ML12153A026

G20120371/LTR-12-0238/EDATS: SECY-2012-0270 - Ltr. Rep. Edward J. Markey Re Request That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deny Staffs Request to Re-License the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant

ML12153A026
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	05/24/2012
From:	Markey E US HR, Comm on Natural Resources
To:	Jaczko G NRC/Chairman
Rihm R
Shared Package
ML12157A394	List: ML12153A026 ML12163A502
References
G20120371, LTR-12-0238, SECY-2012-0270, corr-12-0055
Download: ML12153A026 (5)

Text

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:

DUE: 06/12/12 Representative Edward J.

Markey EDO CONTROL: G20120371 DOC DT: 05/24/12 FINAL REPLY:

Chairman Jaczko FOR SIGNATURE OF :

PRI CRC NO: 12-0238 Chairman Jaczko DESC:

Request that the Nucl Iar Regulatory Commission Deny Staff's Reques, to Re-License the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (EDATS: SECY-2012-0270)

DATE: 05/30/12 ROUTING:

Borchardt Weber Johnson Ash Mamish OGC/GC

Leeds, NRR Dean, RI

Zobler, OGC

Schmidt, OCA ASSIGNED TO:

EDO CONTACT:

Rihm SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

Please prepare response in accordance with OEDO Notice 2009-0441-02 (ML093290179).

NRR and Region I to provide input to Roger Rihm,

OEDO, if required.

Roger Rihm will coordinate response with OGC and OCA.

I of a-S- ' cý-N-D 1 -

E-

-ýAhca

'SCY-0'ý/_

EDATS Number: SECY-2012-0270 Source: SECY GeneralInfomaio Assigned To: OEDO OEDO Due Date: 6/.12/2012 11:00 PM Other Assignees:

SECY Due Date: 6/14/2012 11:00 PM

Subject:

Request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deny Staffs Request to Re-License the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant

==

Description:==

CC Routing: NRR, Region 1; OGC; OCA ADAMS Accession Numbers -

Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE Other Infom Cross Reference Number: G20120371, LTR-12-0238 Staff Initiated: NO Related Task:

Recurring Item: NO File Routing: EDATS Agency Lesson Learned: NO OEDO Monthly Report Item: NO I Prcs I

nfomai o

I Action Type: Letter Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Signature Level: Chairman Jaczko Urgency: N4 Approval Level: No Approval Required OEDO Concurrence: YES OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions: Please prepare response in accordance with OEDO Notice 2009-0441-02 (M.L093290179). NRR and Region I to provide input to Roger Rihm, OEDO, if required. Roger Rihm will coordinate response with OGC and OCA.

0 I' Docu en Inomto I

Originator Name: Representative Edward J. Markey Originating Organization: Congress Addressee: Chariman Jaczko Incoming Task Received: Letter Date of Incoming: 5/24/20 12 Document Received by SECY Date: 5/30/2012 Date Response Requested by Originator: 6/25/2012 Page 1 of l

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printzed: May 30, 2012 16:5 7 PAPER NUMBER:

ACTION OFFICE:

LTR-12-0238 LOGGING DATE:

05/24/2012 AUTHOR:

AFFILIATION:

ADDRESSEE:

SUBJECT:

ACTION:

DISTRIBUTION:

LETTER DATE:

ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING:

REP Edward Markey CONG CHRM Gregory Jaczko Request that the NRC deny staffs request to re-license the Pilgrim nuclear power station Signature of Chairman RF, OCA to Ack 05/24/2012 No Commission Correspondence.

A response is requested by NLT Monday, June 25.

NOTES:

FILE LOCATION:

ADAMS DATE DUE:

06/14/2012 DATE SIGNED:

EDO -- G20120371

EDWARD J. MARKEY OF MASSACHUSETS RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER A

O Rouse of Xpresientatiuvs (Gotnmittet on Natural Etesourcrs lfashington, 3BT 2o1515 May 24, 2012 The Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Chairman Jaczko:

I am writing again to request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) deny its staff's request' to re-license the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) in Plymouth, Massachusetts. In addition to the outstanding administrative proceedings and judicial appeals related to the license extension that require resolution, I am also concerned that the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 2 (GELS, which is legally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) prepared by NRC in 2007 was inadequate, particularly with regard to the potential effects of PNPS's once-through cooling system on wildlife and their habitat.

Multiple agencies play a role in nuclear plant re-licensing, but it is primarily the responsibility of the NRC to ensure that nuclear power plants are not relicensed until they comply with all applicable regulations, including regulations aimed at protecting wildlife. A primary way that power plants harm wildlife is through the impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms in cooling systems. Impingement occurs when fish and other aquatic life forms are trapped against cooling water intake screens. Entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms are drawn through a cooling structure and then pumped back out. Aside from these physical impacts, power plants also discharge heated effluent that contains chemical compounds; this thermal and chemical pollution may directly harm organisms, or indirectly harm them by degrading the quality of their habitat. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates these adverse effects on wildlife through the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

http:/Jwww.nrc.gov/reading-rmVdoc-collections/commission/secys/2012/2012-0062scy.pdf

'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 29 Regarding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Final Report (CEQ #20070325).

http: :dInrrlcra I ý.n dIhra I rrf,so urces, hni i Se.y

Honorab~le Chairman Jaczko Page 2 In the case of PNPS re-licensing, the NRC prepared a GEIS as part of the NEPA process, in which they asserted that it is EPA's responsibility to examine whether changes in plant operations are necessary to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The EPA commented on the GEIS in a letter dated August 30, 2007. In this letter, the EPA admonished the NRC about the GEIS, saying that it should contain more detailed descriptions of the environmental impacts of re-licensing, explicitly consider options to mitigate impacts, and clarify some statements that the EPA did not agree with. For example, EPA requested a detailed explanation of why the NRC concluded that retro-fitting PNPS with a closed-cycle cooling system was not feasible. The EPA conceded that it is not the NRC's responsibility to decide whether PNPS operation complies with the Clean Water Act - that is EPA's responsibility through the NPDES permit process. But notably, the EPA issued PNPS's current NPDES permit in 1991; it expired in 1996 and has been renewed without review in the nearly twenty years since then.

I am concerned that the NRC and the EPA have been derelict in their duties to protect wildlife from effects of nuclear power plant operation. In the case of PNPS, it has become obvious that these agencies are engaged in a game of regulatory "hot potato," each pointing to the others to take responsibility for examining effects of nuclear power plant cooling systems. I am also concerned that the issues at PNPS are not an isolated incident, but may be indicative of an ongoing practice that leaves species entrained in a bureaucratic black hole and without adequate protection.

So that I can better understand the steps that the NRC is taking to address the potential effects of PNPS re-licensing on wildlife, I would like to know what steps the NRC has taken to address concerns raised in the August 30, 2007 letter from the EPA. Please provide copies of all documentation of each step, and please respond to this request by June 25, 2012.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in responding to this request. Should you have any questions about this request, please contact Jill Cohen or Michal Freedhoff of the House Committee on Natural Resources Democratic Staff at 202-225-6065.

Sincerely, Edward J. Markey Ranking Member House Committee on Natural Resources