ML11263A263

Letter from the Secretary in Response to Congresswoman Nita Lowey'S Letter of August 15, 2011

ML11263A263
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/16/2011
From:	Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY
To:	Lowey N US HR, Comm on Appropriations
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21068, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML11263A263 (7)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 16, 2011 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY The Honorable Nita M. Lowey United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congresswoman Lowey,

I am responding to your letter of August 15, 2011, sent to Chairman Jaczko of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission), in which you raised several concerns related to license renewal for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3).

Due to the fact that relicensing for the Indian Point plants is currently the subject of adjudication before an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, I must advise that under agency regulations, the Commission has an appellate role in the adjudicatory proceeding. Because of that role, I trust that you will understand that Chairman Jaczko and the other Commissioners must remain impartial during the pendency of a case, whether it is before a Licensing Board or on appeal to the Commission. I am therefore referring your letter to the NRC staff for response.

A copy of your letter and this response, as well as a response by the NRC staff, when issued, will be served on the participants in the Indian Point proceeding.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission cc: Indian Point Service List

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS low~y,hOIiS£1'*9('jY lNl\.Illi!!lIJll.QN.

~$~GRAYa\.IRN .IOIj$t OHICE SlIlWiFG tilHlC9MMfrrEES! WM;H!NGroN~ C-C 1tfjl~}

MNK1NG MEMBER, .  !~<>Il m,..;;>;(j$

fAX,,: {l(t2:j U\).,-OS~f, STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS ~a<;.!:Ui!illill 22'(1 MAMAHON&.CKAV£Nl'r;.

LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION ita ftL '{otnep  !).UlT£ 310 ViHtfE PL~N$. NY 106f)5 1914\ 4~£** nO?

(:ongr£~~ of tbe 'Wnittb ~tlltt$

fl\'~: ft414} 3.J.1l-15\lS

!!riJ;~~t&

HOMELAND SECURITY IlLISl "'1~,~,es 18ti) llistdttJ J}ew !lodt At!gust 15,2011 Chairman Gregory B. .laczko U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0;.1604 Washington, DC 20555-000 I

Dear Chairman Jaczko:

Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 3150-AD04 (Rule) provides the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with the power to relicense nuclear facilities. This Rule provides much more flexibility on relicensing terms than the NRC has been willing to utilize.

Specifically, the Rule states that a main concern in determining l'enewal terms was the ability to find replacement power. What the NRC believed to bea "1 0-to-15" year endeavor decades ago could be completed withil1ufewyears today. In fact. New York is 011 COUl'se to have enough pOWer to replace Indian Point by the time Indian Point Reactor 3 would be relicensed. I urge Y01,t to exercise the flexcibi1ity offered to the NRC, given the special circumstances facing Indian Point in Buchanan, New Y01'k. to consider a shorter license renewal teml before an orderly decommissioni11g of the facility .

. Replacement PQ..Wfi:f Regulations controlling the NRC's actions on re1icellsing are outdated. The Rule states that "Utilities contend that they will require 10 to 15 years to plan and build replacement power plants if the operating licenses for existing nuClear power plants are notreilewed"l This statement, issued in 1991. does not reflect modern standards. Replacement power can be zoned, permitted, and built in a fraction of that time.

The Governor of New York has made clear his plan to close Indian Point The New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation has rejected a required water permit for the facility to utilize water from the Hudson River to cool reactors. Rather than support relicenshig, the State bas enacted a new siting law to t\.sslstin the constlUctlon ()f power plants, atid is alrea:dy In the process.of approving mtl:ltiple projects that should beon-Hne and in production before Indian Point's licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.

New York has approved a Hudson TransmissiOli P];oject to provide 660 MW, projected to be in service ill 2013; an NRG Repowering Station in Astolia to provide 440 MW. projected to bein service ill 2013; and a U.S. PowerGen South Pier Improvement Project in Braoklyn to provide 100 MW, projected to be 156 FR64943; December 13, 19.91

in service in 2012. Additional projects in the permitting process, including the Champlain Hudson Power Express project, which will provide over 1000 additional megawatts ofpower. These projects alone would meet the peak-demand provided by Indian Point within the next few years.

In the coming months. we will receive additional infonnation from New York State on replacement power and expect New Yol'k to meet expected demand without Indian Point. Therefore, a full 20-year relicense term is not needed.

Special Circumstances You have stated that the NRC is obligated to determine relicensing based on a list offactors which do not include population density, risk of terror threat, evacuation difficulties, or seismic risk. Yet the Rule governing NRC relicensing is not exclusive. Rather, the Rule" states that relicensing must take into account age degradation "but provides leeway for the Commission to consider, on a case~by-case basis, other issues tmique to extended operation.,,2 ,

The location and risks posed by Indian Point clearly walTent a careful. case-by-case relicensing review.

Indian Point, located 35-miles of Times Square, is surrounded by 17 million people within a 50-mile radius. There is yet to be a credible evacuation plan for a ten-mile radius, let alone one that would evacuate the entire population ofNew York City, Westchester and Rockland Counties, and p011ions of Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut. If ever issues of evacuation and popUlation density should be addressed in relicensing, it is with the Indian Point facility.

, In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, we have been forced to think about the unexpected and unimaginable potential dangers to nuclear facUities. Since that time, U.S. plants have also faced flood dangers. such as the F0l1 Calhoun Nuclear Power Station in Nebraska.

I am deeply concerned that there is no workable pIau to evacuate the population sun*otmding Indian Point safely in the event of a man-made or natural disaster and that Entergy officials continue to utilize antiquated seismic data that we know underestimates potential seismic events. Without basic evacuation procedures, it is nearly impossible to give first responders and the public confidence in plans for unexpected emergencies or for the Federal Emergency Management Acjministl'ation (FEMA) to plan for threats. I do not see how they can best plan for the unexpected when basic evacuation procedures are .

not adequate.

Five-Year License The Rule states that '~there is no minimum ternl for a renewed license" and that "the Commission may revisit this issue in'the 'future as experience with licensee perfonnance .. .is gained.,,3 I believe that this Rule, along with the special Cii'Clllllstances surrounding Indian Point's location, security threat, and replacement power options, should encourage the NRC to support a short-term license renewal such as a five-year renewal.

256 FR 64946; December 13, 1991 356 FR 64964; December 13, 1991

Thei'e is precedent for the NRCto work with states and utilities to penn it operations of an aging nuclear facility for a shorter time than the term oft11e license. The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey recently anno~Ulced that it will close in 2019; ten years before its renewal license is scheduled to expire. At Oyster Creek., the State Department of Environmental Protection required cooling towers and additional protections not requited by the NRC Rather than adhere to the State's requirements, Excelon agreed to decommission the plant in 2019, making Way for adequate .replacement power options and the safedosureof a plant that had become an cllvironmentalthreat with a history of leaking tTitiuin.

New York may be more willing to work v.rith Entetgy to sustain operationi:! aimed at ail o.rderly decommissioning of the plant. The NRC should take a realistic approach to relicensing that involves State concerns, work with New York and, if Indian Point is qualified, approve a shOTt-term extension while simultaneously begin the deeOl'llmissioiling process as New York approves replagement power. A short-term relicensing, along with an orderly decommissioning, would ensure that replacement power is available and affordahle and would reduce the enviromnetltal and national security threat posed to the r~gion by the plant's continued operation.

Sincerely, Nita M. Lowey Member of Congress

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR

) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSWOMAN NITA LOWEYS LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 2011 have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Mail Stop T-3F23 Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 David E. Roth, Esq.

Brian Harris, Esq.

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.

Administrative Judge Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

E-mail: lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov Karl Farrar, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Richard E. Wardwell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel E-mail: richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Kaye D. Lathrop E-mail:

Administrative Judge sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 190 Cedar Lane E. edward.williamson@nrc.gov Ridgway, CO 81432 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov E-mail: kaye.lathrop@nrc.gov brian.harris.@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov Joshua A. Kirstein, Law Clerk andrea.jones@nrc.gov E-mail: josh.kirstein@nrc.gov mary.spencer@nrc.gov karl.farrar@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSWOMAN NITA LOWEYS LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 2011 OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov William C. Dennis, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Victoria Shiah, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Counsel for Town of Cortlandt White Plains, NY 10601 Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Email: wdennis@entergy.com 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com vshiah@sprlaw.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Exchange Place Riverkeeper, Inc.

53 State Street 20 Secor Road Boston, MA 02109 Ossining, NY 10562 E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. Westchester County Attorney Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Mary Freeze White Plains, NY 10601 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com martin.oneill@morganlewis.com jrund@morganlewis.com mfreeze@morganlewis.com Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs Steven C. Filler NYC Department of Environmental Protection Karla Raimundi 59-17 Junction Boulevard Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Flushing, NY 11373 724 Wolcott Ave.

E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Beacon, NY 12508 E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org stephenfiller@gmail.com karla@clearwater.org 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSWOMAN NITA LOWEYS LETTER OF AUGUST 15, 2011 Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Senior Attorney for Special Projects Assistant Attorney General New York State Department Office of the Attorney General of Environmental Conservation State of Connecticut 625 Broadway, 14th Floor 55 Elm Street Albany, New York 12233-5500 P.O. Box 120 E-mail: jmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Hartford, CT 06141-0120 E-mail: robert.snook@po.state.ct.us John Louis Parker, Esq. Sean Murray, Mayor Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Kevin Hay, Village Administrator New York State Department Village of Buchanan of Environmental Conservation Municipal Building 21 South Putt Corners Road 236 Tate Avenue New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us E-mail: SMurray@villageofbuchanan.com Administrator@villageofbuchanan.com John J. Sipos, Esq.

Charles Donaldson, Esq.

Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York 12224 E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov charlie.donaldson@ag.ny.gov Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov

[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of September 2011 3