ML073380970: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:January 3, 2008 | {{#Wiki_filter:January 3, 2008 Ms. Dorothy Shoup 473 W. 189th Street Scranton, KS 66537-9363 | ||
Ms. Dorothy Shoup 473 W. | |||
==Dear Ms. Shoup:== | ==Dear Ms. Shoup:== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
: 1. Care and disposal of the hazardous waste, including current status of waste storage here in Coffey County, Kansas. France was and is a big user of nuclear power, and I was told at that hazardous waste (spent uranium fuel, etc.) was shipped from France to Japan. | : 1. Care and disposal of the hazardous waste, including current status of waste storage here in Coffey County, Kansas. France was and is a big user of nuclear power, and I was told at that hazardous waste (spent uranium fuel, etc.) was shipped from France to Japan. | ||
What now, here? | What now, here? | ||
Response: | Response: Although the storage and disposal of high-level waste are not within the scope of environmental issues pertaining to license renewal, questions about these topics are asked frequently during public meetings and other opportunities for public comment. I am enclosing a copy of NUREG-1850, Frequently Asked Questions On License Renewal Of Nuclear Power Reactors, for your information. In it, you will find that Section 4.5, Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, provides relevant information about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the status of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, and the storage of spent fuel at commercial nuclear power facilities. | ||
: 2. Decommissioning plan. After 20+ years, is that (a) feasibly sufficient and (b) enforceable? | : 2. Decommissioning plan. After 20+ years, is that (a) feasibly sufficient and (b) enforceable? Please briefly outline it for us. | ||
Response: | Response: As one of the conditions for an operating license, the NRC requires the licensee to commit to decommissioning the nuclear plant after it ceases power operations. This requirement is based on the need to reduce the amount of radioactive material at the site to ensure public health and safety, as well as the protection of the environment. I am enclosing a copy of NUREG-1628, Staff Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants, which provides additional information regarding the decommissioning process. | ||
D. Shoup | D. Shoup 3. Expansion/additions. An Osage County acquaintance told me that this is being requested. Specifically, briefly what is being requested? Has it been granted? | ||
Response: As Mr. Christian Jacobs responded to you at the November 8, 2007, meeting, NRC staff for license renewal are not aware of any expansion of or additions to the Wolf Creek Plant. | |||
Response: | |||
: 4. We in Osage County usually have winds from the southwest. Therefore, we are in the normal path of a toxic plume from the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant. Yet, when I asked our County FEMA representative about his aspect of the nuclear plant operations, I was told, (a) she does not recall information received/on hand; (b) permission to attend emergency preparedness exercise has been requested, but refused (one just concluded, I understand). Comments, please, on this. | : 4. We in Osage County usually have winds from the southwest. Therefore, we are in the normal path of a toxic plume from the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant. Yet, when I asked our County FEMA representative about his aspect of the nuclear plant operations, I was told, (a) she does not recall information received/on hand; (b) permission to attend emergency preparedness exercise has been requested, but refused (one just concluded, I understand). Comments, please, on this. | ||
Response: | Response: Under normal operating conditions, all gaseous emissions from Wolf Creek Plant are within the environmental standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency. In the event of an accident involving toxic plume offsite, evacuation and emergency planning in response to the accident are the primary responsibility of the State and Local governments. NRC staff are unable to comment on statements made by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) representatives. Questions about the off-site emergency plans should be directed to FEMA, State, and local government officials. If you have additional questions about the NRC staffs review of the Wolf Creek License Renewal application, please contact me at 301-415-3617. | ||
Sincerely, | |||
Sincerely, | /RA/ | ||
Tam Tran, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | Tam Tran, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | ||
==Enclosures:== | ==Enclosures:== | ||
As stated | As stated | ||
DATE | (pkg) ML073381014; (ltr) ML073380970; (NUREG-1850) ML061110022; (NUREG-1628) ML003726190 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing TTran RFranovich DATE 12/13/07 12/31/07 1/3/08}} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:06, 23 November 2019
| ML073380970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/2008 |
| From: | Tam Tran NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR |
| To: | Shoup D - No Known Affiliation |
| Tran T, NRR/RPB2, 415-3617 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML073380970 (3) | |
Text
January 3, 2008 Ms. Dorothy Shoup 473 W. 189th Street Scranton, KS 66537-9363
Dear Ms. Shoup:
I am writing in response to questions you provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff during the November 8, 2007, NRC public meeting to receive public comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Wolf Creek Generating Station (Wolf Creek) license renewal. Per your hand-written note and the Official Transcript of that meeting (afternoon session), your questions are presented below along with our responses:
- 1. Care and disposal of the hazardous waste, including current status of waste storage here in Coffey County, Kansas. France was and is a big user of nuclear power, and I was told at that hazardous waste (spent uranium fuel, etc.) was shipped from France to Japan.
What now, here?
Response: Although the storage and disposal of high-level waste are not within the scope of environmental issues pertaining to license renewal, questions about these topics are asked frequently during public meetings and other opportunities for public comment. I am enclosing a copy of NUREG-1850, Frequently Asked Questions On License Renewal Of Nuclear Power Reactors, for your information. In it, you will find that Section 4.5, Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, provides relevant information about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the status of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, and the storage of spent fuel at commercial nuclear power facilities.
- 2. Decommissioning plan. After 20+ years, is that (a) feasibly sufficient and (b) enforceable? Please briefly outline it for us.
Response: As one of the conditions for an operating license, the NRC requires the licensee to commit to decommissioning the nuclear plant after it ceases power operations. This requirement is based on the need to reduce the amount of radioactive material at the site to ensure public health and safety, as well as the protection of the environment. I am enclosing a copy of NUREG-1628, Staff Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants, which provides additional information regarding the decommissioning process.
D. Shoup 3. Expansion/additions. An Osage County acquaintance told me that this is being requested. Specifically, briefly what is being requested? Has it been granted?
Response: As Mr. Christian Jacobs responded to you at the November 8, 2007, meeting, NRC staff for license renewal are not aware of any expansion of or additions to the Wolf Creek Plant.
- 4. We in Osage County usually have winds from the southwest. Therefore, we are in the normal path of a toxic plume from the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant. Yet, when I asked our County FEMA representative about his aspect of the nuclear plant operations, I was told, (a) she does not recall information received/on hand; (b) permission to attend emergency preparedness exercise has been requested, but refused (one just concluded, I understand). Comments, please, on this.
Response: Under normal operating conditions, all gaseous emissions from Wolf Creek Plant are within the environmental standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency. In the event of an accident involving toxic plume offsite, evacuation and emergency planning in response to the accident are the primary responsibility of the State and Local governments. NRC staff are unable to comment on statements made by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) representatives. Questions about the off-site emergency plans should be directed to FEMA, State, and local government officials. If you have additional questions about the NRC staffs review of the Wolf Creek License Renewal application, please contact me at 301-415-3617.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Tam Tran, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated
(pkg) ML073381014; (ltr) ML073380970; (NUREG-1850) ML061110022; (NUREG-1628) ML003726190 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing TTran RFranovich DATE 12/13/07 12/31/07 1/3/08