ML100750700

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Letter from the Secretary of the Commission to Susan Shapiro
ML100750700
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/16/2010
From: Annette Vietti-Cook
NRC/SECY
To:
SEC RAS
References
Indian Point 2 & 3, RAS E-340
Download: ML100750700 (1)


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 16, 2010 SECRETARY Susan H. Shapiro, Esq.

21 Pearlman Drive Spring Valley, New York 10977 Dear Ms. Shapiro; The Office of the Secretary has received your submission, dated March 1, 2010, entitled Objection to Finding of Adequate Decommissioning Funds, Petition to Repeal Finding of Adequate Decommissioning Funds, Petition to Reopen For Consideration, Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing, and Contentions. Your submission establishes no grounds for an NRC hearing.

Your submission requests a hearing under the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 10101, et seq., to contest the NRC Staffs finding, dated December 28, 2009, that Entergy has provided reasonable assurance of adequate decommissioning funding at the time of permanent cessation of operations for the Indian Point Unit 2 facility.1 Specifically, you submitted several proposed contentions for which you request a hearing under Section 134 of the NWPA, 42 U.S.C. § 10154, and the Commissions implementing regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K. See Submission of March 1, 2010, at pp. 3-6. But as explained below, there is no proceeding under the Atomic Energy Act in which you may intervene or request an oral argument under the NWPA.

Section 134 requires the Commission at the request of any party to provide an oral argument [i]n any proceeding under section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2239) on an application for a license, or for an amendment to an existing license to expand the spent nuclear fuel storage capacity at the site of a civilian nuclear power reactor .

(Emphasis added). Thus, in order to invoke the NWPA provision for an oral argument, you must already be a party to a pre-existing proceeding under section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act.

No such proceeding exists here and you are not a party.

The NRC Staff letter that you seek to challenge does not grant Entergy a license or license amendment or, indeed, permission or authority to do anything not already authorized by its license. It is in no sense a license or an amendment triggering an opportunity for an NRC hearing. Instead, the letter simply states that the NRC Staff has found that Entergy is in compliance with the applicable NRC regulations.

In view of your concern about this matter, I am referring your submission to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for appropriate action. See 10 C.F.R. §2.206.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission 1

See Letter from John P. Boska, NRC, to Vice President, Operations, Entergy Nuclear Operations (December 28, 2009).