ML13177A188
| ML13177A188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/2013 |
| From: | Musegaas P Riverkeeper |
| To: | Bladey C K Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch |
| References | |
| 78FR26662 00124, NRC-2013-0063 | |
| Download: ML13177A188 (4) | |
Text
Page 1 of I RULES AND DIRECTIVES__CH As of: June 25, 2013 Received:
June 03, 2013 Status: Pending Post PUBLIC SLtBMIv SSION 7 oM 0 1 3 25 tM 9: 35 Tracking No. ljx-85p9-bnwl Comments Due: June 03, 20 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0063 RFCH\/F! D Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No ignlcatk fimpat Comment On: NRC-2013-0063-0002 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3; Extension of Public Comment Period Document:
NRC-2013-0063-DRAFT-01 14 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-10792 13 Submitter Information Name: Phillip Musegaas "7 9 F'-. 4, ,o-Address: 20 Secor Road Ossining, NY, 10562 Submitter's Representative:
Phillip Musegaas Organization:
Riverkeeper, Inc.General Comment See attached file(s)Attachments Riverkeeper Comment NRC Docket_2013_0063 June_3_2013
'suw"J, P/2i"ý , l 1o/x -6L3 7-t la4 -,ec -(*https://www.fdmslgov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamerobj ectld=0900006481308773
&for... 06/25/2013 RIVERKEEPER.
NY's clean water advocate June 3, 2013 Cindy Bladey Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB)Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB-05-B0IM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Riverkeeper, Inc. Comments on Docket ID NRC-2013-0063
Dear Ms. Bladey,
Please accept the following comments on behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper) with respect to the above-referenced Docket, regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)reconsideration of the issuance of an exemption from fire safety requirements to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and related Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).Riverkeeper hereby incorporates by reference and fully supports in its entirety the comment letter submitted on June 3, 2013 by the Hon. Richard Brodsky and other parties in this matter.Consistent with Mr. Brodsky, Riverkeeper urges the NRC to take the following action or actions:* Deny the exemption request from Entergy, because it is unauthorized by law and if maintained will unacceptably reduce safety margins at the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant, thereby endangering the public health and economic well being of the 20 million people who live and work within fifty miles of Indian Point. In the alternative," Conduct a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of the exemption, including but not limited to a robust alternatives analysis that considers other reasonable alternatives besides "no action" and cumulative impacts analysis that considers the cumulative impacts, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, of all the fire safety and other exemptions currently in force for both Indian Point Units 3 and 2.1 The NRC should issue a draft EIS for public comment, and a final EIS that fully responds to comments prior to making a final decision whether to deny, uphold or otherwise modify the exemption, in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." Hold a formal public hearing in the vicinity of Indian Point, to allow Mr. Brodsky and other Commenters the opportunity to present their concerns, including evidence not currently in the record, regarding the validity of the exemptions at issue here. In the See List of Indian Point exemptions, 1968-present, ADAMS Accession No. ML12172A370, available on the NRC's online ADAMS database, at http://adanis.nrc.aov/wba/, last accessed June 3, 2013.
alternative, convene a Category Ill Public meeting in the vicinity of Indian Point to fully inform the public as to the NRC's process of determining whether an exemption will reduce safety margins and is otherwise consistent with the agency's mandate under the Atomic Energy Act to protect public health and safety.2 In addition, Riverkeeper offers the following comments.First, in its April 3,2013 Federal Register Notice soliciting public comment and publishing the EA and FONSI, the NRC asserts that it has amended its regulations to expand the scope of the existing categorical exclusion from the need to prepare an EA, to include exemptions.'
NRC states that 10 CFR §51.22(c)(9) now includes "approvals of licensee exemption requests." 4 However, a plain reading of the language in 51.22(c)(9) suggests that the regulation applies to license amendments rather than exemption requests.(c) The following categories of actions are categorical exclusions:...
(9) Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter, which changes a requirement, or grants an exemption from any such requirement, with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in part 20 of this chapter, or which changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement, provided that: (i) The amendment or exemption involves no significant hazards consideration;(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; and (iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.10 CFR §51.22(c)(9)
The regulatory language refers to "issuance of an amendment.. .under part 50 or 52 of this cfiapter, which.. .grants an exemption from any such requirement..." Clearly, this regulation applies to license amendments, which are treated much differently under NRC regulation than exemptions.
License amendments require full public notice and opportunity for a hearing, while NRC has long maintained that exemptions from regulations do not require the same degree of public due process. Therefore, this regulation does not apply to exemptions that are granted without the issuance of a license amendment, and as a result, the categorical exclusion from preparing an EA/FONSI does not apply to applications for exemptions submitted to NRC staff, unless they are submitted as license amendment requests, and subject to the same due process public notice and hearing rights that attach thereto. The NRC should revise its FR notice to 2 In this case, Riverkeeper requests that any meeting or hearing be fully transcribed by the NRC, and the transcript made available to the public. Information on the conduct of Category 3 meetings can be found at http://www.nrc.tzov/readinig-rin/doc-collections/nurecs/brochures/br0297/brO297.pdf, last accessed June 3, 2013.3 See 78 FR 20144, April 3, 2013 at 20145.4 id.
acknowledge this distinction, and correctly explain the applicability of this regulation to the exemption at issue here.Second, Riverkeeper submits the following documents for the NRC's review and consideration in this matter, and requests that they be made part of the public record in this proceeding.
- 1. Recommendations Related to Browns Ferry Fire, NUREG -0050, ADAMS Accession No. ML070520452.
- 2. List of Indian Point exemptions, 1968 -present, Updated 6/20/12, ADAMS Accession No. ML12172A370.
- 3. NL-07-138, Entergy Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application, November 16, 2007 (Fire Protection System and Components)
- 4. NL-08-051 1, Entergy Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application (Balance of Plant, Fire Protection and Nickel Alloy), March 12, 2008.5. Federal Register Notice re: Entergy application for exemptions for Indian Point Unit 3, 77FR 8904, February 15, 2012, NRC-2011-0278; Docket No.: 50-286.6. Letter from NRC to Jerome Hauer, Commissioner, New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, regarding fire safety exemptions at Indian Point, January 31, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. MLI 13480448.Riverkeeper appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NRC's review of the above-referenced fire exemptions currently in force at Indian Point 3, and reiterates our request that the exemptions be denied, and Entergy simply be required to comply with the regulations that were developed to prevent catastrophic fires at nuclear power plants under Appendix R to Part 50.Respectfully, Phillip Musegaas, Esq.Hudson River Program Director Riverkeeper, Inc.Phillip@riverkceper.org www.riverkeeper.org
- 20 Secor Road
- Ossining, New York 10562 .t 914.478.4501
- f 914.478.4527 POIJldG &EUGrR