ML073241061
| ML073241061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/2007 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC |
| To: | Martinelli S Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS 14668 | |
| Download: ML073241061 (2) | |
Text
November 20, 2007 Mr. Sherwood Martinelli Vice President FUSE USA 351 Dyckman Street.
Peekskill, New York 10566
SUBJECT:
INDIAN POINT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Martinelli:
On September 26, 2007, you transmitted an E-mail message to Chairman Dale Klein of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and others, in which you inquired as to the meaning of the terms adequate and reasonable assurance as they may apply to the license renewal process for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point). In particular, you inquired as to the meaning of these terms in NRC regulations pertaining to license renewal, set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 54.
As you know, an adjudicatory proceeding has been initiated to consider the Indian Point license renewal application (LRA). You filed a petition to intervene in that proceeding, on behalf of yourself and Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE). On October 18, 2007 an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established by the Commission to preside over that proceeding. Inasmuch as your E-mail message concerns the NRCs review of the Indian Point LRA, your communication is subject to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.347. That regulation prohibits the making of ex parte communications to (or by) the Commission or its adjudicatory employees relevant to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding. Accordingly, as Counsel for the NRC Staff in the Indian Point LRA proceeding, I am responding to your E-mail message on behalf of the NRC Staff.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.29 (Standards for issuance of a renewed license), a renewed license may be issued if the Commission finds that:
(a) Actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to the matters identified in Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB [current licensing basis],
and that any changes made to the plant's CLB in order to comply with this paragraph are in accord with the Act and the Commission's regulations. These matters are:
(1) managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified to require review under §54.21(a)(1); and
Mr. Sherwood Martinelli November 20, 2007 (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified to require review under § 54.21(c).
(b) Any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied.
(c) Any matters raised under § 2.335 have been addressed.
10 C.F.R. § 54.29 (emphasis added). The term reasonable assurance also appears in other NRC regulations, including 10 C.F.R. Part 50, pertaining to the licensing of production and utilization facilities. The term adequate does not appear in 10 C.F.R. Part 54, but does appear in a number of provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and elsewhere.
The utilization of these terms in the NRCs regulations is consistent with the NRCs statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in which these terms also appear.
See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §§ 2232, 2235, 2239, and 2242. These terms have been applied, explained and interpreted, in different contexts and on numerous occasions by the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and the federal courts. In the event that you have further interest in this matter, you may wish to conduct your own research to gain a better understanding of these terms (as you state, with all
[their] various derivatives).
Finally, inasmuch as you have filed a petition to intervene in the Indian Point LRA adjudicatory proceeding, we encourage you to familiarize yourself with the NRC rules of practice set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2. In particular, you should review the requirements in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.304 and 2.305 (governing the proper filing and service of documents), and the requirements in 10 C.F.R.
§2.347 (prohibiting ex parte communications). All participants in NRC adjudicatory proceedings are required to comply with these and other provisions in the NRCs rules of practice.
Thank you for your interest in the NRC license renewal process.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Sherwin E. Turk Special Counsel for Litigation cc:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Zachary S. Kahn, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff William C. Dennis, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Susan H. Shapiro, Esq.
Arthur J. Kremer