ML23158A155
| ML23158A155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/26/1999 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-051, 64FR09889 | |
| Download: ML23158A155 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 02/26/1999 PR-051 - 64FR09889 - CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NPP OPERATING LICENSES, AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PR-051 64FR09889 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:
PR-051 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) Y RULE NAME:
CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NPP OPERATING LICENSES, AVAILABILIT Y OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:
64FR09889 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
02/26/99 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 04/27/99 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
8 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 64FR48507 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 09/03/99 NOTES ON: AVAILABILITY OF NUREG-1437, VOL. 1, ADDENDUM 1, "GENERIC ENVIRONME STATUS NTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS:
MAIN OF RULE:
REPORT SECTION 6.3-TRANSPORTATION... FINAL REPORT ISSUED 8/99 HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-051 RULE TITLE:
CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NPP OPERATING LICENSES, AVAILABILIT Y OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 98-278 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 99-202 PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
FINAL RULE SRM DATE:
DATE PROPOSED RULE I
I SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
02/22/99 DATE FINAL RULE 08/24/99 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
08/26/99 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: DONALD P. CLEARY CONTACT2:
MAIL STOP: O-llFl MAIL STOP:
PHONE: 413-3903 PHONE:
DOCKET NO. PR-051 (64FR09889)
DATE DOCKETED 02/23/99 04/26/99 04/27/99 In the Matter of CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NPP OPERATING LICENSES, AVAILABILIT Y OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT 02/22/99 04/22/99 04/06/99 TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY COMMENT OF NEVADA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (THOMAS K. GALLAGHER) (
- 1)
LTR FM DENNIS BECHTEL TO CHAIRMAN REQUESTING EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD TO 120 DAYS TO PERMIT PROPER EVALUATION OF THE ADDENDUM 04/27/99 04/23/99 LTR FM CHAIRMAN TO DENNIS BECHTEL DENYING REQUEST TO EXTEND COMMENT PERIOD 04/28/99 04/28/99 COMMENT OF KRISTIN SHRADER-FRECHETTE, ET AL. (
- 2) 04/28/99 04/27/99 COMMENT OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DENNIS BECHTEL) (
05/06/99 04/27/99 COMMENT OF THE HONORABLE JON C. PORTER (
- 4) 04/16/99 LTR FM LAS VEGAS, NV MAYOR JAN LAVERTY JONES TO 05/06/99 CHAIRMAN REQUESTING 90-DAY EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD, PUBLIC MEETING & ADDENDUM TITLE CHANGE 05/21/99 04/27/99 COMMENT OF BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (CHARLES H. CRUSE, VICE PRESIDENT) (
- 5) 05/21/99 05/13/99 COMMENT OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (THOMAS J. FRONAPFEL) (
- 6) 06/02/99 05/26/99 COMMENT OF WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA (DEBRA KOLKMAN, DIRECTOR) (
- 7) 07/12/99 06/25/99 COMMENT OF NYE COUNTY, NEVADA (LES W. BRADSHAW) (
08/27/99 08/26/99 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE; NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
- 3)
- 8)
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE ~
~5.
....._I -..
'1'-IFR 't8'81 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 RIN 3150-AG05 oocK::TEO I'"" r l[?5S0:01 -P]
°99
~UG 27 P 1 :5 7 Ohi I 1-ADJl 1' Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses to Include Consideration of Certain Transportation Impacts, Availability of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing* the completion and availability of NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3-'Transportation,' Table 9.1
'Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Final Report" (August 1999).
ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1 may be obtained by writing to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, -Virginia 22161. A copy of the document is also available for Pu/,. ~ q/3/q9 a:f (#t/ FR4t1So7
inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
301-415-3903; e-mail: dpc@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The report provides the technical basis for the final rule "Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses" that amends requirements to the Commission's rule in 1 o CFR Part 51 - Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
The NRC staff has completed the analyses of transportation issues as reported in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, which provides the bases for designating the transportation of high level waste as a Category 1 issue. Addendum 1 would supplement the analysis and amend the findings and the Category 2 designation for the issue of Transportation in Section 6.3 and Table 9.1 of NUREG-1437. This report expands the generic findings about the environmental impacts due to transportation of fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant. Specifically, the report adds to findings concerning* the cumulative environmental impacts of convergence of spent fuel shipments on a single destination, rather than multiple destinations, and the environmental impact of transportation of higher enriched and higher burnup spent fuel during the renewal term. The report conclusions would permit those findings to be used by incorporation by reference in the environmental review of an application for 2
renewal of an individua! nuclear plant operating license. The results are being r.odified in 10 CFR Part 51.
Electronic Access NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, is also available electronically by visiting NRC's Home Page (http://www.nrc.gov) and choosing "Nuclear Materials," then "Business Process Redesign Project," then "Library," and then "NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1."
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRG has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of 0MB.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this Z..lo ft:\ day of August, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
~L~-~
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
3
Nnf'AIIIRY DNmar OF Nmmt Bll'Olg & flaW. 1fMIJIB 99-302-LB (L)
June 25, 1999 Mr.ThomasJ.Kenyon Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regula1?ry Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 1210 E. Basin Rd. Ste. #6
- Pahrump, Nevada 89048 (702) 727-7727
- Fax (702) 727-7919 DOCKET NUMBER. R PROPOSED RULE 51
- \
l,i./FR 'tf589)
)>
0 o -
~
c... r-c._
c:::
r-N
- I::>
\0 Ul Comments on NUREG-1437, Supplement 1
Dear Mr. Kenyon:
0
~-Cl
'--n f"T1 nr,-1 0
Nye County has examined NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1: Generic Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Main Report: Section 6.3 Transportation". When this document was first brought to our attention we had determined not to comment, since we view the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yuc~a Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which the NRC is required to adopt, if practical, as the-key opportunity to express our views on transportation issues. However, on further reflection, since Nye County is the ultimate destination for transportation of spent nuclear fuel to a proposed Yucca Mountain repository undet any scenario and for all routes, and since transportation impacts are a serious concern for our local communities, we have decided to offer these summary comments. We realize that the formal comment period has passed, but trust you will consider and address these concerns as your process continues.
The Process for Preparing the Shipment According to the "Abstract", the purpose of the SiJpplement was to analyze the potential cumulative impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel destined for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository. This proposed repository is in Nye County, Nevada. Yet, Nye County was not informed or consulted in the preparation of the EIS or the Supplement. No public hearings were conducted in the destination state or county. Furthermore, a request by the State of Nevada to extend the 30-day comment period was rejected. The destination county should have been provided an opportunity to submit substantive input to an analysis of the potential impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel destined for the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository.
Demonstrated Knowledge of Baseline Conditions Most environmental impact statements describe existing or baseline _conditions, then assess the impacts of the proposed action on those conditions. The supplement to NUREG-1437 does not mention that the proposed repository which is the destination for shipments of spent nuclear fuel is, in fact, in Nye County._ Nor does it identify particular conditions in the destination county which exacerbate the potential impacts of spent nuclear shipments, e.g., its very limited capability for emergency response to incidents or accidents involving radiological materials, its two-lane highways with high large-truck volumes and accident rates, and narrow rights-of-way in rural communities. In effect, the Supplement seems to assume that, once past the convergence bottleneck of urban Las Vegas, shipments of spent nuclear fuel would have no further impact.
JUl 1 3 1999
-'eknowtedged by card *"""........... ---='
p C
A s
Description ofCuinulative Effects.
Th~ugh intended.to analyze potential cumuJative.impacts, the supplement to NUREG-1437'.does not cumulatively..
address the.iqipacts-to human heal!h of nuclear materiaJs transport in the.vicinity of the propqsed.Yucea Motin~in
- . -::_ high-leyel ~~clear -vv:a~te.rep~sitory. Key omissi_ons ~elude: a) potenti~l shipments_ ofDpE spent n_~ctea:r fuel~~ ~.*.*
- *_:.*. *..,: b.igh-lev.el,waste," and b) *curre~t *and prospective futur~ shipttients of low-level radioactive _wast~ fro!l). 15 9r ni9re-, '
- . ***.. sites in. the defehse.coinplex to -the Nevada Test ~ite,,-also i_n-Nye County.,"The'cumulative'arialysis should.11-ot.~ -:. '*.
-*7 -_: :. e:i:c~Qd~, risks as~O£i~t~~ ~it~* ~XP,OSUr~. t<;> ship_ients1 ofloY\'.-_livel -r~~!oacti~e Waste and DOE; ~P-~nt' hli~l.eai: :fi_I~f_aii~ :_ *,.._..
~--' *-.high..-Jevei'waste:**. * > <-:::
//** :: /_.)-::-:.\ -.. **. '* _*
- .*;.:_.. _*,.\*.. -
- *
- Analysis Liinite<<l'-to Human Health Impacts..
- _ *" -~- : **.
- ~.:...
We understatjd that the *supplement was designed to ad_ckess human health impacts oniy,' a~d those only on a ;
probabilistic basi~: H~wever;the *supple1?-ent is intended _to support a-regulat9ry q.ecision which wo.uld r¢lie,~e *..
utilities of the obligation to assess downstream" tran~portation inipacts in seeking license exieo.si~ns. **Such an' a~alysis sh~uld addre.ss several impacts in actc:iition to th~se on hum~n ~ealth. We w~uld suggest riiprous. :**-'... _:: _.
- co~ideration of impacts for local emerge~cy responders; and note that the destination county is grievo~~(y.,. '....
- *-difiqi~rit in it,s emergen9y response capabiUiies. Wft \¥0Uld also sugges~ consideration 9f impact~on' lc;ic~l property '
. ** _ *, ta.Iues:* noti'ngtha1°75,000 truck shipments oBpent nuclear.fuel could affect the valµe_ ofadjacerit i-e'sidente:5, '/.'.-..
~'.: \:_:* Q\l~i~~;S~f !ill? *1~( -~ ~alysis i~ relieve ~tili!i~s-~~!h~ 9bljgation to ~~ess: ~~s~oqat~p~~-imp,~~ -~n\ ~:: : f :T:_: ::~- :;~--~ *. _** ~ '.
. :- *..,, *:.'~9~S.tt~arb. *9-o~rµuntt!~s shc_mld address all maJor *~pacts ~f tr~spo~t*on sh_1pment:o~ those ~q~mu~1t1~s. :~ *'-, * *:
,-:.;}: <-.;;~:/*.t*L*:;:.., *r:'*:*: /,.:... *~ *,,: _**~ ~*
- ->:\.
- 1,... ~,. :*-~:-*--~,_,
- .\_.*-.. *~_'./,' ",J;:,~,.**.**?; /~.*~\~~.~(x,'-:;~:.i,.}::_,~(!"-~~~:>:,'-. ~
- ., *t**:-:'b-":>',*"6 *0* *u'n* *d* 1*n'... ~; o*c**-oo**te*n't1**a**1,H,,;a* 1tb Eftiec* ~--.. * * * ** ~~ i\,,.*..
.* * ;*.. *..,.'\', :.! ~ * * *. :,. **,>. * *:: t ~~i..-.::,' -t.;.:; _,-.:,-.~.'.:~i::-*~--;,.~ *.*
I
~
- ~1e -n -
i,C'"
I,:,
'J ',
I'
\
I
~ f
\
" \*,r
,A 1"
~*,, *,'.
o *o \
~
~
- _~ :; :_;*-~ '.:*:~~~~~~-~~pl~~~h~ -~0:.*
9~
~ 43,?, 'f9c"us_es **(?h ~ -ck*: s~ig~~~~,~f ~p~ti~~~~9Iear_,fy.~1 -:~---~Pt~o/O~~~~~~H¥.~f' it(~~~~;;,~;~~;*> '
- -,....., bas*N~g_,as:urban ai:ea1* a:;sunung that suet\ an assessment would '.'bound";the-P,otential *rad1olog1cat and accJdent ~r.~:. *,. ' -. ' -
i*.-..'
""'~ **,.
,..,1~
~ ** '*,;
~
Ir.*,,"--*
., "t l **~..,,."t
.,..,~*,"~ '-* *..,*
~...
,. *,* *,., r!sK~ffec~ ~f @tlier. ~o_d~/t~ute *options in. ?ther up~~e_aui ll_?d -~0"'.11~tr~~ *9~mnil!fli~~s( **1-Jo~eV~t*}i~ opHoli '.,)_-:,.:/:\ ";:, _-:.,
~hi~p a:vqids. th~ _Las_ Vegas V ~lley by r_outi~g trµc~,s~p~ents:aroupd !he ~~llis_ Air' ~o-~c~ Rang~ ~~-di?,~ p~,,?? ~..,__ ~. ':,
through the towns' of Tonopah, Goldfield, Beatty; ari.cf Aniargosa Vailey,(such as h~s beer encoQiaged,by the DOE -:- ':'i' -. '*.
-* :. *Nevada*Operations* Offic~ shipments of fow-fovei radio.active was_te t~ th.~~Nevad~Te~t Stt~))i~s ~e.~n *s.howfi*t9 :,< *. * - '.
- _.. signinc'antfy increase the risk of accidentfatalities_ih the destit1ation county and state~ and tp_si~jfic~ntly i-ri.de~se.,.. *
- .,: ~~*~adl.ol~gic,;alriskto~~e maximaJly expos~_d indiv_i~ti~i-:.who in this ~ase**WO~ld liv~~arj~ ~ork !~.iu~J1
- _
- _. _ \..,_ ;,
~
c_ptnmunities; where reside.rices and businesses are located much clos_et to the-highway !han t:ij.eJ 00 feet a~sqmed-,...
- jh _th_is a~a{ysi{ ~An _an~lys~s assessing trap.sporta#on; *impacts on "doW1!$tream" comillunities ~lioµl~ addr~-~~'... :_:, i
.mode/route options-whi_ch _would r~sult in. Q?,aximum accidert.t-r_isk and maximum* rac:Fologi.cal 'ris~ fo.tne maximally, :.
- exposed individual in the destination state and county. *.
1
/
I I
- < I
~ t,
- _
Th~-F~~sibility'ofthe Assu~ed Modal Option.* :. ". '*.
- .. The Analysis assumes the use of the large-capacity _GA-4/9 truck cask,-:which has 11cit been* cerlift~d and must be *..
used in combination with specially designed trucks, which have not been tested. It furt;her assumes that such ca*
. and truck systems will be, ayailable iii the _quantity requke~ for the i.uipr~c-edent~d spentinuclear-'fueJ shipment
., _campaign. -Alterna~ive cask_systems for truck shipme.t:it could double: or triple the number of shipm'e.rits, required'. *_
- Nye County.seeks assurance that the assumed truck cask-system is feasible, and that DOE's proposed regional seryice contractor approach *would feasibly result in the-use of such a system for all shipments iri'the potential
~
_ truck shipment.campaign.
I
,,,~., -
- ~*
- ,Thank_*you very mu~h for the oppo~ity t~ make iomJ'nents and pose questi~~s ~ri *an.analysis of <?OOs.ider11b,le
_po~ntiaJ-iinportance for Nye -County., _We look forward to discussing these isSUt;lS fi;nther. with the NRC.. ;
- I 4**:, *.: *; * ~:. ' *
... * *._* * "-,.* *. ) ;,
- L :
- ~ _.-' :,_l, * * :.
I,
~ :,
. Very:: truly yciutS,.
_* \:. ~'
- ..... -~
'r m;;;;;;:~
.Les *W. Bradsha,w
- Manager Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities J
-~
~
- ~:, -.. cc:, *'., ***-NyeCounty*Board ofCommissioners *-
- , *. *\:, * '. '/Nye Couhty.M_anager. * *
..-:_,.:<:*\/'*.*_*:~~-)f.Beh~o,n'*. >. ';... :.
r
/
.**> ~:f:Gi.ampaoli
.. - -"::,-,_,... ~VMurphf _-:
,. --~ ':,. -N.'St~Uavato_
J. Williams
!L
- Loux.*
- ... f I
AULG's
rei.o1e: (775) 289-20H Secretary 959 Campton Sheet By, Nevada 89301 DOCKET NU BER PR r/
PROPOSED RULE ;._:.:... '
~,
t,t/ FRq'88G/;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop 016-Cl Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 To whom it may concern:
Fu: (775) 289-2066 Email: wpnucwst@idsely.com Enclosed are White Pine County's comments on the NRC's February 26, 1999 Federal Register Notice on Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
White Pine County is one of ten affected units of local in Nevada and California designated by the Secretary of Energy as potentially "affected" by the development and operation of a radioactive waste management system involving the Yucca Mountain site.
The County is crossed by two highway routes (U.S. Highway 93 and 6) which have been considered by the Nevada Department of Transportation as candidates for designation by Nevada's Governor as alternatives for accessmg the Yu.cca Mountain site. For the past several years, White Pine County., through its Nuclear Waste Project Advisory Board, has monitored DOE and other federal agencx activities regarding Yucca Mountain. In addition; the County has sponso~ed research focusing upon potential socioeconomic and risk related impacts of the radioactive waste management system.
i
~
The following comments to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants are offered.
- 1. The GEIS only considers shipments on the Interstate system and not on secondary highway routes in Nevada. Although White Pine County recognizes that the safest routes to the repository at Yucca Mountain are those which maximize the use of the Interstate system, the political reality is somewhat different. Many states including Nevada are likely to designate secondary highway routes in order to avoid large urban areas. In recognition of this reality, NRC should analyze waste transportation along potential secondary routes.
JU
- by (j)
HU\ort.CMR1 GUlATORY'COlilllSl~ON LEMAKINGS & ADJUDfCATl()4S STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR OF THE COMMISSION
Page 2
- 2. On page 8, the text states, " However, because DOE will address transportation impacts, mitigation measures, and alternate transportation modes in its EIS for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, mitigation is not appropriate for consideration as a part of license renewal decisions." The Draft Yucca Mountain EIS has not been released. Based upon earlier discussions with DOE, it is uncertain whether the DEIS will analyze route specific risks in Nevada. Furthermore, because another EIS may address the same issues, the Council on Environmental Quality's guidelines for implementing NEPA does not allow NRC to simply disregard appropriate mitigation measures for issues which clearly fall within the scope of the GEIS. Waste disposal actions are clearly linked to reactor operations.
NRC should consider mitigation measures that reduce transportation risk to its lowest level. Such measures may include changes to DOE' s Section 180( c) proposal and modifications to the transportation privatization initiatives for reactor shipments.
NRC could also include mitigation measures related to modes, routes and other appropriate transportation related restrictions.
All of these issues should be considered. IfNRC is unwilling to consider these types of issues in the GEIS, a final record of decision should be postponed until the Yucca Mountain EIS is completed.
High-level waste shipments will not occur to Yucca Mountain until the EIS is completed. As required in the NWPAA, NRC must adopt the Yucca Mountain EIS to the extent practicable. In reality, the Yucca Mountain EIS is NRC's EIS.
- 3. NRC needs to consider a worst case scenario that includes credible low probability, high-consequence accident scenarios.
Such an analysis provides a full range of potential impacts associated with waste transportation.
- 4. NRC needs to consider indirect impacts associated with waste transportation to a repository site. The analysis in the GEIS is only concerned with direct radiological health and safety impacts and ignores indirect impact analysis contrary to 40CFR1502.16(b).
- 5. The cumulative analysis must include past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. With respect to past actions, NRC needs to incorporate an analysis of the impacts (off-site exposure) from above ground nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site.
This analysis is even more important if NRC reviews alternate transportation routes from the northeastern portion of Nevada that was heavily impacted by the weapons testing program. Additionally, low-level waste shipments to NTS should also be included in the cumulative analysis.
Page 3
- 6. The NRC needs to evaluate impacts associated with the intermodal option being considered in HR45/S 104 for Caliente, Nevada, because it represents a reasonable alternative under 40CFR1502.14(a), because there is additional worker contact over and above the all truck scenario, and possibly, because there is greater resident exposure due to the location of the facility.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please call me. If the NRC does undertake an impact analysis of alternate routes through Nevada, please contact my office as soon as possible. White Pine County would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this analysis in more detail before the analysis begins, and to provide any information which would contribute to a thorough assessment of risks and impacts to communities in White Pine County.
Sincerely, Debra Kolkman Director
KENNY C. GUINN Go11ernor STATE OF NEVADA JOHN P. COMEAUX Director May 13, 1999 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 209 E. Musser Street, Room 200 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298 Fax(775)684-0260 (775) 684-0222 DOCKETED U 3 :~ f{ C
- 99 MAY 21 P 3 :09 Or-;,,
Flt1 ADJL 1' 1 DOCKET NUMBER PROPO ED RULE.
S
&'/PRC,8'i't)
Secretary, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: SAi NV #E 1999-099 Project: Generic EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Enclosed is an additional comment from the Nevada Department of Transportation that was received after our previous letter to you.
Please incorporate this comment into your decision making process. If you have any questions, please contact me at (775) 684-0209.
Enclosure Sincerely,
~
~K~
Heather K. Elliott Nevada State Clearinghouse/SPOC MAY 2 5 1891
~cknowledged by card *--hn,""""""'.. ~~
stm C pie R icd'I Cop!
Rep Spec~J.D~bjt>~
~
~
~
____:p j),e" -
.-3.11).s_
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1263 S. Stewart Street Carson City, Nevada 89712 KENNY C. GUINN Governor May 11, 1999 TOM STEPHENS, P.E., Director HEATHER ELLIOTT CHIEF PLANNER NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 209 E MUSSER STREET ROOM 204 CARSON CITY NV 89710
Dear Ms. Elliott:
In Reply Refer to:
PSD 7.01 The Nevada Department of Transportation has reviewed the project titled : Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants SAI# E1999-099.
Based on the information submitted, we have the following comments on the proposed project.
The transportation of the waste does not conflict with our policy or projects but it certainly is not in harmony with state policy or position on allowing the repository at Yucca Mtn.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
TJF:PAF : dg Sincerely, Thomas J. Fronapfel, P. E.
Assistant Director Planning I
RECEIVED MAY I 2 1999 DE?~ OF ACMINISTRATI0N DIRECrQR'S OFFICE (0)-4667
(j)
CHARLES H. CRUSE Vice President Nuclear Energy
~GCEIVED 1999 APR 29 PH 6: 07 RULES & OH 8R,,:,NCH US NRC Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657 410 495-4455 BGE April 27, 1999
)>
0 o :::c,1
~
C,-~
C
[
- i:
==<
N U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBERPR P O OSEO U 51 (ftJ t/~F--R.... 9-8'-~C/--.
B ATTENTION:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. I & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318
~
l,J Comments on Draft NUREG-1437, Volume I, Addendum 1, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Main Report, Section 6.3-Transportation; Table 9.1-Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants" (a)
Federal Register Notice 64FR9884, dated February 26, 1999, "Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Availability of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Proposed Rule and Notice In response to the Reference (a), Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is pleased to provide comments on the subject draft addendum to NUREG-143 7, Volume I.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company participated in developing the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute in their letter dated April 27, 1999, and fully endorses those comments.
Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
CHC/RCG/bjd cc:
Document Control Desk, NRC R. S. Fleishman, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire Very truly yours, 7;1~
C. H. Cruse Vice President - Nuclear Energy H. J. Miller, NRC Resident Inspector, NRC R. I. McLean, DNR C
,-o (F,('")
17
- 0 ~
(-::rr, 0
S. S. Bajwa, NRC A. W. Dromerick, NRC J. H. Walter, PSC MAY 2 5 1999
~owledged by card __,._,,, ___
.. ~
~119: ~I.(~ 'rlz,(k~
April 16, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
&188'/. DOC ETED US C
- 99 MAY -6 P 2 :25
Dear Dr. Jackson:
Oh,
F ;. ~ -
1 AD,JC 1 I.:,*
(NRC):-h d
Recently I was informed that the Nuclear Regu atory omm1ss10n as issue a JAN LAVERTY JONES Notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on a generic Environmental MAYOR Impact Statement concerning nuclear power plant operating licenses. I also understand that this planned addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement deals with the transportation of spent nuclear fuel through metropolitan Las Vegas and Clark County en route to Yucca Mountain.
CITY OF LAS VEGAS 400 EAST STEWART AVENUE LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 702 229-6241 (FAX) 385-7960 702 386-9108 (TDD)
I am extremely concerned about this development, which supports DOE intentions to ignore public health and safety by transporting high level nuclear waste shipments across Hoover Dam and through the center of Las Vegas. Las Vegas has a tourism based economy. Numerous high level nuclear waste shipments passing through the center of our city could have serious negative economic and environmental impacts.
I am requesting the following actions: First, that the public comment period, which I understand ends April 2 7, 1999, be extended an additional 90 days to allow local governments to review the planned addendum and analyze the potential impact that this addendum creates for metropolitan Las Vegas and its citizens. Further, that a public meeting be held in the Las Vegas area so that public input may be added to the planned addendum. Finally, that the title of this addendum more accurately reflect the fact that it deals with the transportation of spent fuel through metropolitan Las Vegas area.
I was quite surprised when I was informed of these developments as I understood that Congress, in pending legislation, directed the movement of spent fuel to a potential interim storage facility or geologic repository in Nevada to avoid Hoover Dam and the Las Vegas valley.
Please provide me with a clarification of the recent changes on this issue. Public health and safety for the citizens in the valley is an extremely important issue to me and other local governments that make up Clark County.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
ayor City of Las Vegas N
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY \JUIVIIVU..:>
RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS ST OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFTHECOMMISStON Document Statistics
I t
I D
A Letter to Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4/16/99 cc:
Nevada Congressional Delegation State of Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn Commission on Nuclear Projects Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office Dennis Bechtel, Clark County Nuclear Waste Office City of North Las Vegas City of Henderson Boulder City Las Vegas City Council
FROM : **t~.JSENATOR JON PORTER PHONE NO.
17022948047 Apr. 27 1999 05:42PM Pl JON C. PORTER SF-NATOR ooct*a~ r ED o,sTRICT OFFICE:
U f'
f>0l Wl111,,r.y Rar1c1, Dnvt;, $,1,re Nu. Hi lfon(J,;r~on. Nr,vi1da 090 1 '1 Clark Ne,. 1 O1fice: (70?) '.294 100~
Fax No.: (702) 451-1533 COMMITTEE:S:
v;co Chairm:in Judiciary
- 99 0,
.§,tat£ of Ntu@
MAY -6 P 2 :25 LEGISLATIVE 8UILDING :
401 S. Carson Strecl Car~on City, N;ivada £!9701 -4747 Otfi()e: (702) 667-57d2 Momber Govtrnrnent Affai1t Transport,\liQn
~tnatt Fax NI).; (702) 687-tl:.!06 Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-001
Dear Dr. Jackson:
I am writing to express my concerns over the recent Federal Register Notice codifying an addendum to the "Generic EIS for License Renewal of Power Plants." This addendum addresses the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel through Southern Nevada to Yucca Mountain's proposed repository site. I am in receipt of comments made by both State of Nevada and Clark County agencies. After reviewing this information, I must relate that I share their concerns.
The Addendum fails to consider local plans and conditions as well as forecasts.
Accident rate data used in this report was taken from national accident and is not route-specific. The Department of Energy (DOE) has collected accident data for routes through Clark County to complete its analysis of intermodal low level waste transportation; I would suggest these more accurate statistics should have been used.
In addition, the report overlooks the local traffic gridlock situation which is unique to Clark County. Longer peak hour travel times and heavy gridlock in specific areas could result in increased risk of exposure.
The Addendum fails to consider future urban development along the routes addressed.
It erroneously includes the Las Vegas Beltway, a county road which is not part of the federal highway system. Further, 1990 census data was used when more current demographic information-which reflects our rapid population growth-was readily available. I am very concerned that the Addendum fails in several key areas to define the true risk.
The Addendum is not a sufficient assessment of the risks involved in transporting spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. Use of RADTRAN 4 as a model is not sufficient to meet NEPA requirements. Clark County has unique local conditions* which could result in low probability/high consequence accidents more frequent than RADTRAN assumptions. We are particularly concerned about accidents involving vehicles routinely carrying military explosives to and from Nellis AFB.
A t 2 199 (j)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMJSSIO RULEMAKINGS & ADJUOICAl1CWS STAFF OFFICE OFTHESBJE'ARY OF THE COMM1S90N DocumentStalaUcs P~stmark Date -
'""l--=-t-.:..-'-,.-l-=-::.=...::'..;___JJ,V-b1Urn
(. pi Add'
FROM * : * ~/USENATOR JON PORTER PHONE NO.
17022948047 Apr. 27 1999 05 :43PM P2 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission failed to consult DOE and State of Nevada transportation studies as evidenced by the citations in the NRC's draft report. Had these studies been utilized in preparing the draft report, the NRC would have known that the DOE is no longer considering routes which traverse downtown Las Vegas.
The draft report fails to address the cumulative impacts of all expected spent' nuclear fuel and high-level waste shipments to Yucca Mountain. This report also gives insufficient consideration to radiological risks: it calculates crew and public doses using an average radiation dose rate below the regulatory limit. This is unjustified as no empirical data on past shipments is cited to support this lower dose rate, and no modeling results are offered in support of the lower dose rate for future shipments.
The draft report fails to sufficiently consider routine transportation radiological risks to the public residing, working or institutionally confined at locations near shipping routes. Local conditions could result in higher potential doses to certain individuals.
Risks to state transportation safety workers such as vehicle escorts and truck inspectors are also not given sufficient consideration.
Among my concerns-which are many-is the potential impact of large numbers of nuclear waste shipments on our tourism-based economy. The draft report overlooks the potential adverse impacts on a region reliant on year-round tourism. The report should consider the effects of risk perception on local property values and risk-related impacts on business location and expansion decisions.
I am very disappointed that a public hearing has not been scheduled on this draft report. I call for a public hearing and an extension of the deadline for public comment so that Southern Nevadans are allowed input into a decision which may have major import in their lives.
State Senator
Department of Comprehensive Planning Nuclear Waste Division 500 S Grand Central Pky
- Ste 3012
- PO Box 551751
- Las Vegas NV 89155-1751 (702) 455-5175 Fax (702) 455-5190 Richard B. Holmes, Director Dennis Bechtel, Planning Manager April 28, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 5 I Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (t,t/FR 98'89)
Subject:
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS (Supplement to NUREG-1437)
Dear Dr. Jackson:
The attached comments expresses Clark County, Nevada's immediate concerns about the recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Federal Register Notice that would codify an addendum to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. This addendum, although not clear from the title, exclusively addresses the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel through Clark County en route to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
We are extremely disappointed that the NRC chose not to grant affected parties an extension of time for the review of the document as noted in your April 23, 1999 letter. As you're aware from the presentations by the representatives from the State and local government noted in our March 16, 1999 meeting with the NRC, the transportation of nuclear waste is an extremely important issue in Nevada.
I would like to emphasize several issues discussed in greater detail in our attached comments. The routes illustrated in the text are exclusively located in the densely populated and rapidly growing Las Vegas Valley.
They also create potential problems on current interactions with the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding routing decisions concerning other radioactive waste shipments. This may serve to create confusion among carriers.
Governments in Clark County, for example, have received assurance from DOE/ Nevada that carriers of shipments of low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site have been encouraged not to use the Hoover Dam route (U.S. 93), and U.S. 95 and Interstate 15 through Las Vegas and other routes in the Las Vegas Valley. The rationale is that because of the rapid growth, extensive road construction, high accident rates and gridlock, routing of nuclear waste through the Las Vegas Valley increases the risk both to Clark County citizens (95 percent of 1.3 million resident of Clark County reside in the Las Vegas Valley) as well as an estimated 32 million visitors annually. This will not change with the finalization of the Beltway. Early interaction with Nevada entities and public would have elicited this information.
A 4 1999 by card ______
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YVONNE ATKINSON GATES, Chair
- LORRAINE T. HUNT, Vice-Chair ERIN KENNY
- MARY J. KINCAID
- LANCE M. MALONE
- MYRNA WILLIAMS
- BRUCE L. WOODBURY DALE W. ASKEW, County Manager I
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI ION RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACEOFTHESECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Dricument ati ti Postm
'S'6,._..___~
1/
Copies I
drJ' UC ~
~ 'K°iDr
letter to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman US Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 28, 1999 Page 2 It is our understanding that the information and analyses in the EIS are intended to be generic and to address cumulative impacts. If this is the case the document is still not sufficiently comprehensive in meeting this objective. To be complete it also needs to consider the potential for thousands of low-level radioactive waste shipments that may traverse Southern Nevada, should DOE name the Nevada Test Site as a regional storage, treatment or disposal site sometime this year.
Public comments obtained in a county workshop on the evening of April 27, 1999 will be sent to you within a working day after we receive them, and we would appreciate your full consideration of both sets of comments. This is especially important since the supplemental analysis exclusively addresses the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel through Clark County en route to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository.
We trust that you will further take into consideration our concerns about the need for additional time to review this document, the need for a public meeting in Nevada where the NRC would have the opportunity to understand and address public concerns, as well as the substantive issues raised in the review. We would like to discuss these issues with NRC staff at the earliest opportunity.
Planning Manager cc: Clark County Commissioners The Honorable Kenny Guinn, Governor Senator Richard H. Bryan Senator Harry Reid Representative Shelley Berkley Representative James Gibbons Jan Jones, Mayor, City of Las Vegas Michael L. Montandon, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas Robert Ferraro, Mayor, City of Boulder City James Gibson, Mayor, City of Henderson Robert Loux, Agency for Nuclear Projects p:\nwcommon\eisref\nrceislr.a27
NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Draft Report, Supplemental Analysis for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, February 1999 Introduction Comments by Clark County, Nevada 27 April 1999 The purpose of these comments is to present the views and positions of Clark County, Nevada, regarding policy, procedural and methodological aspects of NUREG-1437, Volume I, Addendum I, Draft Report, Supplemental Analysis for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS], February 1999. Clark County, whose urban area includes the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, has been defined in Addendum I and the 26 February 1999 Federal Register notice as "within the vicinity" of the candidate high-level waste repository site at Yucca Mountain.
Background
According to the Federal Register notice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] is proposing to amend its regulations on the environmental information required in applications to renew the operating licenses of nuclear power plants. The supplement to NUREG-1437 addresses two aspects of high-level nuclear waste transportation that were not adequately addressed in the GEIS. First, it would expand requirements for generic information to include the cumulative environmental impacts of transporting spent fuel to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, including those attributable to use of higher enriched fuel and higher bumup during the renewal term. Second, the amendment would also require applicants for license renewal to address local traffic impacts due to the continued operation of a power plant, including those in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, the candidate site for a high-level nuclear waste repository. This latter requirement was inadvertently omitted from the current rule.
Of great significance is the fact that the NRC has directed its staff to proceed with this rulemaking to categorize the impacts of high-level waste [HL W] as a Category 1 issue instead of a Category 2 issue.
This means that the findings of this supplement can be codified in IO CFR 51 and adopted in individual license renewal reviews by NRC with no further analysis needed. Administratively, it would cut down review time by NRC since staff would no longer need to consider impacts of transportation in each license renewal application.
Clark County Comments Clark County's comments are divided into seven major categories that address the policies, procedures, and methodologies used in preparing the supplemental analysis. These seven categories have to do with the definition of cumulative impacts, accessibility and meaningfulness to the public, consultation with local sources, consideration of previous studies, adequacy of the risk assessment, assessment of economic consequences, and special effects of nuclear waste transportation COMMENT 1: Definition of Cumulative Impacts The Addendum inadequately addresses the cumulative impacts of all the radioactive materials shipments through Clark County. The Yucca Mountain proposed repository site partially lays within the boundary
of the Nevada Test Site (NTS)- a facility that is being used to store low level radioactive waste [LLW].
Recent environmental documents by DOE suggest that the NTS will become a regional or national disposal site for LL W, thus increasing the number of waste-laden tracb and trains that may traverse Clark County. In addition to the shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel, the analysis must consider the impact of DOE-owned spent fuel (including naval reactor fuel), shipments of vitrified civilian and defense high-level wastes, and other hazardous materials shipments (4800 each day) that pass through Clark County. Added to this, the Addendum fails to consider the cumulative impacts on Clark County of many thousands of past and present, DOE shipments of radioactive wastes to the Nevada Test Site.
COMMENT 2: Accessibility and Meaningfulness to the Affected l'ablic A glaring omission in this process is NRC's failure to provide an oppommity for the affected public in Clark County to participate in this rulemaking process. Although regulations do not specifically call for such public workshops or hearings in a rulemaking, the intent of this particular supplement to amend an existing EIS calls for a meaningful public process to include those who may be affected by this program.
Since the NRC has chosen not to conduct a hearing, Clark County will do so and provide ant public comments to the NRC immediately upon the completion of its public comment session.
In its present form, the report is not meaningful to the public. The lilGHW A Y and RADTRAN 4 printouts appended to the report are so cryptic as to be useless to anyone who is not familiar with the assumptions and workings of both models. Even an expert in RADTRAN analysis would have difficulty extracting sufficient information from Attachment 2 to verify the draft report' s conclusions.
Additionally, it is impossible to determine from Attachment 2 whether the spent fuel isotope inventory input represents the fuel considered in the Addendum.
COMMENT 3: Consultation with Nevada Sources Regarding Ara Plans and Current Conditions.
We believe that the information used in preparing the supplemental analysis would have been more reliable had NRC staff consulted with agencies of the State ofNevada, Clark County, local jurisdictions and tribal entities. In this section, we have provided information and examples to assist the NRC in providing more accurate estimates of risk and impact than is presently the case.
Nevada State Agencies NRC staff and contractors did not consult with State of Nevada agencies during the preparation of the draft report. Staff of these agencies have extensive knowledge of conditions and regulations in the state and can contribute to risk and impact analysis, specifically in the.areas of public safety and health effects. The NRC should have contacted four agencies that have specific authority and knowledge in the area, including the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects (NANP), the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), the Nevada Department of Transportation (ND011, and the Radiological Health Section of the Nevada Division of Health (RHS).
Local Governments A major concern is that the NRC failed to consult with potentially affected local governments. Except for limited contacts with the Clark County Department of Public Works, NRC staff did not take the time to determine appropriate local governments during the preparation of the draft report and to consult with them to assess local conditions. In its role as an affected unit of local government in the Yucca Mountain Program, Clark County has had the opportunity to conduct programs, examine and monitor nuclear waste programs and policies, and interact with government agencies at all levels. This experience and knowledge could benefit the NRC in assuring the accuracy of the information used in the analysis.
2
County and city personnel have special knowledge of unique local regulations, conditions and concerns necessary for route selection and risk reduction. At a minimum, the NRC staff should have notified and provided specific information to the local jurisdictions in Clark County.
Native Americans The NRC should have consulted with two Native American communities directly affected by spent nuclear fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain. The Moapa Band of Paiutes reservation, located northeast of Las Vegas, is near all truck shipments on 1-15 and all rail shipments using the Union Pacific railroad.
The Las Vegas Paiute Colony reservation (five miles north of Las Vegas) is in the vicinity of all truck shipments on US 95. Additionally, several potential rail access corridors identified by DOE cross lands claimed by the Western Shoshone National Council under the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. These entities are in a position to provide information regarding sociological and cultural impacts that may accrue due to high-level waste transportation.
There are four areas of the supplemental analysis that could have benefitted by consultation with the State of Nevada, Clark County or local jurisdictions. These have to do with the definition of the study area, accident rates and traffic gridlock, local area plans and demographic information.
Study area. A particularly conspicuous example of the lack of good information is that while the study area is defined as Clark County, the analysis of Route 1 begins at Overton, Nevada. This is 30 miles short of Clark County's northeast border near Mesquite, a rapidly developing resort area. We have enclosed a map of Clark County for your future reference.
Accident rates and traffic gridlock. Correct accident data along the pertinent routes is very important. The Addendum relies on national accident data rather than route-specific data. The Yucca Mountain Environmental Assessment in 1986 was corrected for the same error. Although no accident data for the beltway is currently available, relevant accident data for the region should be collected and used in the risk analysis. The NRC may wish to refer to recent Department of Energy accident data for routes through Clark County that was used to make its analysis of intermodal low level waste transportation more accurate.
The report ignores the effects of dense peak hour traffic and gridlock on risk. In an all-truck shipment scenario, it is likely that it will be impossible to implement time of day restrictions that will remove waste traffic from peak hour travel times. Additionally, the peak hours in Clark County are longer than national averages. Typical peak hours are from 6:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M.
and from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. The insertion of high-level waste shipments into the peak hour traffic will increase the risk.
Traffic gridlock incidents could result in individual radiation exposures of up to 40 mrem person per incident. Drivers and passengers of vehicles in traffic gridlock incidents could receive potentially significant radiation doses as a result proximity to an undamaged truck cask for a lengthy period. The addendum does not account for peak hour congestion, gridlock and other unique traffic conditions.
Local Area Plans. The failure to consider local area development plans will result in the underestimation ofrisk and impacts. In particular, the City of Las Vegas is planning a major development at the intersection of the Beltway and US 95. This high-density urban development will bring over 20,000 employees to the vicinity of that intersection and create an urban area surrounding by high density housing and mixed use zoning. The IDGHW A Y model outputs indicate that the suburban and urban population densities along the Route 3 beltway are: 924 suburban and zero urban population.
3
Another example of the NRC's superficial study of risk is that the analysis is predicated on the use of the Las Vegas beltway as a potential route. Had NRC staff contacted local officials, they would have learned that the beltway is a county road-not part of the Federal Highway system.
While the federal routing regulations allow beltways to be used for highway-route-controlled quantity shipments, it is not clear that the beltway may be used since it is not part of the federal system. Given the costs to decontaminate and rehabilitate even a small portion of the beltway, it is unlikely the County will accede to its use by the DOE.
Demographic information. The Addendum defines the affected population as those Clark County residents living within.5 mile of a route. Unfortunately, the Addendum relies on 1990 census data, despite the availability of more current data. The most current demographic information was readily available from a number of different sources in the county and should have been consulted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is an important issue because of Clark County' s rapid population growth as shown below [Source: Clark County Hazardous Materials Emergency Operations Plan] :
Year Population
%Change
%Change 1990-1994 1990-1997 1997 1,170,113 52%
1994 986,152 28%
1990 768,203 This failure to account for Clark County's population changes suggests that the analysis underestimates risk and impacts.
Another type of population of special concern to Clark County is that of nonresidents, or visitors.
From 1991, annual tourist volume in Clark County grew from 23 million to 30 million, an average of over 82,000 persons each day. Since these visitors most usually stay in hotels near several major.routes, the incremental risk to them should be factored into the risk analysis.
These visitors also present an additional hazard on the roadways. Approximately 40% of the visitors to Clark County arrive by car. These drivers are unfamiliar with the road network and are involved in a disproportionate number of highway accidents and incidents.
Population forecasts for the area surrounding the beltway are also readily available. Because of land use plans and zoning restrictions, the nighttime population density along the beltway will be similar to the urban core densities. Although the Addendum states that it has assumed some population growth along the route, it does not describe the assumptions regarding the growth.
The only foreseeable difference in population density between the three routes will be in employment. Unfortunately, the Addendum does not consider employment population data in any of the calculations. These data are readily available from Clark County.
COMMENT 4: Consideration of Previous DOE and State of Nevada Studies The citations in the draft report reveal that the NRC failed to consult any of the extensive transportation studies prepared by DOE since 1986. NRC also failed to review any of the transportation studies prepared by Nevada state agencies, and Affected Units of Local Government [Yucca Mountain Program]. The Addendum is weakened by this omission. Had NRC consulted these reports, it would have learned that as of June 1998, the DOE is no longer considering routes that pass through downtown Las Vegas. The NRC would also have learned that the State of Nevada has already studied routes that may pass through Nevada. A partial list of these reports is below:
4
Auden, L., Nuclear Waste Shipping Container Response to Severe Accident Conditions: A Brief Critique of the Modal Study, NWPA-'IN-005-90, Prepared for Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, December, 1990.
Callers, J., et al., State ofNevada Socioeconomic Studies of Yucca Mountain, 1986 - 1992: An Annotated Guide and Research Summaey. NWPA-SE-056-93, Prepared for Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office, September, 1992.
Freudenburg, W.R., Organizational Management of Long-Term Risks: Implications for Risk and Safety in the Transportation of Nuclear Wastes, NWPA-'IN-013-91, Prepared for Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, September, 1991.
Golding, D., and A. White, Guidelines on the Scope, Content, and Use of Comprehensive Risk Assessment in the Management of High-Level Nuclear Waste Management, NWPA-'IN-007-90, Prepared for Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, December, 1990.
Halstead, R.J., et al., State of Nevada Comments on the OCRWM From-Reactor Spent Fuel Shipping Cask Preliminaey Design Reports, NWPA-'IN-009-90, December, 1990.
Halstead, R.J., and J.D. Ballard, Nuclear Waste Transportation Safety and Security Issues: The Risk of Terrorism and Sabotage Against Repositoey Shipments, Prepared for Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office October, 1997.
Hill, C.V., et al., The Nevada Railroad System: Physical, Operational, and Accident Characteristics, YMP 91-19, Prepared for Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV, September, 1991.
Mushkatel, A., and K.D. Pijawka, A Nuclear Waste Transportation in Nevada: A Case for Stigma-Induced Economic Vulnerability,@ in State ofNevada Socioeconomic Studies: Biannual Repo):t. 1993 -
1995, NWPA-SE-063-95, Prepared for Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office June, 199517.
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office, A Report on High-Level Nuclear Waste Transportation: Prepared Pursuant to Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 8 of the 1987 Nevada Legislature, NWP A-'IN-001-88, December, 1988.
Planning Information Corporation, The Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste: A Systematic Basis for Planning and Management at National, Regional, and Community Levels, Prepared for Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, September, 1996.
Sandquist, G.M., et al., Exposures and Health Effects from Spent Fuel Transportation, RAE-8339/12-1, Prepared for U.S. DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Salt Lake City: Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation, November 29, 1985.
Resnikoff, M., Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Nuclear Waste Transportation: A Case Study of the Use ofRADTRAN in the 1986 Environmental Assessment for Yucca Mountain, NWPA-'IN-006-90, December, 1990.
Souleyrette, R.R., S. Sathisan and R. di Bartolo, Yucca Mountain Transportation Routes: Preliminaey Characterization and Risk Analysis. Vols. 1-3, NWPA-'IN-011-91, Prepared for Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office, May 31, 1991.
TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc., Nevada Potential Repositoey Preliminaey Transportation 5
I Strategy Study 2, Vols. 1 and 2, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, Las Vegas, NV, February, 1996.
U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Assessment: Yucca Mountain Site. Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada, DOE/RW-0073, Prepared by Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, May, 1986.
U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Highway Route Study. DOE/NV-10576-7, Prepared by Yucca Mountain Project Office, Las Vegas, NV, April, 1989. 4.
U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation Experience, YMP/91-17, Prepared by Technical and Management Support Services Contractor, September, 1991.
COMMENT 5: Adequacy of the Risk Assessment The supplemental analysis does not provide a legally sufficient assessment of the risks of transporting spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain through Clark County. It relies entirely on the RADTRAN 4 model to estimate incident-free radiological exposures and some of the consequences of radiological releases resulting from accidents. Use of RADTRAN 4, is not sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA. NRC must also address:
Unique local conditions that could result in low probability/high consequence accidents with frequencies and consequences greater than those assumed in RAD TRAN. Clark County is particularly concerned about accidents involving trucks and aircraft carrying military explosives, because of routine activities at Nellis Air Force Base.
Unique circumstances of the planned transportation operations for which there is little or no historical experience and/or empirical data. The transportation of spent fuel from reactors to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain has no parallel. Previous spent fuel transportation experience is qualitatively different from the proposed action. For example, the potential for sabotage or terrorism against the shipping casks may result in the release of radioactive materials. Both domestic and international circumstances suggest that terrorist attack is more rather than less likely than in the past.
Human error throughout the entire waste disposal system. Human error may cause or increase the probability of the release of radiation into the environment. There are a number of examples throughout the world that support the fact that human error is a major factor in on-site and transportation incidents.
Organizational and institutional shortcomings that contribute to risk. A number of studies have documented the contribution of organizational and management failures and attenuation to industrial and transportation accidents. _Parallels for failures of this type are easily found, especially regarding the Three Mile Island and Exxon Valdez; incidents.
Clark County encourages the NRC to adopt an approach to risk assessment that is more consistent with the state of art in this field rather than a simplistic set of computer models. For more information, NRC staff should refer to:
Stern, Paul C. and Harvey V. Fineberg, editors. Understanding Risk. National Academy Press.
Washington D.C. 1996.
6
COMMENT 6: Assessment of Economic Consequences Nowhere does the supplemental analysis reveal the details of radioactive materials cleanup costs resulting from NRC's "most severe" transportation accident. The DOE's 1986 assessment assumed a very severe accident could release 1,380 curies ofCo-60, Cs-134, and CS-137. The cleanup costs for a rural area were estimated at over $600 million (in 1985 dollars), with 460 days to perform the cleanup.
The DOE speculated that cleanup in an urban area would cost several billion dollars.
The economic costs of a release of radiation are an output of RADTRAN. Although this information is automatically produced by RADTRAN, it was not included in the report. Clark County believes it inexcusable that this information was not provided or used in the presentation of risk estimates.
COMMENT 7: Consideration of the Special Effects of Transporting Radioactive Materials The Addendum fails to address the adverse impacts spent fuel waste shipments may have on the cost and provision of government services, land valuation and tourism-based economies. Despite long-standing legal precedents, the NRC analysis failed to consider the full context in which the transportation takes place. Since these critical issues were ignored, the results of the analysis underestimate the risks, impacts and potential costs to local governments, businesses and residents in Clark County. The action proposed in the Addendum could represent a huge, unfunded mandate imposed on the State of Nevada and local governments.
The Addendum predicts between 12 and 19 nonradiological accidents during the 40 to 60 year period of repository operations. Clark County believes that accident rates on the routes proposed in the Addendum would result in many more accidents than predicted using national accident rates. However, the number of accidents predicted by NRC could have a major adverse economic impact on the Southern Nevada even if there are no releases of radioactive materials.
7
- .I f t~ t I D[C'D t ' * \ ~. l,*\ l,
Sent By:
5551212 ;
Apr-28-99 0:34; Page 1 II:,s-PH lf-~100tWETED U t'PL Flowed Science Creates Flawed Environmental Policy:
99 APR 28 Comments on the February 26, 1999 A10 :JQ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Changes for Renewal of Nuclear Licenses Kristin Shrader-Frechette Alfred C. De Crane Chair, l,- r*
AL '
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 5/
Professor of Philosophy and Concurrent Professor of Biology University of Notre Dame f.,t/ FR 9 88'f 336 O'Shaughnessy Holl Notre Dame, IN 46556 emoil:Kristin.Shrader-Frechette. l@nd.edu The February 26, 1999 notice of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in the Federal Register, deals exclusively with transportation of spent nuclear fuel and attempts to provide a risk assessment for this proposed transport_ The draft report is seriously flawed, both with respect to scientific methods used in the draft risk assessment and with respect to ethics. The document fails to provide conditions for free informed consent and stakeholder involvement guaranteed both by the 1994 Clinton Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and by recent recommendations of the US Notional Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. As a consequence of these scientific and ethical flaws, the resulting policy recommendations, proposed by the NRC, ore seriously and unavoidably flawed. They constitute one of the poorest examples of attempted public policymaking in the US today. Subsequent sedions of this report address, respedively, the ethical shortcomings of the report and the scientific shortcomings.
- 1. Ethical Shortcomings of the Droft Assessment-Notice The key ethical shortcomings of the draft risk assessment-notice are that (1) it fails to satisfy the conditions for disclosure of risk; (2) as a consequence of this failure, it does not meet the requirements for free informed consent, as mandated for all ethical situations; {3} it violates norms of environmental justice mandated by the Clinton administration; and (4) it violates fair play and justice by virtue of its ignoring the requirements for stakeholder involvement in decisions about risk.
1.1 Failure to satisfy the conditions for disclosure of risk Ever since the famous Nuremberg Trials after World War II, ethicists have realized and ed by caRJ _M A_v_* _4....
t99.... 9 4,,,11....,..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COtJIMB~ION DocumentSttiallics Postmark D 4-pfl/ q9 la¥ Copies~llved __
- _....;.I_,
Add'I Coples
- ~ __
Sp
Sent By:
5551212; Apr-28-99 0:35j Page 2 ag~eed that.it is acceptable to impose a risk on another human being only if that hum on being has given consent to the risk. Ethicists have outlined four conditions all of which are necessary in order to attain genuine free informed consent. These c~nditions are disclosu~Q of t~e risk to the potential victim, the victim's understanding it, the victim's voluntariness in accepting it, and the victim's competence in evaluating the risk (Faden and Beauchamp 1986). The assessment-notice of the NRC fails to provide for the
~ondition of disclosure and, as a consequence, fails to meet the requirements of free informed consent. It fails to provide for disclosure of the proposed policy for at least 3 reasons. First, the publication of the notice was inaccurate and misleading in referring only to requirements for review of nuclear power plant licenses (see State of of Nevada, 1999, p. 2), even though the entire document was about spent-fuel transportation.
Second, the NRC staff and contractors did not consult with the State of Nevada during preparation of the draft report, and so its contents were not disclosed in a timely fashion. Third, because the draft report refers readers to the "results of the RADTRAN analysis (attachment 2)" (pp. 6-9, 23-24), for information about the accident-risk calculations, while the attachment contains only raw data, the report does not really disclose the calculations in a way in which they can meaningfully be evaluated.
1 _2 Failure to meet the requirements for free informed consent All three flows (just discussed), in disclosing occident consequences and planned policy, mean that the draft report was not completed in a way that satisfied the necessary condition of disclosure. And because the NRC Assessment-Notice of 1999 did not meet the required conditions for disclosing the risk to the potentially affected parties, the notice has violated the norms for free informed consent that are mandated by virtually all ethicists.
As one national Academy committee put it: risk assessments are "controversial when they pay little attention to issues of the rights of individuals or groups to control their own lives," to give or withold consent to the risks imposed on them (NRC 1996, p. 42). This NRC dra~ report is both controversial and unethical.
1.3 Violations of environmental justice The NRC draft report has failed, ethically, in large part because the authors have forgotten that managing environmental risks has become a question of fairness, moral responsibility, and distributional equity" (NRC 1996, p. 40). It is not fair to fail to disclose risk information to affected citizens, and thus to deprive them of information they need to make a free and informed choice about whether to accept a particular policy. Similarly, it is not fair for the NRC to attempt to impose risks in such a way that the burdens fall disproportionately on groups that already are disenfranchised by society.
It is a truism that environmental risks have otten been imposed on vulnerable or minority groups (see, for example, Bullard 1990). For this reason, President Clinton 2
Sent By:
5551212; Apr-28 -99 0:35; Page 3/ 6 directed, in 1994 Executive Order 12898, that federal agencies must make equity issues a routine part of ~roblem definition. The NRC report, however, does not make equity a central part of,ts problem definition and, in fact, it flagrantly ignores equify issues.
NRC staff and contractors did not consult with Nevada Indian tribes during preparation of the draft report, even though the Moapa Indian Reservation would be traversed by all proposed truck shipments on 1-15 and all rail shipments using the union Pacific mainline between Salt Lake and Los Angeles. Similarly, the NRC did not consult residents of the Las Vegas Indian reservation, even though it would be traversed by all truck shipments on US 95. Nor did the NRC consult the Western Shoshone National Council, even though potential roil corridors cross lands claimed by the Shoshone (see State of Nevada 1999, p. 3). All of these omissions constitute flagrant violations of norms of environmental justice.
1.4 Violations of requirements for stakeholder involvement Apart from its violations of environmental justice, the NRC draft report errs more generally, from an ethical point of view, because it did not involve Nevada stakeholders at all in the draft report. The state of Nevada (1999, p. 2) pointed out that the NRC failed to consult both with Nevada stafe agencies and with Nevada local governments, as well as with Nevada Indian Tribes (State of Nevada 1999, p. 3). This failure is reprehensible both because citizens hove the right to have a voice in decisions affecting them, and because the NRC, in its past dealings with Nevada, has failed to meet ethical and legal requirements for stakeholder involvement (see Shrader-Frechette, 1993).
Moreover, in a recent report, a committee of the US National Academy of Sciences argued that the default assumption for risk assessment should be "that participation across the spectrum of interested and affected parties is warranted at each significant step" of risk assessment (NRC 1996, p. 87). The NRC has provided no justification for ignoring this directive of the Notional Academy of Sciences.
- 2. Scientific Shortcomings of the Draft Assessment-Notice Apart from examples of ethical flows in the NRC report, the document has several key scientific shortcomings. Five of these failures are that (1) it employs a questionable, highly stipulative definition of "risk"; (2) it ignores relevant data that are crucial for determining risk; (3) it begs numerous questions of radiation dose and risk; (4) it employs misleading, if not false, average dose data; and (5) it manipulates dose data in ways that produce a more "acceptable," lower dose.
2.1 A questionable, highly stipulative definition of "ri$k" As many risk experts (including members of the National Academy) have noted, the choice of a risk measure can make a big difference in risk assessment; such choices ore judgmental and affect the legitimacy of the risk assessment (NRC 1996, p. 50]. The 3
Sent By:
5551212; Apr-28-99 0:35; Page 4 / 6 NR~- risk ?ssessment included in the draft document has extremely questionable le91t1macy m part because of its problematic definition of "risk." The document ignores the_ concerns of the state of Nevada, and does not even address them, which is prima fac,e suspect. It uses a narrow definition of accident risk (pp. 6, 23) that fails to take accou~t of sever~ transportation accidents, foils to describe accident severity categories, and fails to describe NRC assumptions about the probability and consequences of most se:ere transportation accidents (State of Nevada 1 999, pp. 11 -12). There is little evidence that the NRC has considered "risk" in the detailed and complex way that experts believe is essential for adequate risk assessment (see NRC 1996).
2.2 Ignoring relevant data At the center of the NRC cursory and inadequate account of risk, in the 1999 document, is its failure to consult data that ore crucial to its conclusions. As the state of Nevada (1999, p. 3) points out, the NRC apparently consulted none of the more than 36 major transportation studies prepared by Nevada state, local, and university groups. The state also lists 5 US Department of Energy reports thot the NRC should have consulted but did not. NRC failure to consult standard, available documents - crucial to its report -
suggests that it has a predetermined conclusion about spent-fuel transportation, and that no amount of evidence will be allowed to interfere with this predetermined conclusion.
The NRC's ignoring crucial documents in its draft report also is troublesome because there are whole classes of information that are missing from the report. for example, the document ignores discussion of the potential for sabotage, terrorism, and human error. Such omissions are especially serious because most technology-related accidents are a result not of technical failure but instead of human error or causes. Realizing this fact, a recent National Academy of Sciences committee noted that social data are crucial to risk assessments (NRC 1994, pp. 25ff.). Yet relevant social data are absent from the NRC document.
2.3 Begging numerous questions of radiation dose and risk Perhaps the most serious flaw in any scientific study is assuming some conclusion that one ought to prove, that is, begging the question. Begging the question frequently occurs, as a recent academy study noted (NRC, 1994, p. 157), because the available data are not adequate to perform a risk assessment. Instead of admitting this fact, however, assessors sometimes beg the question. This is precisely what occurred in the recent NRC Assessment-Notice. The report cited no empirical data on N spent-fuel shipments, and there is no operating experience with spent-fuel shipments in the casks to be used. Hence the report begs the question of cask suitability, just as it begs the question of the safety of spent-fuel shipments. Good science admits the areas in which it is uncertain or deficient with respect to data. The NRC report does neither.
4
Sent By:
5551212; Apr-28 -99 0 : 36; Page 5/ 6 2.4 Employing misleading, if not false, average dose data Even when the NRC report does provide data, often they are misleading. For example, the NRC calculates crew and public doses of ionizing radiation by using an average dose rate, and one that is lower than the regulatory limit.
If this lower dose rate is achievable, then the regulations should be made strider with respect to health and safety. The fad that the radiation regulations are not strider-and thus consistent with NRC assumptions - argues that stricter regulations are not achievable. Moreover, even if the NRC had used allowable dose limits in its calculations, it still would err because it uses average dose limits. Average exposures foil to take account of high-end doses.
Average exposures, moreover, typically are not those that kill people.
The high exposures - that average doses cover up - are often the dangerous ones, and the NRC report takes no account of these. Indeed, it has no worst-case analyses, or even an analysis that takes account of allowable dose-limit exposures.
As numerous risk experts, including a recent National Academy committee noted (NRC 1994, p. 193}, there are at least two reasons that large variabilities in data can lead to precarious decisions if average values are used. One problem is that the characteristics of persons or values that are far from average are covered up by the average and "can no longer be identified." The other major problem is that often the average reponds to no real value in nature, but is merely midway between two or more sets of quite diverse values, such as midway between a very high and a very low exposure to ionizing radiation (NRC 1994, p. 193). For this reason, the National Academy repeatedly criticized the use of "single-point estimates," or averages, to characterize o risk or dose (see, for example, NRC 1994, p. 184). The NRC fails to practice good risk-assessment methods and to heed the academy's warnings. As a result of the NRC's ignoring individual doses and focusing on average, below-regulation exposures, the annual radiation doses received by individuals (near the spent-fuel transport routes) could be nearly three times greater than background exposures (State of Nevada 1999, p. 9) -
on extraordinarily high exposure.
2.5 Manipulating dose data to produce g more "acceptable" dose The NRC failure to take account of allowable dose-limit exposures, in calculating average radiation dose, is all the more problematic because the NRC is inconsistent with government pradice in its use of dose assumptions. When the NRC wants to show that average doses of ionizing radiation are low, then it assumes that exposures never get as high as regulations allow (pp. 4-5); but when the Department of Energy (DOE) wants to maximize cask capacity, it assumes that radiation doses can be as high as allowed by regulations, so as to provide for the most "economical" casks. The NRC and the DOE cannot have it both ways, unless they wonts to be accused of selective manipulation of the dose assumptions, so os to serve their own predetermined ends.
5
Sent By:
5551212; Apr-28 -99 0:36; Page 6/ 6 Because of uncertainty in the methods and models used for risk assessment, experts (including National Academy members) point out that assessors always ought to make clear the uncertainty in the models and methods that they use (NRC 1994, pp. 160 ff.).
Not only does the NRC not make clear the uncertainty in its models, methods, and dose assumptions, but it uses inconsistent dose assumptions, as the previous paragraph argued.
- 3. Conclusion If the NRC is to hove o credible draft risk assessment document, it must begin by correcting the egregious errors of ethical procedure and scientific practice exhibited in its publication of February 26, 1999. Such a document could never pass blind peer review, if it hoped to be published in a scientific journal. The shoddiness of this document insults the interests and the intelligence of all American citizens.
References Robert Bullard, 1990, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, Boulder, Westview.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette, 1993, Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Berkeley, University of California Press.
State of Nevada, 1999, Comments on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Federal Register Notice of February 26, 1999 on Changes to Requirements for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operotjng Licenses, Carson City, Nevada, Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office.
US National Research Council, 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
, 1994, Science and Jvdgment in Risk Assessment, Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1999, "Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," ~rol Register, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, February 26, 1999.
6
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION WA SH INGTON, D.C. 20555--0001 DOCKETED L,s~.;Qr-.
April 23, 1999
- 99 APR 27 P 3 :24 Mr. Dennis Bechtel, Planning Manager Department of Comprehensive Planning Nuclear Waste Division Clark County, Nevada 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 3012 P.O. Box 551751 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-1751
Dear Mr. Bechtel:
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR SI
( t,i/-F'R '18'KI-}
f,t./ FR 'jg-t;q)
T In your letter of April 6, 1999, you expressed concern about the proposed rule that would amend the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRG) environmental review requirements for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, which was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 1999 (64 FR 9884) for a 60-day comment period. This rule is intended for the specific purpose of assessing the environmental impacts of the transportation of high-level waste related to applications to renew nuclear power plant operating licenses. For the reasons described herein, we have decided not to grant your request to extend the public comment period, not to reissue the proposed rule with a different title, and not to hold a public hearing in Nevada before the end of the comment period. As stated in the Federal Register notice, however, comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered to the extent practical.
In promulgating the final rule for the environmental aspects of license renewal, the Commission recognized that it may be appropriate to address the impacts of the transportation of high-level waste on a generic basis. The intent of this proposed rule change is to reach a generic conclusion, such that license renewal applicants would not need to address this issue individually. Specifically, the proposed amendment would expand the generic findings that currently are codified in the regulations addressing the environmental impacts of license renewal to cover the transportation of spent fuel to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain during the renewal term of individual nuclear power plants.
The licensing process for Yucca Mountain requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to submit, for review and approval, an application to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repository. Along with the application, DOE must submit an environmental impact statement (EIS). In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the NRG staff will review the DOE EIS to determine whether it is sufficient to satisfy the NRG National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. In the EIS, the DOE staff will evaluate the environmental impacts, including transportation associated with the construction and use of a geologic repository. The draft DOE EIS is scheduled to be available for public review and comment by July 1999. You will have the opportunity to comment on it at that time.
- Given the discrete issues covered by this proposed rule change, the Commission believes that the 60-day public comment period, which extends from February 26 to April 27, 1999, is reasonable. Furthermore, since the proposed rule change applies to the specific aspects of l:cense renewal, we believe that a change in the title could create ambiguity as to the intended purpose of this rule change. In view of this specific purpose, the Commission does not believe that a public meeting is warranted before the end of the comment period. As previously stated, however, comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered to the extent practical.
In addition, you requested that the NRC provide affected parties with some statement of the regulatory effect of the interrelationships between the numerous other similar analyses. This issue will be addressed by the staff as a comment on the proposed rule.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
~.1.!'~06-~9 01 :42pm From-COMPLAN ENVIRO 7023824593 T-114 P.02/03 F-179
-Department of Comprehensive Planning Nuclear Waste Division 500 S Grand Central Pky
- Ste 3012
- PO Bo:x: 551751
- Las Vegas NV 89155-1751 (702) 455-5175 Fax (702) 455-5190 Richard B. Holmes, Director Dennis Bechtel, Planning Manager B..1intnl~&.~~.D'Yff..lK'\fLlc:IA April 6, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR s I The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
( t,l/f:Pqgs'I)
(~t/ FR. q tgq)
- l>
-0 N
-..J 7J w
Subject:
Draft NUREG-1437 Generic Environmental Impact Stattgient (EIS)~
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Dear Chairwoman Jackson:
This letter expresses Clark County, Nevada's immediate concerns about the recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Federal Register Notice that would codify an addendum to the NUREG-1437 Generic EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.
This addendum exclusively addresses the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel through Clark County en route to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Clark County has four immediate concerns.
First, the brief comment period (30 days) does not provide affected units of local government as defined under section 116c of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, sufficient time to assess the full impact of the proposed addendum. It is important for the NRC to appreciate that we need time to analyze the wide-ranging impacts of both the technical contents of the document and the broad policy implications. We would appreciate NRC's extension of the comment period to 120 days to permit proper evaluation of the addendum.
Second, because of potential impacts, NRC should hold at least one public hearing in Clark County to obtain public input about the proposed addendum. The action proposed in this addendum could have important effects on Clark County and the -
public must have the opportUnity to comment on the addendum.
Third, the NRC should reissue the addendum with a more descriptive title and abstract.
The purpose of the Federal Register notice is to ensure that the public is aware of activities taken by the Federal Government relative to transporting nuclear waste.
- B04RO OF COUNTY COMMIS$10Nl<RS YVONNE ATl<INSON GATl:S. Chair * ~ORIUINE T. HUNT, \lico-Chair ERIN l<ENNY
- MARY J. KINCAID
- LANCE M, MALONE
- M~NA IIVIU.IAMS
- SRI.ICE L. WOOOSI.IRY DALE w. ASY;:IN, Coumy M""llll8f
~
u w
c/.l m
0.. u C<l er:
- .
- J
~
~
r From-CO~PLAN ENVIRO April 6. i 999 Pagel 7023824593 T-1 14 P.03/03 F-179 Given the title of the addendum, it is likely that many interested parties will remain unaware of the contents and importance of the document or that transportation issues are being elevated.
Fowth. the NRC should provide affected parties with some statement of the regulatory effect of the interrelationships between the numerous other similar analyses. The Yucca Mountain EIS, Waste Management PEIS, Low Level Waste Environmental Assessment, and the Nevada Test Site EIS are all document$ that present variations on the risk of transporting the waste through Clark County, Nevada. The disparate and cumulative affects of the transport of nuclear waste from these programs needs to be recognized in NUREG-1437.
We eagerly await your response to this letter and will appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. We are preparing more detailed comments to the proposed changes.
Dennis Be Planning Manager cc:
Senator Harry Reid Senator Richard Bryan Congressman Jim Gibbons Congresswoman Shelley Berkeley Governor Kenny Guinn Commissioner Myrna Williams Rohen Loux, Execurivo Director, N.W. Project Office Fred Dilger, C.C. N.W. Divi~ion Kevin Smedley, C.C. N.W. Division p:\nwcommon\typing\jackson
(j)
KENNY C. GUINN Governor STATE OF NEVADA JOHN P. COMEAUX Director April 22, 1999 DOC ElED ts rnc
- 99 APR 26 P 4 :4 1 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 209 E. Musser Street, Room 200 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298 Fax(775)684-0260 (775) 684-0209 OF; RUt ADJL'.J DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE.PR 51
(&'-IFR~ggq)
Secretary, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re:
SAi NV# E1999-099 Project: Generic EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Enclosed are the comments from the Nevada Division of Water Resources concerning the above referenced report. These comments constitute the State Clearinghouse review of this proposal as per Executive Order 12372. Please address these comments or concerns in your final decision. If you have questions, please contact me at 684-0209.
Sincerely,
~£~
Heather K. Elliott Nevada State Clearinghouse/SPOC APR 2 7 1999
~cknowledged by card-*---*..
.....,"9!JrJ,.
U
.-r1ri 111:GULATORY CUIVIIVlhJ,.,,.,
h" _EMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF SECRETARY OFTHEOONIMl9MON tistics Po
'-// ;). ?../92 Add'I Special Distribution. _____
DATE:
March 19, 1999 I G: ~~ocl~ Pr~ects I Business & lncilsty
=:
Minerals Fi'e Marshal Hllll8fl Resol.rces Aging Services Health Division lnaar. Commission Colorado River Commission NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE_ _"nr.~-:-::--:--_.,~ ~
Department of Administration Rf C £ / V f D I( \ u Budget and Planning Division l
209 East Musser Street., Room 200 I Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298 APR 2 2 iqqq I (775) 687-4065 fax (775) 687-3983 I
OEPr OF ~GMINISTRATION
._ -~R'S OFF/(;f I Legislative Counsel Bixeau Information Technology EIT1). Training & Rehab Research Div.
PUC I Transpatation UNR B1683U of Mines 1~:1d~
Management Washingtoo Office I Nevada f>.ssoc. of Counties Nevada league of C:tias Conseivation-Natual Resources Di'ector' s Office State Lands Envi'OIYneotal Protection Foresty I Wildife Conservation Distrids State Pm Wild Horse Commission Nevada SAi # E1999-099 Project:
NOTE:
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Effective March 25, the Clearinghouse telephone number will be: (175) 684-0209.
you have any trouble with this number, please call the main number for Administration, which will be* (775) 884-0222 CLEARINGHOUSE NOTES:
Enclosed, for your review and comment, is a ~
of the cbove mentioned project Please evaluate it with respect to its effect on your plans and programs; the i~
of its contribution to state and'or local areawide goals and objectives; and its accord with anf applicable laws, orders or regulations with IIIIJ}._ch you are familiar.
9se Sl.bmit you comments no later than April 21, 1,D9. Use the space below for short comments. If significant comments are provided, please use agency letterhead and include the Nevada SAJ number and comment C1l8 date for our reference. Questions? Heather Elliott, 687 -6367.
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY REVIEW AGENCY:
_No comment on this project
_Proposal sl.W()rted as written
_Adcitional information below
_Conference desired (See below)
_Condtional support (See below)
_Disapproval (Explain below)
AGENCY COMMENTS:
The water of all sources* of water supply within the boundaries of the state, whether above or beneath the surface of the ground, belongs to the public. All waters are subject to appropriation for beneficial use only under the laws of this state relating to the appropriation and use of water and not otherwise (Nevada Revised Statutes 533.025 and 534.020).
T_h_o.;_m_as_K_. _G_a_ll~ag...,_h_e_r.,_, _P_.E_._,_, ____ N_ev_a_da Division of Water Resources 4/20/99 -----
Signature s lshardatlclcarlclcar doc Agency Date
The water of all sources of water supply within the boundaries of the state, whether above or beneath the surface of the ground, belongs to the public. All waters are subject to appropriation for beneficial use only under the laws of this state relating to the appropriation and use of water and not otherwise (Nevada Revised Statutes 533.025 and 534.020).
- "!] r c.nl*\ ntll 3 l\l\.r:
+) £ : \ iirn 2 Z ti G&
Thomas K. Gallagher, ~-~ f \ \ ;.:i ~ :.. ~vada Division of Water Resources 4/20/99
CKET BE:
PR POSED RULE 5
(IPL/ FR qgit:t)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 RIN 3150-AG0S DOC.ETED
[7590,qj
]
- 99 FEB 23 P 1 :QO F
Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Availability of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the completion and availability of NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3--'Transportation,' Table 9.1
'Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Draft for Comment (February 1999).
~
.:i~lf79 DATES: Submit comments by (im,ert Glat9 SO days aHor publiel!tioR in the Federl!I Aegiste1).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to consider them, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Mail Stop O16C1.
Deliver comments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at: NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
You may also submit comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). From the home page, select "Rulemaking" from the tool bar. The interactive rulemaking website can then be accessed by selecting "New Rulemaking Website." This site provides the ability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking web site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
301-415-3903; e-mail: dpc@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), the Commission published in the Federal Register a final rule amending its environmental protection regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, to improve the 2
efficiency of the process of environmental review for applicants seeking to renew a nuclear power plant operating license for up to an additional 20 years. The amendment is based on the analyses reported in NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (May 1996). The rulemaking was initiated with the objective of improving the efficiency of the license renewal process drawing on the considerable experience of operating nuclear power reactors to generically assess many of the environmental impacts, to report the analyses and findings in NUREG-1437, and to codify the findings in the Commission's environmental protection regulations so that repetitive reviews of those impacts that are well understood could be avoided. In 61 FR 28467, the Commission stated that before the final rule became effective, the Commission was seeking comments on (1) the treatment of low-level waste storage and disposal impacts, (2) the cumulative radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and (3) the effects from the disposal of high-level waste and spent fuel.
After considering the comments received on the rule, the Commission published the rule with minor nonsubstantive changes in the Federal Register on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537). In response to comments, the Commission stated that:
As part of its effort to develop regulatory guidance for this rule, the Commission will consider whether further changes to the rule are desirable to generically address: (1)
The issue of cumulative transportation impacts and (2) the implications that the use of higher burn-up fuel have for the conclusions in Table S-4. After consideration of these issues, the Commission will determine whether the issue of transportation impacts should be changed to Category 1.
In NUREG-1437 and in the rule, Category 1 issues are those environmental issues for which the analysis and findings have been determined to be applicable to all nuclear power plants or to plants with specific types of cooling systems or other common plant or site 3
characteristics. Absent new information that significantly changes the finding, these generic findings may be adopted in plant license renewal reviews. Category 2 issues are those environmental issues for which the analysis did not result in a finding common to all plants or to plants with common characteristics. Plant-specific reviews are required for Category 2 issues.
The NRC staff has completed analyses of these topics as reported in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3 - 'Transportation,' Table 9.1 'Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,' Draft for Comment" (February 1999).
Addendum 1 provides the bases for designating transportation of high-level waste a Category 1 issue. Addendum 1 would supplement the analysis and amend the findings and the Category 2 category designation for the issue of Transportation in Section 6.3 and Table 9.1 of NUREG-1437. These amendments to NUREG-1437 would be codified in 10 CFR Part 51.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22.. day of February 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
4