted as requiring periodic opening of the casks, which is not the intent of storing spent fuel in casks. This statement should be changed to clarify the intended requirement.

In addition, Section 72.236, item (c) of the proposed rule states:

"(c) The cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel is maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions."

The term "credible conditions" should be defined and examples and/or references provided.

pacrt:r* . )~ 1*'.1)r! ,, *;, JO.) J ,PP"1' 20 e f 'V*Nl~0.7 dJ S' . -- . - *1 r-V,*i*~-Ju*u *,O( J O~

4 J ~O(.>J.v:i , j\f" l{i( ,' .. :j -/ i:mo bs -s-1.i '

We appreciate the opportunity to conunent on the proposed changes. If you or your staff have any questions on the above comments, please contact Mr. Jude G. Del Percio, Manager, Regulatory Affairs.

Very truly yours, cc: Document Control Desk

~

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. William Russell Regional Administrator - Region I US Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1498 Mr. Donald S. Brinkman, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II US Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Mail Stop 14B-2 Washington, DC 20555 Senior Resident Inspector US Nuclear Regulatory Conunission PO Box 38 Buchanan, NY 10511

NRMS CODE 1

• 1

- CONSOLIDATED EDISON-REGULATORY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENCE SOURCE INDEX FORM

1. CORRESPONDENCE NUMBER 2. DATE 11J.1 L- 1 tr-'1 q 1_1_1_1_1 1a_lfl1=1l 1./s;.1=1 t t/_1

3. SUBJECT Assigned by Au thor

! / !0 ! R.1 1 ! A ! , -,- , .:5 I ! St O ! ! ! 7 12.. ! ! A ! /J ! D ! ! I ! 7 ! 0 ! ! - !

- - -I- C. !

-I- - - - - - - - - - --.,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1f_ 1~ 10 1 f 10 15 1c 1_1_1 l;: 1U 1L 1 E 1_1 0 1_1_1 S 1D _1_ 1 A 1& 1E 1_1 a 1F 1_1_1 _1 1S 1P , E , rv 1 TT 1 /\1 1 tJ , ~, L 11;r.A- 1 t-i _, F ,v 1E 1L ,_1 A 1r ,_,_1 E ,A 1_,r , o ,R... 1_1

-!- !- I-

4. TO I 5 ! _ I _ . f!__ ,E ! I ! A ! Ri ..r 1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1

5. TO ORGANIZATION

!~ ! -

• u _1_1

6. FROM a 1_~ ..li 1Ll _ 1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_ 1_ 1_ 1_ 1_ 1 1i 1M

7. FROM ORGANIZATION

! C. 10 !N ! E"1D 1

8. RA COORD.

1.G:,A 1.Y'._ 1N 1 0 1 ~ 1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1

9. FILECODEl Assigned by Author

,L 1A ,o 1Si o ,_1 A1

10. FILECODE2 Assigned by Author

! .b_ 1T 1j_ IL 1!i.. ! Q_ I A!

11. FILECODE3 Assigned by Author 1L 1T 10 1j_ 1S-10 1A 1

12. KEY PHRASE Assigned by Author

, 5 1_1_1 ,v 11 1_1 F 1_1 £ 1L- 1_1 S 1T 1o 1_ 1A 1G- 1E 1_ _

1_1 L 1 0 1P 10 , s 1c 1_,_1_, v 1 L , E , _ ,_, _ ,_,_, _1_1 1i/._ 1 I 1G, 1JL. 1_1 L i £ 1V ,£,L 1. 1_ A 1s ,r 1_1_1_1 _1_1

13. DOCUMENT TYPE CODE Assigned by Author 1C.1t::1JJ_1

14. COMMITMENT ACTION Assigned by Author 1Nl (Y or N)

Stephen 8. Bram Vice President DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR {Q ?JJ ()0 @

Consolidated Edisoa Compaay ol New Yock, lac.

Indian Point Station

{!11 ff<. J1SJf) I.

• I lo:,~:

~*

T

,41\1...

Broadway & Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Telephone (914) 737-8116 *ag JUN 23 A11 :05 June 16, 1989 0n *~ . '.

I, ' *r Re: Indian Point Unit Ndl.OC E r.\Ill~ M,L -

Docket No. 50-247 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Comments on Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170 Regarding Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), as owner and operator of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, is pleased to submit comments on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170 as published in the May 5, 1989 Federal Register (54 Fed Reg 19379).

In the second paragraph of the "Safeguards" discussion (page 19382), it is stated that "no specific safeguards measures to protect against theft are proposed other than maintaining accounting records and conducting periodic inventories of the special nuclear material contained in the spent fuel." The term "periodic inventories" is unclear. This statement could be interpreted as requiring periodic opening of the casks, which is not the intent of storing spent fuel in casks. This statement should be changed to clarify the intended requirement.

In addition, Section 72.236, item (c) of the proposed rule states:

"(c) The cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel is maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions."

The term "credible conditions" should be defined and examples and/or references provided.

J.u ,.

, S. NUCIHR Dr.GUI. TORY COMMISSIO DOCKrT ,~S & SERVICE SECTION ,,,i O~F E o:= THE' SECRETARY, OF THE COMMISSION.

Document Statistics Postmark D.itc Copies Rect: vd I 1

Add' I Coi:,ies R _-pr_o_d-uc_e_d-+ 3=-___.....,.

--=-=--,-----

Special Distribution P.D 0, '/1,/rJ

/Jt? IS On

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. If you or your staff have any questions on the above comments, please contact Mr. Jude G. Del Percio, Manager, Regulatory Affairs.

Very truly yours, cc: - Document Control Desk

~

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. William Russell Regional Administrator - Region I US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1498 Mr. Donald S. Brinkman, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B-2 Washington, DC 20555 Senior Resident Inspector US Nuclear Regulatory Commission PO Box 38 Buchanan, NY 10511

DOCl(ET NUMBER P.RQPOSED RULE PR 5" o ? 'JJ )?O j

(r;vnu9J7<Jj June 15,1989

'89 JUN 23 A11 :07 To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to express my very strong objection to the proposed rule change regarding the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19821~4~F~ 193-~C, P~ S"C ,7l1 l ~o for the storage of spent fuel at the sites of power reactors without the need for additional site-specific approvals. The proposal would allow storage in casks. This should not be. It would very significantly endanger the health and safety of my f a mily and my, already low e red, property value. In addition, the rule change would allow fuel from other sites to be stored in Plymouth. Again, this should not be. The roads here are too crowded as is the general area. We should not have Pilgrim due to our congestion. A travesty to add to an already intolerable situation. Shame on you guys~ Pilgim should never have been allowed to reopen due to its poor plant design, venting in an area of thermal winds adding to our daily toll of cancers, total impossibility of evacuation, poor management which continues under Bird, and lack of a "home for storage. Thanks for the waste dump we already have: we don't need to go from bad to worse. It is in my backyard.

The houses in front of me all have cancers, with the exception of one, my house is for sale. For $800,000, it is yours. A crime that because of your very poor judgements to date regarding Pilgrim, I seemingly can not live in my home and feel safe. To date, nobody else wants it either! No, to the rule change .

fu./4,k~rcY ~ ll2 ~_:;;;;;-~~

1&f* ..... , .... .1- ... ,,,1

,~,.,.

Mary Eliz La mpert 148 Washington St.,Duxbury Mass. 02332

rorv ISSIO"R

~ r 1*)~-l

'{

Jlost*112rk C-J i -8; 1 Ccp es R -

,, J

~dd'I C lSpecial D,. n ti " f_}) l?j-_fj)]S_--_

~f:-4 ".J~_T),. - - -

DOCKET NUMBER P1ROPOSED RULE PR C ,, "

- v Id

, Jt") 0 WES T ON , P~-=f ~1f ~ . J/lie2J..J: &: .REDD I NG

- ,.J _ )', :.. t A PROFESSIO N AL ASSOCIATION ; t ,ft** ('

COUNS ELLORS AT LAW 84 STATE STREET sosTo N. MAssAcHus ~89 s caBN<>22 p s :22 (6171 742-931 0 STUART DEBARO PAUL S . ALPERT TELECOPIER 16171 742-5734 GEORGE B . REDOING MICHAEL W. WIGGINS RALPH H . WILLARD. JR.

Q:- . I I RONALD E . HARDING CHARLES E . HOLLY OOC KE; 1 "l:., t ** \* ,rr PETER L . KOFF DAVID LEE TURNER Br.*'.>... V EDWARD F . LAWSON C . PETER R . GOSSELS GEORGE F . CAHILL CHARLES S . ADAMS SARA HOLMES WILSON RICHARD B . OSTERBERG JOEL B . SWETS WILLIAM C . GARDINER DANI LINN WOODS PAUL F . RYAN MARK H . HOLLY June 20, 1989 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Enclosed is a corrected copy of my letter which was telecopied to your office on June 19, 1989.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Edward F. Lawson EFL/as Enc.

cc: Duxbury CURE N956

Pos!!T' r, D t Cor-,

Ad', r .

Special o* tri ution

WESTON , PATRI C K , WILLARD & REDDING A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION COUNSELLORS AT LAW 84 STATE STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02 109 (617) 742-9310 STUART DEBARD PAUL S . ALPERT TELECOPIER 16171 742*!5734 GEORGE B. REDDING MICHAEL W . WIGGINS RALPH H . WILLARD . JR . RONALD E . HARDING CHARLES E . HOLLY PETER L. KOFF DAVID LEE TURNER EDWARD F. LAWSON C . PETER R. GOSSELS GEORGE F. CAHILL CHARLES S . ADAMS SARA HOLMES WILSON RICHARD B . OSTERBERG JOEL B . SWETS WILLIAM C . GARDINER DANI LINN WOODS PAUL F . RYAN MARK H . HOLLY June 19, 1989 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is written on behalf of Duxbury Citizens Urging Responsible Energy (Duxbury CURE) to provide comments on the NRC's proposed rules allowing the storage of spent fuel in casks at nuclear power reactor sites. This letter responds to the public notice which appeared in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989.

Duxbury CURE is a non-profit organization with approximately 2000 members. The organization is dedicated to promoting safe energy by providing information to the public concerning issues of public health and safety. Duxbury CURE is not anti-nuclear.

Duxbury CURE's comments on the proposed rules are as follows:

1. The NRC has misrepresented the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONS!) prepared by the NRC in connection with the proposed rule misrepresents the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 u.s.c. § 10101 et seq. Page 2 of the EA/FONSI states that the proposed rule "is needed to bring the regulations into compliance with* the NWPA.

At page 7, the EA/FONS! states that: *The NWPA directs that the Commission approve one or more technologies * *

• for the use of spent fuel storage* at nuclear reactor sites. These statements are erroneous.

42 u.s.c. § 10198(a) mandates a demonstration program with the objective of establishing "one or more technologies that the Commission may. by rule, approve* (emphasis added). While the demonstration program is mandated, the adoption of one or more technologies is not. Therefore, any implication that the NWPA mandates adoption of a dry storage technology is wrong.

2

2. The EA/FONSI fails to conform to the reguirements of the Na t ion al Environme nta l Polic y Act. For a number o f reasons, the EA/FONS I prepared by the NRC in connection with the subject rulemaking fails to conform to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4331 e t seq., and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) , 40 C.F.R. Part 1500.

The requirements for an EA are set forth in the CEQ regulations at 40 C.F.R. §1508.9. Section 1508.9(b) requires an EA to

..* include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102 (2) (E), of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.

The subject EA does not come close to fulfilling these r e quireme nts. With respect to the issue of need, the EA refere nces only the alleged need for the NRC's regulations to conform to the NWPA. As discussed above, the NWPA does not mandate the adoption of any dry storage technology. Moreover, the EA says nothing about the need for dry storage technology. The EA should inform the public about the need for dry storage, the subject matter of the regulations, rather than presume a need for the technology.

The EA also misapplies the NEPA requirements regarding alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) mandates that an EA consider alternatives. The EA, however, states that because the NRC has determined that the cask proposal has no significant environmental impacts "any alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated." This statement does not comply with§ 1508.9(b) which requires a discussion of alternatives in any event. Moreover, common sense, if not NEPA, requires some discussion of alternatives which would have less impact than the proposed action.

It should be noted that the NWPA itself mentions alternatives to casks. 42 U.S.C. § 10198(a) mentions caissons and silos.

According to the May 5, 1989 public notice, there is operating experience with such methodologies. Yet neither the EA/FONSI nor the public notice provides any explanation as to why the casks are the preferred technology.

The EA/FONSI's reliance upon the *tiering* authorized by the CEQ regulations is also inappropriate. Although Duxbury CURE does not favor needless repetition of information provided by previous environmental impact statements (EIS), the reliance upon the 1978 "Generic EIS on Storage and Handling of Spent Light Water Power Radioactive Waste" is misplaced and violates at least two NEPA provisions.

3 First, the CEQ regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20, mandate that an environmental assessment which is tiered upon an earlier EIS "summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by reference."

The subject EA/FONSI provides no summary of information from the 1978 generic EIS.

Second, the EA/FONSI is defective because it gives no consideration to new information which has been developed since 1978. Presumably, the NRC prepared the generic EIS because it determined that impacts of handling and storing spent fuel are significant. Having made that determination some time prior to 1978, the NRC must now prepare at least a supplemental EIS to consider information developed since 1978.

40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c) (1) (ii) requires a supplemental EIS whenever there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. The NRC's public notice shows that a great d eal of n ew i nforma tion has bee n developed since 1978. I n fact, information has evolved pursuant to the demonstration program requirements of the NWPA. While the public notice provides a list of documents which contain new information, a supplemental EIS is required in order to properly inform the public as to the nature of the information and to allow an opportunity for public comment.

The discussion in National Resource Defense Council v. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 606 F.2d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1979), is also pertinent to this issue. In that case, the court held that the Energy Research and Development Administration relied improperly on a generic EIS in selecting the design for storage tanks at its facilities. The court stated that a specific EIS was required in order to consider the specific design and safety facilities to be constructed. Id. at 1272. Based upon this decision, the NRC has already violated NEPA to the extent that the NRC relied upon the above-referenced general EIS in granting Certificates of Compliance for specific cask designs. Now is the time for the NRC to prepare an EIS which analyzes specific cask technologies and their impacts and alternatives.

The EA/FONSI also fails to disclose documentation appearing in various NRC publications and decisions which indicates that the environmental impacts of using casks are not minimal. For example, the following are noted:

On page I-4 of a report entitled "Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel" (NUREG/CR-1723), the NRC stated "[w]ithout adequate cooling, fuel cladding [in casks] could disintegrate, causing possible fission product releases and contamination spread."

- The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board allowed a contention

4 that an increase in storage capacity of spent fuel pool will result in greater radiation exposure to workers. In Re Vermont Yankee, 28 NRC 440, 446 (1980). Nonetheless, the EA/FONSI does not mention or analyze the increased worker exposure to radiation.

- While the NRC acknowledges that "activities associated with cask loading and decontamination may result in some small incremental liquid and gaseous effluent", there is no analysis of radiation to which real or hypothetical people would be exposed. EA/FONSI, page 5.

- The EA/FONSI does not address the necessity at an ISFSI of equipment for removing casks and cask lids to repair leaks in the casks. Page II-16 of a DOE report entitled "Final Version Dry Cask Storage Study" states that "at the only licensed cask-storage facility in the United States, a means for removing the lid or lids from a cask is required in case a leak occurs in the lid system and repairs are needed."

It should be noted that two of the above statements are taken from the documents cited by the NRC in its May 5, 1989 public notice and upon which the NRC relies in concluding that the possible environmental impacts of the proposed action are not significant. The omission of any consideration of these statements is violative of the fundamental purpose of NEPA -- informed decision-making. As stated in 40 C.F.R. § 1500.l(b):

NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.

The EA/FONSI prepared by the NRC falls far short of meeting that objective.

The public notice is also misleading in that it fails to provide notice or discussion of the decision in In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Co. , 2 6 NRC 168. In that decision, which is discussed in the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club v. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n ** 862 F.2d 222, 230 (9th Cir. 1988) the NRC Licensing Board "found that the alternatives [to the proposed

'reracking'] were quite costly." Id. at 230. In addition, the Licensing Board found that the licensee had considered and rejected storage casks "because they would not increase safety, and might actually decrease safety because of the extra fuel handling required" (emphasis added). Id. These Licensing Board findings directly contradict the subject public notice and EA/FONSI and further establish why a supplemental EIS is required for the proposed action.

3* The NRC has failed to discuss the consequences of a

5 failure of its assumptions. The public notice which appeared in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 sets forth several assumptions which the NRC has made with respect to the use of casks. However, neither the public notice nor the EA/FONSI discusses the consequences of a failure of these assumptions.

At 54 Federal Register 19380, the NRC states that the potential for corrosion of the fuel cladding and reaction with the fuel is reduced *because an inert atmosphere is expected to be maintained* inside the casks (emphasis added). Nowhere is the public informed as to what happens if this *expectation* is not met. Similarly, 54 Federal Register 19380 states that the NRC "anticipates that" most spent fuel stored in casks *will be five years old or more*. Yet, the proposed rule allows storage of any spent fuel over one year old. What are the consequences if the scenario the NRC *anticipates* does not happen? Why has the NRC not considered a regulation requiring that casks be used only for spent fuel which is at least five years old?

It should b e noted that the conclusio n state d a t 54 Federal Register 19381 that the NRC "believes" that its proposed rule adequately protects the public health and safety and the environment is based upon the NRC's expectations and anticipations.

Duxbury CURE believes that the NRC must advise the public as to whether the same conclusion can be made if the unexpected and unanticipated occurs.

4. Other technical comments. Duxbury CURE has reviewed a number of the documents cited in the NRC public notice. In general, Duxbury CURE believes that the documents raise more questions than they answer. The following are examples:

Crite ri a fo r loc at ing storage sites f or casks were not addressed. The cooling requirements for casks are passive and therefore inherently more dependent on individual site climate, geology and design. Criteria ensuring adequate cooling of the casks have not been presented in the EA/FONSI.

The environmental impact of decommissioning contaminated casks, after the twenty year license period, has not been assessed.

The EA/FONSI does not evaluate the adequacy of radiation shielding or any aspect of cask design. The criteria provided in the proposed rule at§ 72.236 have not been assessed for environmental impact.

6 In conclusion, the public notice of May 5, 1989 and the NRC's EA/FONSI do not adequately inform the public as to the potential risks to the public health and safety associated with the proposed storage of spent fuel in casks. The EA/FONS! fails to conform to the CEQ regulations and is patently inadequate. Furthermore, a supplemental EIS is necessary to inform decision-makers and the public as to information developed since publication of the generic EIS in 1978.

On behalf of Duxbury CURE, I thank the NRC for considering the comments set forth above. We look forward to your response.

Respectfully submitted, DUXBURY CITIZENS URGING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY By: Edward F. Lawson cc: Senator Edward M. Kennedy Senator John Kerry Congressman Gerry Studds Governor Michael Dukakis Attorney General James Shannon Commissioner Deborah Prothrow-stith Mass. Dept. of Public Health Asst. Commissioner Peter Agnes, Mass. Dept of Public Safety Senator Nicholas Costello Representative Lawrence Alexander Senator William Golden Senator Edward Kirby Representative Peter Forman Representative Charles Mann Duxbury, Kingston, Marshfield, Plymouth and Carver Boards of Selectmen EFL/as N953

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE ~---wrJ:i' PR

( ~'I fR 1q379]

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service '89 Washington, D.C. 20555 JUN22 P5:1a

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just *covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry .

1,..""owledged bv card* **

U.S. NUCHAR PrC'.1LAT0f? Y COMMISSION DOCK:f lNG P,. S' VICE S*CT ION Omer OF TdE U.:PET RY Or" HI( COMMI SSION Postmark Di.lte Copies eccivcd Add' I Copies Rcpro * .-:ed 3 _

Special Dist ribution fl<} r? f Jl1r r e<,t r T) l°'- :

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR O?1 JQd C51/FR!9379)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 22 P5 :19

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

rJ f JUL l o .3 C. Cu.\"\.1\.1 n , 6

f)t:f"( II I' ,.., ' N) I MiSSION vv-: ~~c 10

~c C A Y O' Ml5510N Doc11*11 , ti tics Postmar~ D* , ,

Copies P ,,.:f Add' I Ccp* s R<Jpro, .1 J<-c.

- .,,'),<-.- - - - -

Special Distribution [

~~~~61rou~st: p. .~Q.--.:0_J )? 0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company

( 5 y FR I 4 1. 7 9\

77 Beale Str'eer 'J San Francisco, CA 94106 415/972-7000 James D. Shiffer Vice Presid~

Nuclear Powet'"eralion TWX 910-372-6587

• 09 JUN 22 PS :10 June 19, 1989 PG&E Letter No. DCL-89-168 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket No. 50-275, 0L-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, 0L-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Comments on Proposed Rulemaking - Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Casks at Reactor Sites

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) supports the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Proposed Rulemaking (53 CFR 19379) regarding the storage of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power r eactor sites.

PG&E encourages the NRC to continue to evaluate and approve other types of onsite spent fuel storage. This effort would provide several options for interi m storage spent fuel until the completion and operation of a permanent disposal facility by the Department of Energy.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this material on the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed addressed envelope.

Sincerely, 95:;:c cc: B. C. Hanschen J.B.Martin

• M. M. Mendonca P. P. Narbut H. Rood B. H. Vogler CPUC Diablo Distribution 2758S/0069K/EMG/2268 Nuclear Regulatory Affairs 333 Market St r eet #A61 3 San Francisco, CA 94106

r;~;9 -1 A

f{RJ / f)[

'if

U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 JUN 22 P5 :18 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have -seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of t_heir priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

• This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empower d citizenrv.

. l,- ,

• I *

• 111 "

1),- CP! " [ ~ 11 A_'t('!>...Y COMMISSION iJ(* r-; ,, **c *;*v*!' .r. SECTION

(. I T ( s CR.f:.T ARY,

'SS,ON l... , ~ *i ti cs

{-J -3

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR rv t') *1 0 :.;,:____,/- ')

J?O f s v ri 1937q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 Washington, D.C. 20555 JUN 22 P5 :20

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place he~lth and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

,. r

D Pos tr ~rk Copi s J Add' I Co r~s f: , ro Special Di stribution

• L .._ r. '

,.J \ *-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 22 P5 :2(

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

, We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Kt )

Thank You, 01:.

• V 4' l

\

Sincerely,

~ -/~1 4k6~

()IJ

~2 {,.. ~ ~4l. #, L3 'L

~ ~ tl(.I~ 8'7JG>1 V P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

L 2 4 1989 Acknowledged by card .. ~;;;:;~~~-

DOCKET NUMBER 19 June 198'3 (jjj)

PROPOSED RUL6 Joe D. Horse Capture 2132 Kerper Blvd. Sout{t"n i.; 1 ::.*

Cody, Wyoming 82414 *~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission *ag JUN 22 P5 :1 Docket and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 ~FF!..,, .

DOC  : ,*t Ki. i, .,,.t, \IC:/

Dear Sirs:

B~AN:.. ..

It has recently come to my attention that the NRC has proposed omitting public comment on the decision making process in the cases of radioactive-waste storage per mits. I am opposed to this idea because I feel that the public has the right to comment on such matters.

Nuclear-reactor operators are not responsible enough to regulate such activities themselves. Their main objective is to make a profit and will easily cut corners to achieve this. I feel that the NRC needs to have more restrictions on such items. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully you rs, t:: ~ ~ure

~c11..nowiedged by card.*.::,,,::,-;;;;.;;:;~*-*

. N JrttA~ ,, ~ ,, * ...... rr, 'MISSIOli 00 -T,o

, * : RY ocu cs Postm"rk ale Copies kc,c ed _ _ __ _)_ _ __

Add ' I Coi:,ies Reprcduced ~l-+:------

6pecial Distribution

- -,f£n , .,1,. ;. . ;.- ~- -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketin g and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

', 22 PS :21

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~ ~

(}::;-u(/y Cfld1' c'k fo tfo~ s /) I Fa*1rv1ew N. H. f'7S-] J P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

\

\

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~ D~ 1f) o PROPOSED RULE ~ --- J I Ls l/ r ~ 1q 379)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 Jl.nJ 22 P5 :22 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P .S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill

~he basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

uoqn J' !O (l!!:>acf9

) I !lPVJ S 0)

.1 ,J * !j SOd

()JjJ

' tt ** I

• ag JUN 22 P5 :22 II I ,...

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your *ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

--.::::;:;:;:;:;:.r;~~

).dcnowled11:ed bV caf\5 . .*

IJ. S. NUCLE R P.:i':UL T0 RY COMMISS!Ol::i DOC' :Tl 1C & ~P:.Vi'-E ':EHON Docu rent St '

• cs.

Co cs .,

Adc.' I Cr

• Special Di s rib .,! en

([jjJ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 22 PS :23 0F* ~*

Dear Sirs,

OOCKt ' 'I 1m: \, *.

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal *officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to

- simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

ALEXIS McNAUGHTON P.O. SOX 93ZI SANTA FE,NM 87504

PJ;J'fJilj --

yr-~~, . a 1*

- (. - [

~~;h(- J - ,

• *o*~ '._ ..

1:,:, , 1"/, /u., ..

~ ' J

)

C1 1..,, ,N *s "

\'

\.

I \ \

DOCKET NUMBER PR. b~ ') ~ )?O PR.OPOSED RULE

(_~l/fl< ;qJ7t/)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 '89 JUN 22 P5 :29

'.~.

OUt.;KE ,, .

Dear Sirs,

J, 1~ ,.

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.'S. NUCI tM RfGl'I PO~Y COMMJSSIO.bl DOCKm 'G & sr ICE SECTION Or' ' Or Tl*~ SEC'ET,A.RY, o- It : co M.~s:oN D ~ "' * ....'.;ics; Pos tm~rk De *c _ _ 6- ) ~J'

'---<.--~-+-- - -

Copies Rec, d _ _ J Add' I Copies Rcprcduc1: -,_,. / _ _ _ __

Special Distribution w

50 *~ /70 le lf r 1e , q 3 71)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 22 P5 :23 I

Dear Sirs,

I U1,LJ .

I strongly oppose your rece r,t proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the oppositio;1.

We have seen that those wl10 merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people nave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possiblo precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn &bout the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the N: !r.l'-~ar

. R,* -L...*

,i....hP.r-c:t::imp

- - - *-* ... f':"n-*m -- - 2.rrl

_..,.., ... i-=-c:'1nn - r,i110

~ - *- ,_.. ., ._fo.._ -~--.. . .. , ""e,.-,t r,11/"'lo~r-rn~,,.0,. ....,t.., '"""*'.......* -~ hl,:,"l,r_*

permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become !aw.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive pu blic comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

• ). I

' ' * *~SIOl:ii

• -~

a) r j j

\ \

\

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR ~ _L_. .~ - ~ l?o ~~

( ~ VFe I q31 q) ,-r,; //<tS' ~ ~

a&tu:,;l)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *39 JUN 22 ps:~ Fi, D ./)').

Washington, D.C. 20555

_F)*"'K* i I i° .r 'y=j-J7)@

J )

Y3 U\ l. ~ . N ..

Dear Sirs,

t, * )

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~ ~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

. 5. NU-'P"'" '. "fY f"'M .lSSIO,.

DC '"' T 0N O ..... , r:Y Post rk C", *. s Ad ci' L .,

6pecial Di st ribut1 n

DOCKET NUMBER PR O r; i I?()

PROPOSED RULE "'

[r'IFR/1379 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 22 PS :23

,;~

Dear Sirs,

bo r\t j i

!;! .l! * ~

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Si nee rely, ~,;t:I}_, --zR _ ~,.;_,_d.w R-1,, q' f;_ox_ gq t:, I

~(JJ cf-e., 1 'n . -rn . <iJrs-os P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Yca * "'""'*.--,,.-.,, ;...=-;;;;~~-

. \

". S. NUri r,\ 0 rrnJl f.if'?..Y COMMISSIO OO Ck'rT G :l.. Sr'"f l (F. SECT'ON or~r r: OF Tt ,

Documr, ,t .,, ,* t ics Postmark Date t-19 ~

Copies R( c Add' I Cop:cs .:~::-r

.Special Dist ribution

P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420

'89 JUN 22 P5 :08 JUNS 1 9 1989 t1F .. ' ~

OOC KL i::, ,

t-89-217 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170 "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites 54 Fed Reg. No. 86. P. 19379. May 5. 1989

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Florida Power & Light Company ( FPL)

• We wish to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important rule. In general, we favor the concept of general licensees for fuel cask storage and support adoption of the proposed rule. However, we do have certain comments addressing some details of the rule. The comments generated by FPL are given below with a quote from the text on which we wish to comment, its page location, followed by our discussion of the text.

Discussion - 54 FR 19379 Text:

"A General License would be issued to holders of power reactor licenses **. "

Response

Several Utilities hold multiple reactor licenses. It is not clear if the proposed "General License" will be issued to the holder of these licenses and applicable to all sites, or if each individual reactor operating license will be issued a separate General License. For Utilities having sites containing multiple reactors the possible number of General licenses could be:

(1) one license issued to the holder of one or more power reactor licenses for that specific Utility;

, 'L 2 4 1889 kknowledged by cart1 **~ - -----

....,.....,, ............~;t:i:::..-

an FPL Group company

.5. NUCLFAR prlil 1 OOCt'ET I 1G & ~

TA!'Y Doell r, "

• cs Poslm3rk D~te 6- ) 7~-J>-Y- - -

Copies 6pecial Distri 1.1:on

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk L-89-217 Page two (2) one license issued for a specific site containing one or more power reactor licenses; or, (3) one license for each power reactor at each specific site.

Alternative (1) would be our preferred choice of "General License".

54 FR 19380 Text:

• *

• it is anticipated that most spent fuel stored in casks will be 11 five years old or more."

Response :

It would be helpful if the notice reflected the fact that Utility selection of SNF being placed in dry cask storage could result in future impact/problems with respect to final disposal.

The June 1988 Annual Capacity Report (DOE/RW-0191) bases capacity allocations on the chronological listing of SNF by final discharge dates. 10 CFR Part 961, (Article-5, Delivery of SNF and/or HLW) contains provisions allowing Purchasers to exchange DOE-approved delivery commitments with one-another; however, Paragraph 961.11 (Text of the Contract), Article VI.B.l.a still retains acceptance priority based on age of the SNF/HLW as calculated from the date of discharge from Reactor.

Thus, any attempt by a Utility to maximize its dry storage by using a "mix" of oldest fuel combined with five year old fuel could result in a loss of priority for the older fuel in the event DOE were to transport the casks from the Utility directly to an MRS or Repository.

54 FR 19381 "Under this proposed rule, a general license would be issued to holders of nuclear power reactor licenses .**.* ". A power reactor license holder would have to notify the Commission before storing spent fuel under the general license for the first time and register use of each cask as the spent fuel is stored."

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk L-89-217 Page three

Response

Consistent with our comment, above, the rule should be clarified to indicate that notification need only be provided once by a licensee, for use of a cask at all of the licensee's reactors.

Text:

"If the reactor license holder decides to apply for termination of the license, the plan submitted with the application must show how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the site."

Response

It is our inte rpretation that a situa tion could aris e whereby fue l casks with fuel from one reactor site were all in storage at a different site at the time of decommissioning. If multiple general licenses are issued, it would seem that the plan for decommissioning of the host site where the fuel was located would contain the final explanation of where and how the spent fuel will be removed. Thus the decommissioning plan for the reactor being decommissioned would only reflect actions for fuel remaining on site at the time of decommissioning.

"Changes in the law could shift the Commissions policies or cause a change in its regulations." **** current regulations limit the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI to 20 years, after which the license may be renewed."

Response

A situation in which a Utility makes the (then prudent) decision to employ dry cask storage would be based on the most current NRC policies and regulations. The Commission should make it clear that it would "grandfather" facilities so as to allow fuel to be stored for at least 20 years, if otherwise proper under the provisions of law.

FPL also endorses the comments submitted by the Edison Electric Institute in this matter.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk L-89-217 Page four If you have any questions or wish further information concerning our comments, please contact J. A. DeMastry at (407) 694-3613.

Very truly yours,

,J(--~dy

.f:r;i~:ing Senior Vice President - Nuclear

- COW/JAD/gp

s-(L iJ~ J?O C5 1/ ff I 9371)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 22 P5 :20 Off !w .\ r DUCK[ - I *

Dear Sirs,

t. L, I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less. to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~

\~~L P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis ~f democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

8e1le Le-rpenter

• r 4 68 Canyon Road Santa ft'e N.M.

87501

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR*~. ().) 1* '. ) '7/)

Mt You:;a (f;r/ !/( lo/37o/)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service '89 JUN 22 P5 :21 Washington, D.C. 20555

\ (f

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public oppdsition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed , active and empowered citizenry. .,.,

KAREN WALKER d REAL ESTATE "'"'" d:;c La Posada 330 E. Palace Santa Fe, NM 87501

iJ. 5. NUCI E' R "EGULA TO({Y COMM! SSION DocvcT 'i IG /',. s**p vtCE SECTION o rr-*1ec OF T: l~ 51:CPET.-\RY, OF Ti-,E CC ...IM!SS!ON Postmark D.:it:i Cop:, s Re i d Add' I Cc,pi ~ R ;,ro Special DistriLuti,.>n

\)QCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR .~ **

0 7 ~w

J I ?IJ

.J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss~ ;° VF p?} q j ?q) \,.*

Docketing and Service *a9 JU 22 P5 :21 Washington, D.C. 20555 ul I "

uOCK ~i I ' v r f

Dear Sirs,

B. I Nl-1-l I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~I"- ?J~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

KAREN WALKER REAL ESTATE La Posada 330 E. Palace Santa Fe. NM 87501

', *,: C : *.,t, I

• iO

• . . i 01

.. -.Y

-"I

• I ,::5 P tn.., k Copi Ii j Add I C

DOCKET NUMBER PR S ()) ?~ / rr; 0 PROPOSED RU E -~ -.. . .  :

• r ,.* ****

._"' .. ;:..lat

fr, I/ f /? / Cf ]?q)

I

~ .,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 22 p 5 :21

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits. ,.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather lhan less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours mus~ never become law.

Thank You, Sincere ly, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

KAREN WALKER REAL ESTATE LaFbsada 330 E. Fblace Santa Fe, NM 87501

. Nllt DO t}-)1 -f , _

)

.] - -

Spec1 I Ill) fl-_

1 i IQ£ fee,, rv"..,,_ _

I I Duke Power Company HAL B. Tucker P.O. Box 33198 Vice President Charlotte, N.C. 28242 Nuclear. Production (704)373-4531 DUKE POWER *ag JUN 22 P5 :08 OFF l ,..

[)0Ci\i ~ i." ., ..

I ** ' *1.

u:\ ' -

June 15, 1989 The Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC -

Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites: Proposed Rule Duke Power Company Comments

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Register (54FR 19379) dated May 5, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed rule to provide for the storage of spent fuel in NRC approved casks at the sites of power reactors without the need for additional site-specific approvals.

Duke Power has reviewed the subject NRC proposed rule and submits the following comments:

1. On page 19382 under Safeguards, two paragraphs down, last sentence, 11

• • • For these reasons no specific safeguards measures to protect against theft are proposed other than maintaining accounting records and conducting periodic inventories of the special nuclear material contained in the spent fuel. 11 For clarification, the implementation of the periodic inventories of 11 the special nuclear material contained in the spent fuel" requirement should be that periodically the storage cask tamper seals would be checked. From a radiological standpoint it would be prohibitive to try to verify Region Reference Numbers (as is done during the Spent Fuel Pool Inventories).

2. 10CFR 72.212 (b)(5)(ii) - Requirements for vital areas are delineated in other 73.55 sections and all vital area requirements throughout 73.55 should be exempted, not just 73.55(c).

'JiJt 2 4 1989 Ac1rnowledged by card .* *,;:rnr-;:;;:;~~*--*

-.-{ o-:r /' 'Yr,ru JCT t ->>

(

(_'IJ.

[

c<J C' ,...,,, lj

• I I !'11ds I

PV

-l) hr~l(-J  :... ,r JJ1,-'c (J

t' .

A NOi'..,~ .-:1 NOISSI WWv.; "u J.',J jj * ..j y 'w .1 ,,.t11 h

Secretary of the Commission June 15, 1989 Page 2

3. 10CFR 73.212 (b)(5)(iii) - This section should distinguish between the security requirements for an existing protected area (PA) that is expanded and a "new PA". Obviously, all requirements of 73.55 (h)(6) and the licensee's approved security plan are applicable when an existing PA is expanded. However, these same requirements should not be necessary for a new PA which is not contiguous with the existing PA (i.e., protected area island). In this case, 73.55 (h)(6) should not be required. Instead the requirement should only be alarm assessment via CCTV, guard or watchman.

4. 10CFR 72.212 (b)(5)(iv) - For the purpose of this general license, if the licensee is exempt from 73.55 (h)(4)(iii) A and 5 (neutralize threat) then 73.55 (h)(3) requirements (armed responders) should also be exempted.

5. The requirements in 73.55 (d)(l) for firearms and explosive search equipment should be deleted when a new PA is added which is not contiguous with the existing PA. The only requirement in this case should be to perform a visual search for bulk explosives. This is supported by the background material in this federal register notice.

6. There are improvements needed in the overall guidance that is provided on security requirements in 72.212. Certainly, all the referenced requirements of 73.55 are applicable when expanding an existing reactor site PA to provide storage areas for spent fuel in approved casks. However, 73.55 requirements are not needed for a storage area which is a new PA separate from the existing reactor site PA. The background material with this proposed rule indicates that requirements should be significantly reduced from 73.55 requirements for storage areas within a new separate PA.

Additionally, 72.212 should specify the requirements instead or referencing exemptions to 73.55; 73.55 is not written to readily address the type of requirements that are needed for spent fuel storage areas within a separate PA.

Secretary of the Commission June 15, 1989 Page 3

7. NUTECH NUHOMS 7P and 24P spent fuel storage cask design should be added to 72.214.

Generally, Duke Power is supportive of the proposed rule intent to allow on-site storage of spent fuel in NRC approved casks under a general license.

Very truly yours,

~~

DM/24/td

DOCKET NUMBER 5 o **?O BROPOSED PULE -~ ----~

f ~ 1/ r fl J9 31qJ ~ -1 '-I -B-.i *- :~::

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service .89 JUN 22 P5 :20 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply siience the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a Pf!rmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

+haAI( You, Sincerely,

~

/710 ~A. sr~

5HA.4J4- Pe./ ;v, 11,1,,

67501-P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circu* nd kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

L(OvR_ A,TTe:MPt W 1mPLe-Hte,,-c,;r {5ve,,tl- It ?o~JGY V /S ljtt/ lf-n,cf-Gk_ OIU 71te_ Ff)llrvt:Jr;-rto,v_s D ~ gQI *

• 2)(2.,111 C) ~~ lro/, ' l .!-* * .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 21 PS :20

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to

• s!mply s!!ence the cppositior..

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not _place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process .you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

Thj_s foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You.

Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

r1ary Key 4 Verano Place:,

Santa Fe, N. 1.,1

• 8 75(Jt,

0, . NUCLEAR REGUt TORY COMMISSIOJ:I DOCKETI lG & SE V!CE SECTION OFFICE OF Tl ~ S CRETARY, OF ThE CO ISSIO D curnent S dlist'

II Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33198 DOCKET NUMB ~

PROPOSED PULS - -

s_o ? ~ )'7 0

@)JJ>'1

_)

HALB. Tucker Vice President .

l ,.., c11

• Charlotte, N.C. 28242

) Cj 3 1 q) f Nuclear Productton C~ 1/ F /2.

~J 'tt-.'~t. 704)373-4531 DUKEPOWER *99 JUN 21 P5 :19 June 19, 1989 The Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC -

Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites: Proposed Rule Duke Power Company Additional Comments

Dear Sir:

In the Federal Register (54FR 19379) dated May 5, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed rule to provide for the storage of spent fuel in NRC approved casks at the sites of power reactors without the need for additional site-specific approvals.

Duke Power has reviewed the subject NRC proposed rule and in general, Duke Power Company is very supportive of this effort to streamline the licensing process for at-reactor dry storage installations.

As more utilities move to dry storage as a solution to spent fuel storage capacity problems, an expedited licensing process will allow for greater flexibility in decision-making and planning for expansion of on-site storage capabilities. The proposed rule appears to be a significant step in the right direction toward shortening the current 12-18 month approval process for dry storage applications, thus giving utilities a greater level of confidence that licensing issues or delays will not interfere with expansion efforts. In addition, the proposed approach will reduce the review burden on the Commission. This may be a significant benefit as the number of sites requiring an out-of-pool alternative increases.

JUL 2 4 1989

U.S. I ll1 I ' I' * *r-r:v (O,li\MISSIOhl DO - ,,,,;*- 'C.ilON

(., " ~{

- 1... I I

&- )9 - 8:_1 -

-- )

Ad_ I (: I

-- J Special Di . ri' u_n_ _/ ~ - -,-,-lf:-

Secretary of the Commission June 19, 1989 Page 2 The proposed rule appears to be in keeping with the intent of Section 133 and 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It seems rather confusing however, that after referencing several dry storage systems that have been reviewed, approved and - in some cases - are currently being used for spent fuel storage, the NUHOMS dry storage system is not included in the listing of systems being proposed for inclusion in this rule. The discussion specifically mentions the canisters being stored at H. B. Robinson, the experience gained by the Canadians with their vertical concrete silos which have 11 contributed to the knowledge and experience of dry spent fuel storage in concrete casks 11 , and the DOE's involvement in the demonstration at H. B.

Robinson-2. We would also point out the fact that the NUHOMS-24P storage system received generic approval from NRC on April 21, 1989 and that NRC's review of Duke Power's site specific Application for use of this system is nearing completion. In our view, the extensive NRC review and the existing experience with such storage systems provides ample justification to include, at a minimum, the currently licensed concrete dry storage systems in the scope of this rulemaking.

The discussion goes on to point out several characteristics of dry storage casks which justify the proposed generic treatment. These include a discussion of the passive nature of dry storage casks, the efforts being made by cask vendors to seek transportability of these cask systems, the fact that dry storage of spent fuel in NRC - approved casks will provide adequate protection to the public health and safety in such a way that is independent of site characteristics, and finally, that use of dry storage casks under this rulemaking would not create a significant environmental im-pact. These are all characteristics which are equally as applicable to concrete storage systems as they are to the metal cask systems listed in proposed 72.214. The approved NUHOMS systems should therefore be included in this list.

The discussion also uses this rulemaking as an opportunity to encourage consideration of the compatibility issue between dry storage and the DOE waste disposal program. Duke Power is aware of the Commission's concern in this area and agrees that it must be addressed as early as possible in the development of the entire storage/transportation/disposal system of the utilities and the DOE. The NUHOMS dry storage system as currently developed is no less compatible with DOE's projected transportation system than those systems currently listed for inclusion in this rulemaking.

In summary then, it would appear that the Commission has identified certain characteristics of dry storage casks which justify this proposed licensing methodology. Upon review of these characteristics, the NUHOMS dry storage system can be shown to be in total compliance and should therefore be included in the listing of 72.214. The proposed language however does not include the NUHOMS system and - rather than offering an explanation for its

Secretary of the Commission June 19, 1989 Page 3 absence in the 72.214 listing - merely states that "these methods may be approved in the future for use under a general license." While being very encouraged by the progress this rulemaking represents for the Part 72 licensing arena, Duke Power would encourage the inclusion of the approved concrete systems in the ruling provided the Commission is unable to identify significant shortcomings or differences in these designs, relative to those that are currently included.

Thank you for providing the opportunity for comment on this important issue.

We will be happy to discuss our comments further if necessary.

~4~-

H. B. Tucker DM/#RR619891/td

JILL L . PARHAM P.O. BOX 1165 VERO BEACH, FL . ,'

32960-1165 "89 JUN 21 P5 :19 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; This is to inform you that I am vehemently opposed to the proposed law which would give blanket permission to all nuclear reactor operators to s t ore nuclear waste without a permit from the N.R.C ..

9 Absolute lunacy is what this proposal is! ts IT POSSIBLE that you are telling us blanket permission was or is already fl wr i tt e n law?

Ha w is it you are willing to give blanket permission ( icense) t o people who have already proven they can't be trusted to obey the laws 7 If you know something I don't,send me the facts!

With grave concern, JILL PARHAM VERO BEACH,FL.

,,, ,, ' ~ ,caiag*

n 1<.r,owlcd£Cd by c;,rd . .....* .,..

, 5. NUCLE REGU' ATORV COMM SS~

DOCKE I 'G & SERVICE SECT OFFICE OF THE SEC. ET Y OF THE COMMISSI Docum nt S a tics Postmarlc Oate t -)7~R, Copies Recei¥ d

--~

~dd ' I Copies R produ ed 6peci aI Distribution

. . -- ~---

U'

~

(Si.f f R-

-- 5 0 7JJ J'JD 1131 9) ~

gy

,l'ti', !Cf (2 ~ j- *59 JU 21 PS :19 (j ~ *~~'- ,-...-....bfc-r ft) {A, l l '- (L,{ 1....e.-t1_,/..}.~ ~

l Je, k/µ. * - ~ V Q_

--1 C .

I- ~,,L.u-- u,wLA>

~ J- .* Say 1 ~ '/i.v;,J!,_4// ~-r,,,1_./31' 26-/9];7

fR s-oj ?~ 11 o

( 6lJ+R J q31q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 89 JU\ 21 PS .15 JoN~ H,14B1

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country The "" *dear Regu!nto'Y Commission must n0t heccme the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a pprmit from the NRG.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~)//

LJ'5tq rv1 . Crew P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~~~~rsri~stR PR JqJ

(~ 'I{/(

SO ~q Jo U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Com mission Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 21 PS :18 uP.

OOCl'L i ~, "' ,

• r

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

R, P/Vi~ "flll

. 7oS Ctfllftt<> c(ltKi

i) 5~ %; ,v,"1 '(75!))

0,5. NUCLEflR P..EG 'A10RY COMMISSloti D0OET' *r; c, 'ICE SECTION OF!!-. C O'" I .;ccRETARY F THE AM ISSI0N Docum rol .., ti; ics Postmark Da l , ....,

'---'--L-- -+-- - -

Cop1es Re: *, ~d Add' I

---,J ..,,,,,.

Co~ ies R1;.prot1 UL 6pecial Distribution I

FR S~'J~ no ri0 (Si/ ri 11311) ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 21 ? ' :15

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nucl03r Regu!ctory Ccmmis::;ion must :1~t become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a pprmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, {;JvJJ-rd, b.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

/\ 0 t.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 21 PS :1a 0f' ..

DOCK[ I  :.. * "* *

• i

Dear Sirs,

• .\N

• I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.6. NUC 1 DOC, 0

DOCKET NUMBER PR o_ 0

~ p OPOSED RULE \

~I s- 'I f A ) 1 3 '7 9) LO LK : ;i_:

1

.J'.)N**T FW ENERGY APPLICATIONS, INC.

8 PEACH TREE HILL ROAD. LIVINGSTON, NEW JERSEY 07039. PHONE 201-535-2354

• a9 JUN 21 PS :20

,~F ~* . . \.

June 16, 1989 UOC/{f i 11 * ~

ft. i~I_.>

Secretary u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing & service Branch

Subject:

FW Energy Applications CFWEA) and GEC Energy s ystems Ltd. (GEC-ESL) comments on the proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Rule Amendment Reference RIN: 3150-AC76 Related to storage of Spent Fuel in NRC - Approved storage Ref.: Federal Register Vol. 54 No. 86, Friday, 5th May 1989, Pages 19379 to 19387 inclusive.

Dear Sir:

FWEA/GEC-ESL appreciates the NRC's desire to minimize to the maximum extent possible, the need for site specific approvals related to the storage of spent fuel at the sites of power re-actors.

Whereas FWEA/GEC-ESL fully understands the potential value of the Proposed Rule amendment concerning casks at Nuclear Power Reactor sites, the introductory wording in the Preamble to the General License does suggest to Utilities that the Commission will rely upon casks for the dry storage of spent fuel. The fact that the text of the Proposed Rule amendment does not re-fer to the possibility of a similar Rule being eventually con-templated for other methods of storage of spent fuel at the sites of power reactors is seen to represent an unnecessary and unfair bias in favor of cask storage. FWEA/GEC-ESL con-sider that this could be commercially damaging to prospects of introducing alternative technically sound and potentially eco-nomical attractive storage means, especially as it is becoming clear that vaults represent the most economical solution for other than very small quantities of spent fuel.

The most advanced variant of the vault system is the FWEA/GEC-ESL design of Modular Vault Dry Store (MVDS) which was the rnn- 2 4 198J I

(

CABLE ADDRESS: REWOP PERRYVILLENEWJERSEY

Nuclear Regulatory June 16, 1989 Commission subject of a letter of acceptance as a Topical Report Refer-ence by the NRC on 22nd March, 1988. Examination of the Topi-cal Report shows that it covers not only the means of storing the fuel but also those features required for receiving spent fuel into storage and dispatching it directly from storage to an off-site facility. These latter features are not covered in the various Storage Cask generic Topical Reports.

The equivalent storage unit to a cask in the vault storage system is the storage system vault module. Although FWEA/GEC-ESL does not at this time have detailed shop drawings of the vault storage features of an MVDS to accommodate the various forms of spent fuel from United States power reactors; it is presently actively pursuing a number of potential projects which, if successful, will lead to the production of such vault storage features: (i.e, the equivalence of the cask).

What FWEA/GEC-ESL therefore seeks is a note in the Proposed Rule Amendment stating that, recognizing that other storage methods (e.g. vaults) are now becoming available to utilities, once the appropriate equivalent storage features to those of cask storage have been manufactured to the approval of the NRC, the NRC intends to issue a similar General License ap-proval of such features.

It is recognized that various metal storage cask design have now evolved to the point where detailed manufacturing draw-ings and other data has been produced and approved by the NRC.

It is seen that this represents a basis on which the NRC con-sider that a general license may be issued. However, it is the total storage system which is of overall relevance. Al-though the Proposed Amendment together with the existing pro-visions in 10CFR72 would in principle address the overall sys-tem requirements, the treatment of the Proposed Amendment does not appear to draw sufficient attention to the site-specific aspects of the required total supporting provisions for a cask system.

Certain features of any dry storage scheme required for the removal of fuel from a spent fuel storage pond to its inser-tion into storage (e.g. building and crane modifications stor-age area access roads, positioning relevant to other buildings, public highways) may have to be site specific. It would be helpful to utilities and only fair to vendors of non-cask stor-age schemes if the text of the Proposed Rule Amendments was to

Nuclear Regulatory June 16, 1989 Commission at least warn as to these essential matters which could be em-braced by a General License.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and would welcome the opportunity to discuss them further.

Very truly yours, FW ENERGY APPLICATIONS, INC.

~

__a--- ~ Agarwal

• Program Manage BKA:clf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JU 20 P4 :oa

,jF'C. '

Dear Sirs,

DOC,;£

• 11,j , ; I brtA -

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

0 JUL 2 4 1989 o~ ~uJr11ea .

t ' ~ s ~ ~ f:tl. knoW\edged by card-.

~°' r NM . ?:&-v.s-

\

0OCil'E, *, ;c **

OF ,, C * ....,

Postmark Date Copies Recci ved Add' I Copies Reproduced 6pecial Distribution

--==.J---~--

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE ~ .

pa.L

, :;!:~~

{ ~y FJc!031qJ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 20 P4 :42

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to

--simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Reg*ulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy., an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

D Postin r Oat A/( le 11r/ld1/), ur-,,,..._f 6--,o-K' Cop, s R C IV /

Add' I Copi..-,s R pre u )

Special Distribution ))

_...jrt-...::;~c}----1:...Qi~-

OCKET NUMBER 1 1

,n1 0 ROPOSED RULE

{_srlf rrc1131q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *59 JUN 20 P4 :03 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to

- simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possibfe precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulp.tory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

." l)OCKFT uLA. 'G 1

REGUL\ ORY CO MMI

& SERVICE SECTION I

FKE OF Tl-IE SECRET ARY:

F THE COMMISSION GtUil nl St ti tics P 1tin*rk bat

1111 19th Street, N.W.

• 39 JUN 20 P4 :12 Washington, D.C. 20036-3691 Tel: (202) 778-6888 June 19, 1989 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

- Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Edison Electric Institute and Utility Nuclear Waste Management and Transportation Program (UWASTE) Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rulemaking on the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, (54 Fed. Reg. 19379)

Dear Sir:

The enclosed comments are being submitted on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rulemaking on Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, published in 54 Fed. Reg. 19379 (May 5, 1989). EEI is the association of investor-owned electric utilities, whose members serve 73 percent of all ultimate electric utility customers in the nation. UWASTE is a group of 52 publicly-owned and investor-owned electric utilities that provides active oversight of the implementation of the federal statutes and regulations related to radioactive waste management.

our comments on the proposed rule are attached. Attachment 1 provides what we believe to be five (5) significant comments.

Attachment 2 provides additional miscellaneous comments.

EEI and UWASTE strongly endorse the Commission's proposal to develop generic regulations governing the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Our comments describe what we believe are the essential elements of such regulations and provide specific proposals, whenever possible, for the structure and content of the regulations. In addition, we believe that the licensing period for spent fuel dry storage casks should be extended to be at least equal to those licenses granted by the Commission for operating nuclear power plants.

r UL 198

' ~ d,

//JJ I

) _

_J peclal D1~tr1 11110n

Secretary of the Commission June 19, 1989 Page Two We applaud NRC's encouragement for compatibility between the dry storage facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 72 and the DOE civilian nuclear waste transportation and disposal program. In this regard, we believe that there are a number of technologies, in addition to dry casks, that should be addressed by the Commission. Furthermore, the NRC needs to address the lack of consistency between the 10 CFR Part 71 and 72 requirements in terms of license periods. NRC should provide for license period of dual purpose casks that meet the intent of both 10 CFR Part 71 and Part 72 requirement for storage and transportation over a period equivalent to the license period of an operating nuclear power plant.

We commend the Commission for its initiative and offer our assistance in developing spent fuel storage regulations that are technically feasible, useful to licensees, and consistent with public health and safety.

Sincerely, JJK:ipm Enclosure

EEI/UWASTE Comments on Dry Cask Storage Proposed Rulemaking ATTACHMENT 1 COMMENTS

1. License Duration Proposed S 72.212{a){2) provides that the general license term i nates 20 years after the cask is first used by the l ic-ensee for stor age . The Supplementary Information provides no technical support for this limitation but merely states, "I t appears to be prudent that cask design approvals

. should be for a limited time period." 54 Fed. Reg. at 19381 (co l . 3). Gi ven the passive nature of the casks, there would seem to be no reason why longer license periods should not be allowed. Since proposed S 72.236(9) requires that the cask vendor demonstrate that casks are capable of safe storage "for a minimum of 20 years," if a vendor can show safety for a longer period, there seems no reason why a general license should not be issued for durations beyond 20 years.

2. Cask Reapproval Unlike other NRC licenses (see, for example, reactor operat-ing licenses {10 CFR S 50.51)), the general cask license does not appear to be renewable. Although at one point, the Supplementary Information refers to cask design approvals being "renewed," 54 Fed. Reg. at 19381 {col. 3), the

proposed regulations themselves and the remainder of the Supplementary Information talks about " cask reapproval."

S e e , ~ SS 72.212(a)(2), 72.240. Indeed, S 72.212(a)(2) states that the initial general license "shall terminate" on the date that a Certificate of Compliance is revised. The proposal t o require a "reapproval" and "the reference toter-mination of the general license leaves open to question whether NRC is proposing to abrogate the "timely renewal e doctrine." This principle of law, established by the Admin-ist rative Procedures Act (and incorporated in other NRC reg-u l ations), provides that a license for which a timely renewal application has been filed remains in effect until the agency has comple t ed i ts review of the l i cense app li -

cation. There is no reason why the "timely renewal" doc-trine should not apply to general licenses for storage casks.

The three years reapplication limit (S 72.240(b)), seems unduly restrictive. It is not clear why a reapplication need be submitted so far in advance.

The Supplementary I nformation states that the "Commission should be not if ied" if the holder of the cask certificate goes out of business or will not submit a timely reapproval application. 54 Fed. Reg. 19382 (col. 1). The Commission does not clearly identify who is responsible for providing this notification. If the cask certification holder goes out of business, it is unlikely that he will provide the notification. (Nor is it clear that the Commission would have any regulatory authority over such an entity.) On the other hand, it does not seem that the Commission intended this notice to come from cask users, since the Supplementary Informat ion states that NRC "would in turn notify cask users" af t er it has been notified. The Comm i ssion should cl early identif y the party obligated to prov i de this notice and the consequence to all concerned if the notice i s not provided. For example, if the cask user is lead to believe that the certificate holder will file for reapproval prior to the three year reapplication l imi t and does not do so, the wording of S 72.240 would seem to prohibit the user from fi li ng for reapproval.

3. Cask Records Proposed S 72.234 requires the cask vendor to maintain a record for each cask fabricated under the Certificate of Compliance. The record must include several categories of information which may be burdensome for the vendor to obtain and maintain. For example, S 72.234(d)(2)(vi) requires the record to include a certification that the cask has been re-paired in accordance with a quality assurance program accep-ted by NRC. Unless this language is limited to those repairs performed by the vendor, there is no way that the vendor could reasonably provide the required certification.

Section 72.234(d)(2)(viii) requires the vendor's record to show the name and address of the cask user. While the vendor will certainly know this information for the initial user, there is no requirement that the initial user notify the vendor of any transfer of the cask. (See S 72.212 (b)(B)(iii).

The proposed S 72.234(d)(3) requires that a composite record for all casks be retained by the cask vendor "for the lif e of the cas k ." The meaning of this term is uncertain. Pre-sumably, it is not intended to be the same as the duration of the general license (see S 72.212(a)(2)), although it is not clear why NRC would want this information retained beyond the duration of the general license. Nor is it cl ear that the vendor would necessarily be in a position to know how long the license term extended (since the lic~nse term begins when the licensee first uses the cask). The Commis-sion should clarify this provision.

4. Criteria for Cask Approval One of the specific criteria for cask approval specified in proposed S 72.236 could be interpreted as placing the cask vendor in a Catch-22 situation. Proposed S 72.236(c) estab-lishes as a criterion for cask approval that the cask "must be designed and fabricated" so that subcriticality is ma in-tained. This seems to suggest that actual fabrication takes place before cask approval. (Otherwise how could NRC find that the cask had been fabricated to ma intain subcrit-cality.) On the other hand, S 72.234(c) prohibits the start of cask fabrication prior to receipt of a Certificate of Compliance. P~esumably, proposed S 72.236(c) should require that the cask "mus t be designed, and is capable of being fabricated, so that the spent fue l is maintained in a subcritical condition . * . * "

5. Another of the dry-storage technologies that is currently available for at-reactor storage and which also is involved in the ongoing DOE-sponsored demonstration and cooperative programs authorized in Section 218 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is that of spent fuel encapsulated in metal canisters that are then emplaced in concrete modules. This technology has already been licensed by NRC for use at one reactor site at which it has already been placed in service.

The propose_d rule does not address this technology.

Was this a deliberate omission? If so, why? Does the NRC intend to address this technology with another proposed rule, and if so, on what schedule?

EEI/UWASTE Comments on Dry Cask Storage Proposed Rulemaking ATTACHMENT 2 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

.1. S 72.212(B)(6): This section calls fo~ a S 50.59 review of "the reactor emergency plan." We presume that this refers to the utility's on-site emergency plan, not the off-site plans.

2. S 72 . 212(b)(8)(iii): This section provides that if a cask is sold, leased, loaned or otherwise transferred, "the new registered user" must maintain the record provided by the cask supplier. Since in many financing transactions (e.g.,

sale-leasebacks, etc.} there may be sales, leases or other transfers without any change in the registered owner, the underscored language should be added to the first sentence:

" In the event that a cask is sold, leased, loaned or otherwise transferred to a new registered user, the record must also be transferred * * * * "

3. S 72.216(a}. The reference to "The licensee" should be revised to read "The general licensee."

4. S 72.216(a}(l). This provision requires reporting of any "defect with safety significance." The section referenced in S 72.216(a} -- S 50.72(b}(2)(vii) -- uses the term "sig-nificant defect." The meaning of these terms is unclear.

The word "defect," for instance, is not defined in Parts 50

or 72, but is defined in 10 CFR Part 21. Does the Commis-sion intend that the Part 21 definition shall apply? More specificity should also be given to the term "safety signifiance" in S 72.216 and "significant" in S 50.72(b)(vii)(A). The Commission might also consider whether the separate reporting obligation in S 72.216 is needed in light of the Part 21 reporting obligations which would al ready govern.

5. S 72.216(a)(l) and (2). The reporting requirement is described as apply i ng to "any spent fuel storage cask system o r component important to safety." Since this l anguage is broader than those cask systems covered by a general li cens e , the provision should be modified to read "any spent fuel storage cask system identified in S 72.214 or component of such system important to safety "

6. S 72 . 21 8 (b). The provision allows "spent fuel previously stored [to] continue to be stored under this general license." Presumably the spent fuel previously stored is meant to apply to "spent fue l previously stored under this gener al license," not to fuel stored under a specific Part 72 license or the facility's Part 50 license. The provision should be mod ified accordingly.

7. S 72.218(b). The third sentence of this provision refers to "the normal term of the reactor operating license." The 1

meaning of this is not clear. Presumably, it is meant to refer to the reactor's initial 40 year operating license term.

s/027jes5&52.89 Buyers Up D Congress Watch D Critical Mass D Health Research Group D Litigation

• a9Grou~LJN 20 P4 :12 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash i ngton, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir/Madam:

We are writing to comment on the NRC proposed rule on "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites" (54 FR 86:19379-19387).

Public Citizen is a non-profit research and advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to address a wide range of consumer and environmental issues. The Critical Mass Energy Project is the energy policy arm of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen believes that the storage of irradiated spent nuclear fuel in onsite dry-storage casks, while less than ideally safe, represents a significant safety improvement over the conventional practice of storage in spent fuel pools. However, Public Citizen opposes the provisions of the current rule which would exempt any reactor which proposed to use dry-cask storage of spent fuel from the need for site-specific reviews. Such exemption would eliminate the need for a site-specific license under 10 CFR Part 72 (which is currently required before spent fuel can be stored in dry casks), and therefore would also effectively eliminate the opportunity for citizens to call for public hearings as part of the licensing process.

Site-specific reviews are currently conducted as part of the process of granting operating license amendments under 10 CFR Part 50, or separate licenses under 10 CFR Part 72 , at least one of which is currently required before any significant change is made in the manner in which spent fuel is stored. Such reviews are important (in addition to the review and approval of the general spent fuel storage design) because they ensure that those citizens most directly affected (i . e .

those living in the vicinity of a given plant) can verify that the management of spent fuel storage is proceeding in a safe manner at that plant . Plant-specific issues about which local citizens might legitimately raise concern include:

o the integrity of site-specific facilities used for transferring spent fuel from pools to casks; o the ability of a specific plant to comply with the conditions of the NRC Certificate of Compliance issued for the proposed dry storage cask; 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-4996

....,, 'JUL 2 4 198tl- .

Acknowted~ed by cal"(f.:~:.;,;i,iir;;iliJii;lil****

11!1. NUCLtAR REGUL, TO'lY COMMISSION DOCKET NG & SERVICE SECTION Off!'" F T1 E (U"RET ARY

o. Tl!E COM ms ION Docum I" St1tistics Postmark Date _ _ Ji.,-1-______

) =

Copies Rece1 ved Add' I Copie Rti:produced 6pecial Distribution

~------

June 19, 1989 Page 2 o the ability of the plant equipment to move and control the heavy loads involved with transferring tons of spent fuel from pool to cask; o the integrity of the spent fuel itself, which may be affected by the specific conditions at a given reactor; and, o the possibility that there might be other site-specific unresolved safety issues associated with the activities required to transfer spent fuel from pool to cask.

In general, since safe handling of spent fuel depends on sound management practices by individual plant management and not only on the generic storage technology, it only makes sense that such site-specific reviews continue in the future.

In gene ra l, Public Citi ze n e ndor ses the princ iple th a t th e mos t fundamental overall guarantee of safety rests with institutional forms

-- including public announcements and hearings -- which allow for public oversight and participation by potentially affected citizens.

The development of new technologies which embody improved safety features, while laudable, should not be used to undermine this more fundamental principle. Rather, the implementation of new and better technologies -- including dry-cask storage of spent fuel -- should be encouraged, but in a manner consistent with the principle of maximum involvement by affected citizens.

Public Citizen therefore recommends that consideration of the current rule be dropped. In its place, the Commission could move to replace pool storage of spent fuel with dry cask storage by requiring, within a reasonable and specified time-frame, that all utilities apply for licenses (under 10 CFR part 72) to store their spent fuel in NRC-approved and licensed dry storage casks. This process would both preserve the licensing requirement (and therefore , the opportunity for citizen involvement) as well as result in the increased use of a safer spent fuel storage technology.

Since, in any case, it is important that the opportunity for comment and review by citizens local to each plant be retained, Public Citizen urges the Commission not to adopt the proposed rule.

Si nce r ely ,

M.leska Nuc l ear Wa ste Po licy Ana lyst Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen

4' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *a9 JUN 20 P4 :42 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Federal Register Notice 86:19379 Dry Cask Storage of at Reactor Sites

Dear Sirs:

We find it very hard to understand why you continue to allow quantities of highly toxic radioactive waste to continue to be generated when we still don't know how to isolate it.

Our first is to sto eneratin radioactive waste.

We believe that safety considerations and peoples' lives come first. Why allow more radioactive waste to be generated until proven systems for permanent isolation of all radwastes (for the full fuel cycle) be demonstrated?

Since great quantities of highly radioactive irradiated fuel rods do exist, and are presently stored in dangerously overcrowded fuel pools, it is important to act promptly to provide the safest possible interim storage.

We support the at-reactor dry cask storage proposal as being the safest of the options, We advocate NRC and independent monitoring of these casks on a continuing basis, with casks to be recertified every 20 years. We believe that each reactor site should have its own dry cask storage, to reduce the necessity of shipping irradiated fuel more than once (to the eventual permanent repository). Therefore we urge that transshipment not be allowed.

Furthermore, we strongly advocate that public comment and debate must be an integral part of any and all rule changes or licensing amendments. We vehemently object to the expanding powers of the NRC and reduction of public access to information or public opportunity to be involved in the licensing process.

These new powers of the NRC make a mockery of Democracy, The United States is supposed to be the strongest and most innovative nation in the world, with the greatest scientists, engineers and doctors, setting an example for the rest of the world. Maybe it would do our national

• conscience good to-admi t t o making a mistake of this nuclear gamble, and take some real leadership in phasing it out before some catastrophic accident mandates that we close it all down.

Respectfully, June 17, 1989

~cl(/ (/c~~v Betty S c hroeder,

~UL 2 4 1989..,. Secretary

~knowtedged by ci!ML

..::;;;;;;a~~

,J. s. NUCLE R EGULATORY to~rrs DOCKrTING & SEP.V CE SECTIO~ ,)

-r E O'= THE S!:CRETARY,

~ TH!: C .V,Ml!:SION or ~ ". iu e3J R. !<inf:

Pif t, c ,. r' Yb

e Commonwealth Edison

• 72 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690

• 0767 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE 2 I\ L . f :

~- *: Nf

• 59 JUN 20 P4 :16 June 19, 1989

,:iF-** . .

ooc~*-*,;, r f.' 1 .'..NL**

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule on the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites.

(54 Fed, Reg, 19379, Moy 5, 1989)

This letter provides comments by Commonwealth Edison Company (Edison) on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposal to issue a general rule which would authorize the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks. In general, Edison supports this rule. Although the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to progress on the development of a high-level waste disposal facility, and is considering a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility, the history of spent fuel management shows that the ready availability of safe and environmentally sound alternatives for the management of spent fuel is prudent. This proposed rule would provide for such safe and sound storage and, thus, should be adopted.

One aspect of the rule, however, should be modified to ensure that it completely meets its intent. To ensure that a licensee has the ability to renew a cask Certificate of Compliance in the event that the vendor does not pursue such renewal, the NRC should modify the proposed rule to limit the renewal criteria to the health, safety and environmental matters solely within each licensee's ability to determine. These matters are adequate for making a determination of renewal. Therefore, licensees should not be hampered from obtaining renewal by the lack of proprietary data from a cask vendor which has de termined either not to renew a certification or to devote unnecessary resources to such a renewal. Moreover, because there may not be alternatives actually available to a licensee under such conditions, the NRC would then be faced with a difficult licensing situation. To avoid these possibilities, the renewal criteria should be limited to:

significant changes in the site or its environs which could affect the safety of cask storage,

- maintenance of the casks, and

- age related degradation affecting the continuing integrity of the seals or the continuing effectiveness of confinement.

f~J '1-J r<' /J,-r . f ('

J ) -

pee f JJ'S T

_ _ __ £:e q.p......_,_

These renewal criteria are sufficient for a determination that cask storage may be safely renewed, and ensure that such renewal will be available to licensees.

Edison appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on this proposed rule.

Respectfully,

~ f f.~

M. H. Richter Generic Issues Administrator 900lk-26/27

JUN 1 9 1989 .,,

Mr . Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention : Docketing and Service Branch PROPOSED RULE - 10 CFR PARTS 50, 72, AND 170 -

"STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE; CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES" -

54 FR 19379 (MAYS, 1989) - REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

Dear Mr . Chilk:

On May S, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register a notice of a proposed rule on storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved spent fuel storage casks at nuclear power reactor sites . The proposed rule would allow holders of power reactor operating licenses to store spent fuel under a general license, without additional site-specific reviews and approvals. Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule change and submits the following comments in support of the proposed rule.

CP&L supports NRC issuance of Certificates of Compliance for spent fuel storage technologies. CP&L believes that this approach is an acceptable means of satisfying Section 218(a) and 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).

In addition, it parallels the approach used in 10CFR71 for shipping casks which has proved workable and efficient since implementation.

CP&L is part ici pating with the Department of Energy (DOE), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and NUTECH Engineers in one of the dry storage demonstration programs called for in Section 218(a) of the NWPA. The concept being demonstrated is the horizontal dry storage of canistered spent fuel in reinforced concrete modules . The NRC has already approved this concept's topical report and has issued a 10CFR72 license to CP&L for use of the concept . Under this license , eight storage units have been constructed at CP&L's H.B. Robinson Plant, Unit No . 2 and six of these units have been successfully loaded with spent fuel earlier this year , with the remaining two to be loaded in the next month or so . CP&L encourages the NRC to pursue the promulgation of a rule which incorporates the concept of issuance of general licenses for this type of spent fuel storage technology.

411 Fayetteville Street

• P. 0 . Box 1551

• Raleigh , N. C . 27602

~ ~mJ1M(i)~OOJAM\

~~ &, SiWtill* 5.imt

<m=HtrEf a>r nm ~&.Pl1\,'IM'

~ Tft (!,(IJM fl I ESl

Hr. Samuel J. Chilk NLS-89-179 / Page 2 If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at (919) 546-6242.

y~~

q L. I. Loflin ¥ Manager Nuclear Licensing Section JCP/crs (366CRS)

}1 o C!ED Nuclear Assurance Corporation 6251 Crooked Creek Road Suite 200 Norcross, Georgia 30092 (404) 447-1144 Telex: 6827020 FAX # (404) 447-1797

.89 JUN 20 P4 :16 Weinbergstrasse 9 8001 Zurich, Switzerland 1-470844 Telex: 57275 June 19, 1989 CST/692/CDG Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Att n.: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Subject:

10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170, RIN 3150-AC 76 Proposed Rule--Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NAC) has commercial contracts to license its 28-assembly NAC-S/T cask for both storage and transportation (dual purpose). The Topical Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) will be submitted under 10 CFR Part 72 in September, 1989 and the Safety Analysis Report for Packaging (SARP) will be submitted under 10 CFR Part 71 in December, 1989.

NAC feels the use of dual -purpose casks for temporary storage provides several advantages to the USNRC, utilities, USDOE, and the public. The major advantage is that the fuel in temporary storage is already packaged and in a form ready for direct shipment. All other methods of temporary, at-reactor storage require the fuel to be returned to the pool, unloaded from a container, placed in racks, a transport cask brought in and fuel loaded into the transport cask, or an equally involved transfer process in the storage yard. In short, the process of temporarily storing the fuel in the first place is reversed.

The implementation of the NAC-STC dual-purpose cask is compatible with your statement, "The Commission encourages storage cask design developments that would reduce the handling of spent fuel." We appreciate that some of the issues related to casks licensed for both storage and transportation are outside the purview of this proposed rule. However, we would like to offer comments regarding the proposed rule and the implementation of the dual -

purpose cask concept.

Our major comments to the proposed revisions relate to the interfaces between the various parts of the Code. Of primary concern to the cask vendors, and to the utilities eventually, is the interaction between 10 CFR Part 72 and 10 CFR Part 71. The discussion of the proposed revisions have several references to casks licensed for both storage and transportation.

J.S. N' *,c r:r'31 ' 1 \T(';!ly (()MM ISSION DI"'\(' i - C :: ~ Ir:.:: S[CTION c* - q\RY

( r( *  : * *~

- cs ostmark ... G:2 J>q ( /}'r'r l \ i Copies j _ _ __ _

Add' I C*. * ; J Special Distribuhon f _)_J

Secretary, USNRC June 19, 1989 Page 2 However, there is little or no mention of how the separate licenses (Certificates of Compliance) would interact. The following comments and questions are of specific interest to NAC. The resolutions and answers are essential for the use of dual-purpose casks, which will ultimately minimize the handling of spent fuel between the time it is put into casks for storage and the time it will be handled at a Federal facility.

General Comments

• This proposed rule would allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at the reactor site ....

• The General License should not be limited only to holders of nuclear power reactor licenses. The storage systems referenced in the discussion could be safely used in a licensed MRS facility, a geologic repository, a decommissioned plant site, or an ISFSI such as the Midwest Storage Facility.

Item (2) in paragraph 72.212 states, *The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall terminate 20 years after the date that the cask is first used by the licensee There seems to be an inconsistency between the time periods proposed in this rule. The Waste Confidence Decision indicates that there are no problems with storage of spent fuel for periods of 30 years beyond the expiration date of the reactor license. However, this proposed rule would limit the total time to 40 years--20 years for the initial license and 20 years for a renewal.

Storage cask designs are given a certification on a specific date.

However, the storage use of an individual cask commences at a different time for each physical cask. Therefore, a storage cask license at an actual use date could have less than a 20-year certification. The physical cask manufactured to the approved design should have a minimum of a 20-year certification for use, or to be consistent with the Waste Packaging Rule, should have a certification that is at least 30 years beyond the licensed reactor expiration date.

Item (c) in paragraph 72.234 states, *cask fabrication must not start prior to receipt of the Certificate of Compliance for the cask model.*

NAC feels that this requirement is unnecessarily restrictive in that the amount of time required to sequentially license and fabricate may be economically unacceptable. NAC feels that a vendor should maintain the option of being able to start fabrication (taking the

Secretary, USNRC June 19, 1989 Page 3 risk of building a cask that may not ever be licensed) prior to final USNRC issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. NAC feels that the requirement to have a Certificate of Compliance prior to cask fabrication should not be in 10 CFR Part 72 as a federally mandated requirement, but should be left as an economic option available to the cask vendor management. In the event that this option is not left to the vendor, NAC feels that the requirement to have a Certificate of Compliance prior to cask fabrication should apply only for fabrication starting after the effective date of the revised rule. NAC also believes that the fabrication process of an actual cask can improve the design. Current procedures do not allow license drawings to be updated, which discourages innovation.

We have a general concern that all dry storage alternatives are not being evaluated/interpreted the same way. Currently, metal systems are evaluated by the staff of LLNL as consultants to the Commission. Concrete systems are reviewed by the staff with support by SAIC. This leads to an inconsistent int erpretation for the different dry storage alternatives. Example: Issuing boron credit for the approval of the NUHOMS-24P, but withholding it for the NAC-S/T.

The USNRC has considered it prudent to study the response of loaded casks to a range of sabotage scenarios. The four casks that are referenced in the background information are all metal casks and there is limited reference to concrete systems. Since this study is classified, we do not have any indication that this report specifically addressed concrete dry storage systems with respect to small arms, fire, pyrotechnics, and other forms of explosives.

Comments Relating to Dual-Purpose Casks Item (b) in paragraph 72.230 states, *casks that have been certified for transportation of spent fuel under Part 71 of this chapter may be approved for storage of spent fuel under this subpart ****

• The TSAR and SARP formats are presently different and require totally separate submittals. Although each Part requires somewhat different information, it should be feasible to submit one report that contains all the information for both Part 71 and Part 72. If necessary, sections or pages could be identified appropriately.

There is a desire by the Commission staff to have full compatibility between the utility storage system and the DOE transportation system. However, this proposed rule lacks any requirement to do so and does not provide the consistent regulatory framework for vendors to comply with this desire.

Secret ary, USNRC June 19, 1989 Page 4 A storage license under 10 CFR Part 72 is issued for 20 years, whereas a transport license under 10 CFR Part 71 is good for five years. A utility needs to know that if it buys a dual -purpose cask, it can use that cask to ship fuel some 20 years later. Some assurance should be provided that the transport Certificate would be renewed every five years. Secondly, USNRC needs to specify what testing will be required annually and otherwise. The testing or inspection should not require that the cask be moved back into the pool.

The USNRC needs to determine and specify what tests and inspections will be required at the time that the utility plans to ship the cask and fuel. It is clear that moving the cask back into the pool and opening it eliminates most of the benefits of dual-purpose casks.

Replacement of the seals of the outer closure lid of a multi-lid cask and other physical inspections that can be performed on the storage pad would retain the benefits of dual licensing.

Burnup credit has been permitted at certain reactors for storage of spent fuel. It has been indicated that storage casks could similarly use burnup credit if the pool where the fuel would be loaded was licensed for burnup credit. However, Part 72 personnel have not permitted such use of burnup credit to date. Also, Part 71 personnel have indicated that they would require all fuel to be inspected with physical measurements prior to permitting burnup credit for transport casks. Clarification is needed as to what the requirements will be.

In conclusion, we believe the use of dual- purpose casks can provide significant economic and radiation exposure (ALARA) benefits. We would like to propose the USNRC provide positive encouragement in the use of dual-purpose casks, not only to the utiliites but also to the USDOE to include these casks in their overall system. We would like to see the USDOE either credit the utilities against their current fee or share the initial cost of the cask.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments to you and would be pl eased to discuss our concerns with you at your convenience.

Sincerely yours, NUCLEAR ASSURANCE CORPORATION

~ / 4 Carol S. Thorup

~

Senior Vice President CST: sm

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED R~LE PR O 1-t' I J/)

~ / /

0

( S' l/ Ft<J q3 0'1)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *ag JU 20 P4 :43 Washington, D.C. 20555 I t

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, Oi-.q*

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~Q~/1-./,J 1() fJo K I g3'I H 1=

k~.owledged by can!.:.;*;;;:;;;;:;~~

1?JJJ~, ~ M ({1'?1/

\

\.

.DOC'- *.: -

J>>ostrriarl ~a Copi 0 s F'.* -.",1..1.J

/ -)1-:_6J

_ _ _1,.

) _ __._ _

Add' l Copies Reprodu i:lal Distribution

~ ~ ~ . : . , ..

~f" I U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Docketing and Service Washi ngton, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 20 P4 :17

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not piace health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

,,. We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is for

• ed to take ever/ possib le precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By

• . eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Co mmission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill .

the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

24 1981--~

,. r ~~~*~~~

-- .. .A

/.,, ,. (

( ... 17" .,

[)

w~

) . ~

6-/)1-fJ _

)

Add,.,,:",, i'.*., ,I,, i ~ - --

peci I Distribution p Yf f

_ _ _ __ f-e_A__r::._u....._.1...

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Acknowledged by card ............,, -viiliiiI

R*GU VJ, r; & I er Y, l *E Doc I ic Postmark ate 6'-rJ-*r1 Copies Re .. e1v d

~dd' I Copies Reprodu"ed _ ..L.-_ _ _ __

Special Distribution

DOCKU NUMBER. '. . ) ') D o<OPOSf.D RULE /~ I/ { fe_ 'jq J') q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketi ng and Service "89 JUN 20 P4 :Q8 Washington, D.C. 20555

,JF.

DOC KL ! ,., l ~ * .f

Dear Sirs,

,_f{i\,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.0

~

,, \

~-~

\II" In DC

(-

PostmMk ~re Copi s Re, v d Add' I Cop*es R prv ..

5peciaJ Distribution

~~~~5ltou~SCl PR -~_* 1~ o <fiI_)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com Docketing and Service missCf I/ -{f.. / CJJ?9) * ,; .

Washington . D.C. 20555

• a9 JUN 20 P3 :54

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

e We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

I This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed. active and empowered citizenry .

tf-J)-jJ 3 J p<l ~ /1... I flJ' f'e 0. rJ'o r--

DOCKET NUMBER PR S-0 ();; )/)0 PROPOSED RULE ~ / J 1 U.S. N~clear Reg ul~t ory Com missio n ( ru ( b j q3? q\

Docke ting and Service .J 7 f\ I)

Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 20 P3 :54 I ,

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who mereiy regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land , air and water. By elimi nating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor op13rators blanket permission to store waste witllout seeking a permit from the N RC.

/

Thi s foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S . I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comme nt.

I have many frie nds who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

t -()-J' 1 J} -

I JJ {(.

,-

• I 'o

,. fl I fJI'

_ J.e o.r£: ; -

DOCKET NUMBER PR ro /)) ;no RROPOSED RULE ~ -.,,.--- 1 J I (s- Y~/<..Io/ 3?tt J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *59 JUN 20 P3 :55 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRG.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, k J ;{a~-

(!r C/ 8ox !Jon,,<

~ ta NM 37SoS P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and e~powered citizenry.

I

• Pcs rk /--/7-rJ Cop 5 j p

cial Distribution fJd o?___

_ __ _ _ _.4:;;:;.e.4-c-J___,.,___

R_Jrt

. ;.~,fl.'

DOCKET NUMBER-.-PR 4/) .. ,\* ~ .J'J 0

~OSED RULE

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cs Y f i, q31r)

Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 '89 JUN 20 P3 :58 OH

• DuCKL ; 1

• 1 r

Dear Sirs,

., f., ~I ...

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, )

Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

nOf knowf

.:......;:;;.;.~7m~

4 ...

~

\ J uoi1nqp1s,a 1e,,ec11 p,nnpoJc;;;c.l sa1do:, I,PP~

{ - 1"p:;;~ sa,do:l hJ,r-~ (--/ -'l\?Q 'iJlillllt~94 J

J

--~,>so C'

. tJ* (}' / /Jj~£_

rv~

_L,_. ~P/'YJ /J/J 1/V~f v '/i1r V

'???7~A, 4~

~l'(/1(/~4-;:2 ,J~~ o t ( Sil 3~N311VH!J -

3HJ.

-3 ~1 3N

,H

,)

re}

W 1-e_

, t 'Y~

V-J d

<co C

-o

,~

.. ~ I ~

., ~

rJ. I. NUCLE'A!t REGULATORY COMMl55toti DOCKETING & SERVICE SECflO, OFFICF OF THE SECRET ARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date t~)1-- f '[_ /1 ,) &I AJrr~

Copies Receivd J Add' I Copies kaproduc-ed-_- -="j1--- - - - : -

6pecial Distribution

• * \ ** ~ , :4 ,' .

I

DOCKET NUMBER PRt) ED RULE PR * ~~

1 r, * * .

I? D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(

Docketing and Service SY f eI q3'J 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 20 P3 :58

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. lnste"ad of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety*issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land , air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of demo.cracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

- I;.

_ __.Jli 1l 5 ~ ~

,~,,,, '-"" --"\s-V

-- ~GL-tv~ ,D.e, d6~S-S-

~ '-~1' ~

bs-l(-- -- ea Copies ,;, , v '

Add' 1 Co ~ . o:, ;;u :JC ecial Distrib ut1011 A 3H1 03$ D IAffi 0, .UOl -~-ir

OOC ET NUMBER ROPOSED RULE PRnL:!;~tf.* )? D

!-!1 1

./

( ;r;{ t ;q 31qJ  : ... ~ E;!

,;,11*1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 20 P3 :57 t j.

Dear Sirs,

• I d I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence thiopposition .

We have seen th! those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not ace health and safety issues on the top of their priorLty lists. As a resu lt, thousands f people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take ever/ possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

-1i WE MEET **- .

' THE . I ,) "~

• I ~t,

.. (  :

1

• CHALLENGE  :-

-* . - / 1, l ,_ _

• ___.J_

no*cKET NUMBER P,R0POSED RULE PR SO 11) J? ()

• **. 1-l i:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission { ~ 1/ ( f: Jq 3') q)

Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 20 P3 :59

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any inde ende t overs* t do not place health and safety issues *on the top of their prion y lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~~ ~I (_wM ,

., 'I' 6- ;1-f'o/

r du J -

]

fr 'I/JJ' J2 12t J fJL) v1~r.f ob

/

DOCKET NUMBER P,ROPOSED RULE PR u r

O1 I'\ J') 0

{ &l/ {/t- 193 ?q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 20 P4 :QQ

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

LI, . 'LJ Lit COMMISSIO DOC ~ SEC ION T ETA ' Y:

OF T CO !Oi-l 2~ 1 ocu e;, k Postm rk _~e _ 6-J Co 1es ecc1 ed Add' I Copi P.eprc I e 1 - ---

Special Distribution fJ.,...Qj _ _ (!_/_{f

,,,,._(2_ ___

P e r.o c,r.bt>

oocKET NUMBER P,ROPOSED RU1' PR *-

a* 7. *'?J J?D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com\nisfof /?. / qJ? q)

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 20 P4 :Q 1

• ~ H IV OOCK r 1,~,

Dear Sirs,

t1* ~N

• I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

• NUCLE It EC".,ULA1'01tV COMMISSI DOCK Tl G & SERVICE SECT ION Offl *e OF THE SECRETARY.

OF THE COMMISSION Oocument St ti ti cl Postm rk D le t-; 7~f 7

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE R ~£~ ?~ /90 @

( £lf Ff< Jq3?q) "t

'r.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 20 P4 :03

• JP!..,

DOCK* I

Dear Sirs ,

B .'..N I*

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and grve nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRG.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

.--- =-..----- - - -=== -

Thank You, Sincerely, i-ts~ K. w ~

L i5 a.. K. W~ Ik(~

~S EY\cttnfa.Jo ~ .

.St~t-tL 'F~ Nf'/\ ~7~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

U.. . NUCLE ~EGULATORY COMM!SSIOllt oocim: 'G & SERVICE SECTION FF' E OF THf SEC: ET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Docu"TI nt -itistics ost1t1;;1rk te topies Rece1 cd Add' I Copi,;s R produced -;;;---'}~=--~~

- ~

clal Dlatrlbutlon f)) )f '

DOCKET NUMBER P,ROPOSED RULE PR . ~~ -7~ /? O

~*c:~;1 ~ /<J n) 3 ' . ,.,  !

c&J f

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• ag JUN 20 P4 :03 C,fi DOCK. Jl1 ,. '

Dear Sirs,

~ r. .\ N ...

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

5k.r)1 ~

Thank You,

( fJ,o Sincerely, ~ ~ - &v i.,._t"-

/-d- °'- ~~ { ~ "

~~~-

~~firv~/)~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

+, ~.

- l 2 4 198Q kn ~I dgc

I i, J. ~- NUClFA DOC T 0 Fl T ETAR'ti OF C ION Doc:um nl St ti tid t -))-fJ

--=---P.-..fl .£2/,0[.

£ .:e e, r:,c120

(j}J)

• 59 JUN 20 P 4 :44

'JUL 2 i 1 Acknowledged by card. * * . * . * * * * * *

• _

Po~

C

Maryland Sate Energy Coalition P.O. Box 902

• Columbia, Maryland 21044 (3011343-0499 (3011381-2714

,, ~ -,

NUMBER nn .

DOCKET ED RULE fl\ -

/J .

rg d I? 0

'J PROPOS l s9 Ff< I q 3?q)

Docketing and Service Branch U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,. f RE: Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRG-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites. FR 86:19379

Dear Sirs:

We believe that dry cask storage of irradiated nuclear fuel, stored on site where generated, offers the least objectionable method of interim storage of the options we have reviewed.

Use of this system of storage should be contingent upon operators being required to follow: the most stringent safety procedures; the use of dry casks that have been certified by the NRC and independent scientists; the most rigid surveillance over time, to guarantee no leakage of radioactivity to the atmosphere; and that re-certification be required every 20 years.

We believe that storage should be limited to only that fuel waste which is generated on site, and not open to shipments from other sites.

Equally essential, we strongly believe that public comment and debate must be required before these regulations be adopted or changed.

We object to the provision allowing transshipment of irradia-ted fuel rods since it provides greater danger to the public due to possibly leaky casks or possible accidents during shipment. The sabotage potential exists at all reactor sites, but would be more critical if waste from several reactors were to be concentrated at one site. Therefore, transshipment should be prohibited.

Because the national long term (permanent?) storage site for high-level waste is still far from a reality, and because these wastes are so deadly to handle, it seems obvious that a responsible management procedure would be to stop producing radioactive waste.

We highly recommend this prudent option.

It is important to reinforce our belief that public partici-pation in all rulemaking decisions by the NRC must be preserved.

Sincerely,

(/4£GeW Patricia Birnie Co-Director

r TT ,r,-

~ l&\arr, -2i-~ Co,~h I

~ Q 't70.A,~- .*

.,~

Gf 1)

V~!tYuXP, 9 ~~l "B9 JJ/20 PJ:59

\ .~,.,' IL*

&ff~ 1/4~ J\..,U,u__ (JolJCl{l* JA*r 0:1,:N, ' ./ !

-L 0.)Jow (\Q~~ <r\u~~

~~ ~~

c~. DJv~ h0t,vC1/4 Cl) D-uQ & ~V'\ 0()71) 0_

~ '---V~it-- ~ucrnp )_

\lo ~ _l l .\ .

\ktu_lw\ ?Gl+ t- 7)0 1/2_S [,ktu_v,~

~~~~ tv,_, t* PP~unoucl\ ~

r~~~ 1

~ *_

G~i.91) . <Jill Z 4 1111111

Pos {-/ t~ <f7 J- -

!:Add' I Cor ~

' ' .2- - -

&pecial Distribt.tioo

~::s~:LJ[

DOCKET NUMBER ARO~OSED RULE PR ro ?:) J? o 0

' _1 t_ s ~1 r~ J q3?q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *59 JUN 20 P4 :04 Washington, D.C. 20555

,.. F I ~ i*

OOLKt - t: V ..

Dear Sirs,

BRMl ...

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

riiL24189 _

IPCk crw dged y *-e .~;;;;;;;:;;.~-.,.ti:t-::-,.:;~

.J, T V CO, Ml SSIO

"' .. ION y

..>ION Postmark Date Copies ece:vcd Add' I Copies R ;roduced 3 Special Distribution 17.D {l. RIQ[

p}:,,.,ti cJ OD.-

DOCKET NUMBER P~Rl,! * ~~ / 70 PROPOSED RULL 'I R 5 f /q 3 ll)

? . . ~: ~~

_h ;* ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Servic:e Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JU 20 P4 :4 2

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~ ~ - r ~-

535 ~. -~ . qJ'/

-~ ... ~ *

~':. . . . . , 1, :,. , .

7.....- ~

~knowled ed b -,JUL 2 4 t9S9*

~ :., ,- '71: ~ . - . 8 Ycarcf.._;;:;.;;.;~-* '*

I:

Postmar~ D. !

Cop:es ** -"'-

Add' I Co i * , ro u 1_J_____

Special Distribution ~

11 "cO[ OD

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSE' r~LE PR 50 J?O

{ S-1/ (ll. l'l J?q)

U.S. Nuclear Regu lato ry Co mmission Docketin_g and Service Washingt on. D. C. 20555 *89 JUN 20 P4 :03

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

i This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincereiy, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to rece ive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Post r c...

A J .I pec1cl 01 *r i. 1 1 P...,µ f?: ~ //X'

- - --- at '1.C.L! .___

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~O  ; J?O P,ROPOSED RULE I \

{ ! y r I< 113 JqJ

.89 JUN 20 P4 :04 Box 1331 ufFI L, Pl.ymouth DOCK ~-, r . ,

MA 02360 * /!' ,\ fL June 16 , 1989 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington , D. C., 20555 To whom it may concern :

I wish to go on record ae being unalterably oppo sed to allow-ing the storage of spent fuel rods in casks at reactor sites . He re in Plymouth we do not care for the prospects of being stuck with more high leTel radioactive waste for longer periods of time . We need to address the problem of how to store this waste permanently

!l.Q.!, or bett er still , stop generating mo re of it altogethe r.

Respectfully,

~~1Mtv1k!L Inghilt Traenkle riUL 2 , 1 9

Postm ark Oa'.e 6-} ~ <r1 Co pies ~ec. ,j )

-- -:-L-----

Add ' I Copi~* Rc ,. rcd c ~ 1 6,>e c ia I Di strib ution /.

_...c_;c_;;..__,Jo.....;c......,_,.___

DOCKE.TNUMBER PR ~ .:l /?O P,ROPOS~ ~~ f /( /Cf] ?q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 20 P4 :06 OF~ . r DOC K[ I'

Dear Sirs,

I* "'

,~t,>

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, ai~ and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~ 2 4 1989 JcknOWledged by card. . . *

• I

• J>o,trn rk t-;7-/fJ_

Copies ' ecc* ' )

Add' I Copies '"

• r.,,_ uctd J Special Distributiof}Jj *~--~*~.;.._____

£ _

CJ{ ~, ..

1

~ ~1.rl(los

Postmark Date Copies Rece: v 1d CA,.dd' I Copies Reprodu,;t1d _____ __,

Seecial Distribution

-~---------------'

Od-J 60

- YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC Cf) ' 14NY PR , / ?o

<fij;; Te/"t~;n;/~~10-~t: 11

• ---=--. DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE 1 FYC 89-010 r , t !

GLA 89-050 ~ ' q. L

~ _@ -~ l G-~~v

' _. : .)

sq f f_jfl? 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398 .

Tl7 q) . . - June 19, 1989 *a9 JUN ~ P4 -15 h" rvry nc'~ 6~ N-8~ }I<

Secretary of the Com.mission u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (54FR19379)

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regarding at-reactor storage of spent fuel in dry casks. YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. our Nuclear services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook.

We believe that the proposed rule, the promulgation of which was required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, will greatly facilitate licensing of additional at-reactor storage of spent fuel. Experience to date with dry cask storage programs conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE), utilities, and other countries, have served to demonstrate that such storage systems are safe and reliable. We note, however, that the NUTEC NUHOMS System is not included in the list of approved spent fuel storage casks. Because a Safety Analysis Report has been issued for this system, and the system has been licensed for use at the H. B. Robinson plant, we suggest that it be included.

On page 19380, column 3 of the proposed rule, the following statement is made: "Another benefit is that the potential for corrosion of the fuel cladding and reaction with the fuel is reduced, because an inert atmosphere is expected to be maintained inside dry spent fuel storage casks." This statement seems to imply that corrosion of spent fuel is occurring while the fuel is being stored in spent fuel pools. This is not the case. In fact, a September 1977 study1 by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, identifies the spent fuel clad oxidation rate *at *0.009 pm/year.

This translates to approximately 1/1000 inch in 3000 years. A 1 "Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Water Pool Storage," A. B.

Johnson, Jr., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BNWL-2256/UC-70), September 1977

" L 2 4 1989 Acknowledged by card .****** ..._ *

• N ,,...,

L>

lpe,ial Oistribu!I

second report2 issued by the Electric Power Research Institute in 1984 concludes "evidence that pool storage of spent fuel is a safe, efficient technology continues to accumulate *** Further, fuel examinations have yielded no evidence that Zircaloy-clad fuel degrades as a result of water storage." These studies support the need to clarify the statements of Consideration by noting that the potential for corrosion of the cladding during pool storage is very small; that experience with water storage of spent fuel has been excellent; and that there is no reason to expect fuel cladding to degrade even over long periods of time.

Finally, in the proposed change to 10 CFR Section 50.72, the Commission has identified two instances in which a four hour report must be made to the NRC. We note that 50.72(b) (2) (vii) (B), which is related to the performance of the casks, is really subsumed by 50.72(b)(2)(vii)(A), a more general, all encompassing criteria. We recommend that (vii) (B) be deleted or used only as an example.

In conclusion, we urge the Commission to expeditiously issue the final rule on dry cask storage. Continued NRC efforts like this to bring about regulatory stability to specific licensing aspects of nuclear power plant operations are sorely needed.

Sincerel~

ti)~

Donald W. Edwards Director of Industry Affairs JMG/ef 2 "Surveillance of LWR Spent Fuel in Wet Storage," Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI NP-3765), October 1984

( (

• \

.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSl08 DOlKETll'-IG & SERVICE SECT ION 0rhCF OF Iii[ SECRETARY OF THE COf'AMISSI0N Doo ,,. rit c;latistics Postl'(\ark Date Copies e1=e1ved Add' I Copies Reproduced iSpeci I Distribution f'.))

- - - -......:,..,...&.:a.~~ - -

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :55 1

1 If r

~UL 2, 1989

u. S. NUCLFAR REGULA TORY COMMISSIOli DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OrFICE OF TH( SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stat isl ics Postmark Date 6 Copies Received

- ---'---=------

Add' I Copies Reproduced _ ,c.__ _ _ __

Spe~-ial Distribution

,e

, I

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :38

,. i ..

• a9 JUN 19 p 4 :38

• s9 JUN 19 p 4 :38

FROM: *~ . * ** .. **:*, *.

.. * - -111* ~

• 11 *- ~f . ' -~ I U..u.. .~~.......

L ..~* * .

Docketing and Service Branch Wash1ngtori, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. Th e; s t or age c.,t the Pilgrim Nucle a r Powev' of spe nt nuclear fuel generated at other'reactors .

.::: . *1 t-,e :5 t o ra qe o t s pent tuel in casks aut s 1de the reactor builo1ng.

3. Al lowing ne sto rage of spent fuel withcuT th e need to r specit1c approval ot t he storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of $pent fuel with out requiri ng tnu specit1c sateguards to prevent its potential theft.

We ask , therefore, that the regulatio ns u nder the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 NOT be amended to pe~mit these p r act ices . Spec1fically, we are OPPOSED to proposed rule changes 54-~/~93-79,

• R 50, 72, 150.

___ _________fl,ltl 'f'A ______ _____t'-t.#!!-:.1.LJ&t __ 12~~}1'J1__ (J_.,,.. J1,.,,

u.S. NUCLEAR RcGULATORY COMMIS5 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF TH~ COMMISSION Docum,o*,I S*atistics*

Postmark Date A/J. rJ.~ f U1.::l:l.'J r6 f. lrl f '

Copies Rocei ved-Add' I Copies j _

eproduc&d-.,......,~ ______ ..,,

1 Ip.cl 1 Di-stribution -

_<.)

.L...a..,;,...-'---"'cl-L- L.b,L,~

E~IlilQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The st9rage of spent fuel in casks QYi§i~~ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring §DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

~~IlIIQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks QY!§i~§ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need tor specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

We ask, therefore. that the regulations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 NOl be amended to permit these practices. Specifically, we are OPPOSED to proposed rule changes 54-FR-193-79, PR 50, 72, 150.

f~Il!lQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks QY1§id~ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage pf spent fuel without the need tor specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

PETITION TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks QY!§i~fil the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need tor specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

We ask, therefore, that the regulations y nder the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 NOT be amended to permit these practices. Specifically, we are OPPOSED to proposed rule changes 54-FR-193-79, PR 50, 72, 150.

r t7 1

f~Il!lQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks QY!§i~§ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

I l f~Il!lQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks QYi§i~~ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring §DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

PETITION TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks Q~!§A~@ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~IlY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

We ask, therefore, that the regulations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 NOT be amended to permit these practices. Specifically, we are OPPOSED to proposed rule changes 54-FR-193-79, PR 50, 72, 150.

• E~I!IlQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. lhe storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

~- The storage ot spent tuel in casks QYi§~~~ the reactor building.

3. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need tor specific approval of the storage site.

4. Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~IlY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

PE*r11IUN l~ I~~ ~UCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMI SSIO N Docket 1 na and Serv ice Bra nch Washi~oton, DC 20555 WE. the unoer siq neo . are OPPOSED to :

1. The st orage at he Pilgrim Nucl ear Po wer Plant at sp!nt nuc lear fuel generated at o ther reactors.

L. T h e storage t s p ent tuel 1n c ask~ outside the redctor bu ildi ng.

3. All owi ng the storag8 of s pent t uel without the n eed t or s~e c1 f ic approval ot the stora g~ site.

4. Pe mittin g th storage of spent fuel without

,*equ1ring 9 ny s pecific safeguards to pre ven t its otent1al theft .

.,.;u a sk , theret*ore, -ch at t i,e .*eq u]c:1t1ons under tt"te NuclE! ar w~s *e Policy Ac t o r 198~ Nu be amended to permit these 1 :'ac:t1 t:E":'s.

1 S pec1t1 ca.l. l!:,1, we ,:n*e U 'PUS _:o *r e, pr 1posE*d rule changes 54-~R- 193-79 , PR ~0 , 72, 50.

1 . *~

. :.,...L- ____

~

. * - * * - * - - * * * * * * - - *( _ _*_____  :::!:,~.~<.._/2.. __ J)_c,._ _'";Q_-..1.4v~.y

. ..lj_C/_l:kcn+/-.. __ if.J_KcJ .. 0~au 07

• -*-***--*S'tJ r-

• -**- . . * *-*--*W,.*-1---*-***-* -*--* .

.J_O. . .

• • • -* .... - *- * ~~ . -*

• • - ~~ *"-"'~J\J,,,. - *--*** -* . ~ 5" .. ..

1f!t:zt_. ~*-* .e...,._ _____ **** ***-* *' - -*-*********- *---*-*** * **-. *****--*---*-****----- -

(j) **-~r~ __k.;,_3" ._~~l..,,._~0..~ -~ '- 4---.1?:;'r-.!?_~ 6 ~

~--oo______

-~~..-.?::"":::_ _______ I

(!§) -T-- ------- j_<{_~_.cbg,:u,,._o1.J___~r_\::}~:,1-Ji-""--/,,., A-(j!) . ---~ --C.~__{fM:!:,____Lff,__ ~ y U_,_~~'1' /Yl,t, p *-*-----**-** *- -----*-,. , _, ______. ,_ ----.. .----.. --. .. .. .. _-*---- -*-..

_ ':"""~-- .. *--*--- -*.... ***-*-*--- ...-*-* ..,-.......... --,***-----* -**

,'f ----*--*---- -*---------- ____ --*--* *- ........ *- .. - -- -

____,,.,_, ' .... *--~--- .......... *-*--*. -----.--....... -*- --**---- --

3 f~!l!lQ~ TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 2121555 WE, the undersigned, are OPPOSED to:

1. The storage at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant of spent nuclear fuel generated at other reactors.

2. The storage of spent fuel in casks QYi§i~§ the reactor building.

- 3.

4.

Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site.

Permitting the storage of spent fuel without requiring ~DY specific safeguards to prevent its potential theft.

We ask, therefore, that the regulations under the NL1clear Wast~ Policy Act of 1982 NOT be amended to permit these practices.

changes 54-~3-n3;7l, Specifically, we are OPPOSED to proposed rule PR 5121, 72, 15121.

__ _d._~;__ ,P:o l;~o, ~'vWo1_ _ I) d.. __ /Jt3/4/jp1/..Y /JJH</:_

- -h~~-~~0~

~~~---~~-~~ -~~~~~~V ~~ Sf-~:- -

__1i;- ~ ______J~-~ __ _ . __L(__

-- ~ J . L _ ~ ___ j{'~ -- ----~

- -~ ------~~~~-(ft_-

_____ -~,MA U----- \(------- I

______CO>Al{,_w. Jly,-<h: ___ 7t;________ __ 1., v. __~ N!A-

-~ J'.'.l,y,£-~ ---- /,nJ' ~r(SV--- .w~ ry HA

~ --;;~ _____ ~31 S!.GeaiJe,,J-r. _ [)Nbvq fl1./J.,

__=f1 '::~.;~'¢=- ____ so _S., R.:"""L"1,,r_____ 1)u,c1~~, A~ I

_____*- 2~~--~~ -~-li\f)le-5t____ J)11._1:b~r-y-- m~

- ~- - _ i j ~ ___tQ __~ ---;----~ ~--.,-~IA..

• ~--~ ----LJ!_~'L!U)!f_~-- ___ ___ _ ri;te.,

~~ '18-:K b~~ 1) ~

~~ 11~t;;fD. ~haw M4

T Docket1no a nd Service Branc h Wash i ~gton, DC 2 0 555 WE. the un der s igned. are OPPOSED to :

1. T h e storage at t h e P i lg r im Nuclear Power Pl~n t of spent n u clear fuel generated at other rea c tors .

2. T h e stor ge o t s pent fuel 1n ca s ks QY!§~~~ the reac e r building .

3. Allowlng rhe s~orage* of spent fuel without t he need for spec1f1 c pprova l o1 t h e st orage sit e.

4. Permittin g the s torage ot spent fu el wi t hout re o u 1 r 1ng §DY sp e* 1t1c sa f e guards to prevent its pot l'~n 1al t he ft .

WP a 3 k . theref ore, that the reyul~t ions under t he Nuclear t,.;c:.1..;,e !-'01 1 c u Act of J.'18:2 MO be a mended to per mi t these rJract1r.: *<.:. ;., . S pecifica l ly . uie are OPPOSED to proposed rule r h~nq es ~~-F R- 193-7 9, PR j0, 12, 150.

<Z)_ _.,,(]cu,.o~- ~ ,_______d£____ --- __&..,. . ~

<tJ -- ~.<&-~ o 2 2__________________1£.~_md/._~ -?Y-4~11~

• ~J!Jo~ ~~~~~~ ;;f;;:;:a:;;;:

ct$) ilULtl.v._f/.__ ~ ._ _____ 6.{J.~__S(;______ U~/1...~L

~ ~ - L J ... SJa-J. . *------*-* ~7 - ~~ .____ :J)f//X~ I -

(J-i&!H1E~-"~ -- ----- -~~-- Q_~_(fi?Z-:'!fl!c __ ~T.-'h.u. ~o/ ,hit.

@ - -l ~-:~..,,._,,._ _ _________________ _3_Q_/l}r._Jdol'£.. _c(<Cf,.,_~ ___!)~Jst.J'/J1/i-

{J - "'-'.i..v.v\,.1-.. -Pi-.. _--** _J5_J;J!ifl!.l,__'P.LiW..;.£M(1,/d,Jf.r l!\1. ~----

@ .. *****------*- * * ----*--*- - _________ 15.' ~a.,l __fufl.,__ {li~w_~ _Y!if-t: ..

@ _ _ -~ ~ ~........0--- _ . . 9.Eo_n 'f&.0!.i_S"J'

• kr./6¥/.;:{j"33C.

If -~. ) .l/r,,,,-1,_ /0 ')_ ~ -2._--,,a fl!: --~ ~ ~ 6.l ) _'.)

r Dock~rina and S, rv1ce Bra nch Was h 1 ~ to1 1 , DC  :..:1215:iS .

i,.JF. *i,: ht'? LlndE*r$1qr,ea. are OP ~JOSED to:

1. The stora qe ... l he P1.lor 1m Nu ]ear Po*.tlf.H' f' , ant c:: -f s.;.p.""nt nll rlec r T'l" *? 1 genera t ~ d ~t ot~e C\ 11 reactrw ~~-3

~- The storag at spent uel 1n casks out~Jde th a reactor bu1ld1 n q.

J. Allowing the storage of spent fuel without the neec1 tor soe c i t c: pprova.l ot the storage ,site.

4. e,m1tt1ng the s ~or ag e of spent fuel withou t req ui 1ng nu s pec 1ti _ safpguards to pre~ent it s pate '! *1al th1=rt.

PE "ITlON JO THE NUCLEAR REGULAT ORY ~OMMI Sd I ON Oocke t 1n and Servi c e Br a nc h Wa s n1 ~g tori, DC 205 S~

W~ , t h e unde rs i g n ed , are OPPOSED to:

1. lh e st ora ge a t th e Pi l grim Nuclear Power Pl nt at spe n ~ nu cl e a r tu: l generated at other reactors .

..~. lhe 5 t orage 0 1* s pe nt t L1el in c asks 0L1t s 1de the rea ct or bu1 Jd1 ~ g.

3. Al l o1111ng tr,e s to ra . e o t spen t f 1a1el withcJ u *c t he n :~ed tor sp cir1 - ,.pprov* l c t the s to r age s1te .

4. Perm1tt 1n g th~ sto r~q e of spent fuel w ith o ut 1

• eo1..1 r 1 ng ED\d ,:;pee 1 i- 1 c sc1 eyua r j s to = preven t 1 ts pot:entia l t t, ett.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :12 UF~k-

Dear Sirs,

DOC hUtt J

• I '

lNl i-;

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

1 *

• NUCLEI, R : ATO. Y COMMISSIOli DOl"K~TI t; & SEJ'VICE SECTION

. .E OF l .C SE"" ETARY o:= *rHE COMMISSION or..irnen* S tistics PoWn!t!i C le

~ i&.s R~--c.

Add' I Cop1 s Reprod uce Special Distribution

- SA

DOCKET NUMBER

• )SEO RULE p ~t'J /70 DOCY.ET"")

( !;l/ {~ Jq 31p SOUTHWEST RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER

..... ,,~

Albuquerque office: P.O. Box 4524, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106 (505) 262-1862 Washington office: 2001 O Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-0545 June 19, 1989 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Proposed Rule1 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage1 Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites Attached are the comments of the Southwest Research and Information Center (SRIC) on the NRC proposed rule referenced above. SRIC is a non-profit, environmental organization with offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Washington, D.C. we appreciate this opportunity to comment.

c.:x ~-1ktt..*

Caroline Petti Nuclear Waste Safety Project rn.L 2 4 1989

11. -NUCLEAR RF.Gll!ATORY COMMISSION OOCKFTING & SF.RVICE SECTION ornc1 OF THE SECRET ARY OF TilE COMMISSION Dc-cu:-r,..nl Statistics r ***::<luced

• s'> ,

0.*, rl At l*,il

ATTACHMENT Southwest Research and Information Center General Comments on NRC Proposed Rule Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites

~proposed~ provides Il.Q opportunity~ public .c.QIDIDfillt. .Qil.

~ app roval .Qf. spent t.Ytl storage~ submittals.

While the issuance for comment of this proposed rule provides some semblance of an opportunity for public review and comment on NRC approval of the four dry storage casks listed in the proposed rule, the Subpart L NRC approval and reapproval process for future cask submittals contains no provision for public comment.

Interested members of the public should be given an opportunity to comment on each future cask submittal before NRC issues Certificates of Compliance.

We would s uggest that following receipt and preliminary review of a cask application or application for reapproval of a cask model but before issuing a Certificate of Compliance, NRC puolish in the Federal Register notice of the cask submittal and the staff's proposed determination on the submittals. Following a final determination on the cask submittal. The Commission should solicit and respond to public comment on the cask submittal before issuing any final determination or Certificate of Compliance. The Commission should inform the public of any final determination by issuing a notice in the Federal Register.

The need for public comment in the NRC approval or reapproval process is especially great in the case of dual-purpose (i.e.

storage/transport) cask submittals. Dual-purpose service bas never been approved in the United States and experience with the technology is extremely limited. Potentially serious and unresolved safety issues still remain regarding the effects of long-term storage on the performance of a cask in transportation and on the effects of transportation on the performance of a cask used in storage. (See DOE/RW-0220 Final Version !UY~ storage Study,)

~proposed~ el iminates~ opportunity fQ.I.. public .c.2mmfillt on at-reactor spent~ storage.

Licensing requirements under Part 72.34 currently require a public hearing in connection with each application to store spent fuel at reactor sites. We believe very strongly that the public's right to comment on a licensee's proposed use of NRC-approved dry storage casks should not be abridged.

At a minimum, the Commission should notify the public in the Federal Register of a licensee's proposal to store spent fuel under the general license. Such notice should include any and all information, written determinations, safety and physical

security evaluations provided by licensees under Section 72.212(b)( l-6). The Commission should solicit and respond to public comment on these matters before the licensee uses the cask to store spent fuel.

We recognize that public involvement will prolong the process for deploying at-reactor storage casks, however, we believe it is essential if the public, and especially the public in the vicinity of the reactor licensees at issue, is to have confidence in the safety of at-reactor storage.

~proposed~ contains M provision .fQ.r. N.ru;. inspection .ot .at=

reactor storage In addition to making records pertaining to each model of cask used for spent fuel storage available to the Commission for inspection, licensees should be required to permit the Commission to make unannounced inspections of the premises, at-reactor storage casks, and associated activities. Each licensee should be required to perform, or permit the Commission to perform, any tests that the Commission deems appropriate or necessary for ascertaining compliance with the terms and conditions of the safety certificate.

~ proposed ..r.Yh wisely encourages .c.9mpatibility .of. spent !.Ytl storage casks designs Eith transportation fill.d disposal~

reguirements, We appreciate the Commission's interest in minimizing radiation exposures and other handling risks related to the back-end of the fuel cycle and applaud the Commission's efforts to encourage storage cask designs that are compatible with future transport and disposition of spent fuel. We are pleased to see this as a criterion for spent fuel storage cask approval in the Proposed Rule (Section 72.236(m)) and see no reason why meeting this criterion should be excluded from what is required for a Certificate of Compliance.

~ proposed ..r.Yh should contain provisions Aim.e.g .a.t preventing unnecessary transport .ot spent fuel, Spent fuel stored safely in dry casks at reactor sites from which it was generated potentially obviates the need for transshipment of spent fuel from one reactor site to another. As was pointed out in the "Discussion", however, the proposed rule would not limit storage of spent fuel to that which is generated at the reactor site. Unnecessary transfers of spent fuel from one reactor site to another are possible.

Given the radiological risks associated with the transport of spent fuel, SRIC would urge the Commission to expand the scope of the proposed rule to encourage on-site storage as a means of

avoiding unnecessary transport.

We would urge the Commission to reconsider a petition for rulemaking filed on December 13, 1984 by the State of Wisconsin (Docket No. PRM-71-l0;Federal Register Vol.SO, No.23, Feb.4, 1985.) and denied on October 16, 1986 (Federal Register Vol.51,No.200, Oct. 16, 1986.). That petition would set up a regulatory process "to ensure that both the need for and the safety and environmental consequences of proposed shipments have been considered in a public forum prior to approval of the shipment and route". A potential nuclear waste shipper would have to: 1) submit an application for shipment approval to the NRC 2) demonstrate that alternatives to the proposed shipment, like on-site dry-cask storage, have been evaluated, and 3) demonstrate that the proposed shipment is the alternative that

- provides the least radiological exposure risk to the public.

Southwest Research and Information Center Specific Comments on NRC Proposed Rule Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites 72.212(b) ( 1) ( ii) Licensees should be required to register use of each cask with the NRC prior to using the cask to store spent fuel.

72.212(b) (5) (iv) There is no reason why the licensee should be exempt from Section 73.55( h} ( 4)( iii) (A) and (5) of this chapter.

72.212(b) (10) Records should be made available to the public for inspection.

72.230 ( c) Change 'may' to 'shall': An application for the approval of a cask for storage of spent fuel shall be made available for public inspection under Section 72.20.

72.238(a) Change to read: The criteria in Section 72.236(a) through (i) fillQ 1ml 72.240(c) Change to read: A cask model will be reapproved if conditions in Section 72.238 are met, including demonstration that storage and/or transport ilf. applicable) of spent fuel has not significantly, adversely affected systems and components important to safety.

fl, O. llJuf. o/ S'f- S DOCKET NUMBER PR 5/'h,,.M F~ 1;t "'-1 g7 So Cf-t ROPOSED RULE U!..~:::;~ ~ ,~, t? '67

{ 5 V f!f / qJQq)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-;,;* ([jJ)

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 19 P4 :17 1.,Ft I' OOCKL Ii ' ...

Dear Sirs,

• . t, N k I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seekir;,g a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, 1/111 ' ~ , (J.r P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

I , NtJClEA fUGULAiCRY COMMIS f~

COCK Tl & ERVIC SECTIO GFFI E' OF THE EC, ETAR.Y 0 THE COMMISSION Do m -+

Postmark Otite Copies R ceivcd Add' I Copies Reproduced _,,,,_ ____

~pecial Distribution

---

1--

f.)) fl fl.

~----

• 1,-~:* iM~ l1At6~V t6MM1 ~SI

~* *

• r"'/l("E serTJO

_f *.k.-,

s:iON

, , I ';";. I

'> I

• il!ll;,rM D,, *3

Ol)ies I\.

'~. *eJ Add'I Copie.s R !;>roe u .ed _J,__...,,.....____

r..c Dlsttibution

DOCKET NUMBER PR IQ 0J. J90 PROPOSED RULE Jq ? IA)

( f Yr I J *1 rt':

I! ~*- i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *sg JUN 19 P3 :48 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the .. health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, k~~

, (}_B67l 9':f ~ 7 v~ ~; ?/ ~ ?7so2r P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

L

.S. NUCL EAR ~EC,ULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET!, IG & S'- r1 v:rt Sf;CTION OFF 1Ct C* T' r ~ r!lETtRY OF TH£ Cc 1M 1S$ 10N Doc :ncnt S1* i*'ics Postmark Dale t "I "l

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~ IJ J I') 0 PROPOSED RULE / .

{ S f/ (ft, q ] 1 q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service "89 JUN 19 PJ :48 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

- This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, Lj( ~ r--r-,r, ~~

S ? ~~ ~?S-ol P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond/June 19 to eceive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of y rs to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

'JUL 2 4 1989 Acknowledgeo b1 ca ra . .*. *'*

• 8 15. NUCLEAR REG IJ 1 />.TO? Y COMM ISSION DOC KET 1 1G & SER.VI CE SECTION O FF ICE Gr T : SECR~T.t,RY OF T,*,E CON, IISSION Pos tmark Dutil Copies r.1.. cei , s::d Add' i Copies R~,.i,.,du 6':lecial Distrib utic. n

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service "89 JUN 19 P3 :48 Washington, D.C. 20555 0FF !l

• OOC KL - N 'I CF

Dear Sirs,

t.l ,A NC"'

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

e This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

0 . S. NUCLE1\R RfGIJIATCRY COMMISS ION 0OCKnt~:G IJ. SG;VICE SECT ION OrFIG: ( : *:-, *: S'.:CRETi.RY OF Tf.r. COM, !%ION Pos tm;:,r!. ~1, Co;:,:r,s '<,," :

• Add ' I *:c,_.: ~ i *r*' fol *d _ J_

S;,eci.;! Dis!rl!J,,tkn /J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and SeNice *a9 JUN 19 P3 :48 Washington, D.C. 20555 ufr * , ...

OOC t-

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

e This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

2 18

5. J(Ll',hf;? MISSI DOCK.T ON

(' '{

l Postm.-rk C  ;:> ,S Add' I ,.

cial istri ut n

DOCKET NUMBER PR S!J 7J. }'lrJ ~;Jt /i&JI /?f{°,

P,ROPOSED RULE .,__ ~

. ( SI/ f'Jf I 1/JJqj To whom it mav concern *** and i t better concern tou fol.k!,

@ Ll hi.

,N**

[ understand that vau fat.ks are trving ta Dass l.egisl.ation h would el.iminah~ the publ.ic: fro,n dec:ision***makin~, oud'hn-s c:cmc:~n-ning 189=~JIIN 19 storage af radioactive wastes. Wei.I., I happen ta Live a mere ei qhf P4:J3 miles north of Rockv Flats. The ongoing FBI investigation of the hoy*rendcHu;; c:ri1oes ac::tains*t humanity ccHnmitb:3/4cl bY the l>CIE and r ti~:!k. *{£d. !. ,_

• 0 J:nternational brinc1 this issue in thr-c>Ucih 01Y frcmt dc>cff. It ;:P l{L ,, 1'1 ~l. ,..r .. v,r.f i 111pey*at i ve that th~rne i !,!me!, remain a P~rt c)f the l>EMOCRAC:Y 1 ! ! ! ! !'~ NU!

How can you I.oak at your children and Your qrandchi ldren and even consider Letting this happen? So dehumanizing corporations can make even more monev .** oh please! You fol.ks must realize that YOU cannot escape Judgement Day *** and bel.ieve me, crimes against Mother Earth will result in some prety harsh consequences. History wi LL show the age of the corporation as the most ignorant and short-sighted Period of mankind. Now that you have been told, You are responsible for the

- knm11Lt:Hlg£~ *** bet. i £We it if YC)U nec3/4cl it, cu- l.ei:tvt:~ i t if Yc>u dar£3/4! ! !

'JvL 2 4 1989 lcrmowrecJge<t by eifM-::-_-;..-

....,,.......--~~---,.,.*

• • *c;s

(

C Postmar 1* D la 6 ~)_£-~ 9' Copies .. c r. 0 1ve Add' I Ccpies Reproduced 5pec:ial Distribution

~?-j"------

(<[PS

QOCKET NUMBER P,8QPOSED RULE PR o

( S'Y ( f< 19] ?9)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service "89

• JUN 19 P3 :47 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Si rs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to

- simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you wo4ld be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-refictor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from ttie NRC.

- This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

I "' 4 8

--.-;

--:- ~

p rtt'lit I I , °""'

a.I. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET!, 'G & SERVICE St'CTION orr:n 0.- THE f.~CRET ~v OP TH E C~~i.lAl:S10 Postmark Da!e _ ?)!~ -

Cop; 5 Rec i c*'

.. :I

--)* ----

Add i C pi<.?s - 'C<. _]__ _ _ __

i6pecial Distribuiion f .LJ

- --,.,,,_..,.,1-"-...,;6&.-

DOCKET NUMBER PR ti.

PROPOSED RULE - ~-1

• 'l e-.

I"'

IV

{SI/ f R 113N)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• ag JU 19 P3 :41

,_F I

• OOLl'\t 1~

• F

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of t e decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission ana give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

,mil 2 4 t989

_,.,.,_ied_ged by ca 1

• --;;~----'l

.*~

~

' * . 1" (\f-M~ Rf 0. V CO ., .ISS

[)C'C,r-. *; ~ c: \'.C ION 0 *-*c. ,") ~t*, Y .

c.- r. *~ Mi

- :)Q y~ I

~b ~1r1~oct >

h9?-J<r!J rv s11

DOCKET NUMBER_ PR

• 1 /J J '>p PROPOSED RULE ..........---5=? J. / 1

(_{'ff f<. ,Jq 1,1J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 19 P3 :4 8 1.,f

• Ddi..h * , vtr

Dear Sirs,

~ ,,N .H I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safe.ty issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never qecome law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P)

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

L2

, ! . NUCLEAR ~fGl.'LATOR'f COMMISSION DOC KETING 8 ~c!'VICE SECTION OFFICE OF 1H'.' s~cRETA y OF THE COMMISSION Document StatistiCJ Postmark Date Co;, es Rececivcd

.A.dci' I Copi~.s Reprodu e 6pedal Distribution

DOCKET NUMBER PRO POSED RU LE PR s-; 1J )? ~

!...!-!-__...;;~ ----'l'.,J ls-LJ Ffl I q3? r f ~

I\

+'. t . *. I

"*\

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 JUN 19 P3 :48 Washington, D.C. 20555 uF -

OOC KE r 1 .. v rr

Dear Sirs,

. ~At-i ..;

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering rour ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you woyld be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-refictor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from tre NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

I' 24 18.

Acknowfedged by card .*....,-...,,,;.,;;;.;i;;;i;;~._.. ,:

D. S. NUCLEAR R!:GVlr TOi<Y COMMISSIOti DOCKETING & SE VICE SECTION m~1c~ OF Tl ~ :Ee ~TA y OF THE COMMIS ION Documc:,t Sti!li ics

OCKET NUMBER p E O r; d; Jf) 0

\>ROPOSED RULE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• t S9 f~J9319)

Docketing and Service '89 JUN 19 P3 :4 8 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to e simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversig ht do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~7((

<p. o. '6/'f I /Jq- r

~18._,AIIY'l ~SDtf P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.S. NUCLEAR REC-rtJLATORY COMMI SSION POCKETING & St~VICE SECTION

' OFFICE or Tl !E SEC TARY Or TH~ <- t f.\lSSION Postmark D*it

DOCKET NUMBER PR ( 0 ') d )1 0 PROPOSED RULE . * ~ J LS lJ,. r f ) CJ 3I) q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *a9 JUN 19 P3 :48 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you woyld be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ion must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-ref1Ctor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, CJt~Orut'IJ1*

S11nfa Hr 14) ~ f/1- PJ{o1 P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowE;lred citizenry.

IL i. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l)OCKETING & SE"V CE SECTION O~ flCE 0 F T-,f ~,EC *T RY OF THE CON ISSION Doc rn-, 11 S1t1,i ics Poslmar!* Dnte Copies K!'!.c1 {l.?J Add ' I Copies Rcprcd*Jc ..J Special Di~t ribution

~~~~51r~~sc: PR sa i J

- (~LJ(f/93')~

0 110 P.O. Box 8809 Santa Fe, NM 87504-8809 16 June 1989 "89 JUN 19 P4 :13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs & Madams:

We strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it now stands, federal officials who regulate the nuclear power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry.

Instead of covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't care about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The N.R.C. must not become simply a rubber stamp commission and give nuclear reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the

.N.R.C.

Please, exert your authority and listen to your consciences in defeating this idea. Our lives, as well as those of our children and their children, are in danger if we don't address this problem now and in the proper manner.

Thank you, 9- ~

~a~1 Kathleen J. Gibson P.S. We hope you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment. We have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

ORY COMMISSIOII iCE SECTION

" r TARY ON S listics

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 50 JJ , 00 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (s-'1 fl< /q 3111)

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 19 P3 :47 ufr.

• I DOC K( 1 v (. *

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You,

.C/4-M~ I

,S. GJ, 1co-/t1ck<Z<-J ) 0.C- I) . 601< 5?05 ~ k ; JJ//1 P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment. g?5"c>z.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

l

' I D

f>ost'Tl r' "

Cop,-~

Ad ' C Special D1stri 1 u 1

r ., t,

£!)

. J

'J. J; 0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l .b I/ r I?- Jq3I q)

Docketing and Service *a9 JUN 19 P3 :4 7 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your racent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the 11uclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety ot the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

e This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

'cilvv,du-, 1/WJ~

9'fI ~//.£ /Y)-lJ I C< l=i=-~I ..2 Sf>C/.,CUJw,, cu; e 4-p-t:> *

~~~ 1<-1 !V;t1 8 7>o I P.S. I hope that you wi ll extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

A' 1;.J ~ l :.0 :J ,',".)

011:'.\.;i D, ",; yd :.:** '~ ,.1000 OISS IW1"JO) At:01 v *,,":SJ;:J aii,.), ,N *i. *n

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR -~ - J70

.51/ f I< /1319)

U.S. Nuclear Regulato ry Commission Docketing and Service *a9 JUN 19 P3 :4 7 Washington, D.C. 20555

,jfr :,

DOC Kfi "4l, ,, \I' ,f I

Dear Sirs,

~AN(. *I I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you wo4ld be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commis~ion must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-re~ctor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from t~e NRC.

e This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

'jiJL 2 4 1!189

&I, S. NUCLE.t.R RC(~!L TC~Y COMIWSSIO;,:

ooc: 11 II'"; t,. ~ ~ *. 'I(:£ S~(j ION 0~, :... L (l , . ~-= ET ~RY

.,r ti Poslrn, rk r::!l 1

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio / (;' lj .{'(2 / CJJ?q) '

Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 , 89 JUN 19 P4 :02

' I " r

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a resu lt, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process y,oL( would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

. .cs Postmar D

_ rf---/, ~ 6 r Copies r ec v ,

6pecial Distribution

roJJ~ 176 U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Docketing and Service

{ S-L/ ff_ /Cf J11 Washi ngton , D.C . 20555

'89 JU ' 19 P3 :59

Dear Sirs,

I I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to tile industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the o~position.

We have seen that tr.ose who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a resu lt, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a ciamn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Cor.1~ission and give nuclear-reactor op~rators bianket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

I This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, ~f,lA

_p-,_ / --tvc,A-P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

St,Q...rl W'e becc,,.,. . e o_ ec."'1""1.~ --v,sf Ne>....f, o,..;:

5-/-e.v-e, !:ez._t:c__

9 S'S- 113~.. F.~ct. #-Ito

~ 'VJ... Fe,, Al. ff,

?_re, f

'

• SSI() I

?J 6- t1

)

J_

/JlRr .~ -

--ruLJ:..£0~-

DOCKET NUMBER

~ROPOSED RULE R ~o '-J J'JO .)

( s ~c[i !9J1q) 145 MARTINVALE LANE

• SAN JOsl! ;.tALIFORNIA 95119

• PHONE : (408) 629-9800 TELEX : (RCA) 278971

• TELECOPY : (408) 281 -6106

• a9 JUN 19 P3 :44 IJH' June 16, 1989 DJCK 1 WJM-89-115 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention : Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule on the Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites

Reference:

Federal Register, May 5, 1989, p. 19379 Gentlemen:

Presented below are NUTECH's comments on the subject rule.

General Comment:

The proposed rule should be modified to include the NUHOMS storage technology. The reasons to include NUHOMS are:

1) NUHOMS is an NRC-approved storage technology. The NUHOMS-07P Topical Report was approved by the NRC on March 28, 1986. The NUHOMS-24P Topical Report was approved by the NRC on April 21, 1989.

2) Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 instructs the Commission, by rule, to establish pro-cedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor. The NUHOMS system qualifies as an approved technology.

3) The proposed rule as currently written selects only certain approved storage technologies. The limited selection provides an unfair competitive advantage to the suppliers of those systems. Fairness can only be assured by including all NRC-approved storage tech-nologies in the proposed rule. Outlining general provisions for inclusion of other NRC-approved systems

S. NUCl FAR ~

DOCKH!NG Ill *,~* *1~* I OH 11.E OF 1 ,* ~r:n*L,,

OFT OocumJrtt !ih r ~ :s Postmark Date jVJJ c

• i-r,, 1 er Cople~ Recci vod Add' I Copies Reprodu clal Distribution -

t

Secretary June 15, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission WJM-89-115 at a later date will not remedy this unfair advantage toward suppliers of selected approved systems.

4) The NUHOMS technology is discussed in the proposed rule and the NUHOMS demonstration program at the H.B.

Robinson plant is cited to support the conclusion that the NRC has obtained a "subs tan ti ve amount of informa-tion from the DOE development programs. 11 The proposed rule also states that the NRC has "gained experience from the issuance of licenses for the storage of spent fuel *** in stainless steel canisters stored inside concrete modules at the H.B. Robinson site of Carolina Power and Light." Since the NRC is relying, in part, on the NUHOMS technology to support conclusions about the safety of dry storage included in the proposed rule, the NUHOMS system should be included in the rule. More-over, the NUHOMS system has been demonstrated to the same or greater extent than those systems cited.

5) The NUHOMS technology is not s igni f ican tly different than those technologies cited in the proposed rule.

Although the NUHOMS concrete modules are usually con-structed in-place, and NUHOMS canisters are fabricated off site as contrasted with metal storage casks which are fabricated entirely off site, the NUHOMS system meets all the same 10CFR72 criteria for on-site storage as other NRC-approved systems.

Specific Comments:

a) The first paragraph of "Summary" appears to be broad enough to cover NUHOMS. No reasons are cited for not including NUHOMS in the rule.

b) The first paragraph of "Discussions" requires the licensee to demonstrate that no changes to existing technical specifica-tions are required and that no unreviewed safety questions result from using a certified storage system. It is not clear if the rule intended to cover the complete range of different fuel designs and in-core operating histories. To what extent will this be covered by the certificate of compliance?

c) Paragraphs five and six of "Discussion" have not included the NUHOMS TSAR' s as reviewed and approved by the Staff in the last several years. NUHOMS should be added.

d) Paragraph eight of "Discussion" states that future casks will be routinely added through 10CFR72.214 rule making pro-cedures. How will this process be instated? What must an nutech

Secretary June 15, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission WJM-89-115 applicant do to initiate the process? Will this become part of the topical report approval process?

e) Paragraph nine of "Discussion" states that the Staff has considered compatibility with DOE transportation facilities.

What criteria has been used for this? How can applicants design for interfaces which are not yet defined?

f) The last paragraph of "Discussion" states that other types of dry storage modules will be included in the future. No rationale is provided to explain why the NRC-approved NUHOMS technology is not included now.

g) The first and second paragraphs of "Proposed Rule", "The General License" seems to imply that if reactor licensee, under a general license, uses a storage cask consistent with a certificate of compliance, that a 10CFR72 site license application is no longer required. Please clarify.

h) Section 72.236(1) requires scale model tests of system for normal, off-normal and accident conditions. The types of required tests should be specified.

i) Section 72.236(m) the specific design requirements and criteria for DOE transportation system capability should be specified.

we hope that these comments are helpful to the Commission in the finalization of the rule. Please let us know if we can provide any clarification of the above comments.

Very truly yours,

_A-/~~~

w. J. Mcconaghy, P.E.

Vice President Waste Management Business Group nutech

~~{

Af.1 t ;'"'*lt-,1

l Special Dist rit,t,fl.Jn

,,. **,* .,t:'-"** np DOCKET NUMBER C*!t. *:,,*_.\: / ()0 PiW11o(;r.o RULE ~Jl . J /

{~l/F(<. ;q3?q] ...... ~ ~ L; !

• r~*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 19 P4 :Q 7 OF'.~ ,

Dear Sirs,

OOCK i. i l}i ' r v 1c;r

~:.Nl"'

I strongly oppose yot,Jr recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of_just covering your ears~ *you now want to simply*siler1ce the *opposition. . . * * * -: ** - . -. *_  ;

W.<J:h?,-v~j;E?~:r. t~~H-~<?S,8 who/ iJerely ~e~ulat~--t_rye~s.el~es_ ~i~h~~~-::~ryr i",~~p~nd~nt overs1ght*donotplace*health _and, .safety issues ori tt:ie.top'. of.the1r..pnonty. llst~. As .a.'. .

. result,:thousands ofpeopie -have::had their health *and -~fety plaGecfin *jeopardy~- i,-** *:- . ~ ... * *

_ */',; **'.Yf,~ ~<!dj1:t~~~t~theti{i~f]~1s:!9i~~~i~~1~1~~~t~}ii~J~;\ to_

• _ ':fo~~a_t?:~a~~f~VE3~':P,9s_~ibl~:- pr~ca~or -~vo!9.j~~,i.~~tj~~.9~~rdarj~/t?.!r-:*a?q -~~t~!.:::Bx1*_*!,- ;*-' * .. -

i ~:.~'  ;?)I* *:*

• eh_mma~~ng *~,~~ :~!-]b~H?,}rom-1the ~1c~~~ng,-_pro~~~~ t~H~_! !g~;I~-- ~~ ftlcl,~~Q.t~e -statern~.I"!~ --:<;__ ~. .

t~~t-you do_rJJ g,v~ a damn aboqtJhe healt~ -an~:-s~t~ f2V.~~ _n~fl~a.!,*Vf~*~-r~ .~ndJh~: ,~ :-: ., **.

0

- ettl_zeQs :o_f thas:c~unt_ry~~T~e.: Nu~lear' R_~gul~te>,ry_po,rtm1issio(l 01l.J.$~J 10.t.i?e.~rne_*. the -_, *-_*_-?:'.;':\ ,- .- : ;_

. _Ntiq!e~r,, :Rub~e(:-i~ampi¢o'rrfrni.ssi'6ri~cJ/giy~~:;rj~ci~ar~t~a~:o r opirafo'rs~~bla~kettti(t* ,_.}}{;.. ~'.- ::. -:.

.p~:":J'.~j~*~~~11rrt~'; ~~,~~~i:i~~~J~'P/,r;~~~;~~i~~~~f%i;:rYi *::-:%Jt,t:;;.7-_.

This foolish ~dea of.yours must never.become law~*' **_*.-~:::~}\.*,. . - ~: _._-. *. -.. *

.t --:*_.<'.}f1':,:,,?,_>,_ 'f:.: .._ *-._{:\~_?:f_.-: '._\f ~~;_cr-:-.Jt'< -'~,;Jtt _**\<.*--;;::\\i-:*-** -.. *. .

. -~ .-: ~

-. *** _- *.*.\.t'.:

\:?/:., ; Thari~ Y I*:**:

Dy,~~r-;,,,:X~'.f.' \,{i,W,;.,;t:~ tt:5-i(::ff{f;t~'~iff~:1/2,- ~t~

-: *. .. ... . ' ...- . .::_. '  ! ~:: . ' .

Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to .know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, qO infOrf!led. active and empowered citizenry. c*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q* I (ijfJ Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :Q 7

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen .that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a resu lt, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.,I DOCKET NUMBER r u J, JI)I A R .::,_

PROPOSED RULE 'J ~d.J v U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LSl/ f 1< /q3J1J Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 19 P4 :Q6 C*F !L

Dear Sirs,

DOCr,_

• I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from th~ licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~-~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

{ ~HUGHES 121 EAST PALACE AVENUE - P . O . BOX 3 4 0 SAN TA F"E, NEW M EXICO 87501

flostmark 0dta 6-/ /rcj' Cf Copi es n.. ce1*r-d - ) ) -

Add' I Cc,pies f:ep,-:. *u _J ~- - - - - -

1I Distribution

'89 JUN 19 P4 :09 To ~e NRC 0 0

,4~ C{ residev1+-- oF-Oft I DOCK[ '

Plymo(Jf{/J ~Mn. c,111J I,'vi'IIICJ w,1/4 1 il1 a wi, 'Je ot -+t,e ~;l9~iW1 Nu(;/eq1, Pc>-WeV' (Jfco?t, :c teel r l,pve q v,'9///-t- -fo e~press my 9 opiV1i'crn av, '1/4e pvopo~ Yule ct,q/lJ'je w~10l-,

Would cd/ow uvd,tev,seJ - cm s/t-e -dvy 5-f-ovqc;e oF SfeVJ+- V'qd1oqcf1've 1/Uc)eqv-- hJe/ _

F,*cs+ of- qi I le+-~ SJ.'j ~-I- .:r (e I i+ wo s q sev,ou..s /qct<.. oF- rt) ves/<th+- on 'fl,,e_

e fb- v--t" o ~ -.J..-1,ie. v,udea.v l VJdus-wy +tic.r+- l,,qs F6c.d,~+ed ~e ~eed ~ -1/4is +,pe of-

'\ Qu,'cu.. t7if. 11 s+o-vo9e . w~o.+- we ve ~e Ot,9/rq (

tV)du5-W_)' p\av->s fbv' ~pen+- .fuel ~9e? Weis~,-

{-\- °' ' - cv-oss +{-a+- t>L11/cl9e w~eVl we C0??1e fa

• i -l-- fbl1'cy wlAi-~ VlatJ ~ui'v-e s seV'1ou~ a l-¥3v--

~+,on> o 3/4~ 0-V,1'9iVJql V'ules 3/4 Wt1t:_..

VvieQvt +' -to f)vDvf de ~v1del.1v,e5 Pov SQ~

• JUL 4 \989

6. ; Nur~~/., N'"' *" .*r">'! ('f"\l.A',.~ISS ON.

tor - "' - * ** r~ - * ;-:,N

,,,.,cT

• n_y

. ' *:1 Postmark Date Copies Reccivd Add' I Copies R:? rotl:teed _,~-----

DistriLution

nuc~q,r U\As-k- s-iovq,9 -e_ ? fmd ())hqf- i's fo be.come of'- +itle. spevli- MJe.l ~q-J- /~ stoved d.vf - cm s19~t? vJ t1/4 +1/2e 9vou.1i'n7 11/qficmq I CoVlSC.icusVJess qh,ut- -f-ltie. .sev,ous heq/+£,,

• V\Q-zei vd s D f-- l.-io. v IVI 9 Q pe V'WlO. /IJ et//+- -fo XI 'c, WQ sk c;\u Wl p1 VlOt-" '4o me vltfcJYJ II) uLJ eo v {)Jq s~) / v; CMe.5 c.cswi WlUV1t'+>1 1 r covi't- ltlelp bl1'eve ~+ w~ is

~; d -lo re.- -lewl p:, ro. ~ sfoyq_9 e m1-s, '-le. w II I

'iufcu.ly ClVld tV11/4VJ+,orcdfY evolve ivt~ q (erfl/kl.ne//11-

• \J-As-te. s1-+e., ~use. --l-t.ieve. i's. :SJ mpl7 M fiole else

-+o pu.;- -1/4e CAASf..e .

A-5. we q l{ ILMo-WI PVQ vie e. ltJcc ~ Io11c; bee VJ C-\ ttespec-led WJV'\d }~delf"' \V\ +iie ~'i'eld oP. nucleo.V'-

po-we,v- deve\o pwievi+. Howevev; &e//1 4-/tiey qJm~

~-\- -1/4e\/'._ \~ Vlo CO"Yl<Jo.,VJer ,VJ ~rs--/ence _µ.zCAf- eoiv, 1/'evYhl {\ ' VI -\QC,t- 11/\ d.e~ Iv1o.-lely I es fe C-1 cd I j tdV1evz Sfe11+- 01uc.,leo_v- ~I i'S s ~ f ns,'de. We o. ve.

Vlow eypev-, eVlcw vi9 +ttle .pvo1lem~ of- -/t,e htc;9est-

+la.w ,111 -H-ie- VlUc.18=1 V' (b-wer iv'lc/usH/'j - rt,J,<JqcHv-e vJos+e-5o ore we 1 -+-i-ie ves,cleVJ+s oP-- plymoefl..t,,

• Su pfO&::d +o s k- lack:- qv1C}_ uJ:::I,~ ces jd r.J;

'-f1!1e NRc, (\\low ClClV' k'A,c.tL yards +o k ..f-o11nal LV1~ a. SfeVl+- VJVv}eqV' weJ dump~ X sor //JC)!

+-t(A)J CqV) yov e1'pec+ -+-tne Pi( 9V'1Wl UICJV'~V.S I w1/2o lel1e\I.. ~-t- o (fttcleo~t1've ;:sp/1/ is; e::t.s1'/j WJsiJed ot-~ wi+\ti -Hde, +o rvi-+ellt'7e>1Hj qncJ ~re.17 /MQ111qye

• +{,e. \octcL vi9 cmd 9/oVQ.9e_ oF- dvy ~ Pue/ vcd<;;.f

.:t:"+- w, us foe ve ,r; & s y {o s,'-t- / v1

\JJo. s~, VlCJ t-oY> 1 WtC\ Vl y ~ uvid treds c~ l/V1 nes qwqy ~

C5Y) e D~ ~ e.. ubV'St- V' 1/) IIJUcl V {JO W{ll( p/a. I/ff$ / ///

'""tV\e f\J:,\~vYl, a v0 vVttKe VYnVV' dec,'stCJYJS +6 Carree,+ +l1e. pear- ,Lil i-h'a I ploVJV1 IVK:j d- '-11,, e_ /IJUc/~ r f'OvJ.r t Vt dus+v'/ " ~ e.L, s i CJ1t1 s LJlll t c.Jr1 Lu I l q\ vvios+- ceV"te!iVllf lnqv-e QVI odve~e ef:(:ec+- CSV/

~ fl wltio I~'ve_ tl/e.a. v' q viol fllcrl- s:> Ill a:i. J/' a 111 y v1u~ V' (JCJVJV-- pfaJ/1+-,. -rf,e ft'ves oP- /vJ//Jc;CeJ/lf-People_ ts a wvy hr9~ pV',ce *+c fAY h:JV'

+ryi'IIXJ .Jo ~ e YK:,V l1k i'V7+o q11 r't/Jdv'Sl1Q'

• -+-k-r+-- 0:t .s become ~ ui'-1-e,_ qn e1-17ens:/ue.. bv~e11; 1ootv1 WbVQ/ I/ q VJcl (3c.o?/)tJm1ca IJ.YJ o CfJIJ ycm e_ '4Jh6 I'£ evev1 vevm+ely qt;;~/q--Je.c:/ wl--1-0 /+;-

I'-&: , s. od 11"1 i++&l Iy Unde*:::ur -Jo 1111e LUk.t-+-

+l!Je.. fl)Rc (rceVJs/v2<J pvocess el/Jfctil.s q re/qfed v dvy - 6Yl£/~- (f'qd/oqc.:.f;/ vvtts.Je ~tr:o/Q9e, e Ho-u.Jevev-- x- 1

+eel 6+ /JVJUS,+ pve.<::en+- '-+0e.

,vidus+vj w,v-L-i cw1 UVi~Vl-1-ed hvvo/le ; c:- --fl;,e Al~c l's;, 9x;tL.i'IA9 Ct cJ,,R ~e t'V/ "--'1 e If' rJ le1 -t-/,,ze treb/

e \,'vvi rV1Ci+.t'r79 +t.,e, 1;-c.-eV61't12/ p~s. Pev-l,zqf..s

)+ ts -hme qc,\VV1,-I-- -+1,-c,t+ -+lti-e t VJo pbce

\e('..--1-- +o p * -+tie d:t~evou s(eVJ+- voclP1C-+1'v-e

~e,\ a.v'ld (1Vq\iy' ~d11Y11+ --1--1,pf- -Hie Alltko.(1 fc'>wev 1v0Jswy I<; wio-Y'iUI Ii cltoic, ~ csv, i+ S

cw Y1 oJa.s-fe ,

I q ((J.JQjs -f-?oUCftrl- -flAa+- --#i e NRC uA.S suppoSe:l -k> J::;e.. q Wo-tc,i,,doy ~t'-1---1-ee ~

-f-t1e v?~r- tVtd~#f wl,,,y ~//I does /-I-

• /corC- so wtu0!,-z ld::e c (olob71'.Sf--- ~ +hem?

J: ~ WI per{'SO;/)qf '7 ouf'VQ;ted wheVJ I I eqv-V1 c.t~u-b- ql/) (5.sue_ l,'ke_ -+l,;e J/'v/(L ohQw;e on I'I z. l,(b vtc i' vi5' do. y ~ foe. Fov-e. '-f-0 d et::d kn e f;,y- 4e puloLc Orn/JMeV/+- pev,roc/. r ~nt//Oi-0e Ip bu-t- ~, lll JC -+I/ct-I- -f-tJI 'S j s q de {r'0e vr>t -te.

e -+ac+,L used loy o def,'°ey-q~ lwlusfvy *-1-o el.u111 illlqk q l l pvbLc i'VJ(V&- (Jr) ~e ~ v i .

C-h 1'.S +v,-c;cs (,~ ~e_ -1/41 'S:- ~a+ CJ:.JYJu/nce. me

~+- ~ I\) RL f , vi ~ i , Je, ,<--'\-J-16,e+-

o ~ +t,ie._ Vt lea. V j' vi.cl Us.#I ,

TVl Cbr7cfus,OY7 r w~~~ -fu ~~k ~+

1

r:. ei VVl v e l-i e rne111+-f y opfb58d -fO 'fflts /tJR.C V\J\ e_ ckt vi9 e q v0 ::r: k;el ,e*ve -thq+- 411 e_

11/UG\.eav' rvtdus+vy ciVICA <#ie /JRC ,;;hould loolG f;r rrore- l0r19 -/errn S::>)uftWJs -fo ~e rad,lcac-f1've uJqs~ pl/UO!eJ11 II- /;+-1-/e. clear r:ore£/9h~ un -

olos-wuc;tecl foy clo//qv- C,'9/IJs/ CJnd 0me <;cod

• Solid p/av?(/J/n,9 cavi !tie/p f reu-elt1f-- u.s Pvom

~cw1drvt9 dof.f/vi Cl dead l j -f-'1'cldn9 -J-,;//J1e -

kxrrYlh fv our h.l-i-ure... 9eMetro-f-107J~-

-tha //IJC Yoc!;

fJowd;-- ~

Dctvtd J. ~l?eny P.o. &:>x 4 W~ /+e.. -/-(dvse. 8c J,., J fl//14

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Servi ce Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :15

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

• As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You,

('nv l,,\._..I

\ ~J-fu_

Sincerely, O\~I *tl \\

1ct\'\-\i- ~ ,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the**basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

I . u,,Je :sb,,. Vt 11~c1s?>'ttl/ e/ 8/zr- ~ f CPtrre /Juc((la,-

{t *,i,'fl; f- -1fu 7 fl 6~ nt s -t/e1--F- ( /Le"> <' ~ 5 /Jr., VJ<' <>U I 1

jb / '(-1.J '-/tu_ (,) , pp ~ ftI t ,,.!l*'fr L ck d u~.JJ e ta. cl:,

~ sh rtJ.;r tlt-PCl a,..,,Jl I tJJ1 -f I, cf,~ ~ '(Jyf, 14:f ~

r/ ft &f

[/~u,:f,- -/);~ ', .,Jv . f5 11~-I- tf[/'7 8zUf::.r J_ al">D ~""-r . fh-1r1:yoyf1,0 (<-,,, s'k: 5

-l/111:1~ '-/~ /1 1 l-1Lif fo/JtJ-z.~ '(Li,.cn_D 1n

-f /ri e_ 1r 'ft:< V LJ9L-f;L rtLC r::, , J5 l c ,,, -t.,,) I h,., ,J.J

+ ,i ~ l {e - m r f ,..fl ;)[)/4,._:furx-II -f V- t ~

{le/ /lLL 1

, c({7 dff tc<-H (1 f,vL~UL-t1L I u-5/4, c {_

?fA. n0-s ct 17:,-/J cft:; re~ "- r 1 1 t-7/4 (f:!_/ £ T,Jf,C-/ k'cd!'+ic -f-J de ncf & ItU le_. ;nu- crn 7J 11zr ,--

--b5 f-, hcu<L bu.n Y-kn~;; cie.,  !"'1Jo, ; ,. ;:__ _

0t dri17 -fi.,r c/ 30 1

r,Y a j>tu1cn11

'1Jc,r jyzm a -/tu .t~ /5 11;1.s</-l; d(f ~A-r fu,.J<<<'{} JI ,

(I .

cf Xl ,-;J /Ld- rfcriUIJ f~?"~

'L (J

--f;l //

( lt) f,u c{u . {' rnJJ, f

'f' tis-,_ {,/ fitff ()

0 C{/J\ er{ ( ( Q (? ,.J-

/4,J~O f)/ £ (1( ( 1.u! ~ '--IL'-- L/.1 -A/a,w rt"'o (lt M f_( ll7'<--f'°L)

• rl,6. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCK'.llNG & SERVICE SECTION OFF:CE OF THE SECP.ETARY

; /N.J!'kl' d{

I OF THE COMMISSION Doc, ,, S*atbHc,

(}_ Ejtl,v /A i/)J,f 4 ;"R,~:,';,d {~~}__-

(5/) 1~ ' I Copies Reproduced Special Distribution ~

J 174 8;-iJJ,)[_

_________fj ,_~_i:;s:~D~(.\...__

'i

'DOCKET NUMBER PR ~ !J_ , )? O PROPOSED RULE

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [~I/ (If / <J J? 1J Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 '89 JUN 19 P4 :08

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid' poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health* and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store wasfe without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, 12~~

ro l.."" He Y""-" DI."'-

5o \I\ t~ fc_ I ,/JI"'\.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basi s of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

}/-erwi,.tf. "'

. , '- 2 BX 1731

.5'1~ '/-4. Fe, #M f75"""(1r

' ' t ' \

\

~--***

\. . .

~

r

' r*

) 'I("

TIC II\ '

"Y

(

1\/\MI

.. ;- ()

l

(

.-Jf rJ__ _

Postmark D,1*~

Copies R_-:0i nd Add' I Copi s f'cproduced

{

I ----

~ cial Distribution f}j-~- t.,- J-})j'-::--

DOC1\tl \ 'LJ,-\

D[ (' II - -

slb') J?D C5 Yf ~ ;q3?0 . *:.

'89 JUN 19 P4 :Q 2

. **t

~KC Doc.,\fe J . V\ '.'.] c;J I\ ; Se. rv ,c..e.5

............ f . , - ,, , ~ f D~r S-q?i,

of

~,p Sf!I ~?J. dd

',j,:)J (3J,v\Jj~~

J ., I I PV

(

- - -~ ~ ,..9( --7 e1..

'")

1' .... ., d f\'=- V' : ,

l j/'y? ; Y1 NO 1SSIV V,0") ~~*~ .i0 Al:l'v'rnC;S Jrtl JO * , ,O NOID~:i l)IAb 'i 'I? ~t,11 )t..,QQ NOISSIWWO) Al:l0.1.V lf1:.):HI aV.:l ,)f1N $:0

.- " r r

1 MMISSI

,.,...T':JN

(

. ,, N Post c~~

A Epec I D

• riS 1 ,

<3 ~;; shol*~ *e,cjf

-~;;f,'o~-- 0 1 f.~ Oi .s.Q V). V\°' :, .1' . . - ---- -

u

• - - . . . -* ...,,_..,, . _-4.!..:.:.:.___ . ~

Si' v1 e,.e. ~~ Iyr -----= -~----

- **s fj~Jw-di ~~*c*~ :~

1:

. ,.,,,, ,_., ,,,.:;,1g,.;-rl t- 'r:,

• 1 89 JUN 19 P4 :O ~

To: Ntt _

-fr~ O~\lt ~ CJl een S.cJJoeo~v-d 13 t (Yl,ei'"_\OV"\ Ave.

N~b~+--\.t\ PA- l'1,011, e._e__: _kc.r_~~sk~ "f. ijitL l.&ieL ~

e "-+ 1 i,u* . :f _L~~ Aro~~+ _

1. Su, :__ J 1?JJ4 . _ -

Wt. "f fo.s-e. +~ ~ ~ r-e.u~:

I. Tu clr-7 Cl:;:S. Mf. ~ to lllt>t ~t

~~~~-~~~~~ ---

--~ i ..,..__I_,r_~V)-~-s-bi"rmu-.F k\ ~ c.rnc.6:"l'l -~ :fu,t(Ac;ti:,.- - -

- ~ ~~ ~ b ~ hb~ ~ ~ - -

_p'"T"~ - V'\ CA..e.. ~ ~ c . ~ -- - - --

1 - - - - - - -- - - - - - 1'.i""'---- 1-AMos1/2~ M.tl'W.6 ~~ -

~~f ' 1,1,C iTu

-!'O"ltA_ ---=- . W1Ll s .

~~- 11-hes_6~

hto-i ~

~jq ¥1~

~t.rvl

lo ~ tk 41-

&t,_; 1.--l d.1-\cw.fi~-, - - -

1i -_

- _-- - - - - - t<t~~-

~ ----~ ~

DOCKET NUMBER PR r n ) n PiROPOSED RULE -v O I J I0 I SY Ffl I q 3?~) I' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio~ f*

Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555

• ag JUN 19 P4 :14

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must'hever become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

1

\ .

U,5. NUCE R r OOCK~T!. IG &

omci: m OF THE C Docu*1~ri c: *cs Postmark Dale topies Received

~ ' I Copies Reproduced Distribution

. L. - -----

DOCKET NUMBER PR ')': / ') D U.S --Ir *1 PROPOSED RULE._

9egulato ry Commission Dockellng and Service Cf'! r, . J JC/l?q)

• 59 JUN l9 P4 :,3 Washi ngton, D.C. 20555

- F ~* !-. ..

bOCl *.

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposql for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-w§ste storage permits .

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

-s~.e/4.. F. s rA-~/Jru-

/a, c~11" '°'""-- "3"t>sc._

s~11.,.,-f~ ~-e ,/41.M * ~7ro I P..S. I hope that you will extend the time beyo~d June 19 tb receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~lfnriwlcdged by card . ***.,..*.*

~

• n I'.

. ~ ~ ~

~~Q,

~

~

~~

• ~

'-6 I

, C:

" A  ;:

0

• '89 JJN ~~ / 1,~'{1_

I ~tMi _e.e-tUIUtlJ ,k Ei) .4-ftne ~ irt-de

. ?f i&cLf!r S',,,c kP l$la<<<.j

DOCKET NUMBER p .§ 9l /? 0 p,ROPOSEO RULE ~ J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission { f; 1/ (/<. / qJ q 0

• l * '°*!.

.rn,.

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :J 7

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

tTh" You, y~

Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

PoshnarR Copies e l'Add'I t op IReciaJ* Disrr *

• DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE _

PR Q_lL r /) /\I J J)AV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (_~'ffRl1J?q) 4**1 Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 J 19 p4:17

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, hn- Mane (}\L(dPJ1.J 21([; G-tm1t1.Deh.ueco So~~

JJM {jJS[t; P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

'"L 2

, r .,

~( ' \

\

-1 Pos*n,-,' -, . 6:-/f ~j_

Cop, . :. . J. ____

Add' f c" . ; I* ,er:'~ '

Special Distribi,;tion

---

===:=...;,-

~~~~rsr~~~c: ,a &a;-1 2 J?b) crlf rr< 193?'1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 '89 JUN 19 P4 :17 uP iJOCKt 1 * ,

Dear Sirs,

N*~~

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent )

oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing -process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowe ed citizenry.

89 .. .

Post a k **

Copies "

Add' I Cop R~ rodu ~d Special Distribution

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l[Y t' Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JU 19 P4 :16 uFF ,

i)OCKi. - II l ' f

Dear Sirs,

1;1\,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that t_he nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nucJear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

\

['

l>oslmark Date

[opies IL:01 ed t:Add' I Copies Reproduced

!Special Distribution

UOCKET JU~/~E

~ROPOSED RULE ' STATE OF OHIO

~ l/ t /?_ / qf Jq ) ADJUTANT GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT

( y 2825 WEST GRANVILLE ROAD COLUMBUS, OHIO 43235-2712 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY *ag JUN l 9 p 4 :0 6 AGOH-EM June 16, 1989

,:1F" ..

DOL,I~.~ '. ,

~ ll ~l Id Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The State of Ohio wishes to comment on the proposal to a the NRC regulation 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170 which pertain o storage of spent fuel in dry casks at nuclear reactor sites.

The State of Ohio questions the advisability of permitting d y cask storage at nuclear reactor sites. At a minimum, a thorougtr-site review must be conducted. There are many factors which could influence the location of the dry cask storage area at the site.

Among these are distance from public access such as roadways or beach areas1 geographical or topographical configuration of the site regarding marshes, drainage areas or sloped terrain1 and, actual size of the nuclear reactor acreage to permit such storage. It is felt that NRC should develop firm criteria for the cask sites and require a site specific review which would be available for comment. This would serve the best interests of the uti l ity, the NRC, State and local government and the public concerning the storage concept.

The NRC must reconsider the provision in the proposed rule to permit indiscriminate storage of spent fuel at a nuclear reactor site which has been generated at other sites. While 10 CFR 50 permits transfer of such fuel, there should be a restriction to permit only the transfer of fuel from plant to plant within a utility-owned group of plants. In Ohio, Centerior Energy plants Davis-Besse and Perry, could make such transfers, but the transfer of fuel from Con Edison or Virginia Power or other utilities shoul d be prohibited. The increase in public risk and safeguards for transport of such fuels is not worth the benefit when local storage can be achieved. The procedure to amend a license to accept transfer and storage of fuel from another state not within a power conglomerate must include the ability of State and local government to intervene if desired in the license amendment process.

,,. L 2 4 1989 a _1, __ .. .,~A,..,..d bv card . . *,;

,GN-0001

Postmark .I

Copi s F' t , _ l rAdd ' l C.* ;-,i *.~.,r ,d r '

J 5peciel Disiribi.;ticn

The proposed rule stipulates that the power reactor licensee would have to notify the NRC before storing spent fuel in dry casks and register each cask. To insure that the emergency response activities and for proper inclusion into emergency planning, the utility must be required to notify State and local governments simultaneously with the NRC when storage is begun and to further provide information as to the number of casks used, their location, and the specific information contained in a site review.

Spent fuel should be stored in the fuel storage pool for a minimum of five years prior to dry cask storage. Such a provision would place considerably less thermal stress on the storage casks.

It is noted that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is not required. In the opinion of the State, such an omission is not responsive to environmental protection and cuts short the input felt necessary in cooperative safety activities between utility, government and the public. This is not meant to deny the utility the right to storage process and concept.

A review of the emergency plan and the radiation control program prior to the implementation of the storage of dry spent fuel is exceptional foresight. However, the requirement should be expanded to insure that modification to the emergency plan or radiation control program must be coordinated with the State and local government who are partners with the utility in the emergency planning effort.

In Section 72.230 of the proposed rule, it is strongly recommended that the language be changed to reflect the condition that an application for approval of a storage cask for spent fuel will be made available to the public. Notice of this application should be printed in the Federal Register. Application by vendors of reapproval likewise should receive the public comment. In fact, public hearings on this rulemaking and dry cask storage and approval process we believe to be in the best interest of all concerned.

The safeguards system for the existing site cannot be considered adequate for the additional burden of dry cask storage. Unless a utility commits to the location of dry cask storage adjacent to the reactor building, the existing safeguards can be compromised. The Davis-Besse site, for example, has ample space inside the site boundary. However, a sludge pit is designed for operation and the spacious area otherwise available is outside of the heavily-guarded approaches to the reactor building. For persons entering the personal search, escorted access and close-in are a s, a guard facility is near the reactor complex. This design would not provide safeguards to a dry cask storage located beyond the controlled area1 for example, near the meteorological tower.

As a minimum, both from a safeguards standpoint and a radiation safety aspect, any dry cask storage areas should be located greater than 100 meters from the nearest public access (roadway, park, beach, etc.) well within the site boundary fence and in a surveillance area. Further, it is strongly recommended that a minimal cover structure be placed over the casks. This structure could be in the form of a metal building which would protect the casks from deterioration by exposure to elements, offer some containment capability and possibly frustrate potential sabotage intentions.

A radiological monitoring plan must be prescribed for the storage yards. This plan would be part of the radiation safety and emergency plan.

The utility must be requ ired to pr e sent a plan for on-going inspection of the casks in the storage area to insure account-ability and cask integrity. Testing procedures for leakage should be well-written and documented both for the NRC and State radio-logical health personnel.

The practice of permitting a cask vendor to not seek reapproval of the cask after a 20-year period seems fragile and irresponsible. Vendors who seek to market such items need to make the beginning commitment to seek reapproval before an initial approval is given. Therefore, a non-discretionary provision should be inserted into the rule prohibiting cask vendors from not seeking reapproval and/or a penalty system should be developed for not seeking reapproval. This penalty would, in monetary terms, pay for the removal of casks from service and the associated costs of transferring the spent fuel. This action will preclude these costs from being passed on to the rate-payer for lack of commitment of a cask vendor.

Extreme caution should be used when standards for design are approved for storage casks versus those casks which are used for highway/rail transportation. Exact parameters must be known relative to the design of casks which will permit the transporta-tion of the dry storage casks to any future site designed by DOE and approved by NRC for monitored retrievable storage. In this same regard, the entire long-term spent fuel storage concept must receive more than passing emphasis by the entire federal community. The proposal for intermediate storage facilities to be available was short-sighted at best. The target date which was established in NWPA of 1982 was not sufficiently fixed or advanced to permit storage of the current inventory of spent fuel in the over 100 nuclear power plants in operation. Continual lack of vision will only exacerbate the present problem and will lead to more and perhaps lesser quality storage solutions such as dry cask storage.

Through our sincere concern for safety and welfare of the public and economical operation of the current nuclear power structure, we have presented these comments. The State of Ohio looks forward to the NRC response and enclosure of comments into the rule.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

. A&~

JAMES R. WILLIAMS State Liaison Officer to U.S. NRC JRW: liv

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :20 r

I

.s /r ~i q y 3 e  !:;; rFZ1..

- /o l"t°Jnc-ve Me /J/.// c r /- :.5 h ,l

,,,{ffl'rco/ C'ov, {' p ,- ;, 'Y ti-f1e /., <fn - .I

"" ~ / /rc-/-:.t,?r _ red(" /4-r '-<.-,t.J'S ;::"c_

5 r~~e.

/ kq'J C _)--y-;-l""l!'r /,I

,d'~ ,,/~d,r / i-,

s:., "n 17 _ 1/4

.know, d ea Y c

. D' I I oslm*r:

Cc.,..l"'S

~ t-} 6~ t-:L

__ ) - - -

~dd ' I C V -

Special Oislribullon

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE __J.

PR  :-ra-_c;'\ I? Vh L ()_

';; ( S-V { P. I q31 o/)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *ag JUN 19 P4 :18

Dear Sirs,

r:

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

~

\

Postmark Date Copies Received

~dd' I Copies Reproduced

&pecial Di st ribution p

OCKET NUMBER ~ j 1d, ) 7a mclaughlin PROPOSED R architect a professional (Cf FR J q30 9)  : \,,: ~ t . ~ .

it* .

corpor~tion

'89 Jl)N.1.9 PA :08 3665 w. diablo dr.

las vegas, nevada 891 1 8 .,~i - -~ ~.1 - T;:- r -., ~-* I':. "* !- .., ,'* ,.-":"' ~ "' - ;.* ...;- ,*.,., ,*oF'-t

~ 1U 1

(702) 736-1 551 . . ooc'tZr I I.,, I ,

~ N* H ri L 4 1989

, ac1<nowlcdged by card .* ,..

.1tm~~§.~.YIL *--~" ied~ral of- Jack Anderso.n *. . :*-. ,.

fic11ils

• wlro' regulate *the nuclear- ' . . .

power

• industry routinely ignore yet law. In -this case/ tniblic' com- * :

public opposition* to that* industry. '. ment is still being solicited until

• But instead of covering their ears, / June . 19. Letters sho~d be** ad7: .

now t~e.re~ators_have fi~~ed out i dressed to th? {!;$. Nticle~~* Regu-

• a way to *s~ence the oppos1t1on.

• latory Commission, *Docketing .and

• Th!3 Nuclear Regulatory . Com- : Service, Washington/ D.C., 20555.

• mission

• recently *proposed cutting n n ~ '*

the public out of the decision-mak-

~ng process in the. case of radioac-tive-waste stprage pern;iits.

. Curreptly/ nuclear~plant opera-I tors have to ask *the NRC* for a

. -license to store certain .kinds of nuclear*waste. People who are con-cerned about *safety problems -can

' air their views at hearings and by

. writing to the NRC,

• while each*

application is being, considei;ed. ..

The new rule would .eliminate the -licensing process that requires .

public comment. All nuclear-reac-tor operators woul!f get blanket

• permission to store .waste without

• seeking a permit from the' NRC.

1 , The agency's foolish idea is not *

. ....,\:. ~_-:-_ . ;_.-*..:\i'; .}-:,,;**./:-i\~*~i!.~\ . ,~ ~,.

-) tJJt,

- )

od ~

. I Distribution f.

~c:1a ----,~'-"'-'-~ _ __

oocKEr NUMBER P,ROPOSED RULE PR ~o ?J 1111\

IU

/rLJF! Jt!J;q J

• 59 JUN 19 P4 :14

, lf.f June 16, 1989 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

As of now it has been frustrating to watch you routinely Ignore public opposition towards t~e regulation of the nuclear-power industry, but now you are proposing to silence the opposition all together. Cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive waste sto rage permits. Currently, nuclear-plant operators have to ask you for a 1 icense to store certain kinds of nuclear waste. The new rule eliminates the licensing process that requires public comment. All nuclear-reactor operators would get blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit.

This is a foolish idea and as an American tax payer, voter, human being, very strongly oppose the new ruling being proposed.

Please act accordingly, do not put this ruling into affect.

Sincerely, Anya Banquer-Braun

j_ S. NlJCLEAP R:CULATORY COMMISSI DOCK~l !. 1G & SERVICE SECTIOhl omc: Or Ti '.E SECRnARY, Or , c COM ,\ISS IO Doc,;.11enl St2' isl ics

. ~;cm N11 "R 0

r II 1 Jl)D I\

PRO?OsEf ~U'tE ~R c£'c}J' S?J 1

I r  !SI? <Ji U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.Commission C.f'J rle Jq3 Jq) -_~" ,.,' I Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• 89 JUN 19 p 4 :QO

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage pern,its.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Since rely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

MS. SUZANNE W. VANCE

..a.~ P.O. BOX 6201 r.i7[ 4 1989

. - - SANTA FE, NM 87502

REGULATORY COMMISSIO~

JG & SERVICE SECTION fi!G CF Tf'E SErRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Pos . ar~ Date Copies Received "dd' l Copies epr0<

• 5pecial Distribution

DOCKET NUMBER PR -~O0J PROPOSED RULE ~__,;;,..~ - .J Jf"JO i. ~ch L ,

_ lo i (S-~ l'R J9J?q)

June 15, 1989 '89 JUN 19 p 4 :20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of readioactive-waste storage permits.

Federal Officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who rrerely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. The Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission must not l:::Je allowed to give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC and public comment and approval from the voting citizens in the democratic process. It is quite evident from the current hearings held by the DOE on the SEIS for the WIPF project, that governrrental agencies will make every effort to open facilities prematurely before proven safe or all safety precautions are in place. Only public comment seems to reveal flaws in testing, statistical analysis, and shed a conmen-sense and objective view on nuclear proposals.

The voting citizens must never allow your proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process.

Siu::_ (}

4:~ P. Fehrin r 2020 Calle Lorca #36 Santa Fe, NM 87505 P.S. I hope that you will extend the tine beyond June 19 to receive public cornment.

I am sure many more citizens would comment further on this poorly publicized attempt to short circuit the basis of democracy by eliminating the participation of an informed and active citizenry.

cc: Congressman Bill Richardson finl 2 4 19°"

'°""'°'l'\\.,,,.,.('l,..rl bv eard . .

It " ,.

DOCKET NUMBER PR SJ 1 JI) D PROPOSED RUL6 . . -*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiifstf/Z / q J?q) - L. ~,i i i:

I Ji Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :17

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

1t We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on th e top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~~M_

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed. active and empowered citizenry.

, & \ . ION (Y y Of ! .. :: C.OMMISSION D::i~Lmcr.t .Statistics Pos tmark Date Copies Rece:ved

DOCKET NUMBER PR .51) _0 ) J? 0 PROPOSED RULE **

{s 'I f RI 13 1q)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 "89 JUN 19 P4 :Q9

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear ower indust is fo rced to take every possible precaution to avoI poisoning our land, air and water! By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a pprmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hop' that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democra<?,y, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

O. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOfl DOCKETl.~G & SERVICE SECT ION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF iHE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Copies Recei vcd )

Add' I Copies Reproduce l

. ial Distributi on

-..-~- ---

DOCKET NUMBER PR --F I) n J.. J00 PROPOSED RULE _ ;:x_tj_.r~1 ~

June 15 , 1989 ( SY (f 193 I 1)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service

• ag JUN 19 P4 :16 Washington, D. C. 20555 t

t' f

Dear Sirs ,

I must write you t e tell you how very strongly I oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits .

We, the citizens of the United States, are already ignored by the federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry. Now it seems clear that any opposition is to be formally silenced. They have done this kind of thing in Eastern European countries for years, and I thought wecin the United States were different .

The nation has watched self-regulated industries place health and safety at the very bottom of their list of priorities again and again . People now live with unnecessary health risks .

We need to do more, rather than less , to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our air, our land , our water, our people . By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be saying that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of nuclear workers and the citizens of this country . What are your values? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must never give nuclear-reactor operators permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC .

Your idea is a mistake . Mistakes must not become law .

Thank you for this brief opportunity to speak, Since ely ,

Michael M. Sumner Route 7, Box 116 EK Santa Fe , NM 87505 NOTE: Please extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public

~ii\ea;t,QI h~ve quite a few friends who need to find out about this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry

(. . ,,

Po~tn rk v,p, . ,

~ d' I C (

I Dul ,ibut on t

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR -

~

ro ?-)J / /) /)

I V

. --. [ ; ;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis( i£ lj F/<._ / Cj J?1] ** f,, ..

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *89 JUN 19 P4 :09 vF*

Dear Sirs,

DOCKl ii-***;., . ' *.I BHMd ...

I ,sJrongly oppos~ your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeoeardy~

We need to do roace rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is fo rced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and watg_r. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blankeJ ..

permission to store waste without seeking a pp rmit from the NRC.1 This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

Sincerely, J,wt~ ~-JJ~aJ P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed. active and empowered citizenry.

6 24 1

,6ffliiar1c Dar

- _, ceivecf Cop1e . fo u

~dd' ( Copies ~p i f bistribut,on

2r. ~o*

').

• '* s.. t ~( t CY' . 1 ....1 .

'lL'*

\

, - G:.o .. ' ~

- *~

-Copies , R:-*cd , ~d . ...

\.

"} Acid' I Co-:1.,s RGp,oduced,...,,.,-L.-:-:::- -::---,::T'"

l, ~ .. I

--X '

• Special Distribution \

' '~

.~ ctS: 10 ~

..... .... --.~

." . ...~ "-- ...)::. ....

~*

~

~

\"' '(, .

~

~ ... ...

< \: *, '

. ... .. --~**.

i.._

l

).

i;..,_ *. \ ..

~ ....

...\* *, \.

~ ' '*

t. ~ J\ > ~ .\ ) .

)

---

*-~ ~- '* .:,;... '

.\

j

, .-. L Nt*f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 '89 JUN 19 P4 :03

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition .

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

.t Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed. active and empowered citizenry.

• "* I Postmark C.:i* 6-JS- J-J

[op1es Recc. d J.dd' I Ccpins R£;:,r

• cial Oistribut'

~~~~5ltou~Scl PR ~rl .?~ )fJb C~ lJ .r/(. /13 .)q) June 15, 1989 Christine Cline 1328 Alexander Streeta2 JIJN 1 p .

Simi Valley, CA 93065- 190~* 9 4 .16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555 Re: LICENSING PROCESS FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR OPERATORS To Whom it may Concern:

• In light of the recent crackdown on the Rockwell plants, I fail to understand the reasoning behind erasing public comment from the licensing process. Just who thinks up these things anyway?

I lived in Broomfield, Colorado from 1976 to 1980. Considering I was in my fourth month of preganancy when I arrived, I wasn't exactly thrilled to hear about the trinium waste in the drinking water. Occasionally a report would leak out about the exceptionally high rate of birth defects in a neighboring city, Arvada. There was also a lot of concern about the types of materials that came through the Jefferson Airport.

After about two years of living in the shadow of Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, I developed Graves disease, or toxic thy-roid. To this day, my thyroid gland covers the entire front of my neck. The thyroid soaks up radiation like a sponge.

It has come to my attention t,he abuse involved in regulating the contamination from another of Rockwell's "nuke factories". I've been just fool enough to have unwittingly spent the last five years in Simi Valley, California.

God help us, we need more scrutiny when it comes to investigating these heinous polluters, not less!

Very truly yours,

'7l[ c f /

V

'/

~

& ----~

Christine Cline

• ~. 'N!l oc,::', .-.T~}.!~  :

Cri"IC£ C OF THt I>ocl.irr.

Postmark Dale _ 6-1 S- t . . . .,.

Copies Received _ J ~

~dd' I Copies Reprc_'_ 3 PJJ

~ial -Distributifm

, . * *i * "". "'"**

• - - - '-.,e.~GS:OC *.}

~--* ,...., .... _..__ - -*

~~~mr~~st: ,a . .o., r; 193 (Sl/ f~

~ t) o

')1_)

o:,,.. l : *,

~-.h*

'89 JUN 19 P4 :10 uf~ *.

OUCKi. i;; " .*

~- K,\:,L' I I am a oi cun OJJ f!!j opp OS e cL to PR 50 J 7;;;.1 17() on 5LJ fff 113- 77 .

If 1s dttnj.e.,rol.{,S and W7Sa_f~ hr mJSelf witt ~ fr1V1 clS * . mtUIK 4ou.

• r_ fryn OJ} ~ ~ ferrv/

_ () lhJhl4nd 1f W X8Uf!f , M4 {g

'4 n, ~

y1,1, "

1"'11 VIA

~V\A

• I n ,~

IVVl d263 2:-

! 1989 knov.1 uged by card....... * .. ...-:..:.;...._i

Ii NU LE E JLATORY COMMISSIOO D K~TING I',. !iERVICE SECTION OF"1C or 1! 1: ::.reR:TARY r ,,*~ COt*A Mi SSIO N v<' " , ,1 St, *i-t ics Postmark I-- I S~ (SI

- - -) ..J.-

~ 3

DOCKET NUMBER PR (/ ?1 "11)

P,ROPOSED RULE * . -~ / IV 19 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio( S 1/ f' /( ?qj Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :11 Liff DOCl{L - .

Dear Sirs ,

3R . . . 1 ...

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process_y_qu would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory* Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, 0- 7~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

/lnr;c; r~~5;,,

IIIS- OC<.,/4 . -;ee:/~2-2... k owl dg d by ,. J L!

Stt ;'/frt Fe IV hi <l?SD S-

I. N' ri f A fj . C 1. !SSI011

... 0( C' l'.ION C -~

l t Postm rlr.. "'~ ,

Copies P.

"dd' I

• Special Distr l

v~~

DOCKET NUMBER PR }/JD PROPOSED RULE /

/5'1 r~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1111,J Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 19 P4 :oa@

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and $afety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure .'that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.JlL t' ,gag*

Acknowledged by caret ........

J, .), I * ~ *-,"I ~:.-.,RY DC *U P, SHIV(.:

G: I I

• I *

¥ tm rk Date

~~~~g~ou~8E: PR f().JJ, )?0 (5~ f 'fl I q3J ~) ~ .. t . : i

. ,~wt*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 .89 JUN 19 P4 :10

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn ab*out the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The N*uclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

5

(1, NUCLEAR RELA ratr ,::a,.m, DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTI OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docu:nen St tistic:1 Postmark Date __ _ 0- J5- ~ J Copies Received Add' I Copies Reproduced _{!__,~.,.t-

~- - - -

fipecial Distribution _ ..u Pe

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR s u1J I? 0

• w -

u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Com mis sio(

Docketing and Service r y / fl Iq31q) IJ') N,* I~

Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :12

Dear Sirs ,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lisfs. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to dQ more rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket pe rmission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

)j}~

-53 5 ~ f3ay L/CJ ?f'

-~ -r-L- /

YI. '-?rl.

f 7 SOI

,, t" 6- )5'- <fCJ

)

I JJ3 ~ x.1 "fJL

___ fec.i r.J>r-. _

t.,__~

-4~ -*- --

PR . * ()J. J.J J"O DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

/_fYf~ /CJJ'J1) l Q -i- C. 'Is"',( 'I. 'J) 5"'~-k_ ~ (\..)* ~ . 1 _fyro 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J l,\ ,v L \. .r' ," \ C\_ .£, '1 It '

Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :07

,_.Ft. '

DOCK~ ~ l *

Dear Sirs,

I r

~~ l I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

[J~~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

by J

os*mark -*f top1es ~

tl;dd' I Cop *

. I Distribution c1a

t _cr: i: ,

, ~t I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 19 P4 :OS

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Postmark t'I fe t-1 S-fj _

Copies Rece vecf _ _,,)::;,.______

~dd' I Copies R p.odu _,J____---:-_

12.ecial Distribution _ ffD ff, cf HJf

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RUL

( ~LJ{f<-/1311 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docke ting and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :as

Dear Sirs,

GuCr ~

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply si lence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you wouid be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permissiori to store waste without seeking a p~rmit from the NRC.

I This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed. active and empowered citizenry.

r

Podn '.

top R

' dd' I C. " ,

lSp :* I D r 1..t

DOCKET NUMBER PR S I'\/\ f) O PROPOSED RULE _ _();;> I ~ ) I

~ !Sj /q 8")

l5y F1< 193 Jq)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service *39 JUN *;9 P4 :o7 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nucrear Rubber-stamp Commission and. give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy,~ ~for. ed tive and empowered citizenry.

6i i_ ~ c - &JUL 2 l 1989

~.L, f\. 750-5: ~knowledgedbvcard.~...._., ...:. ...

\

--.\

~.~:,k,,~: :,; -- -- _i-:)5_J_9_...,__

~dd' l Copie~ R**11rodu :ed l5Recial Distribution I

• DOCKET N.UMBER PR *. . ;; /7 o PROPOSED RULE _ J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com ~ s~£ ff / Cj 31 q]

Docketing and Service Washington , D.C. 20555 "89 JU 19 P4 :13

,jf',- IL DOCK~ * ~.

Dear Sirs,

I. AN **

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result , thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

Sincerely, 1 .

/ID"-1 **********-a a ,r ./1 ~ r/,,_/J+~ *J)r(J.S P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

\

Co._,.. ':s Post. ~r' D .!

• Cop*v$ , , ,._,.

Add' f OJ:,

• r Special Distribution

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :08

Dear Sirs,

• • I I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. Tile Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without se9king a permit from the N RC.

I 1his foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed. active and empowered citizenry.

'fl T I / "O Mt t"C(TION y

P st rlr !1 s-t__ z_.

Co Add'! 3/

5pec* I Di~tnb111 n fJJJ,..,~ , ~(.,..

---

~;....__...'----- -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

F~ I~.

Dear Sirs,

OOCr\t ~.. ...

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permif from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

. \

.., , um Postmark Pa!"

Copies Reci;,iv d Add' I Cor.ies Reproduced

---

+------

6pecial Distribution

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :17

DearSirs,

OF~ !- * , ,

DOC Kl , ,;,, ,  ; r *; 1 (f

.1 Nv-1 I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage pern,its.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a Pfrmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

ics Po,tmi'!r:

Copies , c v d Add ' I Copi_ Reproduced JJ--- ----

P@tlsl Olttribution /J "-'=-,.;..;~ ~ -

---

'~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

• ag JUN 19 P4 :16

,,F[ I occ*Kl I r

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NRC .

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~ ~y-7 /71, r ~k-;z_,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

n wle b, .

,. J

• S. NUCLEAR RcGULAT Y COMMISSIOtl DOCK Tl. - & SE I CE E TI N OFt!C OF THE SE R TARV OF THE COM 1-iSION Docum St ics Postm rk D I

£- / S-<f1 Copies R c v d Add' I Cop! s R produ Speclel Dl,trlbutlon

June 15, 1989

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :06

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service t '. f Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

I am writing to state that I strongly oppose the NRC proposal which would eliminate the licensing process requiring public comment.

Many of us are not in favor of nuclear-plant operations with the accompanying problem of waste storage, as it is. Without some right to input our views in these matters, we have lost "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Storage of nuclear waste is a monumental problem confronting society today. Issuing blanket permission to store waste, to reactor operators, without a permit from the NRC is not the answer.

Very truly yours,

!k tr: L ~ ~

Marilyn E. Stubbendick W7260 Oak Ridge, S.

Poynette, WI 53955

.~knowledged by card.~~ 2 4 rggg . -~~

Postmar (- / 5-fj Copies R , d )

Add' I C ;:; . _)

Ip. lal Distribution /JJJ ~ J e

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :19 JF F! ,

DOC~ f 7.t,, '

.'l',F oiH N1 .i We live on one planet. It is our home. All humani

.~- -..../::Jr~

, *-/; .

r1 P~~ ,~., -l}q~

life, is totally interdependent. Nuclear weapons ~ ~ - ,-v - ..-J.,! . . . :.. :  :*

forever changed our world. In response, thousa of 1.11 0 \ ~ .3_-z::.----

concerned individuals are working together in r~pera- -g -,,,

tive education effort to build a world beyond ,', , ~ *, _,

5

,.._,...,_ ...-u,....-.:;.,-- - ,9 u,

~~ l

tr~~~ ~

~ : ; ; ; : ~ * -~ u. s . ;U ~ l'f'_.,..c.,i,

~ i"JJe-.. /?7/~- ~J ~ a - , ~

~~~ <>I ~ ~ f.J~.>,-,,rr-- J

,. IX_,.;__I "' 0 ,~ ~

./Jti~.::t;-..../"' /]rvl, 0

~

Q. .

io S'S'S t~ t ~7~°);{~. j (!i;t/_::f,*.-. : ~c-<A;:/:n--r

,J o~JL./ ~ -v ~ ,,*CA-' J6 J,,

,,...., a-,, ,_.........--::~.- /

, . - ~

~ ~rllAlll\Ji:AR. ~ ~ :

222 HIGH STREET, PALO AL TO, CALIFORNIA 94301 *1097 * (415) 328-7756 _//

- C> 19868EYONDWAR ~ <!A~t.:frt..., 1'f ~

_L 2 t 1989 .,.

0.1. NUCLE R REGULATORY COMMISSIOli DOCKET! G & Sr:RVICE SECTION omcr m n E sn~eT ARV Of THE COMMISSION Document Shtisl ic:s Postmark Dale Copies Rccc, ved Add ' I Copi es Rc,prnJucd

--'i--- - - -

Spe ciaI Distribution s

PR DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE f"'\l / 1))'\

• ,J.

• IV ISlf f ( ;cr39qj-.

TOM HASTERS PO Box~

...i 87574 @

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :17

,)F~! L .. . ,

00CKE i t*, r, ,, ; , 'v' U

Dear Sirs,

811\N L>-<

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

- We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely~ /J~/1 _ ~

/ C)7?1 I ff_.t.,a{YU/ v~

JUL 2 4 1989 Acknowledged by card . * .....;..;;.,;;_;;.--..-Ra, P.S. I hope that you will extend th~ time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to \ now of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Postmark D te Copies Re.('1 ved J

Add ' I Copies Reproduced Special Distribution

--,.1- -----

DOCKET NUMBER p 5Lr7J:.~d.,. p iQPO ED ..,L[ _

( rff ffl JqJ?1)

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DRY CASK STORAGE RULE, 10 CFR PARTS 50, 72, AND 170, 54 FED. REG. 19,379 (MAY 5, 1989~ 9 JUN 19 P3 :46 On May 5, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission p~~-; ished a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reac-tor Sites." 54 Fed. Reg. 19,379. The Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") supports the rule's purpose of improving the 9 efficiency and speed of the process of licensing dry cask storage, which until now has been cumbersome and time-consuming.

It is clear that dry cask storage has potential safety advantages over wet storage, and can be used to avoid the increased risks posed by spent fuel pool expansion.

However, we have three serious reservations about the rule.

First, it fails to provide for adequate review of dry cask proposals by the Staff. Second, in an apparent attempt to circu-ment the Atomic Energy Act's hearing requirement for individual license amendments, the proposed rule illegally subverts the statutory scheme for licensing nuclear power plants. Finally, we are disturbed by the rule's failure to set any limits on the degree to which nuclear power plant sites can be used to store wastes accumulated from other sites.

1) Lack of NRC oversight of Dry Cask Design Section 72.210 issues a "general license" for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation at reactor sites. When the licensee ultimately seeks permission to store spent fuel in casks, all it is required to provide to the

.JUL 2 4 1989

~t.  :;r-k  :-.

(:..,r;i~ - ,~

A ' 'l C:;.i ~ .

• al Dis.,-:bt1ri

NRC is a letter of intent. While the rule requires the prepara-tion of various other design documents and changes to programs and procedures, 1 none of these documents must be submitted to the NRC. They must only be made available for inspection by NRC.

Thus, the NRC may never review the documentation required by§ 72.212, nor will the public have any access to it.

Thus, the NRC apparently intends to exercise no systematic or mandatory review of applications to store spent fuel in dry casks, despite the numerous changes involved to the plant's design and procedures. The Staff leaves it entirely up to the licensee to determine, pursuant to § 50. 5 9, whether the activities under the general license "involve any unreviewed safety question or change in the facility technical specifications. 112 Consider-ing the fact that dry cask is a relatively new technology, this policy of non-review of site-specific features of dry cask 1 For instance, § 72.212(b) requires a demonstration that cask storage pads and areas are designed to adequately support the static load of the stored casks, and a determination that site parameters are enveloped by the cask design capabilities. The licensee must also protect the dry cask installation against the design basis threat of sabotage, modify its physical security organization, and make necessary changes to its emergency plan, quality assurance program, training program, and radiation pro-tection program.

2 Presumably, unreviewed safety questions and changes to the technical specifications would be referred to the NRC Staff and treated as license amendments; however, this is not made clear in the rule. Nor does the rule provide for any NRC review of whether the licensee's invocation of §50.59 is correct. ucs seeks clarification in the rule as to whether and how the Staff will review licensees' decisions to invoke§ 50.59, and how it will carry out license amendment proceedings for modifications that it determines do not fall under that provision.

stora ge designs is entirely too lax. The rule should provide for mandatory s ubmission and review by the NRC Staff of the technical documents required in§ 12.212. 3

2) Subversion of Licensing Process to Avoid Hearings By proposing to issue a "general license" for dry cask storage upon promulgation of this rule, before determining whether license modifications are required in order to allow the actual storage of fuel onsite, 4 the NRC apparently intends to circumvent the requirement for public hearings on individual applications for permission to employ dry cask storage. This approach would violate the statutory scheme for licens ing nuclear power plants, in which the NRC must approve all proposed license conditions before the license is issued.

It may be permissible for NRC to issue generic licenses to utilities to employ certain pre-approved cask designs that were subjected to public notice and comment. The NRC cannot lawfully issue a general license for actual onsite storage of the waste, however, without also obtaining and reviewing the site-specific information that would allow it to find that the proposed modifi-cations to each individual plant's design and operation are in 3 As with other correspondence between NRC and licensees, these technical documents should be placed in the public document room for inspection by the public.

4 In fact, as discussed above, the rule contains no require-ment that licensee submit site-specific information to the NRC, but apparently gives licensees full authority to decide whether their licenses must be amended to permit onsite dry storage.

conformance with the Atomic Energy Act and the regulations. 10 C.F.R. § 50.57(a).

Moreover, the NRC must offer the public an opportunity for a hearing on any proposed site-specific modifications to the opera-ting conditions of each plant. 5 Sholly v. u.s. Nuclear Regulatory commission, 651 F.2d 780,790-91, reh. denied, 651 F.2d 792, vac ated Qil other grounds, 103 s.ct. 1171 (1982), citing 42 u.s.c. § 2239(a). Any such hearing on site-specific issues can-not be conducted in the form of a rulemaking. Rather, the Com-mission must conduct individual adjudicatory licensing proceed-ings in accordance with the requirements o f the Administrative Procedure Act. See Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC. 869 F.2d 719, 738-739 (3rd Cir. 1989).

In order to assure that dry cask storage is implemented in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the following changes should be made to the rule. First, no generic license should be issued for any site-specific features of dry cask storage. Second, any licensee who wishes to employ dry cask storage should be required to apply for an operating license amendment, with notice placed in the Federal Register. Finally, if the licensee believes that §50.59 exempts it from the requirement to obtain a license amendment, the Staff should place notice of such a determination in the Fed-5 We emphasize here that the rule should not permit licensees to avoid the scrutiny of license amendment proceedings by the unpublished and unreviewed invocation of§ 50.59 for dry cask-associated plant modifications. See discussion, supra, at 2.

eral Register so that the validity of the claim can be challenged by interested members of the public.

3) Proposed rule encourages creation of waste dumps The proposed rule explicitly states that it does not limit storage of spent fuel to that which is generated at a reactor site. 54 Fed. Reg. at 19,379, Col. 2. Obviously, the implemen-tation of dry cask storage will make it more convenient for licensees to transfer their spent fuel to other sites, even to accumulate spent fuel from numerous reactors at certain individ-ual sites. The rule places no limits on indeed it appears to encourage -- the creation of waste dumps at individual reactor sites. In order to discourage this potential abuse of dry cask storage, the rule should contain some guidance restricting the ability of licensees to ship their fuel for dry storage at other sites.

~p?ctfully submitted,

~ ~

Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN & TOUSLEY 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328 - 3500 Counsel for Union of Concerned Scientists June 15, 1989

BOB MILLER STATE OF NEVADA ROBERT R. LOUX Acting Governor Executive Director (JjJ

• a9 JUN 19 P3 :43 AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE *~b~,K~-;* ,*

Capitol Complex t<~

Carson City, Nevada 89710 (702) 885-3744 June 15, 1989 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa s h i n g ton, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

RE: PROPOSED RULE - STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS; CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS (10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170)

The Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nuclear Waste Project Office, has reviewed the subject Proposed Rule, published May 5, 1989 (FR Vol. 54, No. 86, pp. 19379-19388). In general, we find the proposed regulatory modifications to meet the intent and relevant directives of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and to be beneficially compatible with existing procedures for reactor licensees. We also find the proposed modifications to be generally consistent with the NRC's objectives in protection of health and safety and the environment.

There are a few matters related to the Proposed Rule which we believe require comment, primarily aimed at clarification of the rationale and intent of the regulations.

1. The Supplementary Information, at page 19381, states:

" Current regulations limit the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI to 20 years, after which the license may be renewed. The Commission believes that 20-year increments are appropriate for such cask design approvals, after which designs may be renewed."

This raises a few issues that would benefit from further clarification. First, we agree that the issuance of Certificates of Compliance should be for a limited time period, however there is no stated basis for the 20-year period, beyond its having been adopted in previous regulation. Is there any compelling safety rationale for why the certification period (with appropriate

,,,,.,._..,, ' .. ~ V C ' I$$)(.)

V Po /-/ 6- ft r /J1Jr1/r C )

0

monitoring and testing) is not extended to 30, 40, or even 50 years

- periods which are more consistent with the current Waste Confidence Finding of the Commission, and might be more realistic in view of the NRC staff's recent recommendation for a Waste Confidence Findings revision regarding cask storage and the potential availability of a federal spent fuel disposal system?

The Supplementary Information speaks of 11 20-year increments" for cask design approvals, but it is unclear from this statement, as well as the language of proposed sections 72. 212 (a) (2) and 72.240, whether the NRC will consider consecutive multiple reapprovals of a particular cask design, or if the reapproval(s) necessarily will be for a twenty-year period, or some other period to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It is important to clarify these matters in order to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, uncertainties on the part of all interested parties in planning and implementing cask design and installation.

2

• The proposed section 7 2

• 2 3 6 (m) faithfully reflects the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in stating: "To the extent practicable, in the design of dry spent fuel storage casks, consideration should be given to the compatibility of the dry s torage cask s ystems and components with transportation and other activities related to the removal of the stored spent fuel from the reactor site for ultimate disposition by the Department of Energy."

Although proposed sections 72.240(c) and 72.238(a) and (b) would suggest otherwise, it appears possible that compatibility with transportation and other DOE activities in waste management and disposal may become factors in the NRC's storage cask design reapproval considerations. This potential uncertainty in at-reactor spent fuel management and storage should be clarified in the Final Rule. If safety factors remain within acceptable limits, the DOE should be required through transportation regulations and any repository construction authorization or license to "receive and possess", to accept spent fuel from any NRC-approved dry storage cask that maintains its Certificate of Compliance without regard to section 72.236(m). Retaining this uncertainty with respect to factors considered by the NRC in storage cask reapprovals only for purposes of attempting to conform at-reactor storage to DOE's stage of planning at the time of cask design reapproval places an unfair and unnecessary financial and operational burden on the utilities.

It is conceivable that, after an initial 20 years of approved storage, the regulation could force the transfer of spent fuel at the reactor to a new, or different design cask only because it better conforms to DOE's planning preference at the time. If safety considerations, including risks and occupational exposure from spent fuel transfer, are not a significant factor, this potential uncertainty should be removed from the rule.

3. Section 72. 212 requires that "(b) the general licensee shall *** (2) Perform written evaluations showing that conditions 2

set forth in the Certificate of Compliance are met for the anticipated total number of casks to be used for storage. " This r equirement appears to need some qualification or further description in light of the fact that there is no certainty regarding when any reactor spent fuel will be accepted by the DOE into a federal waste management or disposal system. In an attempt to be forthright and conservative, a responding applicant would be forced to consider cask storage for all possible spent fuel to be discharged from the reactor. Available space, and other considerations associated with site factors and cask design could possibly result in a premature necessity on the part of the utility to make acceptable arrangements for spent fuel storage at another reactor site prior to receiving approval for the needed initial cask installation. This uncertainty regarding evaluating anticipated total numbers of casks needed at a reactor should be clarified in the Final Rule.

We appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on proposed modifications of 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170, regarding storage of spent fuel in casks at reactor sites, and are looking forwa rd to your consideration of our comments in the Final Rule.

~ erely, Roe;;--~oux Executi ve Director RRL:cs 3

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington Way

• Richland, Washington 99352

• a9 JUN 19 P4 :17 June 14, 1989 EANF-89-0292 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ColllTlission Washington~ D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES

Reference:

Federal Register Notice 19379~ dated May 5~ 1989 The Washington Public Power Supply System wishes to record its support for the proposed rule to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel without the need for additional site-specific approvals. Extensive experience with dry cask storage*, both in the u. s. and worldwide, has amply demonstrated the stability and safety of this mode of storage. A special advantage of dry storage is the passive nature of the heat transfer and the potential for reducing corrosion of the first barrier to fission product release - the fuel rod cladding.

We believe the proposed general license to use dry storage casks which have been certified will reduce the burden on both the utilities and the NRC for approving the use of this means of spent fuel storage without any decrease in the safety of the public.

~~&--

G. C. Sorensen (MD 280)

Manager, Regulatory Programs DLL:dm

~L 2 ~ -~~gg ,,.

DOCKET NUMBER PRODf/~ED RU ( -

SJJ ')JJ 17D I~ 'f ( t1q3J 9)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory to mm1ss1on Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

'89 JUN 19 P4 :18

Dear Sirs ,

CF t ooc ..

• II I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a permit from the NAC.

I This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

il I )_

A A i,/,/r /z.ca u! d ,_. "'T Thank You,  ;;;!~#-£ '. tt'kf- c~*{

~fl k ~r~

j-ll_ d.cctJ/PYI - ~";J ~;1-,, /

/I wC-zc:/- c/2 ~"{K 7F/hc~ ?

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill 7n r1..

the basi s of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

ftz,/nL we-U.,

,(

.2~/c:,

IYl- ~ fh/J ,:,)

. dk ,j{_ I "ftP , -J.)D /k-l-~Jtl, L__---~---------~--------

1 JI ; -e (';&L/JT/ N<6~

O,,oleTuhel Box9420 nta Fe, NM 81504 V. 4) .nrJJ Sl:rt '$ ~ crd

- - (t '

- bJ-Sf-J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service '89 JUN 19 p 4 *.o 4 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

... --f.f klrnowledged by cal'cff.::.::::t;;:;;;;;;;;:::.iu. .-

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.r Postmark  :! t - Jl/- fJ Copies R c . -- J

~ d' I Ccp1~~ R leecial Distribution

DOCKET NUMBER PR f)' ]i; I) D PROPOSED RULE !..!!..Z~ =-~-~ - r

{5 1/f:f. / CJ3?ct) it. ~ ~ ~

~ "'t::.c.,.~*'A..L,I ~ 4~

~,,~~ / ,0. e. ;J._ (J ~ - S'5

i

.... NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$109 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFU OF Ti:E W:RETARY, F HIE co~*,MISSIO Documcr S'ti~isiics Postmark Dato Copies Recei vod _ _

w/ ~ r'j

t.dd' I Copies Reproduc 5pecial Distribution

')..

1 U.S. Nu'clear Regulatory Commission Docketing and ServiGe Washington, D.C. 20555 '89

• JUN 19 P4 :06

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any indep~ndent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands ~f people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a.damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become ..

law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

,:-,',cf10W1C_ ..,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Ll. 5. NUCLEA R REGULATORY COMMI SSIOM DOCKET! G & SERVICE SECTION Orf 'CE OF THE :::EC PET ARY OF THE COM AISSION Document Statisti cs Postmark Date i -JY- Jr Copies Received Add' I Copies R, p,oduced -:;--""'3_....,...

Special Dist rib ution

DOCKET NUMBER PR ) -* 17 D PROPosrn RU( s- Y r ~ 1q 31q_J _1-:: . t h;.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :Q 3 t \ If

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that tho.se who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and. safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a 'Pfrmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You ,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Postm r

• Cop,es 11 (l;dd' I C

~cial Distnbution

_*L "-:. i i

, '. It:*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JUN 19 P4 :06 OFf 'L~ I -

OUCK (i11, 1

• 11v'l[.f

Dear Sirs,

Lr, NL 11 I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As'-it 1s now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lisfs. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p_i9rmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

~Q.(?~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

.I rn y COMMISSION D y,r t ')~CTIO, C Q..Y v '. ~I. ,I N

,.* . *c:

i) C'I , _r; Postm'3rk Da c Cophs ,ecci, ,,:I

~dd' I C.,p; ~ Ro:.p od c 6pec1al Distribution

81oria Masters PR PO Box 575 Tesuque, NM 87574 R 19319

~: i<

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *a9 JUN 19 P4 :15

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a ptnmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

/kc:#~ JUL %4 1 P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

r I Postmark D1:te Copies Rece1 ved Add ' I Copies Reproduced Spec ial Di stri bution

-£.------

ffi S~?JJJ1D - - ; 2 , , , 7 ~ ~~

~ t<I f'/11 nsoJ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~EI/ f /;, /CJJ?q} J ~ 14,1187 Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

• 59 CJ

• 19 P 4 -crf!JJ I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people have had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the N RC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, Sincerely,

'r~ t" u A/4~

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

June 14 , 1989 COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY , INC. ( " OCRE " )

ON PROPOSED RULE, " STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUBAQ JU tf 9 p 3 :43 NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SI TE~' , 11 4 FED . REG . 19379 (MAY 5 , 1989)

,~1 Ft: : 1. r ooc,,: *,. ' t tr( r: N This proposed rule would power reactor licensees to store spen t fuel at reactor sites without site - specific reviews, if they use NRC-approved storage casks . OCRE finds that the proposed rule does not guarantee hearing rights mandated by the Atomic Energy Act , and therefore , the proposed rule must be amended to provide for site - specific hearing rights before it can be lawfully adopted .

Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act requires a hearing to be held upon the request of any person "in any proceeding under this Act , for the granting, suspending , revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit, or application to transfer control . * . " The D. C . Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the Act in Union of Concerne d Scientists v. NRC, 735 F . 2d 1437 (1984) ( " UCS") . The Court held that hearings held under Section 189a must encompass all material factors bearing on the licensing decision raised by the requester . UCS, 735 F . 2d at 1443 .

Proposed 10 CFR 72.212(b) sets forth site-specific standards which each nuclear power reactor licensee must meet as a condition of licensing . Thus , there are material ,

site-specific issues which must be included in a hearing if a requester raise s them . It does not appear that these site-specific standards fall within the Administrative Procedure Act ' s exemptions from formal hearing procedures for decisions resting solely on inspections , tests, or elections.

5 USC 554(a) (3) . Proposed 10 CFR 72 . 212(b) (2) requires licensees to show that cask storage pads and areas are designed to adequately support the static load of the stored casks .

Section (b) (3) requires that cask design capabilities envelope the site parameters . Section (b) (4) requires a review to determine whether there are any unreviewed safety questions or changes to the plant technical specifications . Section (b) (5) requires security provisions to protect the spent fuel from radiological sabotage . Section (b) (6) requires review , and modification, if necessary, of plant emergency plans, quality assurance program , training program, and radiation protection program . All of these standards involve questions of sufficiency of data, completeness , and judgement. These are the precisely the issues suitable for an adjudicatory hearing *

.!I£§. , 735 F . 2d at 1450 .

JUL 2 4 1989._~

1 i,-1,""",~'t~"l'lt1ii hv I".~ d. . ............ * '

~-! . NIJCLEAR REGULATORY C:cYMJ:AISSf DOC K[l 1t-JG 8 <f.x.ViCE SECTION Of, 'CE (.,F iHE SECRETARY, OF .:*.E CO/,,MISSION Doc-1'11ent St.:!tist ics

?ostmark D;,:e (y~ }5- {3 Copi es Rer-:1 ved Add' I C ?ies P.cproducod Special Di stribution

It appears that, in most cases, a hearing would be mandated under the Act, as it would involve a license amendment. Nuclear power plant licenses contain a clause that the facility has been constructed and will operate in accordance with the application. The application includes the Final Safety Analysis Report. 10 CFR 50.34(b). If the FSAR does not describe cask storage of spent fuel, then a facility utilizing cask storage would not be operating in accordance with the application and the license, necessitating a license amendment.

The NRC must provide those persons living in the vicinity of nuclear power reactors the opportunity to participate in licensing decisions concerning the plant. This is the spirit of the Atomic Energy Act. As the Court noted in UCS, "Congress vested in the public, as well as the NRC staff, a role in assuring safe operation of nuclear power plants." 735 F.2d at 1447. The proposed rule must be modified to specifically safeguard this precious right. The public must not be stripped of their right to meaningful'participation.

Resepctfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 2

PACIFIC SIERRA NUCLEAR ASSOCIATES 159511.a; Gata, Boulevard , i,. - ~ **

t... \LIL.

La; Gata,, California 95032 L, i t * .

(408) 358-0097

• a9 J 19 P3 :46 DOCKET NUMBER PR ,_ ff : June 13, 1989 PROPOSED RULE DOC , PSN-89~037

( lV ff( /1s19)

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATfENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Deliver Comments to One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT:

Comments on Proposed Rule Amendments Regarding Storage Cask Certification

Dear Sirs:

This letter is to submit our comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule changes to 10 CFR 72, 50 and 170 concerning fuel storage cask certifications. We thank the commission for this opportunity to provide input to the rulemaking process. We would also like to take this opportunity to commend the commission and the staff for this proposed amendment. We believe that these actions will streamline the licensing of fuel storage capacity additions at power plants and provide a most effective means of controlling and ensuring worker and public health and safety (as has been used in 10 CFR 71 for shipping cask).

Our detailed comments are provided in Attachment 1. Our general comments are stated below.

The first general comment concerns the commission's encouragement toward the use of the designs that reduce downstream handling of the fuel during transfer to the repository. While we agree that downstream handling should be minimized, (indeed, our Ventilated Storage Cask incornorates a sealed cnntai.ner that oould be used to .place uo to 24 assemblies into and out of a shipping cask at one time without re-handling the fuel), we would like to point out that some storage solutions that further minimize handling are extremely costly compared to alternative systems. Hence, if too much emphasis is placed on minimizing downstream (after the year 2010) handling, the cost of present day storage may become a factor of two or more greater than necessary. Also, the risk of a cask built today and stored for over 20 years being able to meet future shipping requirements seems high. Therefore, it may be prudent to mildly encourage future handling and transportation compatibility but to emphasize current safety and economical considerations. We suggest a reasonable encouragement toward minimizing downstream handling, but strongly urge that this encouragement be combined with a strong examination of the present cost and safety and future licensing risk.

Page 1

IC Page 2 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 13, 1989 Our second general comment concerns a clarification of exactly what extra information, above and beyond that currently required in topical safety analysis reports will be required for cask certification. Is the commission considering a regulatory guide outlining the requirement of a safety analysis report for cask certification? We strongly encourage such a guide.

Another area of concern is related to cask testing. It is unclear from the proposed rule as to whether full-scale or scale model testing is required for certification. This has not been a requirement in the past and we hope that the commission is not now requiring storage cask testing.

We strongly feel that analysis and use of previous cask tests to calibrate and verify analysis is sufficient.

We would also like to suggest that the commission might use this amendment to provide guidance/criteria on the use of burnup credit in criticality analyses. The industry and the commission need to finalize the criteria for the use of bumup credit. This can result in the saving of up to 70 thousand dollars per storage cask without sacrificing safety (particularity at pressurized water reactor plants where soluble boron is used in the fuel poolwater).

In closing, we would again like to commend the commission on this move toward simplification of fuel storage licensing and timely compliance with the intent of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Please review our general comments above and our detailed comments on the attachment and, if you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments futher, contact us at (408) 358-0097.

Very t ly Y,

~ J~hn t!i..-.J.\/l-clSSl::Y, /l/I<---./

General Manager Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates Enclosure JVM:cdd

ATTACHMENT 1

1. Proposed Rule, the General License, Para 1-5:

What, if anything, will a current license holder have to do to obtain the general license described in this section?

2. Proposed Rule, the General License, Para 6, Line 19-22:

Couldn't the General License for stored fuel be extended beyond the Reactor Operating License if evaluation showed no unreviewed safety issues.

3. Proposed Rule, Cask Certification, Para 1, Line 8-13:

Will cask testing be required for all casks to be certified?

4. Proposed Rule, Safeguards, Para 2, Line 16-22:

Will the periodic inventories discussed in this section be limited to a per cask or per assembly basis?

5. 72.212 b, 5 ii:

Could the cask body be the protested area boundary?

6. 72.236 1:

Can the commission provide examples of other means acceptable for the demonstration that the cask will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal and accident conditions?

7. Proposed Rule, Cask Certification, para 2, last sentence:

What is the basis for cask renewal?

8. Proposed Rule, Cask Certification, last paragraph:

Who pays for NRC inspection of cask fabrication and on-site fabrication, certificate holder or user7

9. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification:

In addition to licensees owning and operating nuclear power reactors, this proposed rule also affects cask vendors, some of which are small business which may indeed fall within the scope of small entities set forth in Section 601 (3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 15 U.S.C. 632 or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

. *n

. "3,-<a

.. ~ ..--. i;,r ~

7 - ., .:., . .-,7-=zz.

-I.?-

/

FBI Affidavit Alleges Illegal Waste Burning At Nuclear Plant The Associated Press dumping of hazardous wastes. tions of hazardous waste laws will DENVER - Aerial infrared U.S. Magistrate Hilbert Schauer probe activities at the nuclear surveillance showed hazardous unsealed the affidavit after a news- weapons plant going back to Novem-wastes being illegally burned at the paper challenged withholding of the ber 1980.

Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, information that led Schauer to issue Rocky Flats is operated by according to an FBI affidavit un- a search warrant for the raid Tues- Rockwell Interational Corp. for the sealed Friday in this week's federal day on the plant 16 miles northwest Department of Energy. The plant raid on the facility. of Denver. makes plutonium triggers for nu-The affidavit also accused The 116-page affidavit catalogs clear weapons.

Rocky Flats operators of illegally the allegations made by FBI agent The affidavit also questions the J discharging pollutants into a creek on plant property and of unpermitted Iii& 4 Jon Lipsky and indicates the investi-gation into possible criminal viola-DOE's decision to award an $8.6 mil-lion bonus to Rockwell for excellent management of Rocky Flats.

The Rocky Mountain News re-ported in Friday's editions that the General Accounting Office also has launched an Investigation of per-formance bonuses awarded Rocky Flats' managers.

The GAO investigation was the third blow sustained by the facility this week.

On Tuesday, 75 FBI and Envi-ronmental Protection Agency agents raided Rocky Flats in an operation dubbed "Operation Desert Glow."

On Wednesday, the Colorado D

• partment of Health announced it had round 25 environmental violations at the plant.

The affidavit revealed that the FBI conducted aerial infrared sur-veillance at the plant on three nights in December to determine whether the incinerator in a plu~onium re-processing building that was clo ed for safety violations was being ille-gally operated.

They found that it was. Building 771 had been closed by DOE inspec-tors in October. It reopened in Jan

• ary.

The DOE closed the after a warning sign outsickl t -

building was accidently covered up, and three DOE inspectors walked in without proper protective garb.

The affidavit went on to say that there was probable cause to bell v, Rockwell and DOE officials November 1985 falsely certified that Rocky Flats was in compliance with all applicable groundwater monitor-ing requirements under the 1976 Re-source Conservation and Recovery Act.

"In fact, various Rockwell and DOE officials were aware of sertou,s contamination and were inform that the monitoring system was defi-cient and did not comply with the RCRA," the affidavit said.

Also questioned in the affidavit was an $8.6 million bonus awarded Rockwell by DOE in May 1987.

It said DOE gave Rocky Flats' health and safety programs and its waste-handling high marks.

t)QCK£T NUMBER PR J'JO PROPOSED RULE -

(lY .ff. l931tf) Cb/1~/85 ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.C. 20555 *59 JU 19 P4 :OS 0F'- !l: f f

Dear Sirs,

GOCKE I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themseJves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear_workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a p,ermit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours must never become law.

Thank You, P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

Barbar Bayer 401 Sunset St 7 Santa Fe NM 87501

t tics "89 JUN 19 P4 :20

~a,v~:

£a_~ ~~ ~~~ r -/-~

Z-4~ 4~~ y~~~ ..£).~~~.:ru 7 d>~ ~i, ~~ ,.z;=, ~ _

~~ ~~~~?,~r~~

.-z:.~ .A:2,_,,----, ~ , ~ I

, ,~~~~~ ~ L 7 ~ , ,

~ ~4-?v - ,-,?'Z-d~ ~ - ;t?J

• ~ ~~~ ~ ~1/4~ ,/ ~ e u u ,

~a2.<:!A~ -;;4'A/4Z/ ~,:t./4/> ~ ~L

~ /'hA~/4_,, ~~

~A.,4,-~ ~dd.~~~

)'iJt; 1 ~ //t:1

/4~ -A-": ~.zff.2-

• I . ~, I D ... ~~

(.

\., . .' i Postrr.:ir jl;)J t cp ~s

)3 fAdd' I C -

6peci.d iJ* _fr ~u i..,

Pe

/JJ.J (2 J)).J

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR SPJ ?~

)

9D

( [ '-/ f Je, I 13<J q Z>oc.n:rm, 15 .Jeremiah Dr ~UN l G1989 Du:,bury Ma .02332 ~&

.June 16 .1989 Rcr..JOle CH Em i 1 an .Jul i an Docketing and Service Branch USNRC Washington D.C.20555 RE Rule# 54-193-79 PR 50,72,170

Dear Mr ..Julian,

We are storngly opposed to the proposed above rule change. We cannot afford to grow up in an area that is so highly contaminated.

Sincerely yours, Lauren Dinan 3 yrs - Born 3/10/86 Courtney Dinan 7 yrs - Born 10/17/81*

• p.s. As you will note we have already been subject to past releases of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

l <l.u. re () fy- 1 n" I"\

L-- /

(i' oot--f n e..y ~ 1na..l'"\

)

u. S. NU~, Ef . o er.," ,'\ TORY COMM(~~

DOC" tTtt-.- & SE" VICE SECTION O  ; _ c, ' .. :;ECRET ARY O r T, *- *o:-AM ISSION

, I St foficS

?os f-J&- fq ~ 1 Id J At,./ CdfY ""' ~ ~,,~cJf 1t.iv;r s Jt>- 1 6-/ 7-t, /,y ~IJVNtr-I 11d 1.1 ;..J J\~ J J1, f 11twfo.~

-.;:;: :- J ~J'.,.__~ - -

f .DoZ RJD[

j

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR "** ,-, ~ J? 0

{5 l/ f R_J93 7 q) 57 Delawanda Dr Worcester MA.01603 June 16, 1989 Emile Julian Docketing and Service Branch Washington D.C. 20555 RE Rule:54-193-79 PR 50,72,170

Dear Mr.Julian,

I am strongly opposed to the proposed above rule change. I feel that this generation of children cannot afford to grow up in an area that is so highly contaminated.

What is the point of turning Pilgram into a waste dump? There are too many hazards in this world, so why try to turn Massachusetts into another hazard *

.JUL 2 4 1 !

~l<nowledged by caret*

• J. S. Nt lCI.FAR REC-IJLATORY COMM SSI DC*!'~T:NG & 5FP,VICE SECTION L' . 1G Or Tf-'E :: . cRET ARY o,: THE COM~ ,SSIGN

~ocKET NUMBER P,R0P0SED RULE ~

PR r A n1

-.::i.1-~L- J

w.L_

) n ll I V /I) r1/ff.J737y

• a9 JUN X) P3 :3 0 F'u ru.' J 6- I 6- 8 q ~

,jf f 1v:. ' r DOC K[ ! !1*1 1 ,. r ~ 1Cf

... RhNl" 5 Cordwood Path Duxbury, MA 02332

.June 16, 1989 Emile .Julian Docketing and Service Branch USNRC Washington, D.C. 20555 RE Rule: 54-193-79 PR 50,72,170 Dear Mr * .Ju 1 i an I am strongly opposed to the proposed above rule change. I can not afford to grow up in an area that is so highly contaminated.

As you can plainly see I am not the only person who believes in the hazard you are placing upon our younger generation. Please take this into consideration when you think of the people who care for the well-being of the society.

Sincerely yours, Laura Anne Mahoney 14 years 11/18/74 198 ....~

__..,.:..~~~-~

\

\

J. S N1JCLFAR Rf-~1.'ll',TCRY CO,\f I r .JCKtT 1:---JG ,1 S~n /I C S'"~T !

• 0, ~;(. :~~ f, rr: ~ .. r.T p_(,

OF 1r .": r0n * :..,*..,: 1::-d

{IJvr-tu' 0 ,rk :1 A1-,r)_f,{Jf y_f._- L1- f 4 f;. X 6- //>- f1

, Rl- . ,

'I Ccp;-:; '

~. ~ J__- -J - -

I Special Distributio. PJ.:> fl p. JQI Pe ~

8 Oceanwood Drive Duxbury Ma.02332

.June 16, 1989 Emile Julian Docketing and Service Branch USNRC Washington D.C.20555 RE Rule# 54-193-79 PR 50,72,170

Dear Mr *.Jul ian,

I am strongly opposed to the N.R.C.'s proposed rule change cited above. Boston Edison and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant have not displayed the ability to run an efficient or safe power plant - let alone considering a Nuclear Waste Dump on this site. The South Shore area is too populated.

The health and safety issues are unable to be resolved satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

~~i~

JUL 2 4 1 1,.,owled(?ed by ca ref.:---....,_

I.Ii NUCLEAR RFGIJLATORY COM ~1 1S510N DOCt'lT ING ?, SERVICE SE'"T!ON OF, I:': .,r TW ~ -r.~: ;,Y OF Hie COMM ISS,ON r ,rtl, "'"t St l;st.cs i JvnH l>os~ark r ~ Aa... l()r'y tJ r... 6-r; LfJ .; (,x , ,/6- f9

CoplPS

• __ ( )

fAdd' l C n1  :;iroduc* d _J lpecial Di *ri 1,tiort _f}..J.JR_J f) JJ5

_ __ __ _ __jP~6r~D~

oocKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR JJ-r O ~

0~ JI) v

~r,i e/id_, Jc;)Ja,Y) (st! Cl<-J1J'lt) a, S. IVu e,/e,t.,r (<errv l:,.,)<;. t'o 7 & mm Is s, 0I?

?)dck'ehng .,._ S'ervl.ce /Jrtl,nc/i I ~

/4./d.-s hfr,~fon., 7:(: I

(:

/',.,.,

-... I ,---,,-----r,,t We &..re oft°se:tl To .(L,/) 11 v-v/e, c/,tin ~

To sfc1Ye nuulea,r WtLS-/e 1h tvbavt:. j r-otmd Ca-st's-. ZI Is bul ~no°J/2 we At£ve 'Th(µf-L£ fYJ o IV (/4/led P, '{j r;rn I I h ov r /;,:u:.l::.

• 'f(JIL bu7 cfa,...,r/-fur a, nuc,/t'Ar civ(r-Jf T/Jere.

S fl2,.,-f- Tl)l'n/c'/1f a.bout- 11ie li&.v/-lJ, OJ?i Sa_[ef7 o-f 11, e (feofle_ a.nL Grgef- the..

dal/a,- ~,//.

.:ry F~rt,~cJ i;ac,k RJ.

O~k6vry, (()fr d2J}"'1-,

\

Cop, s ,

!Add' I C.,p -

~ial Distribution

60 Highland Trail Duxbury, Mo 02332 June 16, 1989 "89 JUN ~ P3 :30 F, '- re <-1/ 6-/6**~'13-t.

ijHI~

DOC t*ll . .I Docketing and Service ~A V' United Stoles Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

~~

To Wtt011rl-ltlay  : RE: PRS0,72.170 on 54 FR 193-79 The proposed rule change cited above is abominable and I strongly urge you to reject the proposal. Nuclear waste must be dealt with immediately but not in this manner. Vou should be ceasing the production of waste until safe and permanent solutions can be found. Please record this as part of the permonent record .

Vours truly,

~c9-~

Kate O'Brien

\

J. 5. NUCLEAR l?EGU ATORY COMMISS I DOCKET 1NG & SEFVICE SECTION OFFICE OF Tr!E .ECETARY OF THE COMMISSION Dorur nt S,-i,stics

[./11, I"\ ._ r 0 mtm ark Dato _ - A\v- J co fY- 6-/ ~.,.~ fo. , ~16- l-f es Rcceiv:->d 6- 1' I Copies R pro J~ j __

J _..:,,: ___

Special Distribution fi) flI/ i, / pj_

e A. cJ~f\-

..J't:a.ie o/!Jfrf,/<e.itJ/dau'tJe.i 51a.te ..J't:a.ie, PETER FORMAN ASSISTANT MINORITY WHIP June 14, 1989 MARGARET GARDNER LEGI SLATI VE ASSISTANT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Commissioners:

We have read the proposed NRC rule for "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-approved Storage~ Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites."

We are concerned about the local implications of such a rule change and offer the following comments.

I. Storage of spent fuel should be limited to that which is generated at the reactor site. The purpose of the 1982 act, and proposed rule, is to provide for a demonstration program for dry storage at reactor sites. We assume that this anticipates decom-missioning of plants prior to the creation of a permanent, national high level waste repository. Dry storage of spent fuel, at one site, from two or more reactors, would add very little information to the demonstration program. However, the transfers could pose a public risk due to the transporting of the casks and waste.

Furthermore, storage from two or more reactors inevitably makes the host site de facto regional repository, without the same benefit of review and discussion given the creation of a national site.

II. Dry storage should not be demonstrated in highly populated areas. The proposed regulations do not suggest the same level of safety and security obtained through in-plant storage under water, nor does it suggest any secondary protection against release beyond the casks. Since this is a demonstration program and, by definition, introduces some level of risk, it should not be tried at sites which are heavily populated.

III. No dry storage should be allowed at sites which do not have fully operational state approved emergency preparedness plans.

Again, this is a demonstration program with some element of risk which should be mitigated through an emergency plan approved by the state and surrounding towns.

ll, 5. NUCLE.A.R P- fG 1 ..,6. 't ISS'°"'

DOCKH I tG & ~Cf-VICE o rF 1c:: OF T E SECR or Hit CO,\~ SS Postmark Date { - } .f j j r ' J11 f"I Copies Recei v<>-l 7- -

Add' I Copies R iprc.r:t :ed Special Distribution

Page 2 June 14, 1989 IV. Dry storage should not allow for an extended operation of a commercial reactor. Operating licensing are limited, in part, by available storage capacity for spent fuel. Licensing should not be extended based on the extra capacity allowed through dry storage.

V. No dry storage should be allowed on the site of commercial reac-tors which do not have the highest level of performance and safety over an extended period. The reason for this should be obvious. A reactor owner which has had difficulties in operating a plant should not also be handed an additional problem of managing an on-site dry storage program. Also, the transfer of spent fuel from under water to dry storage is itself a public risk and hazardous. This should not be undertaken by a utility with less than the highest level of performance.

We would appreciate receiving a copy of the final rules adopted by the Commission. Thank you.

Sincerely,

~~

State Representative

~f State Senator

M34~____/

State Representative

~~,-~

Cha rles W. Mann State Representative

~State Representative n C. Bradford tate Representativ

. ... ~ . i ~

~j " I

• a9 JUN 16 P2 :23 Docketing and Service Branch USNRC Washington DC 20555 To whom it may Concern, I am vehemently opposed to your supposed rule change regarding the storage of Nuclear Waste on site, the transportation and storage of waste other than what is occured natually by the operation of a Commerical facility, and the sorage of the waste in above ground castes. I consider this dangerous and irresponsible on the part of a regulatory Agency to subject the public so so serious a risk . It is cavellier and is a grave mistake.It poses ramifications that exceed the authority of the NRC and fall under the juritiction of other agencies. This a9enc y i s operating clearly outside ite regulatory capacit y in this instance.

Thank y ou,

• This is serve as notice to Lando ech as Chariman of the Nuclear Regulatory Comm iss ion,that he is personnally responsible f or an y damage , health effects , or subsequent loss of propert y or value that might be incurred as the result of the impl imentation of these proposed rule changes.It is also meant to inform all other responsible parties within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they too are accountable and responsible for any damage,health effects or subsequent loss of property or value *

/

UCI.E RY COMMISSI OOCKETI CE SECTION OFF ECRETARY ISSION Docum nt Stitistics Postm rk Oat?

• a9 JUN 16 P2 :22

Pos a Cat.:?

Copies Re:

• ved Add" I Copies c:,rodu,ed Epecial Distribution

D'OCKET NUMBER PROPOS RULE -

PR '

O Q1 / r; 0

' rJ .V I t/ . .If g !

U.S. Nuclear Regulato f 1i m t i~nq30 q] ~~ ( "t. ','

Docketing and Service *89 JUN l 6 P2 :21 Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose your recent proposal for cutting the public out of the decision-making process in the case of radioactive-waste storage permits.

As it is now, federal officials who regulate the nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public opposition to the industry. Instead of just covering your ears, you now want to simply silence the opposition.

We have seen that those who merely regulate themselves without any independent oversight do not place health and safety issues on the top of their priority lists. As a result, thousands of people ~ave had their health and safety placed in jeopardy.

We need to do more, rather than less, to insure that the nuclear power industry is forced to take every possible precaution to avoid poisoning our land, air and water. By eliminating the public from the licensing process you would be making the statement that you don't give a damn about the health and safety of the nuclear workers and the citizens of this country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must not become the Nuclear Rubber-stamp Commission and give nuclear-reactor operators blanket permission to store waste without seeking a pt~rmit from the NRC.

This foolish idea of yours _must never become law.

Thank You ,

P.S. I hope that you will extend the time beyond June 19 to receive public comment.

I have many friends who need to know of this attempt of yours to short circuit and kill

~S- .::tVh ~

~~ f}e_p{e-F~,

the basis of democracy, an informed, active and empowered citizenry.

tr/. /11Jm4 /(

1 _9Ck.. op ~lte. f>l.n,,r,/

J;/s l>1f6utn°AIIP !

Ul!;

--p!e ~ - 1J *~~ 5 ~ !JG ~-D. /

"* S. NUCLEAR REGUl TOR DOCKET ING & SE V OFFICE OF THE S OF THE COM Docum nt Sto1tistics Postmark. Date Copies Received

---

1-----

A dd' I Copies Reproduced

, . . ,: ~ -----

&pecial Distribution /J .JJ f<.. ,t< 'OS

' ..I . , ....

~ f "'~

• i-

• i ** i

• a9 JUN 16 P2 :19 J

'I O,I. NU LEAR lt(GULATO'lY COMMISSIOS l)OCKETl1 1G & S~RVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THt: ::ce<ETARY OF T* 1E CO.',\,\\i55 1ON Postmark Dute Copies Roni v:?d Add ' I Copi<?s Reproduced _ .....,______

ISpecial Distribution

• *-,.. - LAWRtNCE, KS . 66044

...__, _~.......

I (91 3) 841-224 7

\

IJU"'-~

No -b

~ - -~.L---t.r~

No -tr

~ -

N. R.. C. lt~s sl.ow11t it 11eeJs

"°"'+:,,.~ o-.s ...,.J .,.,...,.0.,I.

r:Jlj,c scr111ti..,.

~fl~

/?f, 5, rsox Zif I Ld-t,v V-eNtce I

I< d/vl.sa,.s

. 6601/{,

ij(' l 'foJ - --

)D( ~ ?). R-1 '

( Vi l  ::>.

6!-Ii /- J .

\

DOCKET NUMBER P,ROPOSED RULE r () - n/ _J I 7(JA PR J-*-1 June 13, 1989 { )

u. s . Nuclear Regulatory Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555

ts~~/'J3?y

• a9 JUN 16 P2 :21 RE: Comment on Proposal to Eliminate Requirement for Licensing and Public Hearing Process Prior to Radioactive Wast, tor-age at Nuclear Reactor Sites . DUChi. , ,

• 1r,r I A L.

Dear Sirs :

I am writing to express my concern and firm opposition to the proposed elimination of the licensing and public hearing process now required prior to storage of radioactive wastes at nuclear reactor sites . The reasons for my objection include the following:

Storage of radioactive wastes raises the potential for accidental release of airborne radioactive materials which could endanger public health and the environment.

There is also increased potential for accidental release of wastes which could contaminate surface or groundwaster utilized by the community.

Locations and sizes of nuclear reactor sites vary widely.

While the addition of radioactive waste storage might be appropriate at one site, at another public health and/or the environment might be seriously endangered.

Studies by governmental agencies, as well as private groups, have demonstrated that there is also considerable variation in nuclear plant operators' records of compliance with NRC regulations and commitment to safety.

All these factors deserve to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis. A blanket permit for all reactors to store waste on-site would be very bad policy, in my opinion.

Just last year Right-to-Know legislation was enacted in recogni-tion of the fact that citizens have a right to know what hazardous materials are stored and emitted in their communities. Congress recognized that such knowledge is not only proper, but necessary to protect lives and property.

I hope that the Commission agrees that an open, public review of each proposal for radioactive waste storage at nuclear reactor sites is in the best interest of all concerned.

Very truly yours, u)~.J} S. fl~ I)

Winifrei s. Co;i~~-

Rt. 11, Countryshire

-7 Columbia, MO 65202

"'* ~- NUrt ~ p ,.. -..t..** A ') V D l "' , ~

C .* r ~ ..

, r j) **

- I I- _ r.

Postmark D;:,lt; _J ../- - - -

Cop,es P.cCE,* ,e ' ____ _ l , . ______

Add ' I C pi::s Re **rodu... __...,,.)_ __

Special Oislribu:ion /J)) (L fl }/Jl

________f3.e~,..1..U-.~-

/~~~51:ou~sE~ p ~ ~ _,..1 I? 0 @

trYf ~ J937'i)

To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

As Co - President of the Allied Citizens Opposing Pollution ,

I am writing to inform you that it is my desire that the N. R. C. "89 JUN 16 P2 :24 immediately begin communication with our group . A. c . o. P . addressed.

uFF- .,.

• environmental issues within our grasp , and as there are 'nukes' OOCtk i I ', t , ~ I. f

~ANL.,.

in

• J . and Pa . , we would like to be kept informed as to any new permits , etc *** A. c . o. P . has several hundred members . several thousand committed Supporters , as well as the 'J)ublic 's s:vnrpa.th:v in the communities in our a.rAa.

The N. R. c . proposal to permit'dry cask storage' without public hearings for citizens living around the 'nukes', is inexcusable !

One clearly sees with Beijing , China , the horror of the absence of democracy . It is a democratic right to know what could occur in one's area , by the approval of this N. R. C. permit .

Thank you for your time . Enclosed please find some articles about A. c . o . P . 's work. I look forward to all future N. R. c . actions being sent to the address below.

Sincerely,

~91"~

Gary Wonderlin c/o A.C O. P . !

P . O. Box 195 Palmyra , N. J .

08065

.1s.,1oa ION

c. y C .,

.* , . ! ., ics 9cs tm;:irk Cop:cs ~ec~ *~cl Add' l C pies Re r._d ... ,:;*

ial Distributi~n

Fight over incinerator bill hasn't abated 12-N-83 The Burlington County Times (Nov. cause he has been criticizing that Fed- made up, asking for Florio's help in

16) reported on the press conference era! agency for a year. It was no sur- stopping the Pennsauken burner, which held at the Cherry Hill Hyatt the pre- 'pris_e to hear in the news before the last people sent to his office. Also during vious day where representatives from election, that if Dukakis had won, Flo- that winter, the Congressman held a many citizens' groups publicly de- rio was to be a top choice as head of an town meeting in Audubon Park and in nounced Congressman Florio's inciner- Environmental Protection cabinet. Riverton, where many people expressed ator bill. Upon hearing in early summer their sentiment against trash burning, that the bill was to be introduced, mem- The main objection to th e bill, which again with the hope he would help.

hers of many of the same groups called th e BCT article focused on, was th at in- What people have encountered, in-the congressman's office, asking that it cinerator ash would be called "special

• stead, is an aloofness by most of the not go forward and complaining that . waste" and therefore could wind up politicians.

people involved in the incineration is- being placed anywhere. The E.P.A. has Florio was on Susan Bray's program wanted to declassify this toxic material WOB di sue were not even consulted. Florio for a year, as well. The entire bill is un* on W ra o recently, where he agreed to a meet!ng in his office to hear was asked by a caller whether it was the complaints, however the bill still palatable to th e groups represented at true the Pennsauken burner would be forged on. the press conference. Even where the accepting trash from North Jersey and bill seems to help protect the water Queens, N.Y., that his bill did not deal An objection to the bill is that it from the ash, the administrator always with rules on imported trash. He re-amends the Federal Clean Air Act to al- has the power to exempt such precau- sponded by saym*g he did not know if i

low for incinerator em~ions! Daniel tions.

• Moynihan has wanted to do this for a the burner would accept such waste, year, as well. This past September 22, members of that the local politicians had to be Aflorio's bill would give sweeping ' the Allied Citizens Opposing Pollution asked. He is our local politician! He said

..,ers to an "Administrator," includ~ drove to Washington, D.C. for the day, his bill only deals with what comes out ing having the option to allow ash to be armed with copies of an analysis of the of the burners, not with what goes in.

placed wherever that person feels is bill, as prepared by the fact-finding . Common sense dictates that if filth goes safe. The words "The Administrator," committee of the group. Members of in, filth is going to come out.

• appear 51 times in the bill, in describing Congress were hand-delivered a copy, Here is hoping that our next gover-the powers just one person would have; in the hope th~y would vote no on the nor is someone who does not merely instead of a body of people. bill. Twenty-four other members of say he is an environmentalist, but one Congress, however, co-sponsored the who really is sensitive to people's wish-On the surface, it seems strange that bill, including Mr. Smith of New Jersey es and to the environment.

Florio would want to give such over- and Mr. Foglietta of Pennsylvania.

whelming power to a person in the En- Last winter, the Allied Citizens Op- Gary Wonderlin vironmental Protection Agency, be- posing Pollution had 2,500 index cards Pennsauken

Florio: Hardly the environmental-knigh~ the n_ewspaper makes him out to be Covv-1e-v Pos t * * ,. **

Your editorial of Nov. 25 the taxpayers. Few, if any, Super- is much. cheaper to dispose of.

excoriated a group of grass-roots fund sites have been cleaned up or "SP.ecial ash" isn't subject to law-environmentalists for taking Rep. ever will be. . . . suits like "hazardous a_sh."

Florio to task for his stand on What Flono did set in motion OWEN MURP~Y incinerator ash. with Superfund, Inc., is a toxic Ocean City The attack was as pedestrian as* shell game. Contaminated soil is it was predictable.

• dug out of the ground at one site, If one believes the newspaper, and dumped into a . hole some-*

Smilin' Jimmy, our once and where else. The only thing Super-future king, is the greatest fund is doing is making a. few

• Hotl,nes- 61..4-0l/-'-fG environmentalist since Johnny hazardous waste disposal com*. q111 6'4-37 ~

Appleseed. Little birds make nests . panies rich.

in his hair, frlendlyserpents twine Florio*s attempt- to have incin-round , his legs, the w~ales . and era tor !lsh declared,."sI>_~cial~ "!88 wolves sing songs of his accom- an environmental sm. That incin*.

plishments, and he calls the wind erator ash is highly contaminated, THURSDAY by her first name, Maria. blackened rubble, caustic to the . PUB':J~ HEARING o~ nitrogen ox-The reality

• is very different. nostrils and corrosive to the touch. ides _em1ss1ons from proposed P~nn-Florio's much-touted Superfund Florio wants this hideous rubble p13uken incinerator, 4 p.m.-midnlght ennsauken H.S., Rt. 73. Call De art'

~rogram has. b(len_ a disastrous ~ec~ared *~pecial." ~o d~es th~ * 'g~i}*.

• 0 JJ*tronmental. Proteftio~

l0~billion dollar boondaggle--for-illc1:13ei:atm;ind1:1stry. ~pes11! UAii:x~"'.'" g 02 2, or Allied Citizens P~ing Pollution h~tline,. 48Q-0716.

2 8'a * ..

Do,n ~t a:Jlow IJJ,µ,dness of was~~ t!,~po~al When I moved into Delair; Pemiiau*

cooled many a skinny-dipper, some of .

1

,Q ,g() or,, .

The histoiy of this site and of memo-ken in the early 1960s, one of ~e*most whom were

• cutting classes from the_ -:. ' ries*of it, cry out for this madness to beautiful places* around, was open land nearby Pennsauken High School. **stop. Penqsauken Township has al-next to River Road and Rt. 73'a :Inter* Without a*doubt though, most ineni* ,*lowed the*current mountain of trash to section, in back of Roger Wilco Liquors. oriea are of "Spring Lake," which was go up to an astonishing 100 feet high.

Part of the land* had bE!tln. J,IJined for close to Rt. 73. Known for its sandy They are now seeking pennis'sion to go sand and, graveL*1 *wnf'never forge~ white__beaches; and a ,ushing,foµntain

• 20 f~et higher. *There ma:, have to*be a

~ looking Into the quarry pits of pristine *-of ice cold water from the aquifer in the state DEP public hearing on this re-water, seeing the different colored lay- center of the lake, summ~r weekends quest..There will defmetely be one on ers of rock, .etc... The purpose for me could see up to six lifeguards.on duty at the proposal to dump the ash at the going there, was to view the many bird the Mme time. ,., , ., *: .. . . site, which are their only current plans species, which were* attracted by the Why the lake closed arid why it was for disposal of the toxic byproduct.

• bodies of water. . . filled, remain$* unanswered. The quarry .... Part of the landfill property is locat- .

There are, tµidoubtedly, thousaii~ pits proceeded *to have hospital,. 1i'nd . e*d in Burlington County, it being iJi of area residents who also have precious other ,"'.aste dumped qirectly iqto them. *-:- Cinnaminson and Palmyra. Burlington memories of the site, as well;Fish were The township"t>f PEm~uken continued*:*.....

• county Times readers are encouraged abundant in the swamps nearest to Rt. this insane

• practice, even though *the** . to attend and public hearings on this is-73, as many could attest to; The craze pits' cut directly into the aquµer, They * , .. sue. * ,.-,.,: ~ * * * ,;

during those years was minibikes, with even proceeded to plan a trash indnera* :,

• the many hills being unsurpassed loca* tor there and*to*dump the ash on top of Magdalena Oriold tion for enjoyment. The quarry pits old Spring Lake! Delair *

--ourjignt* against* the iiicinera tor*is- still 0ongo.ing I 0

.

• 12-21-88 .

When the_Burlington County Times by the group. The drive will culminate by ACOP, P.O. Box 195, Palmyra, N.J.

did a profile of the Allied Citizens Op- with a covered-dish supper on Jan. 21, 08065.

posing Pollution's Co-President Patrice *: in

• the Palmyra Community Center.

Meloni in September, it was really de* Some seats are still available. Call Gary Wonderlin scribing the way many people *in this 486-0716. Donations are being accepted Pennsauken area are, all because a mass burner was proposed in Delair-Pennsauken. Like .

Ms.Meloni,weneverwouldbaveimag-Ch. . . *z b emlCll S Urn h'o le ln . OZOne ined that one day we would be so pub- ..

licly active.~** *- There is a hole in the ozone layer. countries of the world and stop the use

. I cannot even remember what once This bole is caused by chemicals in hair of these chemicals.

occupied the time now spent on such* spray, deodorant, and air fresheners.

things* as holding outside protests, ,This is a _serious environmental prob- Melissa Oscbell speaking at public bearings and town lem. . Project Challenge Class meetings;- attending meetings of all New Albany School types and allying with people fighting We m~t-get togeth~r with the other Cinnaminson pollution all over the ~tel .

During the past year, the BCT cov-, '

ered such ACOP events as Gov. Tom

.. Kean's reorganization day in January; Abe DEP public hearing at the race~

Wrack in February, sereral Philadelphia .,

City' Cowicil meetings and gatherings *:

at several occasions at the actual pro-"*:**

posed site in Delair, and at many other

.pla~ Like Ma. Meloni, the partici-pants are all either housewives or hold regular jobs,*isometimes both!

• The past year.is co~ered .to be. a ' ._:

total victory by .these. people wh<> *,

choose to fight for what"they believe in.'

One of the hiippiest occasions_occurred when' the* governing bodies of cmna:. ,r minson,-.Palmyra, and Riverton filed a ..

lawsuit to stop the Delair burner! A.

• Thanks to the efforts of concerned

• citizens mentioned here, there is no s.tructure yet erected at the site. ,

Thanks to the lawsuit, construction has .

even been ordered halted by the Feder-

~ ,EPA/ ~use papers had not been Wied. 'Another blatant error with *the

• project, is that the Federal EPA is just 1 now ordering a review to be done ,on whether the proposed smokestack will have extra air pollution equipment in-stalled!

• No one is giving up the fight, but in-stead only intensifying it, so that with the project scrapped, other already ex-isting pollution can be dealt with. .

• The Allied Citizens Opposing Pollu-tion is conducting a fund drive, with half of the proceeds going directly to .

the three town's lawsuit, the other half for copying and mailing expenses, etc.

L ~~

~~/(;

~~24-0l/-46

'f 71- 6'+3'7 2.IS-862.-3933

B. Ralph Sylvia DOCKET NUMBER Senior Vice Pres1denpRQPQS£D RULE PR £/J Jf""J 0 Detroit 6400 North D1x1e Highway (flf({(J,3?q_)

Edison Newport. M1ch1gan 48166 (313) 586-4150 "89 JUN 16 P2 :19

. ,I June 13, 1989 me-89-0145 The Secretary of the Camnission U.S. NUclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing arx1 Service Branch

References:

1) Fermi 2 NIC Docket No. 50-341 NIC License No. NPF-43

2) Storage of Spent NUclear Fuel in me-Approved Storage Casks at ruclear Power Reactor Sites; (Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 86, datErl Friday, May 5, 1989)

SUbject: Detroit B:lison's Comments on the Proposed Rule on Storage of Spent ruclear Fuel The ruclear Regulatory Canmission (NIC) published for public camrent a proposed rule allowing onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel in NIC-approved storage casks under a general license without a:iditional me site-specific review. Detroit B:lison suP{X>rts the proposed rule.

Under the rule the licensee would have to ensure conpliance with the cask's Certificate of Compliance, evaluate the storage under 10CFRS0.59 to ensure there are no site specific unreviewed safety questions, notify the me, arx1 modify procedures am plans as appropriate. These actions provide assurance of the ceceptability of storing nuclear fuel in a previously me-approved cask at a specific plant. The proposed rule would allow more efficient use of NOC and utility resources by not requiring NJ:C review of eceh l icensee's plan to use approved casks unless a site specific safety question is identified. As such, the proposed rule benef i ts the NJ:C, the industry, and the consumer.

i.J, ~. I I I.

on O'* -

D. c, ...... ' c,j;., i.;tics Poslm'!rk D1 ~ _f__-- J 3- ~ 7 Copitas R c *'

USNIC June 13, 1989 NOC-89-0145 Page 2 If there are any questions, please conta::t Ms. Lynne Gocrlman at (313) 586-4211.

Sincerely, cc: A. B. Davis R. C. Knop

w. G.Rogers J. F. Stang Ntl-1AlC

OOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

,~y ..1 1302 Vista Drive N.W. Socorro, NM 87801 "89 JUN 16 P2 :21 June 12, 1989 ,)ft uocK: - ,

U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t., ~t, N_.*

Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555 Ladies and Gentlemen:

Of all the brazenly anti-public proposals to come out of your agency ,

the proposal to eliminate public comment and licensing for the oper-ators of nuclear reactors just about tops the list.

Licensing and public comment are the only ways I know of to keep the operators honest and their operations safe--or as safe as nuclear operations ate likely ever to be.

I earnestly suggest, in the name of public safety, public economy and the public's right to know, that the proposed elimination of public hearings and of the requirement of a licensing permit be killed forthwith .

Sincerely,

, NlJCL A ~,.. ' ~., COM ISSIOl!l DOCY.:1 1,-

• c;:CION om- RETA.RY OF S10N

t,t MICHELE SCHLICK - HARRIS

~ O 101 ALTA VISTA VACAVILLE, CA 95688 ~know1edged by card -~:=:l.,... J i ; ; ; ~ ~ ~

\

~- "\

\ *

~s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlotl DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET AR'(,

OF TifE COMMISSION Document Stilt ist iCl Postmark Date Copies Received

~dd' I Copies Reproduced

• IP-eci

• Distribution

DOCKET NUMBER PR , 0 ryj !')? 0 PROPOSED RULE '* .. * *

• W1scons1n Electnc

( r u-, -r I<. 1CJ 3') q) Lr: J

! ~p POWER COMPANY 231 W. Michigan, P.O. Box 2046, Milwaukee, WI 53201

• 39 JUN 16 P3 :54 (414) 221-2345 VPNPD-89-336 NRC-89--07 2 ,-s,.'

QUCK:

June 12, 1989 Secretary U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: DOCKETING AND SERVICE BRANCH

- Gentlemen:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE: STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES On May 5, 1989 the Commission published a proposed rule to amend its regulations to allow storage of spent fuel under a general license at nuclear power plant sites in casks approved by the NRC (FR 19379). We support this proposed rule since it allows reactor licensees to manage their spent fuel inventories as necessary until the Department of Energy accepts the fuel for disposal at a high level waste repository.

However, we do have a general comment regarding the duration of cask model Certificates of Compliance (COCs) and general licenses to store spent fuel at power reactor sites. The duration limit imposes unnecessary burdens on both the NRC and licensees.

- In accordance with the proposed rule, a cask model Certificate of Compliance (COC) issued by the NRC would expire twenty years from the date of issuance. The general license for spent fuel storage at a power reactor site would also have a duration of twenty years and be synchronized with the cask model(s) being used because of the link provided by Part 72.212. Given the uncertainty of the date of available disposal in a high-level waste repository, different spent fuel management needs and strategies among power reactor licensees, and the availability of multiple NRC approved cask models, the arbitrary twenty year duration and need for reapproval of COCs and general licenses presents unnecessary burdens for the NRC, licensee and cask vendors without a commensurate increase in protection of the public health and safety or the environment.

The NRC and licensees have respective and complementary responsibilities to protect the public health and safety and the environment. Absent overriding institutional issues or a defect in a cask model or a licensee's facility which would preclude providing adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment, there would be no need to revoke or modify a COC or a general license.

A subsidial)' of Wisconsin Energy ColJ)Omlion

.s. t*:.,c1i:t=1 !'r,-*v rr-r:,v c,...,\.~u.1iss:

DC~:. .. ' ,,.. .,_ , . , ,_... r I ... ~

r:* r - ** {

i) .l - , * ,

Poslm>\rk Dute> / / J f 1_ _

Copies R.:: <<,i , .d ' J Add 'I Cof ies Rc.r - _J _-

IP-ecial Distrib lion .J)(l > flJ PJ

_ _ _ _ _ __.P L.:e

!::..,~

Secretary, U.S. NRC June 12, 1989 Page 2 Therefore, we recommend that the twenty year duration of COCs,and thus general licenses, be deleted from the proposed rule. In contrast, we recommend retention of the license requirements linked to the decommissioning of the power reactor facility and the addition of a stipulation linking the expiration of COCs and general licenses to store spent fuel to the availability of ultimate disposal.

In conclusion, we support the proposed rule and appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments. If you have any questions, or desire to discuss our comments further, please contact us.

Very truly yours, c.~rc.w7 Vice President Nuclear Power Copy to Jim Flaherty, Edison Electric Institute

r o ? .:tJ 11o oocKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR

( ~ l/ { R. J 9 31q)

• a9 JUN 15 PS :20 or~,_ ,

DOC K: ,*.* ': ,, r

~ ,.l ~L**

l'Yu.

2-2 t~

~~ r-L ~2.s 1 T, - - ! "{ f989° Atkt'IOwledged by card-:-:-~

• • .*);;*,**;:;.~~

fi. S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSf DOCKET!. 1G t SER VICE SECTIO~

Or~ !Cf: Of' THE ~, -: ;FTJ\.R'l

_J O'.' Th E C M /-\ 1.:i::i :OI Postmark Da*e __ / _i_J_*__,J,_"-Jtl'-___

Copies P::,_,:,;v ____ / _ __ _ _ __

~ dd ' I Co;:,- _s :<r,,p~cduced

-=:,/- - -----

Special Distribution _ }!_.U_f<.-:r__,___J.... =---

• M;;:;

DOCKET NUMBER BROPOSED RULE PR r O ') d-y J? b ~ -)

~

J r;t/ rn, ;rn r;q)

C---r~--~1 C.,.,r ' )

' . .. J pecial Di:!ribui; r. __ }..I)_g_ P- I il t

_ _ __ ___,f?R..A.!.J..M-

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE R:>ro ')"' I? o

<f-.

(t>lf(R )9s?1) r*

• a9 JUN 15 P2 :41 OF~ v*

DOCK i

-~ ,- *1",f 0-1 ~ ; ~Gt'

\

f*

• (_ * \

1

~.,?._, *, I 1-,, I I)) P- -~ .)..... f'--

• r .x~

/ J r *( - -----

. ; *, L> - I Settling of Oklahoma 15 USA

~l} KE ,; . 1:. 1:..:1.. ' .- /\Tl' ~~* C C 11\ iY'i .

Dcu<'k\1i--: 1..:- f <<:-,Sl2..v I c.. E_

First Land Run.1889 " I\St-1 H,J 0 TT') ,\..) b C Territory Established , 1890 Cherokee Strip Run, 1893 -:- u '-. -,:: .:-

. .,,, J ..J liSPS 1989

,.._ tx>~ I \tJb 1f-10U \ OlvT

' tl~Jg~

l) )Li c.:.. t-H~ i,_, f'-) c ..j uf'rR: i t0c ~ ;

,v;rs ?;- DL>!YHx; **1 u R .-f0\v*t0 /cflY o ,>AJ ~ N,~

c-3 \.,*I--:< ...

db~ 1-fJr&,l ~ ~-

! 4 f989

.. .Aeknowted~ed by ca ref. .;;_::;;;;;:;;i;::a;ra~.,

D.5 . N11r1~ r> ,-,rr*JI ,\T" y r0 ~~MISS la.ti DC ' * <"'-TION ARY, l ~

cs Post, r~rl r ' 6-)3~f-Cc Ac. j 6peci ul f JJ'1/2_fi. J

--- - - /'tP. r ,J

,, 1-.: i; *.

~ ':;4-ih - * -

• 59 JUN f5 PT-:41

--- _ -f/,t..._f ~ a. )lo/-

--+--=.l:'~---'- f u f Wtt."' _///vt../~-- ~ -fl~

e,,.t___._.,_i /uih f-f -. re.. { ~t. It* 1 f ,t.,- ,,_, ; ff, 'a;, f"a f-fD,,-~ 1,.,,-. f J-< * , 0 _/2 (,. /.. vi.P .h t <- ( u .-~ /ef.e. * ~ '-' (L *"'--'§ le,-, 0 W 7], ,._ f-:

'JZ.,f t-J,-(fe. 1...1,'I/ tee r-ttt.,~ r-..J~ c;,-c:,f,k

---1-- .f.v tL-~r hf, _.f-1,t.,,..,,f. /111 µ,t. 1v,t.J J o..,_-e Jtl,J,, y . . f _ p-,-.f o ....," ,t. .- ,fo t"' . 1), .-e fi" r, *,1,,_

- - - /,., I -rt.. J.. ,.';j//, ') / l-,_ ~-- ( f-e. ), - ~ VI' 7~-. .( /_,,.,. ~ v:__

1,,..,,f I I! (,._f-P-,,.. ,t ~ f-,.{ ~-,,t! JI: ,J.. '--;l.,:, fee.. ~.-,--.,.

-- 1).- /v6f-_ c,.,r 7Z~ /"//,"e. o~-r t:J/

/le,, '{,a,,,, - M ... 1-r, l) f nc.,d{.

- -- /,.J, rt.. t:kc/eff (,.,.C,"-f"'1,, - -

_ _ _ _ ;...,. 'l d., *1J,,e., *r d. ~t~

- - - r - - - -m~fs;HBGYWoiu*~~~-___;__-

omct OF 11

- - - - - - -+-- - - - - - - - - - - _ JDQ:oQ.!C u:n:ml Sritistics

SVJ ?~/JO

{)lJffJ9??rrj JO ~1 //11_,,, '7' c O N c,,-.,,,e,.c) 0 89 JUN 15 P2 :35

,r ;

Nt.tc.~ / 1vWrrf.'.j.1, ,. ~

Ul /4S T .#L *

/v9 IO , 4) /4 e- r w/f.. ~ '-J "'r; N o I" u , ";_,

/,G£ Aua..r.r'

i- 2 r ~ .,IV &fl cJv~",,J

/fa,,,z,;- ~ c,--,, o/9 ~-

Pos"r!;.'

top - ,. j

~dd I C 6pecial D, * , * :i 3re I<. I D_J

/?e.A -,. Jtl f\

oocKET NUMBER PR ro 1 i {) 0 BROE.OSED RULE .)

t[L/ffc )1311)

REV . KENNETH T. FARNELL CONCORDIA , fO CONNEMARA LN .

BELLA VISTA, AR 72714

. L 9

u u.S. NUCLFAR Rr:GtJIATORY COMMISSIO~

DOCl~:ETlt~G & srnVICE SECTION O HCE OF Ti IE ~:*CRt:TARY OF THE ((llv\i'i',ISSION Poslr>13rk D~,:e Cc::n~~ Re-:~-: Ed

_CI )__- ']

Add ' I C ,,., ,~ f.::,*..,duccd J Spec:cl Di!.iril:,u11on /1.,..;

'.))_ )t

• ag JUN 15 P2 :41 OF ,

00(, Kl . ,,  ; , * ,rr

• I '-'NL .. - '

W/"rS . h 4 t,t) (" ~ l'}C <. s 1~ h (

~lo r o/d_ Boot'} v,I1/2 ~  ?!'.::-~- -- -

v a 118 v, I ( ~ I 17 J/{J.J."7

/1:JM ,,,. ' -z;

~

~

\-J

"\.

' ' _,l'_q

... ,J

~ :::::

. ***!8i:,

J C .,. ,,, , I? i,:tG!.'L, iC. V 'CC'Mlf ,~

P,. m VICE S~CTIO.~

Ti-le 5~':R~T/_?V

.. ": iss:~:

J>,

\5 2'

--.. * ' t

Ii!; fill.JC-EAR . rGUtAiORY COMMISSI oocrrn! 1G & Sd'\l([ S:CTION Of 1cr o; 1.* *

• c,(::-ri:P~Y or- 11,:: (Of*'::,s-51.:);-,.t

, r-,.

Postmark 0:;te -J )--~---*-----

oacKET NUMBER PR 5 0 ? 170 PROPOSED RULE - '.. r,f i: i June lZ 1989 (f l/FR /C/ 3'Jo/) ~ti L

'89 JUN 15 P2 :46 u.s. Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Washington, D.c. 20555 Sirs:

To get right to the point, the occurrences at Rocky Flats, Colo. points up the mess of the entire DOE handling of our Waste Disposal Program.

The worst part of these violations is the deliberate cover up and outright lying that follows the violation. Here in Roswell, N.M. we're fighting for the right to have open hearings, and to have DOE live up to the sworn to safety standards promised in the past.

It would seem that our governing officials have absolutely no regard for our ecology, nor for the health and lives of our people . Such people should not be in positions of power. There were coverups of contamination breaches at Savanah River, Hanford, Washington, and only the Good Lord knows where else.

All of these previously established disposal sites were supposed to be under strict regulatery guidelines (which apparently were ignored and violations covered up.) WIPP is a first time establishment, in that it comes under

!!2 regulatory agency! As DOE is not now paying too much attention to the promises and safety measures it made in the past; imagine how much attention it will pay to the WIPP safety measures.

Are we going to render vast areas of our country uninhabitable? Are we going to let the blind ambitions and greed of larg~ corporations and politicians condemn our futurel Governor Carruthers has now come out with his veiled (thinly) threat that if you are a business man, and oppose the WIPP site, you should not expect to ever get a state contract. Typical tactic.

They keep telling us that, "these materials have to be stored someplace . "

Why can't that someplace bi held to the strictest safety standards science can devise? Standards that will n~ver be relaxed, but rather, if possible, even strengthened, in the future.

Our goal is to begin this way at WIPP, before the folly of violation and cover up is allowed to peril the great state of New Mexico; we have no wish to become the garbage dump of the nation. DOE has shown themselves to be totally irresponsible in the past; lets put them under strict, enforcible regulation in the future. A totally!!!.!, WIPP, or no WIPP at all!

Jncerely, Hugh J Bark 414 E. 23rd St . 4 Roswell, N.M. 88201

li1G. u*r*t fa,-, ----*" ., .--~*, .,- . _,\,i~..>;~

n~---- "'r'M

( .

u

/L.r .

l ........... ~ .

~~~, PCL-,

~~ ~-~ _l_f8'f

- ~.-. i

.89 l1 s ~~cl.-c;vu aer ~ ' Dn JUN 15 P2 :43

!t la+L..rx/,fj~ ;i_o_s_r:5 DOC k L :

~ ~';i_Jl :t~ ~ 'Jb[a.J,,- .JJ ~

.,C,'VI, r ~i~ ~ £UMr-.ffi~

Ae.,cc~a_~'~-;to~

~-r~~r~~.

-f-f-c~~I

~~t~

D. $, l',tl l," ll,.." ~' l"~lJt 1' TGP. 't' r.OMMISSIOti oc, > ** r, Sl*, 1\ii<

• 1,ri:r10N

-: j l I *~ -~ (~.' N!.'t

• I/' 1 1~' 'ON Pos ,f°

• Cep, * , 1

,?.)~ t \t .. n J *  ;~i *1,_,, .d H I , 1 butie'l ___.....,...........,,..._,,. _ ),>>.J

oocKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE p r o f) 1J 1?o LI-L--..w.--

( fj l/ f /( /Cf Jr"} CJ)

• a9 JUN 15 P2 :4 1 C, F F , ,

DUC hl * *I .i.  : , 1 !r

.;~,\NL.,

JUL 2 4 1999 lcknowJedged by card ...;;;;;;;;;;.~...._

,_!i. 11 !Ci,'

> 1;rr* 1 11 ,.- 1.'T> Y C0 'V1AI SSION oo. *,

, - .r ,11 E -:-:-n10,

• c,** * - c,; 1; :: ' .  ? .i,'J..Y P* .. l .., ** rr Postm ark Dz tc Copies ll.:c:.-.;;"~d

Add' J C oµ:,3s l ,*;:imdcceJ _J;...._____

&pecial Distribution

II .

1 ** '

If

!I

~ , & t f ~/U I /W~ YO/1)1' o//72 /4~g o 'd av

J.

pee o ..,

I_,,)]-\- ~-----

3 PD rt, i1PS

- - - - - - --- P.t,.. 1" -S

DOCKET NUMBER PR 5o'7 J J? 0 PROPOSED RULE )

(_ ~ {J f RJ? 311 Mississippi St.

Lawrence, KS 66044 June 10, 1989

• a9 JUN 15 P2 :4 7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on ,

Docketing and Service DOCKL I "  : , , LF Washington, DC 20555 'R A t ...

Dear Commission:

I am so shacked and outraged by what I have Just read in Jack Anderson's column in the Lawrence Journal-World that I dropped the newspaper without finishing 1t and turned on my computer to write this letter.

I can scarcely believe that you would even contemplate allowing nuclear reactor operators ta store radioactive waste whenever and wherever they choose without requiring permission from the NRC. Despite much evidence in the past that the NRC protects the operators rather than the public, I choose to think that Mr. Anderson has misunderstood your intentions or that I have misread Mr.

Anderson's report. Until I have your assurance in writing that the report or my conclusions from it are incorrect, however, and that you will continue to require NRC permission for all nuclear waste storage and will continue to hold public hearings in advance of giving such permission, I will bombard my senators and congressmen with protests and will urge my friends and acquaintances to do so.

The enclosed photocopy of a news story, also from today's Journal-World, underscores the need for MORE, not LESS, stringent NRC supervision of every nuclear reactor operator. These guys are not in the business for our health, you know.

Sincerely yours,

~

enclosure cc: Senator Robert Dole Senator Nancy kassebaum Rep. Jim Slattery JUL Z 4 1989 atlt"owfedged by carci:-:..;--- ~ st

8,1. Nuci_ ~AR R~CUI ATORY COMMi 0OC:Krrn:G r,. [~RV!CE ~F:CT ION Ori-:([; o:: 1!-i' ~:ErnETAR'f OF rn~ COM ~/ol :if; !Gi Dr,c 1Jnl=-r.; S,.;i!;-.1it 6-:l) ) ':-'.F, -'---- "

- 2d

>

-... t.c Sp.cial Distributioh

fATION-WORLD . Saturday, June 10, 1989 Page 2A Affidavit alleges toxic discharges N. Y. Times News Service would not comment on the allegations before disproved.

further study. The agency said its represen- "I won't shut down the plant on allegations,"

WASlllNGTON - Employees at the Rocky tatives at the plant, 18 miles northwest of he said.

Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado twice Denver, "have not found any condition or situa- Aside from the environmental violations, the discharged toxic chemicals into creeks leading tion which threatens the health or safety of the affidavit asserted that Rockwell and Energy to drinking water supplies in the Denver area public or plant employees." Department officials had resisted efforts to last November, according to a Justice Depart- Calls by a reporter to Rockwell at Rocky correct them.

ment affidavit made public Friday. Flats were not answered. Quoting from a July 1986 Energy Department The affidavit, signed by an agent of the FBI, In a news conference in Denver Friday, Gov. memorandum, the affidavit said Rockwell and listed many other allegations of likely criminal Roy Romer said state officials were in- Energy Department officials sought to keep the violations of environmental laws from 1980 vestigating but had so far detected no drinking public from knowing "just how bad the site through December 1988. water contamination as a result of discharges really is."

And it said the Energy Department, which from the plant. The affidavit added, "There is probable owns the plant, and the Rockwell International "It is an inexcusable act to put pollution in cause to believe that Rockwell and Energy Corp., which runs it, had repeatedly tried to drinking water," said the governor, a Department officials have knowingly and false-hinder state and federal officials from enforc- Democrat. But in response to demands to close ly stated Rocky Flats' compliance with en-ing air and water pollution laws. the plant, he said he would take no action until vironmental laws and regula,tions and conceal-The Energy Department said Friday that it the charges in the affidavit were verified or ed Rocky Flats' 'serious contamination.' "

.. Ju.t

rO ~

10 oocKET NUMBER PR  ;;_ J?~

BROP.OSED RUL J /4/2\

( r CJ { O

~

• ~~ i .J ~ ~

Yr; R I-, 3'Jlj_J

-J .

0

- .89

. ~ ti : ,

~;** ! ] ~

Jllty 15~2 :47

~ ~ o. ~~~~

1-C

~ ' {l)u_ . ~~~

• I ~~ ~=::~- ~,~

µ ~ ~F

~

• ()---U..AJ .

~31--~ v* ,t~

1~ s J , ~ ~ 1/2At

~ ~{Ud_ . ~~

I_

JUL g9

\

lit . NUCLF.. fHGlil ATOllY CC"JMM({ (i DOCl'fil, ~ " ::.~1WICC SECT ION ..

Olfl 'i; uF r1 l1 ~,CRETARY uF ,i,t c 01, t,11:siuN 0 .~11rn I ,. .,r'stic

• a9 JUN 15 P2 :41 0F '

• OOC Ki ; ,:... ~ v fr "II ~L Bea Thorpe Public Stenographer/Notary 2101 Aldama Street Laredo, TX 78043 (512) 726-4660 America the Beautiful USA 15

_ JUL 2 4 1 ~-

drnol.vfecfctec!~ovraearnMf':

.* ~;;;;~ ....=\Ill

-.,..~

J. s. NUn ~AD q_c~IJI Air' v C0MMISSIOl-i DOC' ' 1 $"~ION IJ N Doc Jrncr* c ... J" cs Postmark atn Cop,es R~ e 1 )d Add' I Cc.r, es p7o<

• Special Distribution

4568 Narragans et Trail Sarasota, FL J42JJ June 10, 1989 - ~:r' U. ~ . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service 0

89 15 P2 :43 vashington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

~e wish to protest vehemently the proposal that licenses no longer be required for disposal of hazardous waste . The public will be affected by such waste, and should be per-mitted to have input concerning such decisions.

I trust that the public welfare will be the primary concern in your decision-making. and that health concerns are given top priority .

Sincerely yours,

~~

Bernard Forer

,S. NU(Lf. M Rrr- 1Jt ATCJ:? Y COMMISSION 0 ocr<r*1 Jrj 8 ~ /IC~ SECTION

, .. V L ETARY r A I .>10 I '"I 1*

Po~lrfll!rk Oa1 I I) - I___

Copies , a, 1\1 J 1

~dd I op*~~ '

• o ,i, 3 apecial Outributio!l _f D 'fl.v I llI' f,.. '-Ar. CJ.!\,. _ _

.., ,y-Go-Rou,ul,:

- - ~

u,

~

--+"-'\

-1.:,C:,

co 0

l"'"1 CJ

-0:;:,::::

~~

z:

Anderson/V11nAIIR,

"'~

"'t\~

~~

1

~

~

v->

Oc::

c=

0;;:

f'T'1 ear N o Evil- Federal officials who regulate the l ~

H t t t . } f i~ ("' -

nuclear-power industry routinely ignore public ~

opposition to that industry. But instead of just 1 covering their ears, now the regulators have figured b, out a way to silence the opposition. -.,t The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently pro- 7tl posed c~tting the public <?Ut o~ the decision-making ~ ~ ~

l 1 t1 *1

. ('

process m the case of radioactive-waste storage per- (. ~ ~

mits. Currently, nuclear-plant operators have to ask ~ f the NRC for a license to store certain kinds of nuclear Ir\ '-

waste. People who are concerned about safety prob- , ......_

lems can air their views at hearings and by writing to

~

t the NRC, while each application is being considered. c;-. , \ 1 The new rule would eliminate the licensing process that requires public comment. All nuclear-reactor i,

~

~ -

,-.,___) ~

operators would get blanket permission to store waste , '

without seeking a permit from the NRC.

The agency's foolish idea is not yet law. In this case, public comment i, *till being ,olidted until June 19.

Letters should be addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, D. ocketing and Service, ft ~ f ~

~'

l ~ ~

~

~

~ 'f~

Washington,_DC, 20555. I ~ 1

~ f ~ ~ ~

~

K:

UNIIED FEAruRE SYNl>CATE ..._ ....._

~~ }. '--t _*

r "-\ ,, '

~

'cl r '

~ ~ ~- f @

~ ~~

i ii t ~ ~

tr:r

~

l <-\

e%

r IJ1.

~

V,

• .~

r*

~

~

! c._

-0 1

N

~-ri c::

r ,j:::;.

Na ~

~

UI i

r

'..:\

t ~ f ~

--......0

a. 5. NI ,r, r ~ " c:,r ..... . * * "J'lV (()f., MISSI C :ON

.Y

,I l -1J-_- _,__

i _

)

Add'1 Cc ,

Special Du:n ultQ

DOCKET NUMBER p V f)) )'J 0 PROPOSED RULE * - _J

( 6V + f l'13Jq)

"89 JUN 15 P2 :41 uf * ~* .

OUCKi , If f of ,\ L JOHN A HECKMANN RT 1 BOX 197 HARRISBURG AR 72432 ~

/~,:.,. ~,J,;,~

'-<:" ~

• I.\I'

~

. p ,n J UNI Z

~* *P -'*

c i

\  !':3 ',;'3

DO

{

Postr, ark ,.r*

Co 1.f _ , , '

Acd'. p'

• pecial Distribt.ti n

([J)

• a9 JUN 15 P2 :41 en*

Q(J(, L i

~ ,\ ~ \.,"

ALORIE B. YOUNCI 1025 CIELO AZllL SANTA FE. NM 111111

© USPS 1987

AJ,t, MK1.r.A.rt r;,rc::r::no Y co . ss D(Y'. r *r; ,, S '?V:':': srcr .0 '

~F - ~ s~** H \:(,

C'..,!N*1 .,51 H

0

~iiit\ri R~c: , ~ \..4- ~ :J /? ~:.

cs LJ r R I q ~ , ~ J I i, ,,

"89 JUN 14 PS :24

l!Ql!Q il, I . NUCLFAR RfGUlA TO RY COMMI SSIO~

DOCKf Tll,JG & SfR V1CE SFCT ION orr if"f OF TH[ ~[G. fT ARY or TH E ( O,v,t/. Is:: ION Docu;,ic nl Sia t,s t ics Postmark 03te fiJ / ~ ~-11ftlU,:...,._/_,___

Co pies Rec P.: vf' M /

Add ' I Copies R-e c- rc d uced J 6pecial D1str ib ut1on /J~ -,._ fl (QI J!__e,,J.,/:._.r. '

'89 JUN 14 P5 :24 OF !

GUCk t

_. .* I i, Doris Bedell Box 614 Philmont NY krfow * ~c~- , -

uo:!n<;u 1~ 10 pv* .... ' ,_ *'

r- r t:;;. c f-) -

"\

Slo V\e- far-'tv,t 1 ~ef la.$~' K. I8D'b,-.,c

~f '* I l)QCKET NUMBER R5 o 1 J l)p PROPOSED RULE ,;; .

L5" lf r P-1q31q) OFF~

DOCK t' i, I f

... CH ' . I V-S. N'vC/lteLt- R.~1v/a.~r t;,CM-HAf ss., o 1/"l 7

VrJG-/(~ f,-rL7 Jtvv,{ J-t rvic -e__

cutLsk, r..1 ~, p_ c_ . 2--- r>r ~ r 9 O.IAA ASh"-/Jti~c/ 'ii> /-c1trv. 1J,i.o... Y~ t'" A7,.1At.7 PrtJ'1>jcS ~ Jc Sc_c~tft',,.11-t.... 11-..~ fYaCt.i$ vf f,'cr,,,,i;,,._J ~

5-k-r ,'vi-J c~.,.-Ju,~ 1'/fC'> o't t,tvc.-("A..r wa.J./'-e I uhrlJ... J,/.tl)"' -

7)'f1vO. 'h'ovt Ult.ulcl -e/,'ut_,*~o./--t. atA 7 Vffdr/vk,'"/; ~

/vh!tc.. C.dUA-!,f,(C£A.-f-. f- -ft,,..,_s 11,tt"tt~.$ a.S ~r-1crier/

I /

fh.0-f- t,-1.1.;c,,,/-c.a.r-~"'-c.. r 01~,-,,...fo ,-.s ltfAv!l rt-c.-tt'v-(_

bt~~k~f- f-rn4A-:s.s;()I,,,\ fa Skr-e. wo...sf~ 1 IAlrT'rA4vf $t"C.. f"*1 t>- J' r~;-J- /('6~ 1k /JR.. C I t,,tJho-f- f 'b/,c. - >t1-fo:!.y 1k f..1v4..n/ 5-wo \J.. yov fn>v;d -k J.;',,$ h~rfvh. ftsv... h,~ ~, 'f-,t'\.

1 pntctH ~ ~f ltt\J !> c./4 Stt.'-k-rvt1v-dS l{.r-t_ a~fa.w...p/"'-'/-ul q "-cf. 11 ° f n v, ~i'v..., ,' \. tAA..o..,u ' I., I, I, c. C(}f,(. ._ '@ ~

/

fN-. fnfqtLr/ ~~'t. rt.A f(}j~ecl"'('~ °'/~ S VvtW1~-e...

11 1. NUCL~A REGLIL TORY COMMISSI DOCKET!NG & 5;rnv1CE SECTION om .E OF T' !E srcr.!:TARY OF H-!E C f., MISSION Po stmark: Da te I Copies Rcce, vcd Add' I Co pies Rcprcducf'd . .J,' -------

Epecial Distri buti on f/,IJ (L ~/DJ" fe Hi ' h

PR ro 7"'

DOCKET NUMBER PRO POSED RU LE =-=-=---

J --"'----l lS- L/ FR1q371J d- /? 0 0 9 &u.fkr e op(£ :

/ ct ... IJ11,i/,,__j /o fUicF;_L1r ~ d1s"-frrolfo.l of-__'jov"' rrop<H..Q.J

( l} le ,r,,... *sh, ("'ir- F- ~f.Q,,,..f, f./ V ck..,,._,,_ -F.,,d /;.

0 N ~(-!ff/' re ve..J.

SrrJr~ CM k-5 J A/uJu..... fo,,,..1£-- fZLc..£/2,~ ~~ ~ M ~-v/Jlt.s&I

'"' -fG.__ ~ , J 17,, "* -J ti... 86

• 1q nCJ, /il'::J s; ;q -=Jc;. ~ /Wk

'rvou(d ct-HN U k { t ~ w -tt.,. t-o b.e_. ~Tol'\A-d t;J , 1--4 no publtc d,*svs,,o,,,.. ,

-P') C °'! ~ 5 h/1. 7J:- /'VI~ /&,-J hJ t It V!,£.cJ-e.. +l__

e 1/ltvv.,( 0r ~ & o f--

o,,.,. In h U ~ ivo..d_p, _ 'fli J _ _W tvl,t-e,0-S~

ha..

-w .

( "'-

t o ~ ~ to tk ~

fk ~~ °'-- _ , fl'J ~ lt /) cu/1D0. C /-w.Jl t...) ~ ~ "'*Jl u JE di.fens~ ~titutt-<,~J -

fl- is ('v\,fJ3 f I V'A,ftr1 ~ f -tW ~ Ndue-htf)... ,*n r/()4 t£

!J f tt0dUd,,41,,. k Cffh. <; ,ck._ e.J f 0;,, (J),,. V 1a. 6h of {:,_'o 11

~no.1-w~, non- {e,~al fJidiwf ~_r'e.s ~I.J . 4,,.J hc,r tvtJI_

p bIi(, f ()J\ Lf, I'-. I" fl ~ Is su..e f In ,rd- fu_

~ ~ ( r-lAM.u.,,.,~ ~ll /:JO..::) _?)

• CepJ h>; S,~.

~ Mfr.cu_ !)'/tll.o./v (' fl J;.

.,._ W 1)t1,1,..*.J._ P,.,Jrcct- rvtorL-- lftVU-. tlJ l.,Q...

~s-,n-t~ M~ Ow1/4s

,... r- V.ISSIOO 0

_y J' t t -=-* ...

Postm.::, ~ *

r---1)) _;-1

c oi; ios Re,, . 0 - -d--

~dd ' I Copies ,,,i- .:-c .c* ,L__ /L --:--J~/JI' SP.ecial Di stribution _ ..!!7-=~~ fL

. fr ' ( J' I }.

OOCKEf U BER .r11 '1'1 J"ll A-ton,:

PRUPOS c ~ Ju To *. ( 5i/f'R Jq 3? V ,.; .'

Mr-Mrs Curtis M Smith tr. s. I'{ ' (2 .c_ ..Cl. 1025 Mastline Dr If:' Annapolis MD 21401

\J Odc:o:ti \178: c....,_... ~ ~c n.u~ ca. *a9 JUN 13 P6 :48 Wo-s ~ *, ,,., :::~. 0Fr * ,.*

~~ OOCKL '-~,:, * " ff

\J ,~

• 10,5 s S" . rt~ LH

\\,,.*, ~ *, ~ o.. i....,Q'-, e 'Mien r ~ n..i Wsr "-1 ~

rG.&s.o..,e ~ i1.,... Ie ,d', ~ 0 W 'be.-. n j C.0 h'k~\ol ci..:k,.Q. 1 wt..;,,cA..

• u.>o~.l C: lo'1 etimi 11c..aiV1~ l , ~ ~ n K . J o..A.J.ow" V\~~44 fl\~ 0 ~ J-Dt2~ 't'D -S 1-o~ ~'-1..J' 0& G.-.. ""'-'°' Sk.

G.r \L~;,u o ~ d..;s~~ wt ~ow- ~~n. ~wb(~c:..

'C v, o ~cL1e. o-4. , n

• pc-r.

W"'c.-r CJ. * .._ o ~o.,e oc.A.S 0-b120, ~ CJ'"l,4 er}-,

~'-'4Jb\*,(. ~~~-r-.s c~~ ~a..~) o~ be"'c.A~ t ~~cit

• ~n i&RQ. £c-S ! 9~ l.J ,ew 4lt \LA 4SC~cl~CA.S ~Tn.A C.Vik <r

\l l 'e cJG. ~ o.-o- L O c.,.,.t ,

• a.t:s " I.011 n V ,C ~As A ~ - _..

4A.. A~-ton., 0.. j Q C O n t - ~ ~,

e ~~I..AS"c~ ~u. c.o"'~~hl~ c..Jf!~tT1/2:: ins.....u-1-c

, V\~~ ~o...l.~ cL one 1-u ~tJ 4,-,.~ .u."'ild,.. o ~ t..r,<.JiQo,, n,,e, .

W-C.ev, ~u.c..lt.-... ~~~ f6~j:ie.cA ou-r 1.~"/24,S bl))c. \to.r cl"'i w- J.. o s CJJ.~oS, l.,A.J ?-., ~ ~ CJ ,...,fi "- c::..

~ *, t-i c:lu6-m.LJJ C.o Mn-,~ . 4t> o +o+oa.Q., O ~co .,_., c! b~

/o

~ ~.SOfnE 06t>f 6; /; *u *le.+- loot.4.: tC,o-r- rtG..I\A WA.$

~o C.O~e,;~c.JicTU- ( O.rno .-,~ rt.i;_,i~~ot..T,f !,, fi+;e, ,) °!. 'ik.

\ a.,~~t- b~ *e ~o, ~ S o n,e ~ - e1,1e fT>, GM,' ~o~d

&.s~cJia,.. (f o... n ~ c.nuit1.oa-inient- '&A.Ce f.-t..

\*n, t>..t.ca. -\i 1-M. \i ~ 1 i h !la- c. o 1n i n ~ r,.-, i Ile ni ._ ~

<:)~ \L.... .b,, Ii on~ tJ1, cl.o (l ~ *, h ue.s.fc-&. i h ( ~J..

u. n .: n .. .....be.n... cl th i t I i oi..-.., '1-' 11..o 4- e c..., c.-s W-~ ~ "'-)

nu.c.iaa..-... t;,o~ I~ ~&Mt bu~ tnw_~lc..A ;,-, 7k.

cl. e. ~ n r o-F cJl ~12.n a..H v-t- po (J..JeJa., ~ o U1L,~, J ~

w o* 4..t no"' -w o '-41" be.

,____ _~ ~v..Lla~ u.t4.

f o.-c.wA- w.1

• n:.I.._? :;),,.._

• - - -~ i "6tl'.A-

"'"' ** ~t ~

rd O

. .A C.,"'44A-

• iL t.l. Sn.ow'

.. \

• I*

J.S. NUCLEAR RF.CIJ ATOP.Y COMMISSIOll OOCK,"i 1"-IG ,\ SERVI CC SECT ION

. or-,*!(~ or- THi: SECRET AllY Or "i!iE (0,W,*ISSION

• I-) )-- JC.,

_, ___ '_l__

• • - - - - * - - - . . l .... ,_ ___ *--***-- *-* "'"* . .

0)

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR so 7':J ;? o

)

t ~l/ r 12 ;9 3? 0 FROM ECKMANS R. R. No. 3 BOX 40 L URGENT PLEASE REPL y MORGANFIELD, KY. 42437 502 - 389-1758 C REPL y NOT NEEDED SUBJECT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "89 JUN 12 PS :23 Docketing and Service WASHINGI'ON, D.C. 20555 1,. P:

OOCf\l ; , 1 \ I r DATE June 10, 1989 GENTLEMEN AND LADIES:

... I wish to strongly object to the proposed rule elimination the licensing Cl M

...J E process for nuclear plants! It seems to me another case of letting the fox 0 s u.

s guard the chicken pen. I feel we are being "poluted" from all sides and a A hault must be made or planet earth will no longer be fit to live on **** then G

E what?

Sincerely, SIGNED

~s~

DATE R

E p

L y

SIGNED _

ADDRESSEE: PLEASE KEEP PINK COPY AND RETURN WHITE COPY I 1

vi OCKf.! NnUMl~I~ r PR- S'(}J? J) 10 <1)

(S ff< I 3 9)

DOCKET UMBER PROPOScO RULE O*n ' J?O J

(2)

(S'{ff 113?9 2280 STICKNEY PT . RD . # 429 SARASOTA, FL ORIPi'. ~

C '  ; 0'4-1..~1

~ ~ --t...i.:J----o ~ * ::a..,._ .i.,..t,...)

--~

I

- ~o~ rros.-t...

u Wt~D1\/G- ..

(""1>4c..1-t..o.;-, - <P~ CMJ- ()~~

~ -h 0-V-e.- ~ ~~AA-J.. :L ~

t....t..k..IQ..~:J"l J.( I ~ JS ~ ~c.Lt of'\ u_l ~ ,

9 ~ 'f IJ c.,.. u )'\J.. c....s--.-, :. ; J....,.; 0 0 o.L1I Mo$ac_L ~

){.L ~c.., '-I C) u.. -

£',n ~ ~o~,

~(Jll.;L 3. ~~lhJ

, , ~ l 1, i<""C Ll ~ f .. !

?- l ~ ~ &.e..

<D Po..v k o;;~e~

~().~ F~, N , f'l\, ,, i1.s-o\

• a9 JUN 12 P5 :20 ""3"~ \D , '1~~ -

.f U. ~- N~~ K.Q~~ ~ ~

~o~~ ~ S-A-><vtu_

Wa..~J~ J b - ~ , io-s-s--S-t~ $:.r~ dM..& M..J~ *.

I IMP'- ""tLl- ~""'- &,. ,.,_,,x pW ~ 'iJF 0. ........o.,__ ~ <..,Jtr...9-.J.

tl,~o.L- "ti..... ~~ ~~ ~ t*~:rQ.~ ~~~ CJW-w-.~ ..re,........

r~ ~~'1"'4- - ~ ~ <rcz... s~~ f.QJ'( vvu.t-i. ' 'I ~ c_v.--t"~ \t\l" ~

• oy~c~cJl To ~ ~ ~~~I) pY l l ~ ~ '1\.,u... <!.Sl ~ ?OIAl e.v- \ ~ -\~ ~d ~- ~ o!; ~

-p ~ lic.J~a>+h ~o~ a.,~ 1Y\ ~ ~+u..v~ J ~ ~ 'ji ~ 0-J}~, ,::t...

~ ~ d ~--- ~- 7l~a.,::.c.. ~\c: ~~~ G..~o...vt ~ \ 'i.~t.u. ~

~a.+d-'1 ~

JUL I* 1 g

e:

.1 c, Nucu~ R nrii,JtATORY co r;rn:.r,~nt.JG & SERVICE S'EC t

I os* 1-;'v~<f 1

}

3 pjJ }?_,,, le) JJJ P,iir-.c or

DOCKET NUMBER PR *~

co r-i ;;x 1?o J -- . J 1,; ..

PROPOSED RULE ~-- - 3 4 JI

( rt/ Fr< Jq 379) *a9 Jillv -9 P3 :51 Nuclear Information and Resource ~Service 1424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-0002 Board of Directors Kay Drey Nuclear Information and Resource Service Comments St. Louis, MO on 10 CFR 50,72, and 170 Anne Hess Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC-Licensed Casks at New York, NY Joan Holt Nuclear Power Reactor Sites New York, NY (54 FR 86:19379, May 5, 1989)

David H. Horowitz June 7, 1989 New York, NY Tim Johnson At lanta, GA Bil l Jordan The Nuclear Information and Resource Service Akron , OH believes that the process currently required for Janet Lowentha l Chevy Chase, MO license amendment to store irradiated fuel in dry Mary Morgan casks at reactor sites, where generated, is New York, NY necessary because it provides the opportunity for Betsy Taylor notification of and acknowledgement by the public Washington, DC Ellyn Weiss of the new storage technology.

Washington, DC Kathleen Welch Dry cask storage could be preferential to wet Buffalo, NY storage for irradiated fuel at both operating and National Advisory Board closed reactors.

Steve Aftergood Committee to Bridge the Gap*

June Allen Although critical of the continuing generation of North Anna nuclear waste, for which there is no safe final Environmental Coa lition*

Robert Backus disposal, many citizens may support the choice of Backus, Shea & M eyer* dry storage as compared to other options which Dr. Rosalie Bertel! have greater risks such as transportation, further A Institute of Concern for reracking of the fuel pool and rod consolidation.

W Public Hea lth

• Barbara Bosson Actress Generic approval of all reactors moving to dry Bruce Cockburn cask storage without the opportunity for public Musician comment currently available, is the wrong move for David Cohen Advocacy Institute* the NRC at this time. The public could raise Harlan Ellison concerns that are site-specific which would Author improve the safety of the dry storage option.

Dr. Jack Geiger, M .D.

Prof. of Comm. Medicine, Dry storage at reactors should be open to public CUNY Med ical School

• discussion.

Marla Gibbs Actress Our other, and perhaps even major, concern with the Whoopi Goldberg Actress proposed rule is that it would permit Janet Hoyle transshipment to and from other reactors. Again, Blue Ridge this decision should be made on a case by case Environmental Defense League*

Dr. H.W. lbser basis with a goal of minimum transport and a California State University* prohibition on unnecessary transport. Each reactor Dr. Judith Johnsrud could become an MRS (Monitored Retreivable Storage Environmental Coal ition on Nuclear Power*

site) for other reactors' waste.

Charles Komanoff Komanoff Energy Associates* Thank you for consideration of these comments.

Dr. Marvin Resnikoff Radioactive Waste Campaign*

Mary Sinclair Great Lakes Energy Alliance* dedicated to a sound non-nuclear energy policy.

• O rganizations listed for identification on ly

Eo ,.

Pv,trn r~ r 6-t'f9 Copl~~ r~(

I Add 'I

• I

• 3 cial n ir "'le. I°..tJ L I?. Jj JJ__

f e.a_r .J o,..-

• a9 JUN -7 PS :Q5 Rt.5, Box 114 Pittsboro, NC 27312 June 2, 1989 OFF !~ ,.,

US NRC DOCKE 1f1 it ., IC F Washington, DC 20555 ~* :.1,n)i Attn.: Docketing and Service Re: "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites"

Dear People,

I understand that this proposed regulati on would not permit public participation through comment or hearings in this important matter of dry cask storage.

I can a p pr e c i at e your fr u s t rat i o n at t h e de 1a y*s ca u s e d b y public participation; however, this public includes many eminent, concerned scientists and physicians whose input you should treasure. Also, you must hear the voices of the millions of people who are conc e rn e d with the dangers of the existence, transport and storage of radioactive waste. If you cannot function with public input, then you should consider the possibiility that you are trying to maintain a technology which is no longer viable.

Personally, I look forward to the day when we stop creating radioactive waste, and put our energy into clean, alternative technologies and conservation.

Sincerely yours, James A. Stewart J\Jl & 1

A. TO ERVI O 'TlC.t OF THE S[r RETAR't o;: THI: COMMISSI DoCll:n cnt Sta! istic:s 1ioslm'3rk !);ife (,,- S-C:opies , c:r..1 ed- - _ _ _._________.__

tl\dd' I o~i'-s R.:! '"'J.;~d '. ..*... .. "' .....

I *

- ecial D!il r\butfo.

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~OJ') J J7b DfA-t2- Al, I<.._ (_ . /1.-1 & Jf,/f fS t O_ SEO RULE -+ ~: *: *,

I > (S-l/f'R lo/3?9)

Z:. A/ /l..E SPtNVt? ra F . 12... 8 t / 9 3 7q *a9 JU -6 P3 :so VDll/1.. J:.l)E,4 0~ j)/l.'f S"TO/l..A-6-E IS C?I<* 1H (J'-C i/-1-fi-H L J{FVtEL t "* * , vr r W/1-5 rE M v5 T 8£ S-,tJ /LG P, 13 v r t,ov/l. Ct1/C/r/N I/GP

£-F-°FtJl'--T T& j)/1..pl)t/C W,1-ST~ /r1Ti-l£ f?Pu/Etz f-::>L/1-NTS I> ) £ /1./ f G L/;S ~ ,4-#l> Lhv.5 E s sv-J=,CE/L./v6- lA./HI CH U//L-L-CthVT/1(/ VE TtJ 14/C./L~tfSE //-S r#E /.,)Llf-/VT~ i3Et:.,ol(,,{E° OLl)l:4

~A-c/.-1 '?CA-N'r is Now A-N o/1/ s; TE STt:J/2./1-6-E F/fc_iL/T'1' e So ir Mlri::£S 5E/f/S,t; ro S-Toi> p,z_opt,1cr;oAJ t,,C J/V C,,L,.. £ A /L "1/ /f s, £ / Trl-k &- s-ro Ck OF t{/ffA-,s o/4/ H,f-N i>

/1-IVO 5"E-r v? TffE P/LoP£1'2... 5'To/l.~u-E ~If C./L/,rt=s r '

wE /l..c TII-L-/c 1A./ t5- l?F M#-M/f&-E41£11/ T FP/'L M'11L1t.f lfvNP/LG-]) s tJF t1 E-lf/l.5 so ou/L. ~Z>$4s or

/.?b-/2M£A/£MT fl-£4-L-l-f ;t,1£,'/-A/S' w? A/EEZ> ro "4t'AI 1-r()/2. Tlf~SE Mff-1£"/l,/4,L.{" tj-N[) t"EEP Tff~M

..I N It SdM'tvH-4-T CAfks F- IT /'1/iO FLW/8L-E 5T4-TE ~ Tf/-F- P/l-'f T/.1-r J

\

Pl C 1ll/L t

• eo ,v( b oN M 12.._ c . M ~1£1 13 ~ /2. s v 5 E <-r ov 11- 5 P/ mv ~ L 111 1 AJ p s M 1r1:::- b' r 1-fE c ff-If N 6-£- >I 5 r/1-h.-r v 5 t, v T ri-6-lt/ N 1 ~ 6-rLG4-, A- A/IE/Lt C'f-N Tl2-14t~/ rtt>A) 1 6-'ET F1fl-£1-:> 1 15 VT fC No i,,v l/ p v IL IL~ w ~/L]) .J tAJ t ~'- ts E .IV 5 T . FP !1-F () /L:,ff c /1.. L. o ""',1.,rf"-/l/7 o A.. C- L'41L 1 ,=; c1t1-,; oAJ v4J /Lt r E

?)Aj~

J) ff(.... c 511- t... TZ,.M ,f-A,)

'J 01 I 1-J-r C~/Uf S7 ,

yo /lJ=-i1'W~ 11-rr A.I':/ .

IO I'?}

l C'Mi' \ISSION

'i "CTION

TARY 10 I r 1' I "'S o I

?D Helene Silverblank-Forst John P. Forst 101 Buell Lane East Hampton, New York 11937

'89 JUN -6 P3 :48 Of * !_*

May 31, 19 8 9 DOCKi ',,, * ,\ I

.f

... * ,. , ' l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , D.C .

Regarding the NRC proposed rule, "Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC - Approved Storage; Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites . "

Please be advised that my husband and I would like to express our feelings that this proposed rule is just a n o t her assault on citizens rights . Casks do seem like the most viable waste disposal at this time. However, they do not provide the potential for responsible care in the future , unless constant monitoring will be required .

To stop making waste is another real and viable option which must be considered. The discussions on waste storage must include reduction in waste production.

Alternative technologies and energy efficiency have never been more essential . Public participation in nuclear matters must be preserved! Your agency has done everything to continue the nuclear industry at the expense of the safety of our citizentry and our planet.

~ ft~lU-M Helene S ilverbl ank-Fo rs t 5)d,~ p J()').d HSF: jc ~ n P. Forst CC: Senator D' Amato Senator Moynihan Rep. Hockbrueckner

aJ . . NUrt f AR R(CUlATOR Y tOMMISS IOO OO( Vf. T l~ lG Z, S~,WICE SECTION Ch 1 ~ 1JF THE SEC~ET ARY C f 1Hf; COi ,Mb.>ICJ ~

D **,U/J <Snf Sr21t1sl ic,

,.os tm *r< D-1 tc Ccpit.:s t'( <:c veJ

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR ,c-.11 ] 'I

.yf:/,... c.rJ-

)1 ~ ffi

• . . ., : I*

l r; 1/ F ~ l ct 3 01)

"89 JUN -5 A11 :46 June , l,1989 Nuclea r Regul~tory Commfsslon At tention Oocketin~ and Seivice Wa sh in gt on , ,0.

• C * )2 O5 .5 5* *

Dear Si:

rs :

I am opposed f ct the NRC allow.ing .dry cask storage of ~igh l evel radioactive waste at reactors without going th.cough the formal -.ik.t*c i;qse alll'endmt.rnts *c urrently required, namely for publl!c' .no'tifi'catl.on snd ::Jmment .

The public depends on the lnt egrlty and cau t ion of the NRC for th e ~ur~ival of the countrj and th~ world at large ;_ i ,., -

I believe that the~~£ ~hoµld grocede with great caut lo :1 in continuing to- c~e.ate--.,Pr-oblems of' hig't~- level was t e disposal . -~ .,_..

---

'\ _::.~;~; "

Caut lon i _n c lud~s cu rt a11 1ng th e pr o99_r~t._.i o ~....o f Nuclear f~eactors until more app ; p _;.1. ate waste. .-Gli-sposal *sites are developed .

Sin c erely You r s, 11~/J.IJ~

Helen B. Bu-cgess JUL 2 4 198G

• r.lrrinwfPd1:?ed by car(f .-;; , 1~ ,;;.:;.,..--,,..

~*._. ., QC::_.

DOCKET NUMBER PR 5'0 7:J J?D PROPOSED RULE ~ \

c ~') r k 1031q J 89 HAY -2 P3 :34 0

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L*f .,_. I .

10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170 nocv.: ,,

RIN: 3150-AC76 .',L Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to provide, as directed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1~82, for the storage of spent fuel at the sites of power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional si te-specific approvals. Holders of power reactor operating licenses

- -would be permitted to s~ore -~pf!.nt fuel, in ~asks _approved by NRC, under a general license. The proposed rule contains criteria for obtaining an 9 NRC Certificate of Compliance for spent fuel storage casks.

DATE: Submit comments by j une 19, 1989 . Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver cements to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

1

(7590-01)

Copies of NUREG-0459, 0575, 0709, 1092, 1140, and NUREG/CR-1223, reports which are referenced in this notice and the environmental assess-ment, may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office ,

P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. DOE/RW-0196, referenced in the regulatory analysis, is available from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Post Office Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Copies of DOE/RL-87-11, referenced in the environmental assessment, and the NUREG reports listed above may be purchased from the National T~chnical Information Service, U.S.

Department of C~merce, Spring/ield, Virginia 22161. Copies of the NUREG reports listed ab~Ye, the environmental assessment and finding of no I

significant environmental

• pact, and comments received on the proposed rule are available fo i pection and copying for a fee at the NRC Publ1c

- - Document Room, Washington, DC, Lower Level.

,..,.,.., ro~~ \ISSION 0

FOR FURTHER INFORMA ON CONTA : Williain:i l{~rP~~~;o~~ Offfce ll ' ~uclear Regulator, Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commiss10~, ~W~shfngto~, DC 20555.

Telephone: (301)492-3764.

C A

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  ;: .

Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) includes the following directive, "The Secretary [of DOE] shall estab-lish a demonstration program in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of *spent n_uclear fuel at c"ivilian nuclear power reactor 2

[7590-01]

Copies of NUREG-0459, 0575, 0709, 1092, 1140, and NUREG/CR-1223, reports which are referenced in this notice and the environmental assess-ment, may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. DOE/RW-0196, referenced in the regulatory analysis, is available from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Post Office Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Copies of DOE/RL-87-11, referenced in the environmental assessment, and the NUREG reports listed above may be purchased from the National T~chnical Information Service, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Copies of the NUREG reports listed above, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant environmental impact, and comments received on the proposed rule are available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Publ1c

-- Document Room, 212_0 L_S~re~_t _ _ ~., Washington, DC, Lower Level.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: (301)492-3764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) includes the following directive, "The Secretary [of DOE] shall estab-lish a demonstration program in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of *spent n_uclear fuel at c'ivilian nuclear power reactor 2

[7590-01]

sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission." Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that "the Commis-sion shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any tech-nology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor. 11 Discussion This proposed rule would allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at the reactor site without additional site-specific reviews.

A general license would be issued to holders of power reactor licenses for

- -the storage of speot f~el io qry casks approved_by th~ NRC. The reactor licensee would have to show that there are no changes required in the facility technical specifications or unreviewed safety questions related to activities involving storage of spent fuel under the general license.

The licensee would also.have to show confonnance with conditions of the NRC Certificate of Compliance issued for the cask. The licensee would have to establish and maintain records showing compliance, which would have to be made available for inspection by the Commission.

This proposed rule would not limit storage of spent fuel to that which is generated at the reactor site. Transfers of spent fuel from one reactor site to another are authorized under the receiving site. 1 s facil-ity operating license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The holder of a reactor operating license would apply for a license amendment, under 3

[7590-01]

§ 50.90 unless already authorized in the.operating license, for the receipt and handling of the spent fuel from another reactor. If transfer of spent fuel is authorized, the reactor licensee would also have to make a request for amendment of the Price-Anderson indemnification agreement to provide for coverage of the transferred spent fuel. 10 CFR Part 72 is not germane to such transfers of spent fuel. If the spent fuel has been previously transferred and is currently stored in the reactor spent fuel pool, the only consideration under the general license would be whether or not the spent fuel meets conditions of the cask's Certificate of Compliance.

Although experience with storage of spent fuel under water is.

greater than with dry storage in casks, experience with storage of spent fuel in dry casks is extensive and widespread. The Canadians have been storing dry CANDU-type spent fuel at Whiteshell in vertical concrete

- - casks ca 11 ed silos s i n~e. 1~?5 ~- Al though t~e st5>rage o_f spent fuel at Whiteshell does not involve light-water-reactor (LWR) fuel, it has con-tributed to the knowledge- a_nd experience of dry spent fue 1 storage in concrete casks. Dry cask storage has been demonstrated in West Germany.

There has also been experience with dry spent fuel storage in the United States. The Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors have kept non-LWR spent fuel in dry storage in vaults and dry wells since the 1960s.

An NRC survey of the dry storage of spent fuel, in the United Sta~es and elsewhere, was presented in NUREG/CR-1223, "Dry Storage of Spent Fuel -

A Preliminary Survey of Existing Technology and Experience 11 (April 1980).

NUREG/CR-1223, at Section IV.C, contains a description of DOE demonstra-tion of dry LWR spent fuel storage in sealed storage* casks (SSC) and dry wells. The .storage of LWR spent fuel in SSC, which is an above ground, 4

[7590-01]

steel-lined, reinforced concrete cylinder or cask, started in 1979. The DOE demonstration program has continued and has been expanded to include dry storage in metal casks and storage of consolidated fuel rods; and storage of spent fuel assemblies. Programs have been conducted by DOE in cooperation with Virginia Power at its Surry plant, with Carolina Power and Light at its H.B. Robinson 2 plant, and with General Electric at its Morris plant for dry storage of LWR spent fuel. Also dry storage of LWR spent fuel assemblies continues at the Idaho National Engineering Lab-oratory, along with demonstration of their disassembly and storage of the consolidated fuel rods.

The NRC staff has obtained a substantive a11ount of information from the DOE development programs. It has also gained experience from the issuance of licenses for the onsite storage of spent fuel in nodular cast iron casks at the Surry site of Virginia Power and in stainless steel

-- canisters stored inside con~r~te modules at the H.B. Robinson 2 site of Carolina Power and Light. The safety of dry storage of spent fuel was considered during development of the Commission's original regulations in 10 CFR Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), 11 which was promul-gated on November 12, 1980 (45 FR 74693). A final rule entitled, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, 11 which replaced the regulations issued on November 12, 1980, was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1988 (53 FR 31651) and became effective September 19, 1988. This final rule was issued mainly to provide for licensing the storage of spent fuel and high-level waste at a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility, 5

[7590-01]

and does not cover the mandates of Sections 133 and 218(a) of the NWPA.

However, it did specifically address the safety of dry storage of spent fuel.

Activities related to loading and unloading spent fuel casks are routine procedures at power reactors. The procedures for dry storage of spent fuel in casks would be an extension of these procedures. Over the last several years the staff has reviewed and approved four spent fuel storage cask designs. Requests for approval of cask designs are cur-rently submitted in the form* of topical safety analysis reports (TSARs).

Four dry storage cask TSARs have been approved for referencing, which means that an ISFSI license applicant may reference appropriate parts of these. reports in licensing proceedings for the storage of spent fuel.

This greatly reduces an ISFSI license applicant 1 s time, effort, and cost.

The same reliance on an approved safety analysis is being made for

-

• on:-site dry cask storage.

Separate topical safety analysis reports have been received for design of casks fabricated using nodular cast iron, thick-walled ferritic steel, concrete, and stainless steel and lead. Four spent fuel storage cask topical safety analysis reports have been approved for referencing in specific license applications, as previously mentioned, and four are still under review at the present time. In particular, the topical safety analysis report (TSAR) for the Castor-V/21, entitled "Topical Safety Analysis Report for the Castor Cask, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage), 11 was submitted by General Nuclear Systems, Inc. on December 16, 1983. The NRC staff approved the Castor-V/21 TSAR for reference in licensing proceedings on September 30, 1985. In a specific licensing proceeding under Part 72 by Virginia 6

[7590-01]

Electric Power Company (VEPCo) in January of 1985, the use of the Castor~V/21 was approved on July 7, 1986 for storage of spent fuel at their Surry Power Station. Currently, there are seven of these casks J

filled and stored on the ISFSI pad at the Surry site and an eighth cask is filled and ready to be moved to the storage pad.

Although the Castor-V/21, is the only spent fuel storage cask currently being used, the SARs for the Westinghouse MC-10, and the Nuclear Assurance Corporation's NAC/ST and NAC-C28 SIT casks have been approved for reference. These casks are being proposed for approval under §72.214, "List of approved spent fuel storage casks. 11 While the Certificate of Compliance for each cask may differ in some specifics, e.g., certificate number; operating procedures; training exercises; spent fuel specifica-tions, many of the safety conditions are very similar. Copies of the Certificates of Compliance are being issued for comment, and a*re avail-

- -able for inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission 1 s Public Oocu-ment Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, Lower Level. Single copies of the proposed certificates may be obtained from J.P. Roberts, Fuel Cycle Safety Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards; (Telephone:

(301)492-0608).

Storage casks certified in the future will be routinely added to the listing in§ 72.214 through rulemaking procedures. Since this type of rulemaking would neither constitute a significant question of policy nor amend 10 CFR Parts 0, 2, 7, 8, 9 Subpart C, or 110, the Commission con-cludes that such additions to§ 72.214 may be made under the rulemaking authority delegated to the Executive Director for Operations. Certifi-cates of Compliance will be exhibited in a NUREG report issued by the NMSS staff, which will be updated as appropriate.

7

[7590--01]

During review for the cask designs that are being proposed for certification in this rulemaking, the NMSS staff considered compatibility with transportation to and disposal at DOE facilities and will continue to do so for future cask approvals. The vendors of these casks have indicated that they will apply for approval of their casks for spent fuel transportation. Currently there is limited knowledge concerning specific design criteria by which to design storage casks for minimizing the han-dling of spent fuel between the time it is put into casks for storage at a reactor site and the time it will be handled for storage at a monitored -

retrievable storage facility (MRS) or disposal at a geologic repository.

However, the staff will remain in contact with DOE and will assure, to the extent practicable, that cask designs incorporate the latest design criteria available at the time that the cask design. is approved or certified.

-. The NRC experience in the review of cask design and fabrication, and licensing of spent fuel storage installations on the site of operating reactors, has been documented in part by publication of two draft regula- e tory guides. In April of 1986, two draft regulatory guides entitled "Standard Format and Content for the Safety Analysis Report for Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Storage Casks" (Task numer CE-301) and "Standard Format and Content for a Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Ory Spent Fuel Storage Casku (Task nwaber CE-306) were issued for public comment.

These draft guides are being processed and the guide under task number CE-301 will become Regulatory Guide 3.62 and the one under task number CE-302 will become Regulatory Guide 3.61. Sing.le copies of these draft guides may be obtained from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulat~ry C001Dission, washington, DC 20555 (Telephone:

(301) 492-3764}.

8

[7590-01]

The passive nature of dry storage of spent fuel in casks provides operational benefits attractive to potential users. One benefit is that there is no need to provide operating systems to purify and circulate cooling water or other fluid. Another benefit is that the potential for corrosion of the fuel cladding and reaction with the fuel is reduced, because an inert atmosphere is expected to be maintained. inside dry spent fuel storage casks. Because cooling of the spent fuel is a passive activity, active mechanisms, such as pumps and fans, are not required.

Although Part 72 allows storage of any spent fuel over one year old, (i.e., one year since the fuel was involved in a.sustained nuclear chain reaction), it is anticipated that most spent fuel stored in casks will be five years old or more. Because of the passive nature of cask cooling, the storage capacity of a cask is significantly increased as the sp~nt fuel is aged, especially for fuel that is five years old or more. It is

-- probable that reactor licensees will remove. the - older fuel from their

~

storage pools to take advantage of this additional cask storage capacity.

As a result of the above discussion, the Conmission believes that dry storage of spent fuel in casks approved by the Commission will pro-vide adequate protectio~ to public health and safety and the environment.

Proposed Rule The General License Under this proposed rule, a general license would be issued to holders of nuclear power reactor licenses to stare spent fuel at reactor sites in casks approved by the NRC. The Commission will rely on dry stor-age of spent fuel in casks for confinement of radioactive material to 9

[7590-01]

provide adequate protection of public health and safety and the environ-ment. A power reactor license holder would have to notify the CoD111ission before storing spent fuel under the general license for the first time and register use of each cask as the spent fuel is stored. A separate record would also be established for each cask by the cask vendor, which would be transferred to and be maintained by cask users.

The reactor license holder would have to ensure that the storage of spent fuel will be in compliance with the conditions of the cask Certifi-cate of Compliance, including assurance that site parameters and other design bases are within the envelope of the values analyzed in the cask safety analysis report. Evaluations would also have to be made to ensure that there will be no changes necessary to the facility technical specifications and that there are no unresolved safety q~estions in activ-ities involving the storage casks. Procedures and criteria in 10 CFR

-* 50.59 would be used for these evaluations. These types of evaluation are currently done for specific licenses issued under Part 72. Issues related to systems and components used both for reactor operations and spent fuel storage activities would be included. Most concerns to date have been related to control of heavy loads and have been accommodated.

If there is a safety problem or a change in technical specifications required, and the reactor license holder wishes to store spent fuel under the general license, the problem would have to be resolved before storing spent fuel under the general license and could include submittal of an application for license amendment under Part 50 if necessary.

Reactor licensees would have to review their quality assurance program, emergency plan, training program; and radiation control program using proce~

dures in §50.59 and modify them as may be necessary to cover th~ activities 10

[7590-01]

related to spent fuel storage under the general license. These plans and programs are in effect for reactor operations and t~e appropriate existing plan or program could be modified or amended to cover activities related to the spent fuel storage.

The reactor licensee would have to conform to conditions in the cask's Certificate of Compliance, which includes conducting activities according to written operating procedures. These operating procedures

• could be developed using the sa11e or a similar system by which the operating procedures for the reactor were developed.

Instances in which significant reductions in the safety effective-ness of or defects in casks are discovered must be reported to the NRC.

!nitial reports would be submitted under 10 CFR § 50.72 "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors." A new paragraph would be added to§ 50.72(b)(2) for this purpose. A complete written report would be submitted within 30 days.

When the power reactor operating license expiration date approaches, the holder of the license must take some actions. Under 10 CFR 50.54(bb) the reactor license holder must submit a program in writing to the Com-mission, no later than five years prior to the license expiration date, showing how the reactor licensee intends to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel on the reactor site. This program would have to include the spent fuel stored under the general license proposed in this rulemaking. The reactor licensee will also have to decide whether to request termination of the reactor operating license under 10 CFR 50.82. If the reactor license holder decides to apply for termination of the license, the plan submitted with the application must show how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the site. The plan would have to include an explanation of when and 11

(7590-01]

how the spent fuel will be moved, unloaded, and shipped prior to starting decommissioning of the equipment needed tor these activities.

In part, the en~ironmental assessment for this rulemaking relies on findings from the Waste Confidence Decision (49 FR 34658, 8/31/84),, in which the CoMission concluded they had confidence that there would be no significant environmental impacts from tbe s.torage of spent fuel for a J

period of 30 years beyond the expiration date of reactor licenses. Thus, an application for reactor license termination that proposes a deconnission~

ing ~eriod beyond this 30-year period would have to contain a discussion e of the. ~nvironmental impacts from storage of the spent fuel beyond the period analyzed by the Commission. The general license would terminate automatically when the spent fuel is removed from storage.

Cask Certification A spent fuel storage cask will be relied-on. to provide safe confinement of radioactive material independent of a nuclear power reactor's site, so long as conditions of the Certificate of Compliance are met. The storage e cask approval progra11, in many respects, will be analogous i~ that now conducted for spent fuel casks approved for transportation under 10 CFR Part 71, A cask vendor will sublli't a safety analysis report showing how the cask design, fabrication, and testing will ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. Certificates of Compliance will be exhibited in a NUREG report, which will be made available to the public.

Spent fuel is now temporarily stored at reactor sites, ISFSI, and elsewhere until a Department of Energy monitored retrievable storage facility or high-level radioactive waste repository is ready. The spent fuel will then be shipped to one of these facilities. Changes in the law could shift the Comission's- policies or cause.a-change ll

(7590-01]

io its regulations. It appears to be prudent that cask design approvals, i.e., approval of spent fuel cask topical safety analysis reports under current regulations; or issuance of Certificates of Compliance under the proposed regulation, should be for a limited time period. Current regulations limit the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI to 20 years, after which the license may be renewed. The Connission believes that 20-year increments are appropriate for such cask design approvals, after which designs may be renewed.

The holder of the cask Certificate of Compliance (cask vendor) should apply for re-approval of a storage cask. Submittal of an* application would be made 17 years after the initial cask approval date, which is three years prior to the expiration date of the cask certificate, to allow time for the NRC stqff to reevaluate the cask safety and reissue the cask certificate. If the holder of a cask certificate goes out of

-- business or will not submit an application for reapproval in a timely manner for any reason, the Commission should be notified and it in turn

• would notify cask users. In any case, cask users would have to ensure that spent fuel is .stored in casks approved would be available to licensees.

by the NRC. Several options If a cask design is reapproved under sub-

.mittal~ by the vendor, the Comission would notify all users and the only action necessary for the users would be to update the cask's records. If the cask vendor does not apply for reapproval, for whatever reason, the licensee would be notified by the Comission. The licensee would then have to arrange for re~pproval or r~move casks from service as their 20-year approved storage life expired. This could mean removal of the spent fuel and storing it elsewhere.

(7590-01]

The Commission believes that a prudent concern for overall activities related to the back-end of the LWR fuel cycle dictates that consideration should be given to the compatibility of spent fuel storage cask designs with the transportation of the spent fuel to its ultimate disposition at a DOE facility. Cask designers should be aware of DOE developments and plans for transportation of spent fuel offsite and should design spent fuel storage casks, to the extent that is practicable given the infonna-tion that is available at the time that the cask is designed, for compat-ibility with future disposition of the spent fuel.- The cask designs that are included in this rulemaking comply to the extent practicable at this time. The Commission notes that the vendors of these casks have indicated their intent to pursue certification for their cask *as a shipping container for offsite traosportation under 10 CFR Part 71. However, spent fuel can be safely off-loaded from storage casks at reactor sites, if necessary,

-- at the end of the storage period. In the interest of minimizing overall fuel cycle impacts the Connission encourages storage cask design develop-mepts that would reduce tbe handling of spent fuel.

The scope of this rule is:~ allow holders of nuclear power reactor licenses to store spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites under a general license using certified dry storage casks, because use of these casks is essentially independent of site charact~ristics. The Commission has evaluated and approved, in specific licenses issued_under 10 CFR Part 72, other types of dry storage modules. These methods may be approved in the future for use under a general license.

NRC costs related to spent fuel storage cask Certificates of Compliance, cask fabrication inspections, and onsite inspections would. be fully recovered. The schedule of fees in 10 CFR 170.31 would be revised to* recover these costs.

14

[7590-01]

• Safeguards Spen~ fuel removed from light water reactors contains low enriched uranium, fission products, plutonium, and other transuranium elements (transuranics). Owing to the special nuclear material in spent fuel, safeguards for an independent spent fuel storage installation must pro-tect against theft and radiological sabotage and must provide for mate-rial accountability. The requirements for physical protection are set forth in proposed § 72. 212. No, sptci fi c requirements for 111ateri al con~

trol and accounting are being added tacause existing, requi,rements in Parts 72 and 50 are adequate.

The theft issue arises mainly from the plutonium component of the spent fuel. Plutonium, when separated from other substances, can be used in the construction of nuclear explosive devices and therefore must be provided with a high level of physical protection. However, the

-- plutonium contained i~ spen~ fuel is not readil_y sepa!"able from the highly radio~ctive fission products and other transuranics and for that reason

• is not considered a highly attractive material for theft. Moreover, the massive construction of casks significantly COAIJ)licates theft scenarios.

For these reasons no sp~cific safeguards measures to protect against theft are proposed other than maintaining accounting records and conducting periodic inventories of the special nuclear naterial contained fn the spent fuel.

Safeguards measures should be con~istent with existing site provisions against potential radio.logical sabotage. The term "radiological sabotage 11 is defined in 10 CFR Part 73 and means any deliberate act directed against a plant or transport vehicle and cask in which an activity licensed under NRC regulations is conducted, or against a component of a plant or transport 15

[7590-01]

vehicle and cask which could directly or indirectly endanger the public

,health and safety by exposure to radiation.

In assessing the probability and consequences of radiologica,l sabo-tage, the NRC considers: (1) the threat to storage facilities; (2) the response of typical storage casks or vaults and their contained spent fuel to postulated acts of radiological sabotage; and (3) the public health consequences of acts of radiological. sabotage.

The NRC has carried out studies to develop information about possible adversary groups which might pose a threat to ljcensed nuclear facilities. e The results of these studies are published in NUREG-0459, 11 Generic Adver-sary Characteristics - SU111Dary Report 11 (March 1979) and NUREG-0703, 11 Potential Threat to Licensed Nuclear Activities from Insiders 11 (July 1980). Actions against facilities were found to be limited to a number of low consequence activities and harassments, such as hoax bomb threats,

- . vandalism, radioph~rmaceutical thefts, and fire~rms d1scharges. The list of actions is updated annually in a NUREG-0525, ttsafeguards Summary Event List11 (July 1987). None of the actions have affected spent fuel contain-

• ment and, thus, havd not caused any radiological health hazards.

In addition, the NRC staff regularly consults with law enforcement agencies and intelligence-gathering agencies to obtain their views concerning the possible existence of adversary groups interested in radiological sabotage of co11111ercial nuclear faciliti.es. None of the information the staff has collected confirms the presence of an identi-fiable domestic threat to dry storage facilities or to other components of nuclear facfl ities.

16

(7590-01]

Despite the absence of an identified domestic threat, the NRC has considered it prudent to study the response of loaded casks to a range of sabotage scenarios. The study is classified. However, an overview of the study is provided in the following parpgraphs.

Being highly radioactive, spent fuel requires heavy shielding for safe storage. Typical movable storage casks are of metal or concrete, weigh 100 tons, and have wall thickness from 10 to 16 inches of metal or 30 inches of concrete. The structural materials and dimensions enable the casks and vaults to withstand attack by small arms fire. pyrotechnics, mechanical aids, high velocity objects, and most forms of explosives without release of spent fuel. After considering various technical approaches to radiological sabotage, the NRC concluded that radiological sabotage, to be successful, would have to be carried out with the aid of a large quantity of explosives.

-- The consequences to the_ p_ublic health and ~afety would stem almost exclusively from the fraction of the release that is composed of respir-

• able particles. In an NRC study, an experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects ot a very severe, perfectly executed explosive sabo-tage scenario against a simulated storage cask containing spent fuel assemblies. The amount of fuel disrupted was measured. The fraction of disrupted material of respirable dimensions (0.005%) had been determined in a previous experiment. From this information, an estimate of the air-borne, respirable release was made, and the dose as a function of range and other variables was calculated. In a typical situation, for an indi-vidual at the boundary of the reactor site (taken as 100 meters from the location of the release) and in the center of the airborne plume, the 17

[7590.. 01]

whole-body dose was calculated to be 1 rem and the SO-year dose commit-ment (to the lung, which is the most sensitive organ) was calculated to be 2 rem. Doses higher or lower can b~ obtained depending on the vari-ables used in the calculation. Variables include the meteorological conditions, the age and burn-up of the fue 1, the heat-*induced buoyancy of the airborne release, the range to the affected individual, and the explosive scenario assumed.

Although the experiment and calculations carried out lead to a con-clusion of low public health consequences, there are limitations that -

must be taken into account. In particular, consequence modeling assump-tions more severe than those in the foregoing calculation are possible if unconstrained sabotage resources or protracted loss of control of the storage sJte are allowed. For that reason, protection requirements are proposed to provide for (1) early detection of malevolent moves against

- - the storage site, and_(2) a_means to quickly sWJ1Don response resources to assure against protracted loss of control of the site.

The proposed requirements comprise a subset of the overall protec-

• tion requirements currently in force at every operating nuclear power reactor. Inasmuch as the security force at each reactor is thoroughly familiar wit~ requirements similar tQ those proposed and has years of experience in carrying them out, the NRC concludes that the requirements can be successfully imposed through a _general license for storage of spent fuel in NRC-approved casks without the need for advanced NRC review and approval of a physical security plan or other site-specific documents before the reactor licensee implements the requirements.

Material control and accountfng (MC&A) requirements are designed to protect against the undetected loss of the special nuclear material in 18

[7590-01]

spent fuel by maintaining vigilance over the material, tracking its move-ment and location, monitoring its inventory status, maintaining records of transactions and movements, and issuing reports of its status at the time of physical inventory. Similar requirements for Mc&A have been applied to power reactors, to spent fuel storage at independent spent fuel storage installations, and to operations at certain other classes of fuel cycle facilities without requiring* the licensee to submit a plan to document how compliance will be achieved. In these situations the requirements have been found to be sufficient. For these reasons, it is concluded that the Mc&A requirements for the dry storage of spent fuel at power reactors can 'be handled under a general license.

"A minor editorial change to§ 72.30(b) is also proposed to make clear that a decommissioning funding plan is an integral part of an applicant 1 s proposed decom11issioning plan.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

• The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Coamission's regulations in Sub-part A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human enviro1111ent and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The rule is mainly administrative in nature and would not

• change safety requirements, which could have significant environmental impacts. The proposed rule would provide for power reactor licensees to store spent fuel in casks approved by NRC ,at reactor.sites without addi-tional site-specific approvals by the Com11ission. It would set forth 19 - .. ',. -

(7590-01]

conditions of a general license for the spent fuel storage and procedures and criteria for obtaining storage cask approval. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determina-

• tion is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, Lower Level. Single copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Telephone:

(301) 492-3764.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements th~t are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et

--seq.). This rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and app.roval of the information collection requirements.

The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2,336 hours0.00389 days <br />0.0933 hours <br />5.555556e-4 weeks <br />1.27848e-4 months <br />, which will be primarily for development and sub-mittal of a safety analysis report (SAR) by spent fuel storage cask ven-dors. Review and approval of an SAR is necessary in order to obtain a Certificate of Compliance for a cask design fr011 NRC. A Certificate of Compliance i.s required for each cask design before these casks can be used for spent fuel storage under the general license in this rule. Responses required from power reactor licensees under this rule would be initial notification for use of th~ generaf license and subllittal of a notice 20

(7590-01]

when each cask is stored. Thus, no significant reporting burden is antic-ipated for these licensees. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information., including sugges-

~ions for reducing this burden, to the Records and Reports Management Branch, Mail Stop P-530, Division of Information Support Services, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0132),.

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Comission has prepared a preliminary regulatory analysis on this proposed rule. The analysis exami*nes the benefits and impacts considered by the Commission. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis is

--available for inspecti~n in~~~ NRC Public Doc~ent Ro~m, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, Lower Level. Single copies may be obtained from

• W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Telephone: (301)492-3764.

The Con111ission req~ests public comments on the preliminary regula-tory analysis, which may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 21

[7590-01]

entities. This proposed rule affects only licensees owning and operating nuclear power reactors. The owners of nuclear power plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of 11 small entities 11 set forth in Sec-tion 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and, thus, a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in§ 50.109(a)(l).

-- .. L.i st of Subjecj:.s Part 50: Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Part 72: Manpower t.raining programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

Part 170: Byproduct material, Nuclea. materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors; Penalty, Source material, Special nuclear material.

22

[7590-01]

For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following revisions to 10 CFR Part 72 and conforming amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 170.

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as fol lows:

• Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C~ 2071,

- - 2073, 2077, 2092, .2093, _209_5 l. 2099, 2111, _2201 1 2232 t. 2233 t 2234, 2236 t 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d),

Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b),

10168(c)(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

23

[7590-01]

10154). Section 72.96{d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Sub-parts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

10153) and 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 {42 U.S.C. 10198).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273); §§ 72.6, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28{d), 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a),

{b)(l), (4), (5), (c), (d)(l), (2), (e), (f), 72.48(a), 72.50(a),

72.52(b), 72.72(b), (c), 72.74{a), {b), 72.76, 72.78, 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c), 72.148, 72.154, 72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); §§ 72.lO(a), (e), 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30,

- *12.32, 72.44(a),(b)(l), (4), (5), (c), (d)(l), (2), (e), (f), 72.48(a),

72.S0(a), 72.52(b), 72.90(a)-(d), (f), 72.92, 72.94, 72.98, 72.100, 72.102(c), (d), (f), 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126,

• 72.128, 72.130, 72.140{b), (c), 72.142, 72.144, ,2.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154, 72.156, 72.158, 72.160, 72.162, 72.164, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.186, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 16li, 68 Stat. 949, as -amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(1)); and§§ 72.l0(e), 72.11, 72.16, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(b){3), (c)(5), (d)(3), {e), (f), 72.48(b), (c),

72.50{b), 72.54(a), {b), (c), 72.56, 72.70, 72.72, 72.74(a), (b),

72.76{a), 72.78(a), 72.80, 72.82, 72.92{b), 72.94(b), 72.140{b), {c),

(d), 72.144(a), 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154(a), (b), 72.156, 72.160, 72.162, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.174, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 24

[7590-01]

. 72.186, 72.192, 72.212(b), 72.216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.234(e) and (g) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

2. In§ 72.30, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.30 Decommissioning planning, including financing and recordkeeping.

lie lie (b) The proposed decommissioning plan must also include a dec0111-missioning funding plan containing information on how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI or MRS, This information must include a cost estimate for decommissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for decon\raissioning from paragraph (c) of this section, including means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the ISFS1 or MRS.

-- lie lie

3. New Subpart Kand Subpart Lare added to read as follows:

Subpart K - General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites Sec.

72.210 General license issued.

72.212 Conditions of general license issued under§ 72.210 .

72_. 214 Li st of approved spent fuel storage casks.

72.216 Reports.

72.218 Termination of licenses.

72.220 Violations.

25

(7590-01]

Subpart L - Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storag, cask submittals.

72.232 Inspection and tests.

72.234 Conditions of approval.

72.236 Specific criteria for spent fuel storage cask approval.

72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of C011Pliance.

72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage cask reapproval.

Subpart K - GenerJl License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites

§ 72.210 General license issued.

A general license is hereby issued for the storage of spent fuel in

-- an independent spent f~el storage installa~ion ~t pow~r reactor sites to persons authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under Part 50 of this chapter.

§ 72.212 Conditions of general license issued under§ 72.210.

(a)(l) The general license is li ited to storage of spent fuel in casks approved under the provisions of this part.

(2) The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall tenninate 2Jl years after the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel, unless the cask model is reapproved in which case the general license shall terminate on the revised certification date. In the event that a cask vendor does not apply for a cask 110del reapproval 26

[7590-01]

under§ 72.240, any user or user representative may apply for cask reapprova 1.

(b) The general licensee shall:

(l)(i) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory Comission_under §72.4 at least 90 days prior to first storage of spent fuel under the general license. The notice may be in the form of a letter, but must contain the licensees name, address, reactor license number (s), and the name and means of contacting a person for additional information. A copy of the submittal must be sent to the Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office iisted in Appendix Oto Part 20.

(ii) Register use of each cask with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no later than 30 days after using the cask to store spent fuel. This registration may be_ accomplished by submitting a letter containing the following information: the licensee's name and address,

- - the 1i censee I s reacto_r _l i c~n-~e number( s), the _name and title of a person who can be contacted for additional information, the cask certificate or model number, and the cask identification number. Submittals must be in accordance with the instructions contained in§ 72.4 of this part.

A copy of each submittal must be sent to the Administrator of the appro-priate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in Appendix D to Part 20.

(2) Perform written evaluations showing that conditions set forth in the Certificate of Compliance are met for the anticipated total number of casks to be used for storage. The licensee shall also show that cask storage pads and areas are designed to adequately support the static load of the stored casks. Evaluations must show that the requirements of

§ 72.104 of this part are met. A copy of this record must be retained 27

[7590-01]

unt i1 spent fue 1 is no l anger stored under the genera 1 1icense issued under§ 72.210.

(3) Review the approved Safety Analysis Repo~t (SAR) referenced in the Certificate of Compliance and the relat~d NRC Safety Evaluation Report to determine that the licensee's applicable site parameters are enveloped by the cask design capabilities considered in these reports.

The results of this review should be documented in the evaluation made in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

{4) Pursuant to§ 50.59 of this chapter, deternine whether activ-ities under this *general license involve any unreviewed safety question or change in the facility technical specifications.

• (5) Protect the spent fuel against the design basis threat of radio-logical sabotage in a~cordance with the licensee 1 s physical security plan approved in accordance with§ 73.55 of this chapter, with the following

- - additional conditions and exceptions:

(i) The physical security organization and program must be modified as necessary to assure that activities conducted under this general license do not decrease the effectiveness of the protecticn of vital equipment in accordanc~ with§ 73.55 of this chapter.

(ii) Storage of spent fuel must be within a protected area, in accordance with§ 73.55(c) 9f this chapter, but need not be within a separate vital area. Existing, protected areas. may be expanded or new protected areas added for the purpose of storage of spent fuel in accordance with this general license.

(iii) Notwithstanding any requirements of the licensee's approved security plan, the observational *capability required by§ 73.55(h)(6) of this chapter may be provided by a guard or watchman in lieu of closed 28

[7590-01]

circuit television for protection of spent fuel under the provisions of this general license.

_ (iv) For the purposes of this general license, the licensee is exempt from§ 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and (5) of this chapter.

(6) Pursuant to the procedures in §50.59 of this chapter, review the reactor emergency plan, quali.ty assurance program, training program, and radiation protection program and modify them as necessary for activi-ties related to storage of spent fuel under the general* license.

(7) Maintain a copy of the Certificate of Compliance and documents referenced in the certificate for each model of cask used for storage of spent fuel, until use of the cask model is discontinued. The licensee shall*comply with the terms and conditions of the certificate.

(8)(i) Maintain the record provided by the cask supplier for each cask that shows:

-- (A) The NRC Cert~ficat~ -~f Compliance nu~er; (B) The name and address of the cask vendor/lessor; (C) The listing of spent fuel stored in the cask; and (D) Any maintenance perfonned on the cask.

(ii) This record must include sufficient information to furnish documentary evidence that any testing and maintenance of the cask has been conducted under an approved quality assurance program.

(iii) In the event that a cask is sold, leased, loaned, or otherwise transferred, this record must also be transferred to. and must be accurately maintained by the new registered user. This record must be maintained by the current cask user during the period that the cask is-used for storage of spent fuel and retained by the last user until decommissioning of the cask is complete.

29

(7590-01]

(9) Conduct activities related to storage of spent fuel under this general license in accordance with written procedures.

(10) On reasonable notice, make records available to the Commission for inspection.

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

The following casks have been reviewed and evaluated by the Commission and are approved for storage of spent fuel under the conditions spacified in their Certificates of Compliance. Certificates of Compliance are available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, Lower Level.

Certificate Number: 1000 SAR Submitted by: General Nuclear Systems, Inc.

-- SAR

Title:

11

~opi~al Safety Analysis Repor~ for t~e Castor V/21 Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Ory Storage)

(TSAR)" -

Docket Number: 7l-1000 Certification Expiration Date: , 2009 Model Number: CASTOR V/21 Certificate Number: 1001 SAR Submitted by: Westinghouse Electric Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report For The MC-10 Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)

Docket Number: 72-1001 Certification Expiration Date: , 2009 Model Number: MC-10 30

[7590-01]

Certificate Number: 1002 SAR Submitted by: Nuclear Assurance Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report For The NAC Storage/

Transportation Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)

Docket Number: 72-1002 Certificate Expiration Date: , 2009 Model Number: NAC SIT Certificate Number: 1003 SAR Submitted by: Nuclear Assurance Corporation

• sAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report For The NAC Storage/

Transportation Cask Containing Consolidated Fuel For Use at an Independent Spent Fuel *Storage Installation.

-- (Dry _Storage)

Docket Number: 72-1003 Certificate Expiration Date: , 2009 Model Number: NAC-C28 SIT

§ 72.216 Reports.

(a) The licensee shall make an initial report under§ 50.72(b)(2)(vii) of this chapter of any:

(1) Defect with safety significance discovered in any spent fuer storage cask system or component important to safety; and 31

[7590-01]

(2) Instance fn which there is a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage cask confinement system during use.

(b) A written report, including a description of the means employed to repair any defects or damage and prevent recurrence, must be submitted in accordance with§ 72.4 within 30 days. A copy of the written report must be sent to the Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Conwission regional office shown in Appendix D to Part 20 of this Chapter.

§ 72.218 Termination of licenses.

(a) The notification regarding planning for the management of all spent fuel at the reactor required by§ 50.54(bb) of this chapter must include a plan for removal of the spent fuel stored under this general license from the reactor site. The plan must show how the spent fuel

-- will be managed before starting to decommission systems and components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping this spent fuel.

(b) Spent fuel previously stored may continue to be stored under this general license during deconwissioning after submission of an

.application for termination of the reactor operating license under

§ 50.82 of this chapter. An application for termination of the reactor operating license submitted under§ 50.82 of this chapter must, however, contain a description of how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the reactor site. If the dec0111Dissi.oning alternative selected under§ 50.82 is likely to extend beyond 30 years after the normal term of the reactor operating license, the licensee shall include in the application a discussion of incremental environ-mental impacts of the exte~ded spent fuel storage.

32

[7590-01]

(c) The reactor licensee shall send a copy of submittals under

§ 72.218(a) and (b) to the Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix Oto Part 20 of this Chapter.

§ 72.220 Violations.

Storage of spent fuel under a general license may be halted or terminated under§ 72.84.

Subpart L ~ Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks

§ 72:230 Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.

(a) An application must be submitted in accordance with the instructions contatned in§ 72.4. A safety analysis report describing

- - the proposed cask desi_gn an9 ~ow the cask ~houl_d be used to store spent fuel safely must be included with the application.

(b) Casks that have been certified for transportation of spent fuel under Part 71 of this chapter may be approved for storage*of spent fuel under this subpart. An.application must be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in§ 72.4. A copy of the Certificate of Compliance issued by the NRC for the cask, and drawings and other docu-ments referenced in the certificate, must be included with the applica-tion. A safety analysis report showing that the cask is suitable for storage of spent fuel for a period of at least 20 years must also be included.

33

[7590-01]

(c) Public inspection. An application for the approval of a cask for storage of spent fuel may be made available for public inspection under§ 72.20.

(d) Fees. Fees for review and evaluation related to issuance of a spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance, inspections related to spent fuel storage in approved casks on reactor sites, and vendor inspection of dry storage casks are those shown in§ 170.31 of this chapter.

§ 72.232 Inspection and tests.

(a) The applicant shall permit, and make provisions for, the Commi~sion to inspect at reasonable times the premises and facilities at which a spent fuel storage cask is fabricated and tested.

(b) The applicant shall perform, and make provisions that permit

--the Commission to perform, tests that the Commission deems necessary or appropriate for the administration of the regulations in this part.

(c) The applicant shall submit a notification under§ 72.4 at least 45 days prior to starting fabrication of ~he first spent fuel storage cask under a Certificate of C0111pliance.

§ 72.234 Conditions of approval.

(a) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of a spent fuel storage cask must comply with the technical criteria in§ 72.236.

(b) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of spent fuel storage casks must be conducted under a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of Subpart'G of this part.

34

L7590-0l]

(c) Cask fabrication must not start prior to receipt of the Certifi-cate of Compliance for the cask model.

(d)(l) The cask vendor shall ensure that a record is established and maintained for each cask fabricated under the NRC Certificate of Compliance.

(2) This record must include:

(i) The NRC Certificate of Compliance number; (ff) The cask model nUllber;

- (iii) The cask identification number; (iv) Date fabrication started; (v) Date fabrication completed; (vi) Certification that the cask was designed, fabricated, tested,

, and repaired in accordance with a quality assurance program accepted by NRC;

-- (vii) Certification that inspections required by§ 72.236(j) were performed and found satisfactory; and (viii) The name and address of the cask user.

(3) The original of this record must be supplied to the cask user.

A copy of the current composite record of all casks, showing the above information, must be retained by the cask vendor for the life of the cask. If the cask vendor permanently ceases production of casks under a Certificate of Compliance, this record must be sent to the Commission using instructions in§ 72.4~

(e) The composite record required by paragraph (d) of this section must be made available to the Commission for inspection.

35

(7590-01]

(f) The cask vendor shall ensure that written procedures and appropriate tests are established for use of the casks. A copy of these procedures and tests must be provided to each.cask user.

§ 72.236 Specific criteria for spent fuel storage cask approval.

(a) Specifications concerning the spent fuel to be stored in the cask, such as the type of spent fuel (i.e., BWR, PWR, both),

enrichment of the unirradiated fuel, burn-up (i.e., megawatt-days/MTU),

cooling time of the spent fuel prior to storage in the cask, maximum -

heat designed to be dissipated (i.e .* kw/assembly, kw/rod), the maximum spent fuel loading limit, and condition of the spent fuel (i.e., intact assembly or consolidated fuel rods), inerting atmosphere requirements, must be provided.

(b) Design bases and design criteria must be provided for structural members an~ syst~m~ important t~ saf~ty.

(c) The cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel is maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions. 4t (d) Radiation shielding ana confinement features must be provided to the extent required to meet the requirements in§§ 72.104 and 72.106 of this part .

(e) Casks must be designed to provide redundant sealing of confinement systems.

(f) Casks must be designed to provide adequate heat removal capacity wit~out active cooling systems.

(g) Casks must be designed to store the spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years and permit maintenance as required.

36

(7590-Ql]

(h) Casks must be compatible with wet or dry spent fuel loading and unloading facilities.

(i) Casks must be designed to facilitate decontamination to the extent practicable.

(j) Casks must be inspected to ascertain that there are no cracks, pinholes, uncontrolled voids, or other defects that could significantly reduce their confinement effectiveness.

(k) Casks must be conspicuously and durably marked with (1) A model number; (2) A ~ni4ue identification number; and (3) An empty weight.

• c1) Casks and systems important to safety must be evaluated, by

.subjecting a sample or scale model to tests appropriate to the part being tested, or by other means acceptable to the Commission, demonstrating

- - that they will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and accident conditions.

(m) To the extent practicable, in the design of dry spent fuel storage casks, consideration should be given to the compatibility of the dry storage cask systems and components with transportation and other activities related to the removal of the stored spent fuel from the reactor site for ultimate disposition by the Department of Energy.

§ 72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Compliance.

A Certificate of Compliance for a cask model will be issued by NRC on a f i.ndi ng that (a) The criteria in§ 72.236(a) through (i) are met; and 37

[7590-01]

(b) The applicant certifies that each cask will be fabricated, inspected, and tested in accordance with§ 72.236(j) and (1).

§ 72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage cask reapproval.

(a) The holder of a cask model Certificate of Compliance, a user of a cask model approved by NRC, and representatives of cask users may apply for a cask model reapproval.

(b) Application for reapproval of a cask raodel must be submitted 3 years prior to. the date that the Certificate of Compliance for that -

model expires. The appliL3tion must be accompanied by a safety aoalysis report (SAR). The new SAR may reference the SAR originally submitted for the cask model.

(c) A cask model will be reapproved if conditions in§ 72.238 are met, including demonstration that storage of spent fuel has not signif-

-- icantly, adversely affected systems and components important to safety.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

4. The authority citation of Part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,182,183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.

936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.

1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.

2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section so:10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 38

[7590-01]

68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also_issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub.

L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Slat. 1245 (42 (U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 50.103 also under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix Falso issued under*sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273); §§ 50.10(.a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and

- -50,80(a) are issued un~e~ s~_c.__ 161b, 68 Sta_t. 948, as ~mended (42 U.S.C.

220l(b)); §§ 50.lO(b) and (c), and 50.54 are issued under sec. 16li, e 68 Stat 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and§§ 50.9, 50.55(e),

50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amende~ (42 U.S.C. 2201(0)).

5. In§ 50.72, a new paragraph is added to read as follows:

§ 50.72 Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors.

39

r ' l )

[7590=01]

(b) ***

(vii)(A) Any instance in which a significant defect in a system or component important to safety is discovered in, or (B) any instance in which there is a significant reduction in the confinement system effectiveness of, any cask used to store spent fuel under§ 72.210 of this chapter.

~ART 170 - FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT'

/

OF 1954, AS AMENDED

6. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 u.s.c. 5841).

7. In§ 170.31, a new category 13 is added and Footnotes l(b),

(c), and (d) are amended to read as follows:

§ 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections.

40

[7590-01]

Catego.ry of materials licenses Fee 2 ' 3 and type of fee 1

• :t

13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance Application $150 Approvals Full Cost Amendments, Revisions and Supplements Full Cost

• B.

Reapproval Inspections of spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance Full Cost Routine Full Cost Nonroutine Full Cost C. Inspections of storage of spent fuel under §72.210 Routine - .. - Full Cost Nonroutine Full Cost

• 1 Types of fees - l:itlt (b)

• Ji: :t License/approval fees - For new licenses and approvals issued in fee Categories 1A and 18, 2A, 4A, SB, lOA, 10B, 11, 12, and 13 the recipient shall pay the license or approval fee as determined by the Commission in accordance with§ 170.12{b), (e), and {f).

(c) Renewal/reapproval fees - Applicatio~s for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that applications for renewal of licenses and approvals in fee Categories 1A and 1B, 2A, 4A, 5B, lOA, 108, 11, and 13 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150, with the balance due 41

r- f I I (7590-01]

upon notification by the Convnission in accordance with the procedures specified in§ 170.lZ(d).

(d) Amendment fees - Applications for amendments must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fees. An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply, except that applications for amendment of licenses . -.* --*

and approvals in fee Categories 1A and 18, 2A, 4A, SB~ lOA, 108, 11, J.t":*

and 13 must be accompanied by an application fee of $150 with the balance due upon notification by the Co111111ission in .accordance with § 170.12(c).

An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee catego.ry or add a new

-- fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new category.

An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licensee's progr~ to a lower fee category must oa., *****:

accompanied by the prescribed aJRendment fee for the lower fee category.

Applications to terminate licenses .authorizing small mate.rials programs, when no dis111antling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fees.

- 1( .Af!

Dated at Rockville, Maryla1,d, this '7:::r,_ day of Pfaj , 1989.