2009/04/02-Memorandum to File from Emile L. Julian on PR 51
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 2, 2009 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DOCKETED 04/02/09 MEMORANDUM TO FILE FROM: Emile L. Julian /RA/ Assistant for Rulemakings and Adjudications SUBJECT: FORM COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PR-51 (73FR 59547) and PR-51 (73FR 59551) During the comment collection period for the PR-51 notices pertaining to “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation (73FR 59547) and the PR-51 notice on “Waste Confidence Decision Update” (73FR59551), 1, 990 form e-mail comments were received under the subject line “Conduct a Full Environmental Impact Statement Analysis” and 941 form e-mail comments were received under the subject line “Public Confidence in the NRC would Be Strengthened By Nuclear Waste Realism and Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act”. Representative samples of each form e-mail are attached. Also, attached are separate lists of those who provided form e-mails. Attachments: As stated Rufemaking Comments From: Physicians for Social Responsibility [[email protected]] on behalf of Judy Treichel [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 27,20094:02 PM To: Rulemaking Comments Subject: Conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement analysis Jan 27,2009 NRC Secretary Dear Secretary, I am writing to comment on the Nuc!ear Regulatory Commission's proposed Waste Confidence Decision and its proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to temporary storage of spent fuel. Both of these proposals fail to protect public health and safety under the Atomic Energy Act or protect the environment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed Waste Confidence Decision is technically inadequate and fails to support any reasonable level of confidence that a radioactive waste repository can or will be licensed. It also violates NEPA because it is not supported by an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") that fully evaluates the environmental impacts of the waste streams whose creation would be authorized by the Waste Confidence Decision. An EIS must analyze the characteristics of radioactive waste generated by the nuclear fuel cycle, including spent fuel, depleted uranium tails, and Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) waste. An analysis should also be conducted for waste streams that would be generated from nuclear fuel cycles being pursued under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the program to reprocess spent fuel. The EIS should describe current knowledge about the feasibility of disposing of each waste stream, including costs and uncertainties. The EIS must apply current scientific knowledge to evaluate the health impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle, updating the outmoded analyses and data in Table S-3 of NRC regulations. For example, the EIS should estimate the radioactive doses to the most exposed individual, who may be an infant or a woman rather than the "reference man;" it should estimate population doses to understand the full extent of health risks over time; and it should use time frames for health impact analyses that are based on the time frame of the contaminant's persistence in the environment. The EIS must address the cumulative impacts of radioactive waste generation, including the costs of adding new repositories for disposal of spent fuel, depleted uranium tails, and GTCC waste. The EIS must also be integrated with the EISs for licensing new nuclear reactors and re-licensing of existing reactors so that all environmental impacts and costs of NRC licensing actions can be examined in a single document. The EIS must also evaluate the costs of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to radioactive waste disposal, and compare them to the costs of renewable sources of energy such as wind, geothermal and solar. The proposed FONSI on the environmental impacts of temporary onsite storage of spent fuel at nuclear reactors fails to account for the significant risks of catastrophic fire posed by high-density storage of 1 spent fuel. The secrecy imposed by the !\IRC with respect to the hazards of pool storage of spent fuel is completely unacceptable and unnecessary. The NRC must prepare an EIS that examines the relative costs and benefits of its proposal to continue high-density pool storage at nuclear reactor sites with the costs and benefits of combining low-density pool storage of spent fuel with dry storage. This combination of technologies would dramatically reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, without the need for the secrecy and lack of accountability that is now the most prominent feature of the NRC's program for interim spent fuel management. It is illegal for the NRC to license any new nuclear power plant or re-license any existing nuclear power plant unless and until it complies with the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA by performing the studies described above. Sincerely, Ms. Judy Treichel 3926 Bushnell Dr Unit 71 Las Vegas, NV 89103-3613 2 Received: from maiI1.nrc.gov(148.184.176.41) by TWMS01.nrc.gov (148.184.200.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:02:23 -0500 X-Ironport-ID: mail1 X-SBRS: 4.5 X-MID: 35147853 X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjcBABg FfOlCLWdGkWdsb2JhbACUBwEBAOEJCwoHEOOoOgiOH IOTCI Ex X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,334,1231131600"; d="scan'208";a="35147853" Received: from mta-poolcons.cluster2.convio.net ([66.45.103.70]) by maiI1.nrc.gov with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2009 16:02:23 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) ([10.0.1.62]) by mta-poolcons.cluster2.convio.net with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2009 15:02:21 -0600 Message-ID: <20767830.1233090141814.JavaMail.www@app30> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:02:21 -0600 From: Judy Treichel <[email protected]> Reply-To: Judy Treichel <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement analysis MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Physicians for Social Responsibility <[email protected]> Organization: PSR: Physicians for Social Responsibility X-Gateway: poolcons XData: 101 0,9@4eeE4K@4I\11tE@wa8S5w5LBc1dSx1c X-ConvioDeliveryGroup: poolb Return-Path: [email protected] Rulemaking Comments From: Michael Mariotte [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 02,200910:13 AM To: Rulemaking Comments Subject: Public Confidence in the NRC Would Be Strengthened By Nuclear Waste Realism and Compliance With the National Environmental Polic Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD US Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Re: 73 FR 197 -- 10/09/2008 Docket ID?2008?0482 and Docket ID-2008-0404 Public Confidence in the NRC Would Be Strengthened By Nuclear Waste Realism and Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act The siting and licensing of new nuclear power reactors is a major federal action, and it is appropriate for the NRC to conduct a site-specific Environmental Impact Statement process under NEPA for each of these licensing actions. However, as NRC revisits its "Waste Confidence Decision," it is fundamental to a rational discussion that the proposed operation of additional nuclear power reactors in the USA be included, as additional reactors would necessarily result in the generation of more rcldioactive waste in the USA. The !\IRC has previously identified high-level radioactive waste generation as a gl9neric issue, therefore it is appropriate that any major federal action on radioactive waste (such as changing the Waste Confidence Decision) be considered in a generic (programmatic) NEPA proceeding. Such an inquiry must include all aspects of the nuclear fuel chain -- since the decision to site and license new nuclear power reactors trjggers not only more radioactive waste generation at nuclear power reactor sites -- it also tri~lgers new radioactive waste generation at every point in the fuel chain starting with the mining of uranium, through the many processing steps (milling, conversion, enrichment, conversion, fuel fabrication) and all the transp()rtation links in between. The impact to workers, nearby residents, communities, our environment and the consideration of alternatives to these impacts must be included in this impact analysis. For too long the true costs of our energy production have been labeled "externalities" and not factored in energy decisions. It is time that the fUll scope of the radioactive legacy of nuclear energy be included in Federal decision-making. NRC has repeatedly expressed its "confidence" in the eventual permanent "disposal" of radioactive waste - however the expectation that "disposal" will prevent release of this matE~rial into our environment has so far not been supported by any proposed program. The Yucca Mountain site would, according to federal agency projections, leak. The guidelines and regulations have been changed rElpeatedly to accommodate and "validate" this failure such that it is "acceptable." All the so-called "Low-Level" radioactive waste dumps dating back to the 1960's have leaked, and there is zero confidence that the existing regulations will keep any newer dump from leaking. This history of atomic waste policy does not inspire pubic confidence in the federal agencies mandated to "solve" the nuclear waste problem. Further, dry cask storage technology, upon which the Commission rests its immediate confidence, is a sorely insecure disposition for this most concentrated of dangerous wastes. Poor design, poor quality control, in some cases faulty fabrication, have created the equivalent of a rocket that cannot land. Overall lack of security and monitoring have left reactor communities extremely vulnerable, even as they are being told that the casks are a basis for "confidence." I am writing to urge nuclear waste realism: the NRC should suspend all generation of atomic waste from new sources unless and until a truly permanent program that is scientifically sound and rootled in a just and equitable siting/decision process is instituted.