ML073110447
| ML073110447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/2007 |
| From: | Caverly J NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR |
| To: | Balduzzi M Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Caverly J, PM, DLR/REBB - 415-6699 | |
| References | |
| TAC MD5411, TAC MD5412 | |
| Download: ML073110447 (16) | |
Text
December 7, 2007
Mr. Michael A. Balduzzi Sr. Vice President and COO Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Regional Operations, NE 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NOS. MD5411 AND MD5412)
Dear Mr. Balduzzi:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives analysis submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc., regarding its application for license renewal for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 and has identified areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Enclosed is the staff
=s request for additional information.
We request that you provide your responses to these questions within 60 days of the date of this letter, in order to maintain the environmental review schedule. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-6699 or at jsc1@nrc.gov. Sincerely,
/RA/ Jill Caverly, Environm ental Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
Enclosure:
As stated
cc w/encl: See next page
ML073110447 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:DLR:RPB2 OGC BC:DLR:RPB2 NAME IKing JCaverly STurk (NLO w/edits) RFanovich DATE 11/20/07 11/20/07 12/5/07 12/7/07 Letter to M. Balduzzi From J. Caverly Dated December 7, 2007
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NOS. MD5411 AND MD5412)
DISTRIBUTION HARD COPY: DLR RF JCaverly
E-MAIL: PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRpb1 RidsNrrDlrRpb2 RidsNrrDlrRer1 RidsNrrDlrRer2 RidsNrrDlrRerb RidsNrrDlrRpob RidsNrrDciCvib RidsNrrDciCpnb RidsNrrDraAfpb RidsNrrDraAplb RidsNrrDeEmcb RidsNrrDeEeeb RidsNrrDssSbwb RidsNrrDssSbpb RidsNrrDssScvb RidsOgcMailCenter
RFranovich RBarkley, RI BPham MMcLaughlin, RI KGreen NMcNamara, RI JCaverly NSheehan, RI OPA RAuluck DScrenci, RI OPA
KChang MKowal JBoska STurk, OGC LSubin, OGC BMizuno, OGC SBurnell, OPA DMcIntyre, OPA EDacus, OCA TMensah, OEDO RConte, RI ECobey, RI MCox, RI PCataldo, RI CHott, RI DJackson, RI BWelling, RI GMeyer, RI Enclosure Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding the Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 And 3
The SAMA analyses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2) and Unit No. 3 (IP3) are
based on the most recent versions of the plant-specific Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA), i.e., Revision 1, April 2007 for IP2, and Revision 2, April 2007 for IP3. Provide the following information regarding the PSA models (for both units unless otherwise specified).
- a. Describe major changes to the internal flood model in each of the PSA updates (the 2003, 2005, and 2007 updates for IP2, and the 2001 and 2007 updates for IP3). b. Characterize the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) peer review findings related to the internal flood model (2002 review for IP2 and 2001 review for IP3).
Identify any review comments not yet incorporated and discuss their impact on the SAMA analysis and results.
- c. Characterize the major findings of the focused self-assessment and external reviews of Revision 0 (2005 update) of the IP2 PSA, and the outside consultant reviews and focused self-assessment of Revision 1 (2001 update) of the IP3 PSA.
Identify any review comments not yet incorporated and discuss their impact on the SAMA analysis and results.
- d. (IP2) Explain the plant features or models that result in the relatively low contributions to core damage frequency (CDF) from loss of 125 volts direct current (Vdc) bus and total loss of service water initiating events at IP2. Identify any plant features contributing to this result that are not in IP3.
- e. Identify and discuss the plant features or modeling assumptions that result in the relatively high internal flooding contribution in both units.
- f. For the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) initiating event (IE-T7), it is stated (e.g., in Table E.1-2 and E.3-2) that many Phase I SAMAs have been implemented to mitigate this event, including improving detection and isolation capabilities, improving mak eup capabilities to the reactor pressure vessel, and improving primary side depressurization reliability. Identify the specific improvements made and the updates made to PSA associated with each of these improvements.
- g. Provide the truncation limit used for quantifying the PSA and its bases.
Provide the following information relative to the Level 2 Analysis:
- a. Provide a breakdown of the population dose (person-rem per year within 50 miles) by containment failure mode. Identify the contributions for SGTR, interfacing-systems loss-of-coolant accident (ISLOCA), and containment isolation failure.
- b. Characterize the WOG and other peer review findings related to the Level 2 PSA model (2002 and 2005 reviews for IP2, and 2001 and 2007 reviews for IP3).
Identify any review comments not yet incorporated and discuss their impact on the SAMA analysis and results.
- c. Indicate the specific version of the modular accident analysis program (MAAP4) code used in the Level 2 analysis.
Provide the following information regarding the treatment and inclusion of external events in the SAMA analysis:
- a. Provide a listing of the dominant seismic scenarios and their CDFs for both the individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) and the latest update.
- b. Section E.1.3.2 indicates that the dominant fire sequences were reevaluated as part of the IP2 SAMA analysis. Section E.3.3 indicates that the seismic and fire PSAs were updated as part of the IP3 SAMA. Describe the quality controls that were applied to these updates and any peer reviews that were performed.
- c. (IP2) Section E.1.3.2 indicates that the fire reevaluation resulted in a revised fire CDF of 9.11E-6 per reactor year for IP2. However, Table E.1-11 indicates a total fire CDF of 6.45E-6 per year (for the fire zones listed). Address this discrepancy.
Provide a more complete accounting of the dominant CDF contributors in the revised analysis. Confirm whether the CDF is per year or per reactor year.
- d. (IP3) Discuss the impact of the current operational scheme with block valve open on the control room fire in panels FBF or FCF for IP3. Identify other external event scenarios including the seismic events that could have been affected by this change in the operation.
- e. (IP3) State the features associated with the 480 VAC Switchgear Room (Fire Zone 14) that contribute to its 1.3E-05 per year fire CDF for IP3. Include a description of the fire scenarios that are significant contributors to the calculated risk.
Provide the following information regarding the MACCS2 analyses:
- a. Provide the date of issuance and a brief description of the Westinghouse analyses cited as the basis for the reactor core radionuclide inventories used in the MACCS2 analyses (Reference E.1.22 for IP2 and Reference E3.23 for IP3).
- b. Confirm whether there are any planned future changes to reactor power level or fuel management strategies that would impact the reactor core radionuclide inventory used in the MACCS2 analysis. If so, provide an assessment of their impact on the population dose and on the SAMA screening and evaluation.
- c. The analysis assumes t hat the 2004 trans ient to permanent population ratio will be representative of the ratio in 2035. Discuss the uncertainty associated with this assumption and its impact on the SAMA evaluation.
- d. The environmental report (ER) indicates that a Ano evacuation scenario
@ was assumed to conservatively estimate the population dose. Confirm that this same scenario was used to estimate economic impacts. Clarify how other early and long term protection actions were modeled in this scenario (specifically sheltering, relocation, interdiction, and decontamination) and describe the associated assumptions and criteria (including the distances over which these actions were assumed to be taken). Discuss how the warning times provided for each release category (e.g., in Table E.1-10 for IP2) are used in the analysis.
- e. Provide the technical basis for the value of non-farm wealth ($208,838 per person) used in sensitivity case 3 to show the economic impact of lost tourism and business. Explain why the impact of lost tourism and business was addressed as a sensitivity case rather than including these impacts in the base case analysis.
Provide an assessment of the impact on the SAMA analysis (in the sensitivity study) results (base case and uncertainty case) if the higher value of non-farm wealth were used in the base case analysis.
- f. Briefly describe other key MACCS2 input assumptions that contribute to the offsite economic cost risk (e.g., daily cost for relocated individuals, the costs to relocate an individual, daily cost for relocated individuals, cost of farm and non-farm decontamination, the value of farm and non-farm wealth, cost of decontamination labor, property depreciation rate, investment rate of return). Justify that the input values used for these parameters are reasonable for the Indian Point site/region.
- g. Three problems related to use of the SECPOP2000 code have recently been identified, and publicized throughout the industry. These deal with: (1) a formatting error in the regional economic data block text file generated by SECPOP2000 for input to MACCS2 which results in MACCS2 mis-reading the data, (2) an error associated with the formatting of the COUNTY97.DAT economic database file used by SECPOP2000 which results in SECPOP2000 processing incorrect economic and land use data (i.e., missing entries in the ANotes@ column result in data being output for the wrong county), and (3) gaps in the numbered entries in the COUNTY97.DAT economic database file which result in any county beyond county number 955 being handled incorrectly in SECPOP2000. Confirm whether the SECPOP2000 was used to derive MACCS2 input parameters, and if so, that the three identified problems were addressed in the SAMA analyses.
The following additional information is needed for the Analysis Cases identified below:
- a. Additional CCW Pump. The analysis case sets the common cause failure probability for the component cooling water (CCW) pumps to zero and indicates that this results in no change in the CDF. Describe the plant features or modeling assumptions that make the CCW pumps unimportant.
- b. Containment Sprays. The analysis case indicates that eliminating containment spray system failures has no impact on CDF or offsite dose. Describe the plant features or modeling assumptions that make containment spray unimportant for both CDF and offsite dose. Discuss the impact of containment spray in terms of decontamination factors, containment failure modes involving core concrete interactions, and containment heat removal.
- c. SGTR Fission Product Scrubbing. The analysis case assumes the addition of a water spray would result in a factor of 2 reduction in source terms for SGTR sequences. Provide the basis of this reduction factor and an assessment of the impact of this assumption on the results of the SAMA evaluation.
- d. ISLOCA Valves. The analysis case assumes a reduction of 50 percent in ISLOCA initiating events. Provide the basis of this reduction value.
- e. MSIV Design. The analysis case indicates that eliminating main steam isolation valve (MSIV) failures to isolate a faulted steam generator has zero benefit.
Describe the plant features or modeling assumptions that yield this result.
- f. (IP2) DC Power and (IP3) DC Power/AFW Control System Changes. The analysis case for both units involves changing the time available to recover offsite power before local operation of the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) steam-driven pump is required from two hours to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> during station blackout (SBO) scenarios.
For IP2, Table E.1-2 appears to indicate that basic event OAFWT (failure to manually control turbine-driven AFW Pump 22 after battery depletion) addresses the control of AFW following battery depletion. Explain why a similar action for IP3 was not identified in Table E.3-2. Describe the approach used by operators to control steam generator level during an SBO event, and the modeling of the turbine-driven pump and asso ciated operat or actions in t he probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for each unit. Describe any differences in plant design/operation and PRA modeling between IP2 and IP3, including the reasons why the analysis case is defined differently for the two units. Justify that the analysis case represents a bounding analysis for both units.
- g. Alternate Battery Charger Capability. The analysis case for IP2 involves setting the failure to locally control the turbine-driven AFW pump to zero, whereas the analysis case for IP3 involves changing the time available to recover offsite power before local operation of AFW is required from two hours to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> during SBO scenarios, and reducing internal switchgear room floods five percent to account for local operation of the turbine-driven AFW pump. Explain why the assumptions used to quantify the benefits for IP2 and IP3 are different. For IP2, verify that the operator action that is set to zero is basic event OAFWT. Also, justify the significant difference in the estimated benefits for the AAlternate Battery Charger Capability
@ and the ADC Power@ analysis cases ($420K and $44K, respectively). For IP3, SAMA candidates 30 (Provide a portable diesel-driven battery charger) and 42 (Provide hookup for portable generators to power the turbine-driven AFW pump) appear to be related but the associated analysis cases and the benefit values are not com parable (i.e., Alternate Battery Charger Capability for SAMA 30 with a benefit of $509K, and DC Power/AFW System Changes for SAMA 42 with a benefit of $35K). Clarify the differences between SAMA 30 and SAMA 42.
- h. Improve 118 Vac System. The analysis case is stated as being used to evaluate the change in plant risk from plant modifications to convert signals from 2-of-4 to 3-of-4 logic. Explain how setting the common cause failure of the 118 Vac transformers to zero bounds the benefit.
- i. Main Feedwater System Upgrade. The analysis case states that the bounding analysis for digital feedw ater upgrade and installing a motor-driven feedwater pump achieved by setting the feedwater initiator to zero. Explain how this treatment addresses the improved post-trip operation of Main Feedwater for other initiating events.
- j. Independent Boron Injection System. The analysis case states that setting common cause failure of the boric acid transfer pumps to zero is bounding for
determining the benefit of insta lling an independent boron injection system. Explain how setting the common cause failure to zero bounds the benefit.
Describe the plant features or modeling assumptions that cause this analysis to yield zero benefit for both units.
- k. Control Room ATWS Mitigation. Explain the plant features that result in small benefit associated with the bounding analysis that sets failure to trip the control rods motor generator sets to zero. Describe the anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) mitigation actions including the credited operator actions, their failure probabilities and bases.
- l. Pressurizer PORV Block Valves. State the scope of the change necessary to change the pressure-operated relief valve (PORV) block valves from closed to open. Specifically provide the basis for the $800,000 improvement cost.
- m. (IP3) Appendix R Power to the SI or RHR Pump. Explain whether the baseline benefit of $11,274,888 provided for the analysis case is an error. If so, provide the correct value.
- n. CCW Heat Exchanger Alternate Cooling Supply. The description of this analysis case suggests that the back up service water pumps could be used for both essential and non-essential service water rather than essential service water only. Explain all the contributions included in the benefit side in terms of reduced initiator frequency, increased support system reliability (e.g.CCW), and impact on reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal failure.
- o. Upgrade Alternate Safe Shutdown System for RCP Seal Cooling. This analysis case states that a bounding analysis is obtained by setting the control building flooding initiators to zero. However, the benefit of the SAMAs addressed by this case could impact other external initiators. Identify all other external initiators that can benefit from implementation of this SAMA candidate. Explain in
more detail the proposed modification. Discuss any impac t that installing the Unit 2 Appendix R DG and potential decommissioning of the turbine generators will have on this SAMA candidate. Expl ain the relationships between setting flooding initiating events to zero and the loss of the 480VAC buses.
Explain why the assumptions used to quantify the benefits for IP2 and IP3 are different for the following analysis cases: (a) AC Power Cross-Tie with Alternate Unit, (b) Alternate Battery Charger Capability, and (c) Alternate Water Sources to Steam G enerators.
Explain why the estimated benefits for IP2 and IP3 are significantly different for the following analysis cases: (a) Automatic Recirculation Cooling Swap-Over ($81K for IP2 and $340K for IP3), (b) MSLB Inside Containment ($73K for IP2 and $611K for IP3), (c) Pressurizer PORV DC Power ($40K for IP2 and $0 for IP3), (d) Alternate Water Sources to Steam Generators ($985K for IP2 and $183K for IP3).
Explain the plant features that resulted in the following cost-beneficial (or low cost) SAMAs not being included in the list of potential SAMAs for the opposite unit: (a) SAMAs 56, 60, and 61 for IP2, which have no corresponding SAMAs for IP3, and (b) SAMAs 42, 52, and 55 for IP3, which have no corresponding SAMAs for IP2.
For certain SAMAs considered in the ER, there may be lower-cost alternatives that could achieve much of the risk reduction at a lower cost. In this regard, discuss whether any lower-cost alternatives to those Phase II SAMAs considered in the ER would be viable and potentially cost-beneficial. Evaluate the following SAMAs (previously found to be potentially cost-beneficial at other plants), or indicate if the particular SAMA has already been considered. If the latter, indicate whether the SAMA has been implemented or has been determined to not be cost-beneficial at IP2 or IP3:
- a. To aid in the mitigation of a SGTR, the implementation of improved instrumentation and procedures to help cool down and depressurize the reactor cooling system (RCS) prior to refueling water storage tank depletion.
- b. To aid in the mitigation of a SGTR , the implementation of a procedure for recovery of steam dump to condenser from the unaffected SGs.
- c. To aid in the mitigation of a SGTR, the implementation of a procedure for recovery of the main feedwater valve/condensate post SI actuation.
- d. Reactivate the IP3 post-accident containment venting system (B5b information implies that this is still active on IP2 but was deactivated on IP3).
Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
cc: Mr. Michael R. Kansler President & CEO / CNO Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Mr. John T. Herron Senior Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Sr. Vice President Engineering & Technical Services Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Mr. Fred R. Dacimo Site Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249
Mr. Anthony Vitale - Acting General Manager, Plant Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249
Mr. Oscar Limpias Vice President Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Mr. Joseph P. DeRoy Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 Mr. John A. Ventosa GM, Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Mr. John F. McCann Director, Nuclear Safety & Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Ms. Charlene D. Faison Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Mr. Ernest J. Harkness Director, Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213
Mr. Patric W. Conroy Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249
Mr. T.R. Jones - Acting Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanana, NY 10511-0249
Mr. William C. Dennis Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
cc:
Mr. Paul D. Tonko President and CEO New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399
Mr. John P. Spath New York State Energy, Research and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399
Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department f Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350
Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
Senior Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511
Senior Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511
Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271
Mayor, Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. Raymond L. Albanese Four County Coordinator 200 Bradhurst Avenue Unit 4 Westchester County Hawthorne, NY 10532
Mr. William DiProfio PWR SRC Consultant
48 Bear Hill Road Newton, NH 03858
Mr. Garry Randolph PWR SRC Consultant 1750 Ben Franklin Drive, 7E Sarasota, FL 34236
Mr. William T. Russell PWR SRC Consultant 400 Plantation Lane Stevensville, MD 21666-3232
Mr. Jim Riccio Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001
Mr. Phillip Musegaas Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591
Mr. Mark Jacobs IPSEC 46 Highland Drive Garrison, NY 10524
Ms. Julie Keys Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
The Honorable Nita Lowey 222 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 310 White Plains, NY 10605 Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
cc:
Mr. John Sipos, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol State Street Albany, NY 12224
Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004
Mr. William J. Ryan, Chairman Westchester County Board of Legislators 800 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Mr. Thomas J. Abinanti, Chair Committee on Environment & Energy Westchester County Board of Legislators 800 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Mr. Michael B. Kaplowitz, 4th District Legislator Westchester County Board of Legislators 800 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Mr. Jerry Nappi New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance 707 Westchester Avenue, Suite 302 White Plains, NY 10604
Ms. Susan Thaler The Field Library 4 Nelson Avenue Peekskill, NY 10566
Ms. Patricia Thorsen White Plains Public Library 100 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Ms. Risa Getman Hendrick Hudson Free Library 185 Kings Ferry Road Montrose, NY 10548
Ms. Sunny Armev Raging Grannies 221 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Mr. Mark Bartelini 14 Steiner Drive Mahopac, NY 10541
Ms. Norva Butler Entergy 844 Midwood Street Brooklyn, NY 11203
Mr. Patrick Canino NYPIRG SUB 322 1 Hawk Drive New Paltz, NY 12561
Mr. Ron Carpino Entergy 6206 Villa At the Woods Peekskill, NY 10566 Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
cc:
Mr. Mark Cooperman 8 Perry Street Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
Mr. Charlie Donaldson NY State Attorney General's Office 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271
Mr. Joseph E. Dullea Local 21 Plumbers and Steamfitters 1865 Route 9 Unit A Garrison, NY 10524
Ms. Marilyn Elie West CAN 2A Adnam Ct.
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
Mr. Richard J. Garb 112 Eaton Downs Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
Mr. Stephen Gescheidle Local 21 34 Homer Place Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Ms. Karin Greenfield-Sanders Putnam Valley Comprehensive Plan Committee 116 West Shore Drive Putnam Valley, NY 10579
Mr. Everton H. Henriquez 296 Vineyard Ave Highland, NY 12528
Mr. Roy Johnson NYSDEC 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233
Mr. Michael Kelleher Local 21 13 Hemlock Drive Mohopac, NY 10541
Mr. John Kelly Entergy 5 Parkwood Drive Garnerville, NY 10923
Mr. James Knubel 14 Angela Drive Putnam Valley, NY 10579
Ms. Susan Likes & Mr. Phillip Likes 325 Oscawna Lake Rd.
Putnam Valley, NY 10579
Mr. Bill Mahlmeister Entergy 3H Alpine Drive Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
Mr. John McCrudden Local 21 19 Lincoln Road Putnam Valley, NY 10579
Mr. Norris McDonald African American Environmental Association 9903 Caltor Lane Ft. Washington, MD 20744
Mr. Joseph Mitrione Local 21 1304 Midland Ave Yonkers, NY 10704
Mr. Alan Nelson, NEI 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006
Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
cc:
Mr. Michael Otis SUNY New Paltz
REH 201 1 Hawk Drive New Paltz, NY 12561
Mr. Taylor Palmer U.S. Representative Cowey 222 Manaroneck Ave, Suite 316 White Plains, NY 10605
Mr. Bob Philip Local 21 283 Roberts Ave.
Yonkers, NY 10703
Ms. Marie Quintin Pace Litigation Clinic 405 E. 77th Street #4 New York, NY 10021
Mr. Angelo Raniolo Local 21 131 Remsen Road Yonkers, NY 10710
Mr. Paul G. Richards Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Route 9W Palisades, NY 10964-8000
Mr. Gerald Richards Local 21 Plumbers and Steamfitters 431 Sidney Ave.
Mount Vernon, NY 10553
Mr. Glenn Rickles Riverkeeper 106 Benedict Road Croton, NY 10520
Ms. Maureen Ritter Rockland FUSE 46 Campbell Ave Suffern, NY 10901
Ms. Audrey Roberts Raging Grannies 420 Blinn Road Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Ms. Joy Rosenzwerg Office of Assemblyman Adam Bradley 4 New King Street White Plains, NY 10604
Ms. Laura Seltz 2 Brook Trail Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Mr. Gary Shaw IPSEC 9 Van Cortlandt Pl.
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Amanda Sisenstein NYPIRG SUB 322 1 Hawk Drive New Paltz, NY 12561
Mr. Jeff Tkais Town of Cortlandt Town Hall 1 Heady St.
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
Mr. Larry Wilson NYSDEC 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233
Ms. Helen Yaroscak-Lanzotti 50 Buckingham Drive Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3
cc:
Ms. Hilda Candlewood Suites 20 Overlook Blvd.
Nanuet, NY 10954
Mr. Sherwood Martinelli Vice President
FUSE USA 351 Dyckman Peekskill, NY 10566
Ms. Susan Shapiro, Esq.
21 Perlman Drive Spring Valley, NY 10977
Robert Snook Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120