[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: For those who thought West Wing didn't have an impact...



RADSAFERS -- sorry about the length of this, but I think it is important that you see this.  And I want to thank Gary Webb for bringing it to my attention.

In a message dated 4/5/02 11:57:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, gary.webb@wright.edu writes:


I give you this: October 31, 2000               Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Chairman
             U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
             Washington, DC 20555-0001               Dear Chairman Meserve:               I am writing to inform you of the State of Nevada's concerns about a report recently
             published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Spent Fuel Project Office
             (SFPO). The document, Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates
             (NUREG/CR-6672), was prepared by Sandia National Laboratories and released by
             SFPO in conjunction with the Commission's current Waste Package Performance Study
             (PPS).               Sandia prepared this report without the benefit of stakeholder participation. SFPO refused
             requests by Nevada and other stakeholders to review the draft version of this report.
             During public meetings in Bethesda, MD (November 1999), Henderson, NV (December,
             1999), and Las Vegas, NV (August, 2000), and in subsequent written comments,
             stakeholders documented procedural and technical deficiencies in the risk reexamination
             report and urged SFPO to withdraw it and reissue it for public review and comment.               It now appears that SFPO has decided to proceed with the Package Performance Study
             without revising or reissuing NUREG/CR-6672. The Spent Fuel Project Office's handling
             of this matter threatens to negate recent progress in establishing stakeholder confidence in
             the Commission's Waste Package Performance Study.               The State of Nevada urges the Commission to direct SFPO to withdraw
             NUREG/CR-6672 and reissue it as a draft report for public review and comment for a
             period of at least 90 days. Until such action is completed, Nevada believes NRC staff and
             license applicants should be prohibited from utilizing NUREG/CR-6672 in any
             transportation risk analyses required under the National Environmental Policy Act or
             under the Commission's regulations.               I look forward to further discussing this matter with you at you earliest convenience.               Sincerely,               Robert R. Loux
             Executive Director

The statement "Sandia prepared this report without the benefit of stakeholder participation."  is an out-and-out falsehood.  I know, because I arranged two of the three meetings mentioned in the letter, and another in Pahrump, NV, sat through all four meetings, was responsible for inviting the panel, summarizing the results, getting the complete transcripts of all the hearings on the web, getting hard copy transcripts out to anyone who asked, maintaining the Q&A on the web, etc.  Robert Halstead, representing Nevada, was a key participant in the hearings, as was Marvin Resnikoff.  NRC bent over backwards to get stakeholder input and to publicize it.  As I recall, at least half of the members of the invited discussion panel were opposed to the Yucca Mountain project.  Almost all of t! he invited panel could be called stakeholders (you know, the trucking companies and railroads are stakeholders, too).   

I am also a co-author of the document in question.  It is a NUREG/CR, and review by stakeholders would not have been appropriate, and would in any case have been for NRC to decide, not Sandia.

I would certainly not rely on Mr. Loux's judgment of the quality of NUREG/CR-6672.  If you don't wish to rely on mine, I encourage you to make your own judgment.



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com