11 Groups to Senate: Block Weakening of NRC Licensing for New Nuclear Reactors

Eleven Key Environmental and Energy Organizations Warn That Public Health and
Safety in Jeopardy if New Reactor Process is Rushed; Would Not Address Real
Cause of Delays

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Leading U.S. environment and
energy groups call on the Senate to reject any additions to the climate bill
that would further "streamline" the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
licensing process for new reactors, because it could threaten public health
and safety. The groups explain in the letter that "the acceleration of those
review and hearing processes would not address the real cause of delays in the
NRC's licensing process: premature submission of incomplete and poor-quality
applications by the industry."

The full text of the letter submitted to all 100 U.S. Senators is as follows:

"Dear Senator:

As the Senate crafts a comprehensive climate and energy bill, we are writing
to urge you to reject any provisions that would further undermine the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC) existing, truncated licensing process for new
reactors. Both Congress and the NRC have already streamlined the NRC's
processes for internal staff reviews, the licensing process and associated
public hearings so drastically that any further acceleration would fatally
undermine public confidence in the safety of US reactors. Furthermore, the
acceleration of those review and hearing processes would not address the real
cause of delays in the NRC's licensing process: premature submission of
incomplete and poor-quality applications by the industry. Public health and
safety could be jeopardized if there is a rush to construct new nuclear
reactors without allowing resolution of the significant technical
uncertainties present in all new reactor designs, such as their resistance to
aircraft attacks.

The NRC's licensing process for new reactors already has been accelerated in
two major respects. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, anticipating
standardized reactor designs that could be generically approved by the NRC and
incorporated by reference into individual license applications, Congress
collapsed the former two-step licensing process (construction permit review
followed by operating license review) into a one-step Construction and
Operation License (COL) process. In 2004, the NRC further truncated the
licensing process by eliminating the public's right to take depositions or
cross-examine opposing witnesses in individual licensing hearings.

Despite a more 'streamlined' process, almost all COL applicants have chosen to
file COL applications based on incomplete designs. To date, only one of the
17 applications for new reactors refers to a design that has been fully
completed and certified by the NRC. (The AP 1000 design is certified, but is
currently now in its 17th revision.) The other sixteen COL applications now
pending before the NRC are based on four different designs that are still
under development. The result has been inadequate understanding of how
designs interact with specific proposed reactor sites and, as one might
expect, unpredictability in certification and licensing schedules.

Compounding this problem, the nuclear industry has submitted poor-quality
applications to the NRC. Addressing this matter, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko
observed, 'if you look at most of the applications and the delays that we're
seeing right now for the most part, those are almost exclusively tied to
challenges with the designs not being complete and the work not being done
there. So if people want to make the process move faster, the number one
place to look is in the designs and the quality of the submittals.' (Online
National Journal Interview, June 18, 2009,
http://insiderinterviews.nationaljournal.com/2009/09/nrc-at-center-of-nuclear-regul.php)
NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki made a similar point in a May 2009 speech,
stating that 'we have found that the design certification applications and
some combined license applications received have lacked information that the
NRC staff needs to complete its review. Staff reviews have been further
complicated because some applicants are revising submission dates or otherwise
modifying their applications.'
(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2009/s-09-011.html)

The NRC's dissatisfaction with the quality of standardized design
certification applications is reflected, for example, in an August 27, 2009
letter to Westinghouse in which the NRC criticized Westinghouse's failure to
resolve 'fundamental' questions about the AP 1000 design. This delay in
certifying the AP 1000 design may in turn delay the issuance of construction
and operation licenses. See Letters from NRC to Westinghouse, dated April 3,
2009, and August 27, 2009.

Despite the obstacles imposed by one-step licensing and revocation of
deposition and cross-examination rights, the public continues to play a vital
safety role in the NRC licensing process. Public participation in NRC
licensing hearings has never resulted--in the entire history of the Atomic
Age--in the rejection of a single license application for a new reactor. To
the contrary, effective public participation has played a major role in
exposing and correcting major safety defects at nuclear reactors.

The Senate should reject attempts to scapegoat an already truncated public
participation process in order to distract attention from the real problems of
the licensing process - i.e., incomplete designs and the poor quality of the
submittals. Accelerating or curtailing the licensing processes for nuclear
reactors is to sacrifice public safety and confidence. We urge you to reject
any provisions that would further 'streamline' NRC licensing.

Sincerely,

Edwin Lyman, Senior Staff Scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists

Richard Peterson-Cremer, Legislative Director
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Sara Barczak, Program Director, High Risk
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Ken Bossong, Executive Director
SUN Day Campaign

John Coequyt, Senior Representative, Climate and Energy
Sierra Club

Christopher A. Paine, Nuclear Program Director
Natural Resources Defense Council

Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Tyson Slocum, Energy Program Director

Public Citizen

Ben Schreiber, Climate and Energy Tax Analyst
Friends of the Earth

Anna Aurilio, Director, Washington DC Office

Environment America

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Coordinator

Clean Water Action"

A link to the above letter text is available online at
http://www.psr.org/Senateltrlicensing.

SOURCE Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Sierra Club, Public Citizen; Nuclear Information and Resource Service;
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; SUN Day
Campaign; Friends of the Earth; Environment America; Clean Water Action

Ailis Aaron Wolf, +1-703-276-3265, aawolf@hastingsgroup.com, for Union of
Concerned Scientists, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Southern Alliance for
Clean Energy, SUN Day Campaign, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen, Friends of
the Earth, Environment America, and Clean Water Action