ML13164A326: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 15: Line 15:
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter: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 public's business and, as such, believes it should be performed as openly and candidly as possible to maintain and enhance the public's confidence. The public must be informed about, and have a reasonable opportunity to participate meaningfully in, the NRC's 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
we've received from stakeholders, such as you, through public meetings, the NRC website's 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 NRC's 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. Gray's 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}}

Revision as of 21:56, 16 July 2018

G20130380 - Letter to Dr. Lewis Cuthbert from R. W. Borchardt Limerick Nuclear Plant - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'S Relationship with the Alliance for a Clean Environment
ML13164A326
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/25/2013
From: Borchardt R W
NRC/EDO
To: Cuthbert L
Alliance For A Clean Environment
Rihm R S, 415-1717
Shared Package
ML131400044 List:
References
G20130380
Download: ML13164A326 (2)
v • d • e


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 public's business and, as such, believes it should be performed as openly and candidly as possible to maintain and enhance the public's confidence. The public must be informed about, and have a reasonable opportunity to participate meaningfully in, the NRC's 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

we've received from stakeholders, such as you, through public meetings, the NRC website's 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 NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) at accession number ML12130A152).
  • 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 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. Gray's email.

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13164A326&oldid=894412"