ML13164A326: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:June 25, 2013 | {{#Wiki_filter:June 25, 2013 Dr. Lewis Cuthbert President The Alliance for a Clean Environment 1189 Foxview Road Pottstown, PA 19465 | ||
Dr. Lewis Cuthbert President The Alliance for a Clean Environment 1189 Foxview Road Pottstown, PA | |||
==Dear Dr. Cuthbert:== | ==Dear Dr. Cuthbert:== | ||
I am responding to your letter of April 29, 2013, in which you suggest the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not sufficiently responsive to the public. | I am responding to your letter of April 29, 2013, in which you suggest the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not sufficiently responsive to the public. | ||
The NRC views nuclear regulation as the publics business and, as such, believes it should be performed as openly and candidly as possible to maintain and enhance the publics confidence. | |||
The NRC views nuclear regulation as the | The public must be informed about, and have a reasonable opportunity to participate meaningfully in, the NRCs regulatory processes. Such participation strengthens our decision-making and supports our health, safety, and environmental mission. | ||
There are many ways we engage stakeholders in a wide variety of activities. They range in their degree of formality, and often involve different methods, different processes, and different objectives. The common theme is that we strive to be an open agency, that we value stakeholder input, and that we want public participation to be an integral part of our regulatory processes. The various methods we use have evolved over time in response to feedback that weve received from stakeholders, such as you, through public meetings, the NRC websites satisfaction survey, correspondence, and other avenues. Additionally, we are continuing to find ways to take advantage of technology to help us stay connected. We recognize there is always room for improvement and we strive to do that on an ongoing basis. | |||
There are many ways we engage stakeholders in a wide variety of activities. They range in their degree of formality, and often involve different methods, different processes, and different objectives. The common theme is that we strive to be an open agency, that we value stakeholder input, and that we want public participation to be an integral part of our regulatory processes. The various methods we use have evolved over time in response to feedback that | |||
Over the past several years, the NRC has sought to be responsive to your concerns. Over approximately the last year alone, our correspondence to you (or Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE) associates) includes the following: | Over the past several years, the NRC has sought to be responsive to your concerns. Over approximately the last year alone, our correspondence to you (or Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE) associates) includes the following: | ||
* A May 9, 2012 email from Paul Krohn to ACE responding to your questions from the April 18, 2012 annual assessment meeting regarding Limerick Generating Station (Limerick) performance (available in the | * A May 9, 2012 email from Paul Krohn to ACE responding to your questions from the April 18, 2012 annual assessment meeting regarding Limerick Generating Station (Limerick) performance (available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) at accession number ML12130A152). | ||
* A March 8, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated March 5, 2013, regarding the NRC power up-rate and license renewal review processes (ADAMS ML13071A435). | * A March 8, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated March 5, 2013, regarding the NRC power up-rate and license renewal review processes (ADAMS ML13071A435). | ||
* A March 20, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated February 27, 2013, regarding low level radioactive waste storage and shipping associated with Limerick (ADAMS ML13080A271). | * A March 20, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated February 27, 2013, regarding low level radioactive waste storage and shipping associated with Limerick (ADAMS ML13080A271). | ||
* A May 3, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated April 5, 2013, regarding spent fuel and low level waste associated with Limerick (ADAMS ML13134A172). | * A May 3, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated April 5, 2013, regarding spent fuel and low level waste associated with Limerick (ADAMS ML13134A172). | ||
* A May 10, 2013 email from Eugene DiPaolo to Betty and Charles Shank responding to questions regarding the August 2011 Virginia earthquake and its impact on Limerick (ADAMS ML13130A042). | * A May 10, 2013 email from Eugene DiPaolo to Betty and Charles Shank responding to questions regarding the August 2011 Virginia earthquake and its impact on Limerick (ADAMS ML13130A042). | ||
* A May 16, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to questions and statements from ACE received in March 2013 (ADAMS ML13143A256). I believe many of the specific concerns raised in your letter to me are addressed in the 10 pages of attachments to Mr. | * A May 16, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to questions and statements from ACE received in March 2013 (ADAMS ML13143A256). I believe many of the specific concerns raised in your letter to me are addressed in the 10 pages of attachments to Mr. Grays email. | ||
* A June 4, 2013 letter from Mark Thaggard to ACE regarding your concerns with the Limerick evacuation time estimate update (ADAMS ML13130A185). | * A June 4, 2013 letter from Mark Thaggard to ACE regarding your concerns with the Limerick evacuation time estimate update (ADAMS ML13130A185). | ||
In addition, we have responded to letters sent on your behalf from Congressman Jim Gerlach. | In addition, we have responded to letters sent on your behalf from Congressman Jim Gerlach. | ||
These include NRC responses sent to Mr. Gerlach on September 26, 2011, July 23, 2012, October 4, 2012, and April 22, 2013. NRC staff also spoke with you at the recent May 23, 2013 NRC public meeting held to discuss the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the license renewal of Limerick. This one-on-one conversation dealt with comments you made at an earlier time regarding the environmental impact statement scoping process. | These include NRC responses sent to Mr. Gerlach on September 26, 2011, July 23, 2012, October 4, 2012, and April 22, 2013. NRC staff also spoke with you at the recent May 23, 2013 NRC public meeting held to discuss the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the license renewal of Limerick. This one-on-one conversation dealt with comments you made at an earlier time regarding the environmental impact statement scoping process. | ||
We take our mission and our responsibility to the public very seriously, and believe we are making a realistic effort to address your questions and comments. We will continue to try to be responsive to your concerns in the future. | We take our mission and our responsibility to the public very seriously, and believe we are making a realistic effort to address your questions and comments. We will continue to try to be responsive to your concerns in the future. | ||
Sincerely, | Sincerely, | ||
R. W. Borchardt | /RA/ | ||
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations | |||
Pkg. ML131400044 OFFICE OEDO Region 1 OGC EDO NAME RRihm NMcNamara (via email) LSubin (via email) RWBorchardt DATE 06/13/13 06/12/13 06/13/13 06/25/13}} | Pkg. ML131400044 OFFICE OEDO Region 1 OGC EDO NAME RRihm NMcNamara (via email) LSubin (via email) RWBorchardt DATE 06/13/13 06/12/13 06/13/13 06/25/13}} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:58, 4 November 2019
| ML13164A326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/2013 |
| From: | Borchardt R NRC/EDO |
| To: | Cuthbert L Alliance For A Clean Environment |
| Rihm R, 415-1717 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML131400044 | List: |
| References | |
| G20130380 | |
| Download: ML13164A326 (2) | |
Text
June 25, 2013 Dr. Lewis Cuthbert President The Alliance for a Clean Environment 1189 Foxview Road Pottstown, PA 19465
Dear Dr. Cuthbert:
I am responding to your letter of April 29, 2013, in which you suggest the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not sufficiently responsive to the public.
The NRC views nuclear regulation as the publics business and, as such, believes it should be performed as openly and candidly as possible to maintain and enhance the publics confidence.
The public must be informed about, and have a reasonable opportunity to participate meaningfully in, the NRCs regulatory processes. Such participation strengthens our decision-making and supports our health, safety, and environmental mission.
There are many ways we engage stakeholders in a wide variety of activities. They range in their degree of formality, and often involve different methods, different processes, and different objectives. The common theme is that we strive to be an open agency, that we value stakeholder input, and that we want public participation to be an integral part of our regulatory processes. The various methods we use have evolved over time in response to feedback that weve received from stakeholders, such as you, through public meetings, the NRC websites satisfaction survey, correspondence, and other avenues. Additionally, we are continuing to find ways to take advantage of technology to help us stay connected. We recognize there is always room for improvement and we strive to do that on an ongoing basis.
Over the past several years, the NRC has sought to be responsive to your concerns. Over approximately the last year alone, our correspondence to you (or Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE) associates) includes the following:
- A May 9, 2012 email from Paul Krohn to ACE responding to your questions from the April 18, 2012 annual assessment meeting regarding Limerick Generating Station (Limerick) performance (available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) at accession number ML12130A152).
- A March 8, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated March 5, 2013, regarding the NRC power up-rate and license renewal review processes (ADAMS ML13071A435).
- A March 20, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated February 27, 2013, regarding low level radioactive waste storage and shipping associated with Limerick (ADAMS ML13080A271).
- A May 3, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to an ACE email, dated April 5, 2013, regarding spent fuel and low level waste associated with Limerick (ADAMS ML13134A172).
- A May 10, 2013 email from Eugene DiPaolo to Betty and Charles Shank responding to questions regarding the August 2011 Virginia earthquake and its impact on Limerick (ADAMS ML13130A042).
- A May 16, 2013 email from Mel Gray to ACE responding to questions and statements from ACE received in March 2013 (ADAMS ML13143A256). I believe many of the specific concerns raised in your letter to me are addressed in the 10 pages of attachments to Mr. Grays email.
- A June 4, 2013 letter from Mark Thaggard to ACE regarding your concerns with the Limerick evacuation time estimate update (ADAMS ML13130A185).
In addition, we have responded to letters sent on your behalf from Congressman Jim Gerlach.
These include NRC responses sent to Mr. Gerlach on September 26, 2011, July 23, 2012, October 4, 2012, and April 22, 2013. NRC staff also spoke with you at the recent May 23, 2013 NRC public meeting held to discuss the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the license renewal of Limerick. This one-on-one conversation dealt with comments you made at an earlier time regarding the environmental impact statement scoping process.
We take our mission and our responsibility to the public very seriously, and believe we are making a realistic effort to address your questions and comments. We will continue to try to be responsive to your concerns in the future.
Sincerely,
/RA/
R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations
Pkg. ML131400044 OFFICE OEDO Region 1 OGC EDO NAME RRihm NMcNamara (via email) LSubin (via email) RWBorchardt DATE 06/13/13 06/12/13 06/13/13 06/25/13