ML17034A217

FOIA/PA-2017-0031 - Resp 2 - Final

ML17034A217
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	02/01/2017
From:	Stephanie Blaney NRC/OCIO/CSD/FPIB
To:	Morrison E Goodwin Procter, LLP
References
FOIA/PA-2017-0031
Download: ML17034A217 (79)

Text

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER (12-2015)

.::.'".,.'RREQ"<.,,.

I 2017-0031 11 I

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2

f

~

~

~:

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST 0

~

o~

RESPONSE D

[Z]

INTERIM FINAL TYPE REQUESTER:

DATE:

I Eileen Morrison 11 FEB 0.1 2017 I

DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS:

All records, including communications, related to the specified contention in the Environmental Protection Agency's

("EPA") draft permit for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station PART I. -- INFORMATION RELEASED D

Agency records subject to the request are already available in public ADAMS or on microfiche in the NRC Public Document Room.

0 Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.

D Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.

D We are continuing to process your request.

0 See Comments.

PART I.A - FEES AMOUNT*

D 0

$ II II You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed.

None. Minimum fee threshold not met.

D D

"See Comments for details You will receive a refund for the amount listed.

Fees waived.

PART l.B -- INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE D We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist.

0 We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II.

D Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination.

[{] You may appeal this final determination within 30 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or email to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or FOIA.Resource@nrc.gov.

Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal."

PART l.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required)

In conformance with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, the NRC is informing you that: (1) you have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison; (2) you have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services; and (3) notwithstanding the language in Parts LB and II.B of this fonn, you may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or email to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555-0001, or FOIA.Resource@nrc.gov. Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal."

SIGNATURE - FREEDOM OF INFOliMA TION,.A9T OFFIC~

I Stepfianie 'B[aney[ / Y7 h),oA (.)/0 NRC Form 464 Part I (12-2015)

I A~d continuation P~9=;(];'

1:- :oet-;te c~~ti~u~ti~n ?a9~ -,

Page 2 of 3

r NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (12-2015)

REQUESTER:

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST Continued I

Eileen Morrison PART l.C COMMENTS (Continued)

FOIA I

2011-0031

RESPONSE

TYPE D RESPONSE NUMBER 11 2

INTERIM I./ I FINAL DATE:

II FEB 0 1 2017 The record Confidential/Interagency Deliberative Process/Do Not Cite or Quote Draft, Revision 12/4/2015 is the record that was referred to the Environmental Protection Agency. They provided additional records that are relevant to your request.

r NRC Form 464 Part I (12-2015)

Page 3 of 3

NRC FORM 464 Part II (12-2015)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST PART II.A -- APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS FOIA I

2011-0031 DATE:

I FEB ~ 1 20i1 Records subject to the request are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the FOIA exemption(s) as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).

D Exemption 1: The withheld information is properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order protecting national security information.

D Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC..

D Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by the statute indicated.

D Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161-2165).

D Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).

D 41 U.S.C. 4702(b), which prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals, except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter of the proposal.

D Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.

D D

D The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1).

The information is considered to be another type or confidential business (proprietary) information.

The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).

[{] Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are normally privileged in civil litigation.

[{] Deliberative process privilege.

D Attorney work product privilege.

D Attorney-client privilege.

D Exemption 6: The withheld information from a personnel, medical, or similar file, is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

D Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.

D (A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an open enforcement proceeding.

D (C) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

D (D) The information consists of names and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be exp_ected to reveal identities of confidential sources.

D (E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.

D (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual..

D Other I I

PART 11.B -- DENYING OFFICIALS In accordance with 10 CFR 9.25(g) and 9.25(h) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, the official(s) listed below have made the determination to withhold certain information responsive to your request DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL ECO SECY I

Stephanie Blaney I I FOIA Officer/OCIO 11

\\ I 0 D

I I

11 I

I D 11 I

I D Appeals must be made in writing within 30 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or email to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or FOIA.Resource@nrc.gov. Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal."

D D

NRC Form 464 Part II (12-2015)

Page 1of1

To:

Casto, Greg[Greg.Casto@nrc.gov]

Cc:

Zobrist. Marcus[Zobrist.Marcus@epa.gov]; Webster, David[V\\lebster.David@epa.gov): Curley, Michael[Curley.Michael@epa.gov); Papadopoulos, George[papadopoulos.george@epa.gov}

From:

Houlihan, Damien Sent:

Thur 7116/2015 3:03:35 PM

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes 7 16 15 Memo to NRC on NPDES Permit Process and Pilgrim BTA Technologies.docx Greg-Sec attached memo, as previously discussed, that outlines the "\\l"PDES process (gcnerall.y) from draft to finallzation, and also includes some specific question related to nuclear safety concerns

. raised by Entergy with regard to certain potential Best Technology Available (BTA) options under consideration.

We look forward ro discllssing this memo with you and others at NRC in the near future. I'll be in touch to set something up.

Please feel free to call with questions. Thanks.

Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Pennits Section Office of Ecosystem Protection US EPA 617 918-1586 From: Casto, Greg [1]

Sent~ Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:04 AM To; Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes

Damien, Just following up for scheduling our next meeting. I've been thinking on how we can push this forward on our end, and believe that if we have the template examples for how EPA envisions a pre-draft permit consultation, and a post-draft permit consultation, then we can use those to provide to our senior management with our recommended definition for 'conflict' and how that will interiace with the consulting process. Given that approval, then we may be able to proceed.

I believe that from the last meeting, your staff got an understanding of where we might consider alternatives within our understanding of 'conflict', given our regulatory process. After the meeting, we discussed this further among our group and we ended up with a common picture of how that definition could generally work with licensee justifications, and how they would enhance those justifications from the current example provided by Pilgrim.

If we had the templates in advance of the next meeting, then we should be able to talk to those and work through an example using Pilgrim. That should help our explanation to senior management to get acceptance and/or comments on our path foiward.

Feel free to call if questions or to discuss path forward. Tx greg Greg Cas~o Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

oO*o,o*********"' ** -~**'-- "N'o* -

o*o* O._N ** *** '**

• • • • • ................. -*~--.-******.. **-*****.

.. **"........,_. __........ ~............. ~ **,* ** -

Greg.casto@nrc.gov I

(301 )415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien lmailto:tioulihan.dami~!1@~Q~.gov]

sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:48 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Good morning, Greg.

Looki11g forward to our call at 2:30 today. I've attached a draft agenda based on what you proposed in earli<.!r email and some follow up from our meeting in January. Let me know if it's o_k. and l can then circulate to you and EPA folks. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg Lmailto:Grcg_CastorHnrc.gqy]

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 I :32 PM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

[mportance: High We are firm for our Tuesday meeting at 230P. We will have the following on the call:

Myself Tim Collins - senior technical regulatory expert Fred Lyons - project manager for site specific licensing activities

Dave Beaulieu.(bow-yer)- senior 10 CFR 50.59 expert Brian Harris - environmental area related technical reviewer Andrew Pessin - general counsel (or either Susan Uttal or Daniel Straus, OGC. They were all at the January meeting)

Call in information is below: Fl 800-857-5160, pass codl____J l

(b)(6)

I If issues crop up, and you can't get me in the office, my cell is._* ____ __,. Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien [2]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 201510:36 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim fOllow-up Thanks, Greg. We're are confinned for Tuesday, 4/14, from 2:30- 4.

• ***** '"I ** *

........ *--**---**--:-*...... ~-*.... '...

• ~-............. -*;...,......

  -. *~-*--*---~ -....... -

........ -:-":**~... --.W7:""""'""i*!*........ ~

............... r............................... ':....................... -. -

We'll he calling in, so we will need to ati-angc conferencing. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg lmailto:Circ£1:.Casto(ci*1lrc.12ov]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:51 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High l

Just making sure that you know our meeting has been postponed to Tuesday at 230p here at the NRC. This will be a firm meeting and we should discuss what will be needed to support travel by EPA R1 staff (conf call). Tx greg From: Casto, Greg Sent: Tuesday, April 07. 2015 11 :45 AM To: 'Houlihan, Damien'

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, left you a voice message to try to not continue to go back and forth on the date/time. I'm having some* people who would be beneficial to have at the meeting not able to attend on Thursday, but they could attend next week. Give me a call or respond by email. We should be able to do Tuesday, 230-4p (rest of week does not look good for most). I would propose to make the next week meeting firm (and can do so on my end). Sorry again, and let me kflOW.

Tx greg From: Houlihan. Damien [3]

Sent: Monday. April 06, 2015 11 :40 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

• ............. ~

.. ~_.............. -.......... "**:**.....,... *-*~*-*... --..............,............. :r-.i.*,1 ~~.-................. -..... -

......... --=-****--*..... _.......... ~... ""'"'....,.,~.................,........... _.

Hi Greg-We have conflicts on Wednesday. Let's do Thursday 1-2:30. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [nrnilto:Greu.Casto(!'_i)1rc.l!OV]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:36 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High l

Damien, Please let me know when you can whether the Wednesday afternoon meeting day/time work. If not, then we could make it the same time on Thursday. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:03 PM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. What you propose looks great.

f'm o'ut tomorrow. Let's cry for early next week. I'm pretty available. From FPA we'll include myself, George Papadopoulos, Dave Webster, and hopefully l\\.farcus Zohrist (from HQ).

Possibly include our attorney, Mark Stein.

'**'-**~*...,.ow,.........,..., **

~**,.,,,.,.....,~..... ~:1-11"!'.t:t-.~.'.,.,/,(t*1.*,.,...,.,,,._*,.-.., **,..* _,_,_~*lrl*,.-..--*<'*.-*,_..._~,.~**-*-U.**-',.-*_,...........,~.,,,,,, *..,,,_... '* '*, **',,

If you could send me some potential times, I'll coordinate with EPA folks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [ffng;_.gov

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 I 0:31 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, I just saw this_

I was out until yesterday, and am out again this afternoon. I am in tomorrow and currently next week. I'll work on an early next week meeting with people to talk on the following specific to Pilgrim, if this works for you:

1) Discussion on the 10 CFR 50.59 process relative to applying.to crafting Pilgrim permitting questions

a. Overview of 50.59 and NEI 96-07 information

b. Examples where current permitting responses (from Pilgrim) appear to fit and do not appear to fit 50.59 approach

2) Re-discussion for areas where the EPA has permitting questions

a. Review of July 2014 request letter and initial request

b. Agreement of definition for 'conflict with an NRG safety requirement'

c.

Recommended requests for further information to accommodate informational needs to perform consultation

d. Discuss NRC perception of what may be needed for future consultation (ie - what information we'd expect to be able to conclude a 'conflict')

3) Discussion of EPA proposed approach to interface with Pilgrim, and identify anything else needed for discussion or investigation for future meetings Let me know if this looks like the right direction, and feel free to propose anything different or additional. I'm* not sure this could be completed in an hour, but we could try. Suggest no more than a 90 minute bite for this meeting. I think that our outcome for this meeting would be to give you an understanding of the kind of documentation that we would need to see to conclude a 'conflict' exists.

Tx greg Greg Casto Chief~ Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien (mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:32 AM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. Let's sci something up for next week. If you could send me some proposed times, J'll coordi natc with olhcr EPA folks.

Damien

From: Casto, Greg [4]

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; W cbstcr, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks Damien. Sorry but lam out of the office until next Tuesday. We have been working to schedule our next physical meeting (to further work on the action items from the January meeting} and it appears that the week of April 201h will be the next opportunity. I'll be able to call mid to late next week to generally discuss questions you might have on 50.59 and other options for Pilgrim. Let me know and we can set that up if you like.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [rnailto:houlihan.darnien@epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:28 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus: Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg '7 I'm wondering if you have any time to touch base tomon-ow? It could be a quick check-in where we can discuss status and next steps. Please let me know. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [5]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:30 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus~ Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

Thanks, and we have done work on these topics since the meeting, but it was about a month ago_

I'm getting with the other NRG meeting attendees now on recent work on this. I am probably not available this week to discuss in detail, so I'd say next week would be a good target to generally re-visit the bullets. Another overall follow-up meeting might be possible the following week, I'll need to check with our participants.

To discuss Pilgrim path forward specifically, that might be able to happen as early as next week. but again I'd need to check with the staff.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [6]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:30 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-I wanted to follow-up with you on the consultation process for the Pilgrim draft NPDES pcnnit.

As you know, we continue to work on selecting the CWA 316(b) best technology available for the facility, and we believe working with NRC is a very important pa11 of the process in terms of detennining whether a technology is "available."

Specifically, I'm wondering about items c, d, and c from you 1/16 email to Marcus. They're listed below:

c.

NRC will further deliberate on how our processes may be adapted to support EPA 's desire to consult with us. (As example, B. above)

d.

NRC will consider whether ir can issue a letter to Pilgrim requesting additional information on why certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. (more discussion internally on this in progress, but appears to be in conflict with OMB policy if Pilgrim does not fonnally send correspondence to NRC. as no apparent direct basis for fee recovery)

e.

NRC will review 'Pilgrim's assertion to EPA that certain technologies conflict with

~RC safety requirements. We informed EPA that our initial review indicated there was insufficient information for NRC to make a conclusion one way or the other. However, NRC would come prepared to discuss conceptually our views on Pilgrim's assertions. We were very clear that any perspectives provided would not constitute official NRC positions. (Will use work L-

on (b) above to see how it applies to Pilgrim. Believe that a~ a minimum, wlil result in basis for EPA follow up questions to Pilgrim that will illicit better regulatory based justification for conflicts. )

Would you be available for a call this week to discuss? Please let me know if you have any availability. Thanks.

Damien Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Permits Section Office of Ecosystem Protection US EPA

)

617 918-1586

To:

From:

Sent:

Subject:

Morgan, Nadiyah[Nadiyah.Morgan@nrc.gov]

Papadopoulos, George Mori 6/1/2015 4:06:42 PM RE: Pilgrim NP DES - FSAR Chapter 11 Thank you Dee and good luck to you too -

George Papadopoulos - liSEP!\\ - (617) 918-1579 From: Morgan, Nadiyah [7]

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 L 1:54 AM To: Papadopoulos, George

Subject:

Re: Pilgrim NPDES - FSAR Chapter 11 Hello George, l'.m going to forward your email to Rich Guzman, as I am no longer the Pilgrim PM.

Good luck!

Thanks, Dee On: 01 June 2015 10:41, "Papadopoulos, George" <papadopoulos.george@epa.gov>

wrote:

Hi Nadiyah_

for Section 11.6 of Pilgrim's FSAR, were there a fc,.,, pages of this that was not sent to me ?

Your only attachment that referenced Section 11.6 was a figure that had heen moved to a

different document. This was also the case for a few other Sections, but [am mainly interested in any tcxl portion of Section I l.6 Thank you George Papadopoulos - VS EPA - (6 l 7) 918-1579 From: Morgan, Nadiyah [mE..ilt0:Nadiyah.\\*1organ@r.ffL,¥.QY.]

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:36 PM To: Papadopoulos, George Cc: Beasley, Benjamin: Dudek, Michael~ Guzman, Richard Subject; Pilgrim NPDES - FSAR Chapter 11 Hello George, Please see attached.

Thanks, Dee From: Papadopoulos, George (mailto:papadopoulos.georqe@epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 1:05 PM To: Beasley, Benjamin Cc: Houlihan, Damien; Gaito, Danielle

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim NPDES Hi Ben,

Do you have any sense as to when we can expect those Pilgrim FSAR sections"!

As I mentioned in my ptior email, we arc most interested in Section or Part 1 I if you could provide thar at your earliest convenience. The FSAR would greatly assist us in putting our promised correspondence to you in specific language that you requested pertaining to operations at Pilgrim.

Thank you George Papadopoulos-USEPA- (617) 918-1579 From: Beasley, Benjamin Lrnailto:Bcnjamin.Hcaslcy(c'.f!nrc.gov]

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:18 PM To: Papadopoulos, George Cc: Morgan, Nadiyah; Casto, Greg; Dudek, Michael

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim NPDES

George, The Pilgrim operating license is publicly available. By copy of this e-mail, I am asking Dee Morgan to forward a hyperlink or file of the license to you. The FSAR is not publicly available but with a review for sensitive information, we can send you most of it, or at least the pertinent sections. We will begin reviewing the FSAR for sensitive information as soon as our workload permits. Next week we will send you a date for when we expect to provide the FSAR sections.

Regards, Ben Beasley Benjamin Beasley. Acting Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation JOl-415-2062

,-~~*u.S.NRC~

• } ~ ' **,, *,. ~ "

~<<*** I

• • • ~

From: Papadopoulos, George [111<i!)_lto:papadopoulos.george@epa.gov)

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:06 PM To: Beasley, Benjamin

Subject:

FW: Pilgrim NPDES From: Papadopoulos, George Sent; Friday, April 17, 2015 3:45 PM To: 'Grcg.Casto@nrc.gov';

1ben.beasley@nrc.gov' Cc: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

Pilgrim NPDES Hi Greg and Ben, I took part in our conference call this past Tuesday regarding the reissuance of the Pilgrim NPDES Permit. We promised to get back to you with an assessment of certain technologies that are being considered at Pilgrim with some detail on how they may affect nuclear safety and/or Pilgrim's (NRC) operating license. Would you be able to pass along P_ilgtim's current license?

If the FSAR is not part of the license, is that something you could share with us also? We are

just trying put things in language that is consistent with those documents and the 10 CFR 50.59 process as we had discussed.

Thank you George Papadopoulos - USEPA - (617) 918-1579

To:

Cc:

From:

Sent:

Subject:

Hi Ben,

• • -**-**** "°'"".*****"""~ 0" ***-****.-.*******~*... *-*****...,* *.._*,.* "\\*L:o,.>**M ***.* ~... ***** **:***********--***************.**

o ** *. **** **,_.

Beasley, Benjamin[Benjamin.Beasley@nre.gov]

Morgan, Nadiyah[Nadiyah.Morgan@nrc.gov]

Papadopoulos, George,

Fri 5/1/2015 5:18:00 PM RE: Pilgrim NPDES Regarding Pilgrim's FSAR, we arc most interested in Secrion 11. if you can provide this part first. Thank you George Papadopoulos - US EPA - ( 61. 7) 918-15 79 From: Beasley, Benjamin [8]

Sent: 'Friday, April 17, 2015 4:18 PM To: Papadopoulos, George Cc: Morgan, Nadiyah; Casto, Greg; Dudek, Midrnel Subj~ct: RE: Pilgrim NPD;ES

George, The Pilgrim operating license is publicly available. By copy of this e-mail, I am asking Dee Morgan to forward a hyperlink or file of the license to you. The FSAR is not publicly available but with a review for sensitive information, we can send you most of it, or at least the pertinent sections. We will begin reviewing the FSAR for sensitive infonnation as soon as our workload permits. Next week we will send yo 1u a date for when we

• expect to provide the FSAR sections.

Regards, Ben Beasley

_j

.......,...... *---.......... '"'.. -...........................,._.,............ -***** _..... ~**----**- **-**********-~.. ~~~

....,,... -*....... ".................. "'**:--~*-*...............,. '**. '*.

Benjamin Beasley, Acting Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-415-2062 Benjamin.Beasley@nrc_gov

• ~ *us*--. NR("

• *~

.A

.. ~......... ~.*)...............

From: Papadopoulos, George [ma11to:papadopoulos.geome@epa.gov)

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:06 PM To: Beasley, Benjamin

Subject:

FW: Pilgrim NPDES

• From: Papadopoulos, George Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 3:45 PM To: 'Greg.Cac;to@nrc.gov': 'ben.bcaslcy@nrc.gov'.

Cc: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

Pilgrim NPDES Hi Greg and Ben, I took pa1t in our conference call this past Tuesday regarding the reissuance of the Pilgrim NPDES Pennit. We promised to get back to you with an assessmenfof certain technologies that

.. - *.... -. -*... ****:'** *..* '*' *~*.... *'***-****. ' -**....

. *... '.** -*-***** *- *:*: *-............ ~*,..........!.>.~.;.,,,......,... ~............. __ *..... ~--********'"':'*-':'"**- ---****-.***................... ~...........

are being considered at Pilgrim with some detail on how they may affect nuclear safety and/or Pilgrim's (NRCJ operating license. Would you be able to pass along Pilgrim's current license?

If the FSAR is not part of the license, is that something you could share with us also? We are just trying put things in language that is consistent with those documents and the 10 CFR 50.59 process as we had discussed.

Thank you George Papadopoulos - USEPA - (617) 918-1579

• • • • • • ,'*.,.,.,...,,..................,,..,... ;""":"'*....,,,.., "*.~r*... ~ ~*.:*.*.* **.;.~~--*,,..

• To:

From:

Sent:

Morgan, Nadiyah(Nadiyah.Morgan@nrc.gov]

Papadopoulos, George Mon 61812015 8:04:39 PM

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim Station Hi Dee, The Pilgrim ".'JPDES permit was last issued in 1991 and modified in 1994. Although it expired in 1996, the permitteereappli(:d for the permit at ihat time, so it has been administratively continued, in other words it is still in effect. W c have been working on a draft pennit to reissue, but have yet to publish it fQr public comment Let me know if you have any other questions.

George Papadopoulos - USEPA - (617) 918-1.579 From: Morgan, Nadiyah [9]

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:28 PM To: Papadopoulos, George

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim Station J

Hi George, Is it correct that Pilgrim has a "temporary" NP DES permit? If it's public information, when *does it expire?

Thanks, Dee

~--*-*-**"'"***......,. *-*-:---*~***.. ******..,,,.................... **' k**~---**........,... ~~--

• • • ~ *-~-........ :*******- ***----;***:" *-*-************"*""""~:---..,..-,,... ~- *.-*-*--- *-.....,.......

To:

From:

Morgan, Nadiyah[Nadiyah.Morgan@nrc.gov)

Papadopoulos, George Sent:

Tue 5119/201510:49:14 PM

Subject:

Re: Pilgrim NP DES - FSAR Chapter 11 Thank you Dee -

George P.

From: Morgan, Nadiyah <Nadiyah.Morgan@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:35 PM To: Papadopoulos, George Cc: Beasley, Benjamin; Dudek, Michael; Guzman, Richard

Subject:

Pilgrim NPDES - FSAR Chapter 11 Hello George, Please see attached.

Thanks, Dee From: Papadopoulos, George [10]

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 1:05 PM To: Beasley, Benjamin Cc: Houlihan, Damien; Gaito, Danielle

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim NPDES Hi Ben.

Do you have any sense as to when we can expect those Pilgrim FSAR sections ?

As I mentioned in my prior email, we are most interested in Section or Part 11 if you could provide that at your earliest convenience. The FSAR would greatly assist us in putting our promised correspondence to you in specific language that you requested pertaining to operations at Pilgrim.

Thank you George Papadopoulos - USEPA - (617) 918-1579 From: Beasley, Benjamin [11]

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:18 PM To: Papadopoulos, George Cc:. Morgan, Nadiyah; Casto, Greg; Dudek, Michael

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim NPDES

George, The Pilgrim operating license is publicly available. By copy of this e-mail, I am asking De_e Morgan to forward a hyperlink or file of the license to you. The FSAR is not publicly available but with a review for sensitive information. we can send you most of it, or at least the pertinent sections. We will begin reviewing the FSAR for sensitive information as soon as our workload permits. Next week we will send you a date for when we expect to provide the FSAR sections.

Regards, Ben Beasley Benjamin Beasley, Acting Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Benjamin.Beasley@nrc.gov I~

....,.. ~~*... _

.... *"'**.. :... :.. *:., *:.*"** :'~***-* **.*~*-~***--'-*--~-................... -:~-***.*.. *.* :.*.:-~.....,,,... ~ **~*,.......... ~.. -~.....

From: Papadopoulos, George [12]

Sent: Friday, April 17, 20154:06 PM To: Beasley, Benjamin

Subject:

FW: Pilgrim NPDES From: Papadopoulos, George Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 3:45 PM To: 'Greg.Casto@nrc.gov'; 'ben.beasley@nrc.gov' Cc: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

Pilgrim NPDES Hi Greg and Ben, I

I took part in our conference call this past Tuesday regarding the reissuance of the Pilgrim NPDES Permit. We promised to get back to you witn an assessment of certain technologies that are being considered at Pilgrim with some detail on how they may affect nuclear safety and/or Pilgrim's (NRC) operating license. Would you be able to pass along Pilgrim's current license? If the FSAR is not part of the license, is that something you could share with us also?

We are just trying put things in language that is consistent with those documents and the 10 CFR 50.59 process as we had discussed.

J Thank you George Papadopoulos - USEPA- (617) 918-1579

/

• • *** * ** **"' '*** '*'**'**:..O....,....,:,. *.,.., *'* ** *w '* ****-**--*-**-***._.._,...;.,.-*lo.1..... **-.... _..........Aoo:.;....--..... -

..... -~-.

To:

From:

Sent:*

Subject:

Houlihan, Damien[houlihan.damien@epa.gov]; Zobrist. Marcus[Zobrist.Marcus@epa.gov)

Casto, Greg Fri 613/2016 1:29:27 PM RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks for your information last week regarding the Pilgrim NPDES permit process. l'm sorry that the process between us seemed to take so long, but I think the outcome identified a number of unidentified process issues in our interface with licensees and our ability to coordinate and perform consultation with EPA. The guidance for protocol that you developed, and our defining "conflicts" and further describing the process on how we communicate among ourselves, licensees, and EPA should make this repeatable and much more efficient.

I have moved on to other areas, (risk analysis and fire protection issues for the time being), but you can continue to use me as a contact if you have new permitting questions. Robert Dennig (301) 415, 1156 is the new branch chief for balance of plant as well as other areas as we've consolidated branches and have begun to reduce our staff resources overall in the agency. Tim McGinty, (301) 415, 3283, and Rob Taylor (same #) are still good director contacts in the Division of Safety Systems. Andrew Pessin (301) 287, 9179, continues to be the general counsel contact for this topic. I have informed all of them that you may be contacting them in the future.

If you have problems contacting anyone, need information quickly, or are having problems getting responses or actions out of us, please do not hesitate to call or email me. Thank you again, and look forward to talking to you sometime in the future. Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Risk Assessment/Fire Protection United States Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565

,.,., '********--.. :.~-~""'"'....,.....,..... *~"*" *~***~****" "B*"*--'~"****~.. -*-**'***;"~*;Y** ** *"'~*"'""~*:*11~****-l"r'~':" t*~~'"'".~,.~,.**~***.,..:.;,......t....c......-.i:-..., -~,..... ~.*,...,.,_._:*-~"'" * *,,,,

• To:

Ramach, Sean[Ramach.Sean@epa.gov}; Houlihan, Damien[houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

From:

Zobrisl, Marcus Sent:

Tue 12/15/2015 10:23:00 PM Suqect:

F\\N: Clean Water Act EPA Consultation Memo rev 4.docx Clean Water AG1J::P.~

__ Q_Qnsultation Memo rev 4.docx Damien: do you sec any value in finalizing this memo at this time? Seems we might need some guidance on hmv we 'Nork through these issue where a State, and not EPA, is the penni1ting authority.

Sean: Attached is a draft memo that \\VC \\Vere working on with NRC' regarding consulting on J l6(b) permits for nukes. This >vas to infonn the Pilgrim pennit renewal (a11 EPA-issued permit). That facility is now scheduled to dose.

From: Casto, Greg [mailto:Greg.Casto@nrc.gov l Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:04 AM To: Zobrist, Marcus <Zobrist. Marcus@cpa.gov>; Houlihan, Damien

<houlihan.damien@cpa.gov>

Subject:

Clean Water Act EPA Consultation Memo rev 4.docx Importance: High Damien and Marcus, We apologize for the delay, and attached is our NRC language version to your consultation memo. We are ready to meet and discuss the path forward at your convenience. If you would like to call me on potential dates to arrange, then I am in the office throughout most of the holiday period. Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

o*

Ho o

0 o

o 0

0 0

.... '*"*' o,* -*.*.:.c*:~.~************* *..,........ _,_..... -..... H

....... """:****"*"".......... ~.,,.,.,....,.,..,.... :r..,................. ~............. -.:.-.... _ *., -*--*.............. ~-*-... *--+*.. *-*--*.................... 0

0.

0 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565

-~-.. *....----.--... '. -***

• • ~-

~ ~.* -*,,....... _.,. ~,......... ~.~... ~-.-.**f~~~... ~

.. :--.-- :-***..........,............ ~~:"".~!~.*~* -****........... - * **

To:

Gaito, Danielle[Gaito.Danielle@epa.gov]; Papadopoulos, George[papadopoulos.george@epa.gov); Curley, Michael(Curley.Michael@epa.gov)

From:

Houlihan. Damien Sent:

Wed 8126/2015 8:13:14 PM

Subject:

FW: Follow up on Consultation template Additional Pilgrim specific questions from EPA.docx George, Michael and Danielle -

Please take a look at NRC's response to our Pilgrim questions. We can discuss nexr week.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [13]

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 3:5& PM To: Zobrist, Marcus; Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

Follow up on Consultation template Marcus and Damien, We are completing our review and response to your earlier proposed template for conducting consultations. I apologize that we haven't responded sooner, but several of our staff and counsel have been out of the office. We have drafted a revised template based' on the one you provided, and believe that we should have one more meeting to discuss before we seek executive agreement on the process.

Given our current work schedules and out of office for school and vacations for some of -

the staff, we would like to target the week of September 21 for our next meeting. That meeting should discuss and resolve the template comments, and our next step would be to get executive approval of the resulting document.

There are two primary comm~nts. 1) early consultation prior to receiving licensee

-**. **-* *-***** ***-*...,_.... *-. "' ***.-*.......... -............. ~_..,,....... *' -..... ***"... --*-:-... :.... _,,...,............

• • • -~***~----:---, __.... ~........................... ---**-~***--*----****-'""'"~~~-'-----***..__..-.. -.. -********-**..

comments on a draft permit (to discuss potential licensee specific alternatives) is not recommended by our legal staff, and 2) opportunity for the licensee to respond to the NRC and EPA with identified conflicts, and NRG review and response should be an activity separate from a public comment period. Our conclusions on conflicts should result in Director decision making and relevant to changes in the final permit consistent with rulemaking language.

I'm getting final legal comments, and will forward the revised template soon.

Attached are my comments to your questions, which are outside of the template. Feel free to call me to discuss. Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565

Memorandum UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION1 5 POST OFACE SQUARE, SUITE 100 BOSTON, MA 02109-3912 Conflclentfal/lntergency Dellberatlve Process/Do Not Cite or Quote DRAFT. Revision 12/4D.015

. Date: XX/XX, 2016 subject: Template for Cean Water Act 316(b) Consultation Activities between EPA ~ncl NRC.

This memorandum discusses the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process with inclusion for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consultation related to the.

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) understanding*of "'conflict with a safety requirement established.., by the NRC as set forth In the EPA regulation, 40 CFR 125.94(f), and discussed in the preamble to the EPA's Clean Water Act Section 316 (b) final rulemaking (79 FR 48300, 48322-23, 48372-73; August.15, 2014). Section 12S.94(f) provides that; In the case of a nuclear faclllty or a facilitv

)

constructing or conducting maintenance on nuclear powered vessels of the Armed Services, If the owner or operator of the facility demonstrates to the Director, upon the Director's consultation with the Nuclear Regulatorv Commission, the Department of Energy or the Naval Nuclear Propulsion ProgrJm, that complianee with this subpart would result In a conflict with a safety requirement established by these entitles, the Director must establish best technology available (STA) requirements that would not result in a conflict with the Commission's, the Department's or the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program's.

safety requirement.

(b)(5)

. I. NPDES Permit Process and NRC Consultation Relevant documents are prepared and discussed lntemally (draft permit, fact sheet, attachments, and any other determination documents), Portions of which are potentially shared/discussed wit~ State permitting authorities (e.g., MassOEP). EPA uses a variety of sources and tools to collect relevant permitting information, including using its authority pursuant to section 308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1318(a), to request owners and/or operators of permitted sources to provide requested Information. It is possible that EPA will seek consultation/input from other resource agencies (e.g.,

MassWlldllfe, NOAA) at this development stage.

After internal review and discussion is completed (or nearing completion) the draft permit and associated documents are shared with applicable State authorities responsible for permitting (e.g.,

MassDEP) for their complete review and comment. During this time, selected portions of the draft permit or fact sheet may be shared with the permlttee to ensure thatcertain factual elements are accurate. Note that this is noon opportunity for the permittee to provide substantive comment on the draft documents, rat"'r, It is an opportunity for.the permlttee to correct any basic information (e.g.,

facility description, contact information, etc.) that may be incorrect.

(b)(S)

. EPA Is required to "public. notice" the.comment period in a local newspaper, and we have a standard distribution list for interested parties on all public notices. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.10. The mandatory comment period is 30 days, but the comment period may be extended for additional time based on the degree of public interest anticipated, the complexity of the draft permit, and other relevant factors. The length of an extended comment period Is up to the discretion of the Division Director -as example in *.

the case of PNPS, It Is likely that EPA will have an extended comment period (several months) due to the complexity of the permit. EPA is also required to hold a public hearing when there is a significant degree of public ir:tterest In a draft permit. ~e 40 C.F.R. § 124.12. At such a' hearing, EPA staff would briefly summarize the draft permit and the public would have an opportunity to provide oral and written comments on the draft to EPA and State permitting authorities. Following the Initial public *comment (possibly extended) period, EPA is* authorized to hold a second public comment period, in which EPA may solicit comments on comments received, or on substantial permit changes made by EPA in response to comments received, during the Initial comment period. See 40 C~F.R. § 124.14. This process is rarely used, but Is possible. EPA.also conducts appropriate consultation with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. (NOAA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service *

, (USFWS), where necessary, for Essential Fish Habitat and/or Endangered Species Act concerns either prior to or during the public comment period. Should public comments or separate agency consultation modify or add new challenges to NRC conclusions in regard to the licensee, the EPA will solicit re.

consultation with the NRC to ensure that additional potential conflicts are identified and resolved.

After the end of the comment period, EPA would generally Issue a final permit, which must include a response to all significant comments and a full account of any changes to permit conditions between the draft and final permit$ and the reasons for these changes. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.17. As described above, EPA may re-public notice a second draft permit if substantial changes were made as a result of new Information received within the comment period. Any re-noticing of a draft permit would delay the Issuance of a final permit, often by six months or more, to allow EPA to consider and respond to additional comments.

00 0 0

00 0

00 000 O

OO O

O ***,_....,.......,,,,.,,,_,....,............................ H **~"'~ **** Oo 000 oo*

o "****-~****-*o<"o*........., ********** H *'

0

..,_,...-*~..... ~...... -";""._...... -.**

~J'*" _..........,..................,..... *....*. *...

Once the permit is finalized (signed by the Division Director), there is an opportunity for the permittee or any commenter to appeal one or more conditions of the final permit by filing a Petition for Review with the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) within 30 days. The EAB, an impartial, independent body within EPA, is the final agency decision maker on administrative appeals of NPDES permits and generally sits in panels of three judges. Filing an appeal with the EAB is a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of a final NP DES permit. See generally40C.F.R.§12.4.19 (describing the EAB appeals process). If such an appeal is made, any appealed condition{s) (and any other conditions that are not severable from the appealed condition(s)I is stayed until resolution of the appeal. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.16. The appeal mav be resolved either through negotiation with the petitioner, or by ruling from the EAB (including remand back to the Region if warranted}. A remand could require re-public notice of the permit for comment. It's difficult to predict the length of litigation before the EAB (a timeframe of one year or more is not unreasonable).

Once all litigation at the EAB is exhausted, the final permit becomes effective. At this time, a petitioner may seek judicial review within 120 days in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which for EPA Region 1 NPDES permits is generally the First Circuit. See 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b}. Even if litigation is initiated, the permit would most likely become effective. Once appeals are exhausted at the First Circuit, it is possible to bring a law suit to the U.S. Supreme Court (this judicial litigation process could take several years.)

To:

Cc:

From:

Sent:

Subject:

Greg--

Casto, Greg[Greg.Casto@nrc.gov]

Zobrist, Ma rcus[Zobrist.Marcus@epa.govJ Houlihan, Damien Mon 10/19/2015 5:18:02 PM RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks for your email. We were just discussing the need to reach out to you on Pilgrim, given the recent announccmc:nt. \\Ve intend to move forward on the draft pennit. but have lots to think about in terms of what a permit looks like for the period of time while Pilgrim's still operating, and then post-closure.

How docs you week look for a quick call~ After 3 would work for me today, and then I'm out tomorrow, back the rest of week.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [14]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien <houlihan.damicn@cpa.gov>

Cc: Zobrist. Marcus <Zobrisc.Marcus@cpa.gov>

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Damian and Marcus, Following up on the status for our meeting to further align on NP DES permitting consultations. With the now announced Pilgrim closure, is there still an urgency on your part to continue to address their NPDES permit? We are still interested in an agency-wide alignment, as this still will need an understanding by States and EPA Regions that are responsible for the permit reviews. Please let me know where you see moving on this in the future. Tx greg

* **, *** ""'" -:,;; ***:.,._**:* -** -~,.,,._ *

• h '*'* '* * ** "" *-........ -*---~--1,.,...,.*.. 0,,1.,......... 3.*... ~av..a.*1*"'"" """***--a***-~.....,w**I***'*, *,,

Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien [15]

Sent: Tuesday, April 14. 2015 8:48 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Good morning, Greg.

Looking for.vard to our call at 2:30 today. I'v~ attached a draft agenda based on what you proposed in earlier cm.ail and somc/fo!low up from our meeting in January_ Let me know if it's

o. k. and I can then circulate to you and EPA folks. Thanks_

Damien From: Casto, Greg [.rrrnilto:Grei,Ca_HQ@nrc.gov]

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High

We are firm for our Tuesday meeting at 230P. '(Ve will have the following on the call:

Myself Tim Collins - senior technical regulatory expert Fred Lyons - project manager for site specific licensing activities Dave Beaulieu (bow-yer)- senior 10 CFR 50.59 expert Brian Harris - environmental area related technical reviewer Andrew Pessin - general counsel (or either Susan Uttal or Daniel Straus, OGG. They were all at the January meeting)

Call in information is below:

j(b}(6) 800-857-5160, pass codl._ ___ _.

l(b)(6)

If issues crop up, and you can't get me in the office, my cell is._ ____ __, Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565

• • • • • • • ~***-*-"*'*****'**"'*"'-****** ******

,.......... ~---**---~*-:--:****"'*'"~~~~

.......,, *...,.... ~.... -.

--*"':"-"*' *'......... ~..... H -***-=-*..-J ___

From: Houlihan, Damien [16]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:36 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks. Greg We're are confirmed for Tuesday, 4/14, from 2:30-4.

We'll be calling in. so we will need to arrange conferencing. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [17]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:51 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

• Importance: High Just making sure that you know our meeting has been postponed to Tuesday at 230p here at the NRC. This will be a firm meeting and we should discuss what will be needed to support travel by EPA R1 staff (conf call). Tx greg From: Casto, Greg Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11 :45 AM To: 'Houlihan, Damien'

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow~up Importance: High Sorry, left you a voice message to try to not continue to go back and forth on the date/time. I'm having some people who would be beneficial to have at the meeting not

(

\\.

able to attend on Thursday, but they could attend next week. Give me a call or respond by email. We should be able to do Tuesday. 230 - 4p (rest of week does not look good for most). I would propose to make the next week meeting firm (and can do so on my end). Sorry again, and let me know. Tx greg*

From: Houlihan, Damian [18]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11 :40 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

• Hi Greg-We have conflict~ on Wednesday. Lefs do Thursday 1-2:30. Thanks.

Damien From; Casto, Greg [19]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11 :36 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High

Damien, Please let me know when you can whether the Wednesd~y afternoon meeting dayftime work. If not, then we could make it the same time on Thursday. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [rnailto:houlihan.damien@epa.goy]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:03 PM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

... -... **-** --*-**--***- ****.. ~.........,.. --... --**-***--* ***... _,,_,,,........ *... -............................ --~****.....,..,_,r*-- :...--*~... ~...,,,__,,_......,.~--"........... ~-""':'-~"':"1:~*~-_.,.,....,......,.. ****-*-****....

/

Thanks, Greg. What you propose looks great.

I'm out tomorrow. Let's try for early next week. rm pretty available. From EPA we'll include myself, George Papadopoulos, Dave Webster, and hopefully Marcus Zobrist (from HQ).

Possibly include our attorney. f\\11ark Stein.

If you could send me some potential times. I'll coordinate with EPA folks.

Damien

.From: Casto, Greg [20]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:31 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, I just saw this. I was out until yesterday, and am out again this afternoon. I am in tomorrow and currently next week. I'll work on an early next week meeting with people to talk on the following specific to Pilgrim, if this works for you:

1) Discussion on the 10 CFR 50.59 process relative to applying to crafting Pilgrim permitting questions

a. Overview of 50.59 and NEI 96~07 information

b. Examples where current permitting responses (from Pilgrim) appear to fit and do not appear to fit 50,59 approach

2) Re-discussion for areas w.here the EPA has permitting.questions

a. Review of July 2014 request letter and initial request

b. Agreement of definition for 'conflict with an NRC safety requirement'

c.

Recommended requests for further information to accommodate informational needs to.perform consultation

d. Discuss NRC perception of what may be needed for future consultation (ie - what information we'd expect to be able to conclude a 'conflict')

3) Discussion of EPA proposed approach to interface with Pilgrim, and identify anything else needed for discussion or investigation for future meetings Let me know if this looks like the right direction, and feel free to propose anything different or additional. I'm not sure this could be completed in an hour, but we could try. Suggest no more than a 90 minute bite for this meeting. I think that our outcome for this meeting would be to give you an understanding of the kind of documentation that we would need to see to conclude a 'conflict' exists.

Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 }415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien (mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov!

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:32 AM To: Casto, Greg

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. Lt:t's set something up for nl'.xt week. If you could send me some proposed times, I'll coordinate with other F.PA folks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [mi!ilto:Grcu.Casto(i.t*nrc.gov]

Sent; Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks Damien. Sorry but I am out of the office until next Tuesday. We have been working to schedule our next physical meeting (to further work on the action items from the January meeting) and it appears that the week of April 201"' will be the next opportunity. I'll be able to call mid to late next week to generally discuss questions you might have on 50.59 and other options for Pilgrim. Let me know and we can set that up if you like.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [21]

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:26 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webs1er, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim fallow-up Hi Greg-I'm wondering [f you have any time to touch base tomorrO\\v? It cnuld he a quick check-in where we can discuss status and next steps. Please let me know. Thanks.

..... **~**- -"**--*--*****,-****---*,_........... _.... ~--****,,.,.........., *.,_,_... __.... ~*-*********,-................,.,,..........,.j,,...,..;....... *-... *-~-*--'..O:*-***-**"'*""""-.lo*""**.,.~.,......... 10*-.., -

Damien

.From: Casto, Greg [rnailto:Greg.Casto0'nrc.goy]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:30 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, and we have done work on these topics since the meeting, but it was about a month ago. I'm getting with the other NRC meeting attendees now on recent work on this. I am probably not available this week to discuss in detail, so I'd say next week would be a good target to generally re-visit the bullets. Another overall follow-up meeting might be possible the following week, I'll need to check with our participants.

To discuss Pilgrim path forward specifically, that might be able to happen as early as next week, but again I'd need to check with the staff.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:30 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webs1er, David

Subject:

Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-I wanted to follow-up with you on the consultation process for the Pilgrim draft NPDES permit.

As you know; we continue to work on selecting the CWA 316(b) best technology available for the facility, and we believe working with NRC is a very important part of the process in tenns of detennining whether a technology is "available."

Specifically, rm wondering about items c, d, and c from you l/16 email to Marcus. They're listed below:

c.

NRC will further deliberate on how our processes may be adapted to support EPA 's desire to consult _with us. (As example, D. above)

d.

NRC will consider whether it can issue a letter to Pilgrim requesting additional information on why certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. (more discussion internally on this in progress, but appears to be in conflict with OMB policy if Pilgrim docs not fonnally send correspondence to NRC, -as no apparent direct basis for fee recovery)

c.

NRC will review Pilgrim's assertion to EPA that certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. We infonned EPA that our initial review indkated there Jas insufficient information for ~RC to make a conclusion 1 one way or the other. However, NRC would come prepared to discuss conceptually our views on Pilgrim's assertions. We were very clear that any perspectives provided would not constitute official NRC positions. (Will use work on (b) above to see how it applies to Pilgrim. Believe that at a minimum, will result in basis for EPA follow up questions to Pilgrim that will illicit better regulatory based justification for conflicts. )

Would you be available for a call this week to discuss? Please let me know if you have any availability. Thanks.

Damien Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Permils Section Office of Ecosystem Protection US EPA 617 918-1586

• • • ** -....*-*H,*o*-**H***' **'"* -

• "* *' "r>o.'.*...,,,.. * °' * '0* "~'"'"'°_.,,..,.,..... ___ -=..,..*)"~-* * -~***-..... --........... ~"'"'""'~~w---.,o....,.......... 7'°-°'"*""i'.. *,*-*o -!'-1*...,",.. ';"""'-,',_....,........... ~,,,~~<<04\\...,,,.,_.,..Mr::ft".*!"'l:~-~...,-\\,o~O"""::-".* V*; **

To:

Cc:

From:

Sent:

Subject:

Casto, Greg[Greg.Casto@nrc.gov]

Zobrist, Marcus[Zobrist.Marcus@epa.gov)

Houlihan, Damien Mon 7/2012015 1 :24:05 PM RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks, Greg. I look forward to meeting in a few weeks.

Oamien From: Casto, Greg [22]

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:00 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus

Subject:

RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks Damien,

)

This is very helpful to work from in defining our role in the overall process. We are working on this now, and should be ready to meet in the next couple of weeks. In the next meeting, I'd like to do a better job with providing an (NRC senior mgt) approved and workable final plan forward, so we will work to that end.

Thanks again, and please call if you have specific questions in advance. Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant

~ United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

\\,

• - ****, 0 : Op O **

O ******* O **--*-** >>.........

,..... ~~.-... *-* 'M' 0 *-*~- __.......,_~*-...........,.... -............ -*~* *-**-******:~*-*_,*.,_~..... y..,_..... ~A-*-/~"\\"~--****~*~i~*:"~... ~-~

.... ~-i-.'...............-. __..... :**--.. **

Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 fi'rom: Houlihan, Damien [23]

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 l 1 :04 AM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David; Curley, Michael; Papadopoulos, George

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Pilgrim and EPA /NRC review processes Grc 0 o

See attached memo, as previously disrnssed, that outlines the NPDES process (genera11y) from draft to finalization, and also includes.some specific question related to.nuclear safely concerns raised by Entergy with regard to certain potential Best Technology Available fBTA) oprions under consideration.

We look forward to discussing this memo with you and others at N_RC in the near future. I'll be in touch to set somerhing up.

Pkase feel free to ~all with questions. Thanks.

Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Pennits Section Office of Ecosystem Protection US.EPA

o

'*'*......,--,C',.....C...**,_,,,...,,....,_..

• • • • • • --***o*,-~... *-*o-**._.,.....,,

'**..... ¥-'**--*\\********.... -*... "'*"'"***~-.,-:~*t.*-~*.. O,*H..---A*--111<,'V---~~---~........,,_._...,._-:-***,.. o*y* **',~*** ******* ****

• 617918-1586 From: Casto, Greg g(l\\:

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11 :04 AM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes

Damien, Just following up for scheduling our next meeting_ I've been thinking on how we can push this forward on our end, and believe that if we have the template examples for how EPA envisions a pre-draft pennit consultation, and a post-draft permit consultation, then we can use those to provide to our senior management with our recommended definition for 'conflict' and how that will interface with the consulting process_ Given that approval, then we may be able to proceed.

I believe that from the last meeting, your staff got an understanding of where we might consider alternatives within our understanding of 'conflict', given our regulatory process_ Aft.er the meeting, we discussed this further among our group and we ended up with a common picture of how that definition could generally work with licensee justifications, and how they would enhance those justifications from the current example

. provided by Pilgrim.

If we had the templates in advance of the next meeting, then we should be able to talk to those and work through an example using Pilgrim_ That should help our explanation to senior management to get acceptance and/or comments on our path forward.

Feel free to call if questions or to discuss path forward. Tx greg

Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 '-

From: Houlihan, Damien [24]

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:48AM To: Casto, Greg Subje'ct: RE: Pilgrim follow-up Good morning, Greg.

Looking forward to our call at 2:30 today. I've attached a draft agenda based on what you proposed in earlier ema11 and some foliow up from our meeting in January. Let me know if it's o.k. and T can then circulate to yon anrl EPA folks. Thanks Damien From: Casto, Greg lwail to:Gn.~l!.Casto((?'nrc _g° l Sent: Friday. April 10, 2015 I :32 PM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High

We are firm for our Tuesday meeting at 230P. We will have the following on the call:

Myself Tim Collins - senior technical regulatory expert

• Fred Lyons - project manager for site specific licensing activities Dave Beaulieu (bow-yer) - senior 10 CFR 50.59 expert Brian Harris - environmental area related technical reviewer Andrew Pessin - general counsel (or either Susan Uttal or Daniel Straus, OGC. They were all at the January meeting)

Call in information is below:

800-857-5160, pass code D Jb)(6)

If issues crop up, and you can't get me in the office, my cell ii._ ____ ___. Tx greg Greg Casto Chi_ef, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov.

(301 )415,0565

From: Houlihan, Damien [25]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:36 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. We're are confirmed for Tuesday, 4114, from 2:30 4.

We'll be calling in. so we will need to arrange conferencing. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [maillo:Grcg.Castorq111rc.!!ovJ Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:51 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE'. Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Just making sure that you know our meeting has been postponed to Tuesday at 230p here at the NRG. This will be a firm meeting and we should discuss what will be needed to support travel by EPA R1 staff (conf call). Tx greg From: Casto, Greg Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11 :45 AM To: 'Houlihan, Damien'

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, left you a voice message to try to not continue to go back and forth on the

• --** ~ *-**- *"'** * "'*-'""'.,......**.-.1'.L~I*-.,.. ~**.. *.. *.... *~****~ ***--*- "":- ***-r-~~*** **~ ** ** t **'*

• * *-.~--":""':"'***...,.,' ""~****:'* *--... ** Ul'*~:.:.**1. * *~.-,.* *~* *. *:... l**- ***P..:--.u'-:**** ****

date/time. l'm having some people who would be beneficial to have at the meeting not able to attend on Thursday, but they could attend next week. Give me a call or respond by email. We should be able to do Tuesday, 230 - 4p {rest of week does not look good for most). I would propose to make the next week meeting firm (and can do so on my end). Sorry again, and let me know. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [rnailto:ho_ulihan.d.?01ie_n@epiLQ_Q~]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 201511:40 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-We have conflicts on Wednesday. let's do Thursday 1-2:30. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [rnailto:Greg.Castor(ilnrc.gov]

Seot: Monday, April 06, 2015 I I :36 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High

Damien, Please let me know when you can whether the Wednesday afternoon meeting day/time work. If not, then we could make it the same time on Thursday. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [26]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:03 PM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

... - "...... ****~*" _,_,. ______ ~-*--******* ~.

• - ** ~.. ~ __.,,.,,_................ *.. *... *

• • • ~ -*---,. **..***. - *.o\\**.. -,**~*"*~JZ\\f.;....~ *.,..it............., *** -............ -~***~**-.... *--.*****'"*~*..... ****-*.......... **-

Thanks, Greg. Whal you propose looks great.

I'm out tomorrow. Let's try for early next week. I'm pretty available. From EPA we'll include myse!( George Papadopoulos, Dave Webster, and hopefully Marcus Zobrist (from HQ).

Possibly include om attomcy, Mark Stein.

If you could send me some potential times. I'll coordinate \\Vith EPA folks_

Damien From: Casto, Greg [27]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:31 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, l just saw this. I was out until yesterday, and am out again this afternoon. I am in tomorrow and currently next week. I'll work on an early next week meeting with people to talk on the following specific to Pilgrim, if this works for you:

1) Discussion on the 1 O CFR 50.59 process relative to applying to crafting Pilgrim permitting questions

a. Overview of 50.59 and NE! 96-07 information

b. Examples where current permitting responses (from Pilgrim) appear to fit and do not appear to fit 50.59 approach

2) Re-discussion for areas where the EPA has permitting questions

a. Review of July 2014 request letter and initial request

b. Agreement of definition for 'conflict with an NRC safety requirement'

c.

Recommended requests for further information to accommodate informational needs to perform consultation

d. Discuss NRC perception of what may be needed for future consultation (ie - what information we'd expect to be able to conclude a *conflict')

3) Discussion of EPA proposed approach to interlace with Pilgrim, and identify anything else needed for discussion or investigation for future meetings Let me know if this looks like the right direction, and feel free to propose anything different or additional. I'm not sure this could be completed in an hour, but we could try. Suggest no more than a 90 minute bite far this meeting. I think that our outcome for this meeting would be to give you an understanding of the kind of documentation that we would need to see to conclude a 'conflict' exists.

Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565 From: Houlihan,Damienfmailto:houlihan.darnien@epa.govJ Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:32 AM To: Casto, Greg

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. Let's set something up for next week. If you could send me some proposed times. I'll coordinate with other EPA folks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [28]

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks Damien. Sorry but I am out of the office until next Tuesday. We have been working to schedule our next physical meeting (to further work on the action items from the January meeting) and it appears that the week of April 201h will be the next opportunity. I'll be able to call mid to late next week to generally discuss questions you might have on 50.59 and other options for Pilgrim. Let me know and we can set that up if you like.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:28 PM To~ Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-J'm wondering: if you have any time to touch base tomo1TOw? It could be a quick check-in where we can discuss status and next steps. Please kt me know. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [mai]!o:Cireg,_(_~_~_10~£/mrc.1.wv]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:30 PM To: Houlihan, Damien

\\

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, and we have done work on these topics since the meeting, but it was about a month ago. I'm getting with the other NRC meeting attendees now on recent work on this. I am probably not available this week to discuss in detail, so I'd say next week would be a good target to generally re-visit the bullets. Another overall follow-up meeting might be possible the following week, I'll need to check with our participants.

To discuss Pilgr~m path forward specifically, that might be able to happen as early as next week. but again I'd need to check with the staff.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [maiito:houl1h_~Q.,damien@eba.gov]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:30 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-J wanted to follow-up with you on the consultation process for the Pilgrim draft NPDES pennit.

As you know, we continue to work on selecting the CWA 3 l6(b) best technology available for the facility, and we believe working with NRC is a very important part of the process in terms of detennining whether a technology is "available."

Specifically, I'm wondering about items c, d, and c from you 1/16 email to Marcus. They're listed below:

c.

NRC will further deliberate on how our processes may be adapted to support EPA's desire to consult with us. (As example, B. above)

d.

NRC will consider whether it can issue a letter to Pilgrim requesting additional information on why certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. {more discussion internally on this in progress, but appears to be in conflict with OMB policy if Pilgrim docs not fonnally send correspondence to NRC, as no apparent direct basis for fee recovery)

c.

NRC will review Pilgrim's assertion to EPA that certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. We infonned EPA thac our initial review indicated there was insufficient information for NRC to make a conclusion one way or the other. However, NRC would come prepared to discuss conceptually our views on Pilgrim's assertions. We were very clear that any perspectives provided would not constitute official NRC positions. (Will use work on (b) above to see how it applies to Pilgrim. Believe that at a minimum, will result in basis for EPA follow up questions to Pilgrim that will illicit better regulatory based justification for conflicts. )

Would you be available for a call tllis week to discuss? Please let me know if you have any availability. Thanks.

Damien Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Pcnnits Section Office of Ecosystem Protection lJS EPA 617 918-1586

.... -* ***-* -*. * * - ***~*** *****-**-~~ *-.,,.._.,_"'""... -,,.,~.... -..... ~**--'*-1-'-"-uu--**.,*-r*------ * -******.~ _,,. ******..-:*"""'*":'""""...c...\\'-*-*""..,._ ***~r~-=**---.. -*-,.**-~-*""'-'"' "'-~*** -**"'* * *

• To:

From:

Sent:

Subject:

Casto, Greg( Greg.Casto@nrc.gov]; Houlihan, Damien[houlihan.damien@epa.gov]

Zobrist, Marcus Mon 10/19/2015 6:50:22 PM RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Greg and Damien, I can't do 3pm today, but suggest you go ahead \\.vithout to discuss Pilgrim related issues.

Though Pilgrim has moved to a different long term status, l think we will need to think about these i8sucs gcnaally for the rest of m1clcar facjlities. Programmatically. Pilgrim in likely the easiest case example we have as. unlike all other nuclear facilities, its NPDES permit is issued by EPA. for all the other nuclear facilit\\es, the NPDES pcnnits arc issued by \\'arious State agencies. This brings in a m1mbcr of other permitting agencies, and shifts EPA into an indirect coordination ! oversight role. I'm happy to discuss further.

From: Casto, Greg [29]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:06 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus

Subject:

RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks for the prompt response. I can do a call at 3p. Would you like me to set up a bridge on this end or would you just like to call me. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien f 111ailto:hgJ1J1han.damicn(ii:.cpa.~ov]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 I: 18 PM To: Casto, Greg <(ircg.Casto(fr.n.!:L,gQ_~>

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus <Znl~rist.Marcu:;(lj:

1 cpa.gov>

Subject:

[Extemal_Senderl RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Greg*-

• • • • -**'... --**~****-;***.** * ******* **

,...,,.,...... ~...n..> **** 'r***

~.~. * * * *"

. *~ ~"**'*""**~"*"" >>"~~L--*'='*........ ~ **,.,,,,... __,.,,,.,,~..,..~........ -..-.:-"-*"'***.*...... ',,: *. -

• ~' - '** *"* *"'

Thanks for yonr email. We were just discussing the need to reach out to you on Pilgrim. given the recent announcement. We intend to move forward on the draft pem1it, but have lots to think about in terms of what a permit looks like for the period of time while Pilgrim's still operating, and then post-closure.

How docs you week look for a quick call? After 3 would work for me today, and then I'm out tomorrow, back the rest of week.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [30]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien <houlihan.damicn;i_ili.'.:pa.gov>

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus <Z:ohrist.Marcus([ij~p.<l.gQY>

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Damian and Marcus, Following up on the status for our meeting to further align on NP DES permitting consultations. With the now announced Pilgrim clo_sure, is there still an urgency on your part to continue to address their NPDES permit? We are still interested in an agency-wide alignment, as this still will need an understanding by States and EPA Regions that are responsible for the permit reviews. Please let me know where you see moving on this in the future. Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.. *- ----*~*-**.~ ******~*-* ~--;~-,*:-:**-:.*:***-*~-**..... '....... **-.........,..

~*........,... ***--**.*.....

.**** ~*.......:................... ~-*-*--.. ~***-*~**--**-*:--~~..--.-**..*. ~... ~--******

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greq.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov}

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:48 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Good morning, Greg.

Looking forward to our ca11 at ::uo today. I've attached a draft agenda based on what you proposed iri earlier email and some follow up from our meeting in January. Let me know if it's o.k. and I can then circulate to you and EPA folks. Thanks.

Damien

From: Casto, Greg [31]

Sent: Friday, April I 0, 2015 I :32 PM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High We are firm for our Tuesday meeting at 230P. We will have the following on the call:

Myself Tim Collins - senior technical regulatory expert

Fred Lyons - project manager for site specific licensing activities Dave Beaulieu (bow-yer)- senior 10 CFR 50.59 expert Brian Harris - environmental area related technical reviewer Andrew Pessin - general counsel (or either Susan Uttal or Daniel Straus, OGC. They were all at the January meeting)

Call in information is below:

l (b)(6) 800-857-5160, pass code'-. ___

• 1(b)(6)

If issues crop up., and you can't get me in the office, my cell is'-*-* __

Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien (mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 201510:36 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Tx greg

• ,-... *-*~* ** 0**

• w**** _

.. "">/"\\***....,~*::~

.... ~. *'*...,.... 1.. :*~**-- **:l'f*--~¥' *-:-*.... --*~ *..,.. t** H

• ~~*, 0 *,-**,..* o,** *' ""

'***~**... ~¥¥'_....,.,,...,..,..~ '**""'l""'oU~*t*,"l:--.~.,-.,.. ~*--Y*~~

Thanks, Greg. We're are continned for Tuesday, 4/14, from 2:30- 4.

We'll be calling in. so we will need to arrange conferencing. Thanks.

Damien

/From: Casto, Greg [majlro:Greg.Casto~fm~c.. _£QY]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:51 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Just making sure that you know our meeting has been postponed to Tuesday at 230p here at the NRC. This will be a firm meeting and we should discuss what will be needed to support travel by EPA R1 staff {conf call). Tx greg From: Casto, Greg Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11 :45 AM To: 'Houlihan, Damien'

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, left you a voice message to try to not continue to go back and forth on the date/time. I'm having some people who would be beneficial to have at the meeting not able to attend on Thursday, but they could attend next week. Give me a call or respond by email. We should be able to do Tuesday, 230- 4p (rest of week does not look good for most). I would propose to make the next week meeting firm (and can do so on my end). Sorry again, and let me know. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [32]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11 :40 AM To: Casto. Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

Hi Greg-We have conllicts on Wednesday. l.el's do Thursday 1-2:30. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [m?ilto:Grcg.Castou£:nrc.gov]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:36 AM To: Houlihan, Damien Sllbject: RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High

Damien, Please let me know when you can whether the Wednesday afternoon meeting day/time work. If not, then we could make it the same time on Thursday. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:l1oulihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:03 PM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. What you propose looks great.

rm out tomorrow. Let's tty for early next week. I'm pretty available. from EPA we'll include myself, George Papadopoulos, Dave Webster. and hopefully Marcus Zobrist (from HQ).

Possibly indude our attorney, l\\fark Stein.

• ****,... 1*.....,._...._.:....-.....,,....... _ **.***** _. ******** --.-*~--:.-............,................ **-**-*--- **

• _.. _. ~*-~*****...... -....... ~ _.... *:.,.;*~~**,.:;-owo...:.. *..:....... ~..:...............,., *-~~-....... _.... ~--**....., *.

[f yon could send me some potential times, I'll coordinate with EPA folks.

Damien

/

From: Casto, Greg [mailtc.r.Grcg..Castordnrc_govJ Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:31 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, I just saw this. I was out until yesterday, and am out again this afternoon. I am in tomorrow and currently next week. I'll work on an early next week meeting with people to talk on the following specific to Pilgrim, if this works for you:

1) Discussion on the 10 CFR 50.59 process relative to applying to crafting Pilgrim permitting questions

a. Overview of 50.59 and NEI 96-07 information

b. Examples where current permitting responses (from Pilgrim) appear to fit and do not appear to fit 50.59 approach

2) Re-discussion for areas where the EPA has permitting questions

a. Review of July 2014 request letter and initial request

b. Agreement of definition !or 'conflict with an NRC safety requirement'

c.

Recommended requests for further information to accommodate informational needs to perform consultation

d. Discuss NRC perception of what may be needed for future consultation (ie -*what information we'd expect to be able to conclude a 'conflict')

3) Discussion of EPA proposed approach to interface with Pilgrim, and identify anything else needed for discussion or investigation for future meetings Let me know if this looks like the right direction, and feel free to propose anything different or additional. I'm not sure this could be completed in an hour, but we could try. Suggest no more than a 90 minute bite for this meeting. I think that our outcome for this meeting would be to give you an understanding of the kind of documentation that we would need to see to conclude a *conflict' exists.

Tx greg Greg Casto Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuctear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301 )415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien (mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov],

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:32 AM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks. Greg. Let's set something up for next week. If you could send me some proposed ti mes, I' 11 coordinate with othc:r EPA fo I ks.

\\

Damien

• • -~**-.... ~--*,~*-*'*< ' ' *, * ** ** **" *""* ol"':...... **-~.. ~~---**~~---**.......... "'* "'" '*'* *** --.*-*::.... *,o :* * >, ***>.. **-"**** "",. *** - ***-****-*""'""""¥".. _..,_.,.... __.,..,...... -M... l..............,..,, ** ~..-,L.......:....~............ _.,.,_,¥""-" ' '* ** **,,

• From: Casto, Greg [mai1to:Greu.Casto(l:l.'.11rc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus~ W cbster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks Damien. r Sorry but I am out of the office until next Tuesday. We have been working to schedule our next physical meeting {to further work on the action items from the January meeting) and it appears that the week of April 201h will be the next opportunity. I'll be able to call mid to late next week to generally discuss questions you might have on 50.59 and other options for Pilgrim. Let me know and we can set that up if you like.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:haulihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:28 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-I'm wondering if you have any time to touch base tomorrow? It could he a quick check-in V..

1here we can discuss status and next steps. Please Jct me know. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [mailm:G.r_t;gJ'asto:Cfmn:.uov]

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:30 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster. David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up

• • • -*.. ***-;*--**-.***---.. ~........,........... ~ ** _, ** *.. '"****-~*........... **** ~.. **-.. *** * ***..

• ** :,, 1.. *

• • *, ***...,.,. ***, ****,. *** _ *****,,.,..,,_.,.,,,._,,..,.'{.,..~*.*" ** 1 *~n~.,...,...............,~,....,,.,.....

Thanks, and we have done work on these topics since the meeting, but it was about a month ago. I'm getting with the other NRC meeting attendees now on recent work on this. I am probably not available this week to discuss in detail, so I'd say next week would be a good target to generally re-visit the bullets. Another overall follow-up meeting might be possible the following week, I'll need to check with our participants.

To discuss Pilgrim path forward specifically, that might be able to happen as early as next week, but again I'd need to check with the staff.

Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [maillo:houlihan.dC!!Dien@_~.Qa.gov)

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:30 PM To: Casto. Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David Subject Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-I wanted to follow-up with you on the consultation process for the Pilgrim draft NPDES permit.

As you know, we continue to'work on selecting the CWA 316(b) best technology available for che facility, and we believe working with NRC is a very important part of the process in tenns of dctennining whether a technology is "available."

Specifically, I'm wondering about items c, d, and c from you 1/16 email to Marcus. They're listed below:

c.

NRC will further deliberate on how our processes may be adapted to support EPA 's desire to consult with us. (As example, B. above)

d.

NRC will consider whether it can issue a letter to Pilgrim requesting additional infonnation on why certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. (more discussion internally on this in progress, but appears to be in conflict with OMB policy if Pilgrim does not fonnally send correspondence to NRC, as no apparent direct basis for fee recovery)

e.

NRC will review Pilgrim's assertion to F.PA that certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. We informed EPA that our initial review indicated there was insufficient infom1ation for NRC to make a conclusion one way or the other. However, NRC

....... -*********--***-':'"'....... **~*.... ~***~*-~.-... ~:-~:0"1."'*-*'"",~****:-**"--.-***~-**--~*"**"*~-~:-**""'...,.. :*-***:-*......,.,............. ~......_.),..ol.l... ~~

............. ~.... ---'-.... _...... _.,..,,1-.o<_. <.l,..... "'-

would come prepared to discuss conceptually our views on Pilgrim's assertions. We were very clear that any perspectives provided would not constitute official ~RC positions. (Will use work on (b) above to see how it applies to Pilgrim. Believe that at a minimum, will result in basis for EPA follow up questions to Pilgrim that will illicit better regulatory based justification for conllicts. )

Would you be available for a call this week to discuss? Please let me lrnow if you have any availability. Thanks.

Damien Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Permits Section Office of Ecosystem Protection US EPA 617 918-1586

• • • • • • -*-*.,,...-.... *1-*o-****.. ;~***--------...,.................. :::.*.*.,.J,:,,.,<""*~***'"'.. "'*"*""-'**""'*.. ***'..,***'*'"l'.. :'\\"'#)":~*~.:.,...,...~;.--..... -*... v:-.-.~..-;'""'":'l""I'.<' "'*" *'*t*',* '*

Curley. Mlchael From:

Sent:

To:

Casto, Greg <Greg.Casto@nrc.gov>

Monday, October 19, 2015 2:53 PM Zobrist, Marcus; Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks, so Damien, do you want me to call you at 3p at 617 918-1586? Tx greg From: Zobrist, Marcus [mailto:Zobrist.Marcus@epa.gov)

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:50 PM To: Casto, Greg; Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

[External_Senderj RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA/ NRC review processes Greg and Damien, I can't do 3pm today, but suggest you go ahead ~ithout to discuss Pilgrim related issues.

Though Pilgrim has moved to a different long term status, I think we will need to think about these issues generally for the rest of nuclear facilities. Programmatically, Pilgrim in likely the easiest case example we have as, unlike all other nuclear facilities, its NPDES permit is issued by EPA. For all the other nuclear facilities, the NPDES permits are issued by various State agencies. This brings in a number of other permitting agencies, and shifts EPA into an indirect cdordination

/oversight rote. I'm happy to discuss further.

From: Casto, Greg [33]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:06 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus

Subject:

RE: RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Thanks for the prompt response. I can do a call at 3p. Would you like me to set up a bridge on this end or would you just like to call me. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:18 PM To: Casto, Greg oc::Greg.Casto@nrc:.gov>

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus <Zobrist. Marcus@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Greg-Thanks for your email. We were just discussing the need to reach out to you on Pilgrim, given the recent announcement.

We intend to move forward on the draft permit, but have lots to think about in terms of what a permit looks like for the period of time while Pilgrim's still operating, and then post-closure.

How does you week look for a quick call? After 3 would work for me today, and then I'm out tomorrow, back the rest of week.

Damien 1

From: Casto, Greg [m_ailto:Grcg.Casto@nrc.gov]

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien <houlihan.damien@epa.gov>

Cc: Zobrist, Marcus <Zobrist.Marcus@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim and EPA I NRC review processes Damian and Marcus,

...... :... --... :***",__.,,'t' *. ~-----~*-*- "!""'"*.~J**........... **-**.,.

Following up on the status for our meeting to further align on NP DES permitting consultations. With the now announced Pilgrim closure, is there still an urgency on your part to continue to address their NPDES permit? We are still interested in an agency-wide alignment, as this still will need an understanding by States and EPA Regions that are responsible for the permit reviews. Please let me know where you see moving on this in the future. Tx greg

<i'Le.fl-Ca -1 tu-Chief, Division of safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien [34]

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:48 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Good morning, Greg.

Looking forward to our call at 2:30 today. I've attached a draft agenda based on what you proposed in earlier email and some follow up from our meeting in January. Let me know if it's o.k. and I can then circulate to you and EPA folks.

Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [35]

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High 1We are firm for our Tuesday meeting at 230P. We will have the following on,the call:

Myself Tim Collins - senior technical regulatory expert Fred Lyons - project manager for site specific licensing activities Dave Beaulieu (bow-yer) - senior io CFR 50.59 expert Brian Harris - environmental area related technical reviewer Andrew Pessin - general counsel (or either Susan Uttal or Daniel Straus, OGC. They were all at the January meeting)

Call in information is below:

2

l (b)(6) 800-857-5160, pass code,__ __

If issues crop up, and you can't get me in the office, my cell is 1 (b-)(

6

_' __ __.I* Tx greg CiJr..e.g-Ca,Uo-Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien fmailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:36 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. We're are confirmed for Tuesday, 4/14, from 2:30 - 4.

We'll be calling in, so we will need to arrange conferencing. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [36]

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 9:51 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Just making sure that you know our meeting has been postponed to Tuesday at 230p here at the NRC. This will be a firm meeting and we should discuss what will be needed to support travel by EPA Rl staff (conf call). Tx greg From: Casto, Greg Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:45 AM To: 'Houlihan, Damien'

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, left you a voice message to try to not continue to go back and forth on the date/time. I'm having some people who would be beneficial to have at the meeting not able to attend on Thursday, but they could attend next week. Give

, me a call or respond by email. We should be able to do Tuesday, 230 - 4p (rest of week does not look good for most). I would propose to make the next week meeting firm (and can do so on my end). Sorry again, and let me know. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [37]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:40 AM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-3

~.......... ~."""***-..... !.......,.._..._':"'"_*"*-**********...,-*"1"*---**... -****-**'t***

We have conflicts on Wednesday. Let's do Thursday 1-2:30. Thanks.

Damie'n From: Casto, Greg [mailta:Greg.Casto@nrc.gov]

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:36 AM To: Houlihan, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High

Damien, Please let me know when you can whether the Wednesday afternoon meeting day/time work. If not, then we could.

make it the same time on Thursday. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien (mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:03 PM To: Casto, Greg

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. What you propose looks great.

I'm out tomorrow. let's try for early next week. I'm pretty available. From EPA we'll include myself, George Papadopoulos, Dave Webster, and hopefully Marcus Zobrist {from HQ). Possibly include our attorney, Mark Stein.

lf you could send me some potential times, I'll coordinate with EPA folks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [38]

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:31 AM To: Houlih~n, Damien

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Importance: High Sorry, I just saw thls. I was out until yesterday, and am out again this afternoon. I am in tomorrow and currently next week. I'll work on an early next week meeting with people to talk on the following specific to Pilgrim, if this works for you:

1) Discussion on the 10 CFR 50.59 process relative to applying to crafting Pilgrim permitting questions

a. Overview of 50.59 and NEI 96-07 information

b. Examples where current permitting responses (from Pilgrim) appear to fit and do not appear to fit 50.59 approach

2) Re-discussion for areas where tne EPA has permitting questions

a. Review of July 2014 request letter and initial request

b. Agreement of definition for 'conflict with an NRC safety requirement'

c. Recommended requests for further information to accommodate informational needs to perform consultation 4

.* '-..-........,,.,............... ~*..... *;**.....,..........-:-**~'"........ :.,,,.*.**"<!* ~-*,.. **-**** -..-... --*--:,_,...,.,..........,,.-~*.. **~""*~ii........ *;'

-**-OMHoyo.... __............ MO................. -~~***~-~

OOO O>

........ 0

• .::~._......... :-.....

d. Discuss NRC perception of what may be needed for future consultation (le -what information we'd expect to be able to conclude a 'conflict'}

3) Discussion of EPA proposed approach to interface with Pilgrim, and identify anything else needed for discussion or investigation for future meetings Let me know if this looks like the right direction, and feel free to propose anything different or additional. I'm not sure this could be completed in an tiour, but we could try. Suggest no more than a 90 minute bite for this meeting. I think that our outcome for this meeting would be to give you an understanding of the kind of documentation that we would need to see to conclude a 'conflict' exists. Tx greg (jtr.cg. Ca,thr Chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.casto@nrc.gov (301)41S,0565 From: Houlihan, Damien [39]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:32 AM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, Greg. Let's set something up for next week. lf you could send me some proposed times, I'll coordinate with other EPA folks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg {mailto:Greg.Casto@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:35 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks Damien. Sorry but I am out of the office until next Tuesday. We have been working to schedule our next physical meeting jto further work on t.he action items from the January meetii:ig) and it appears that the week of April 201h will be the next opportunity. I'll be able to call mid to late next week to generally discuss questions you might have on 50.59 and other optioris for Pilgrim. Let me know and we can set that up if you like. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien [mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov)

Sent: Wednesday, Marc:h 25, 2015 2:28 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-5

. _.,.. ~..... ---**... -....... *****......... -* ***-***~**-***....... ~..,.... ~,,.,--=--,.,,.~---...,... _,,............

I I'm wondering if you have any time to touch base tomorrow? It could be a quick check-in where we can discuss status and next steps. Please let me know. Thanks.

Damien From: Casto, Greg [mailto:Greg.Casto@nrc:govj Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:30 PM To: Houlihan, Damien Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

RE: Pilgrim follow-up Thanks, and we have done work on these topics since the meeting, but it was about a month ago. I'm getting with the other NRC meeting ~ttendees now on recent work on this. I am probably not available this week to discuss in detail, so I'd say next week would be a good target to generally re-visit the bullets. Another overall follow-up meeting might be possible the following week, I'll need to check with our participants. To discuss Pilgrim path forward specifically, that might be able to happen as early as next week, but again I'd need to check with the staff. Tx greg From: Houlihan, Damien (mailto:houlihan.damien@epa.gov!

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:30 PM To: Casto, Greg Cc: Zobrist, Marcus; Webster, David

Subject:

Pilgrim follow-up Hi Greg-I wanted to follow-up with you on the consultation process for the Pilgrim draft NPDES permit. As you know, we continue to work on selecting the CWA 316(b) best technology available for the facility, and we believe working with NRC is a very important part of the process in terms of determining whether a technology is "available."

Specifically, I'm wondering about items c, d, and e from you 1/16 email to Marcus. They're listed below:

c. NRC will further deliberate on how our processes may be adapted to support EPA's desire to consult with us. (As example, B. above)

d. NRC will consider whether it can issue a letter to Pilgrim requesting additional information on why certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. (more discussion internally on this in progress, but appears to be in conflict with OMB policy if Pilgrim does not formally send correspondence to NRC. as no apparent direct basis for fee recovery)

e. NRC will review Pilgrim's assertion to EPA that certain technologies conflict with NRC safety requirements. We informed EPA that our initial review indicated tnere was insufficient information for NRC to make a conclusion one way or the other. However, NRC would come prepared to discuss conceptually our views on Pilgrim's assertions. We were very clear that any perspectives provided would not constitute official NRC positions. (Will use work on (bl above to see how it applies to Pilgrim. Believe that at a minimum, will result in basis for EPA follow up questions to Pilgrim that will illicit better regulatory based justification for conflicts.)

Would you be available for a call this week to discuss? Please let me know if you have any availability. Thanks.

Damien Damien Houlihan, Chief Industrial Permits Section 6

.,. w;*.* :.* :.~*.:~ ***,...

S* *

• • • • , **.**, ** _ ***., ** ~.......,~.. *:--::""':"':"l*:-:-*-**..,~****-'"*'* **~~*****~~........,.......,.....,...................,........ w

.... ¥,, ****-****"'"""'.....,.... ~_":._.....,_.,,,....._._.,,..

..,""""'-*n~~.~:,.....,;._*!-o**r. :..

• * ***" * ****.. *.~ * ** ****.* *~~***-..

Office of Ecosystem Protection US EPA 617 918-1586 7

• --~M-0 0 --* *-***,****-****----:-*-.*-**-:-.* oo

o*

o **' 0 *........,, **, '"*"*.. *-*****-*.. ** -****-**- *-... *** **, *., *'*'"*----~

........ -*~..-... -

..................... ~--.~~.-... O ~., -' *,.,,_,Uo**'***.,**-*"** '¥

'*' o*..... ~......... _'****'

Curley, Michael From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Importance:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Damien and Marcus, Casto, Greg <Greg.Casto@nrc.gov>

Thursday, February 25, 2016 4:50 PM Houlihan, Damien; Zobrist, Marcus Update on NPDES discussions High Follow up Flagged Just following up on the status of additional meeting(s} for consultation protocol between EPA and NRC I will be moving to another division within the next month, and plan to transfer this responsibility to a new branch chief, so if you have insight on activities moving forward and schedules, then I'll be sure to pass that along. I will likely also attend the next meeting so that we will have a good transition on our end.

Please let me know when we can expect to re-engage. Tx greg Ci~ Ca:tta-chief, Division of Safety Systems/Balance of Plant United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Greg.ca sto@nrc.gov (301)415,0565

Additional !Ill specific questions from EPA:

Topics below may be discussed during informal early consulting sessions; however, formal NRC conclusions in regard to "conflicts 0 would only occur following licensee submittal of challenges in accordance with directions provided in the preamble to 125.94 {f).

II. Potential Nuclear Safety Conflicts at m:m2 as Identified by ijbi§14'4 A. Closed Cycle Cooling (CCC) iiQli evaluated the availability of closed-cycle cooling to reduce cooling water intake and discha-rg*e volumes atl& using a.PEPSE model. According tolMQM the limiting parameters for operation of a closed-cycle system Ill are the steam turbine backpressure and hotwell temperature. In.its analysis,@Gll\\ assumed a continuous operational hotwell temperature limit of l18°F to provide an allowance against the required administrative hotwell average temperature iimit of 120°F. The steam turbine backpressure is 4 in-Hg. In the simulation, the hotwell temperature is the bounding limit.

Based on the useof modeling to calculate the effects of a closed-loop configuration on operations at Ill under the Station's existing operational guidelines and standards, iMM concludes that converting m to closed-loop cooling is technologically infeasible because it is inconsistent with the licensed operation ofllll s approved condenser/turbine configuration. In particular, !Wiaj maintains that, with closed-cycle cooling, the Station's net thermal load would have to be reduced to less than 80% for at least 242 calendar days a year. The facility is required to insert control rods at less than 80% net tbermal power, and as such, this value presents a threshold beyond which nuclear safety toncerns would render the Station completely inoperable and would result in.a shutdown of the facility.

. (b)(5)

Questions on availability of CCC at B What specific technical specification in the plant's existing NRC license limits the hotwell and turbine backpressure at the administrative limits cited bytm@@? Is there any scenario, including under the plant's existing license or via a modification to that license, in which Im could operate at a higher hotwell temperature or turbine backpressure? If so, what is the maximum hotwell temperature and turbine backpressure that could be authorized by the NRC, and how would such an authorization come about? Can NRC confirm that the Station would be forced.to shutdown during any period when the risk of operating at less than 80% net thermal power for more than one hour occurs? Fin MM evaluation of closed-cycle cooling assumes the Station is limited to the existing condenser because, according to !61514i replacing the condenser is not feasible due to its location inside the turbine building. Can NRC confirm that replacing the main1condenser is not feasible atmJlll Station or, as the

ermittee su ests has never been undertaken at an nu lear (b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

B. Passive Intake Screening Systems

!BIN also evaluated the potential use of passive screening systems, either at the existing cooling water intake structure (CWIS) or at a new, offshore location, to reduce the impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms at flll. According to iihi41¥J the importance of uninterrupted cooling water flow to nuclear operations imposes restrictions on the use of screening and barrier technologies, and, to a lesser extent, mechanical flow reductions. In particular,ldiilM references the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) requirements on "Intake Cooling Water Blockage" that do not allow the use of screen systems that may compromise the requisite flows to an ultimate heat sink or otherwise impair water-based nuclear safety sysLenMIOMgy also mentions that it is currently preparing a response to a 2007 INPO "Significant Operating Experience Report" that requires evaluation of and implementation of measures to address factors that could lead to cooling water blockage.

Questions on availability of Screening Systems atmtl Passive screening systems designed to block the entrainment of marine organisms are potential BTA

technologies'(for example, offshore wedgewire screens}. However, any such screening technology has the potential for fouling (i.e., blockage) in the marine environment. As part of the requirements for Best Technology Availalfl!tNPS, EPA could include a requirement to maintain operational control of the existing CWIS as an emergency backup cooling water intake system (in the event of blockage of a new passive screening system). Would such an emergency backup system be sufficient to address any potential conflict with nuclear safety posed by the blockage of the cooling water?.

1} With the limited description of the screening system and particularly placement to be effective (100 ft from intake structure or 1 mile away from plant}, the question on screens would need more information to answer in terms of "conflict". Ultimately, the potential for a new accident resulting from the installation of the screens would appear to represent a potential to conflict with the current license.

The licensee is correct to cite Operating Experience related to blockage events and current design and operational considerations to prevent blockage, so given a more specific description of the proposed BTA, a 50.59 based explanation could result in a conflict. 2) It appears that EPA is considering additional modifications to the plant justifiable {emergency backup system) to address a "conflict" with a proposed BTA. Once a conflict is identified with the current licensee that should be where applicability under the rule should apply. New construction of backup systems to address a determined conflict would still represent a conflict in 50.59 space.

Can NRC provide more information on the performance objectives, criteria, and guidelines for plant operations and safety related to cooling water blockage as set by the INPO or the NRC, either generally or specific to !Ill? What is the status of * * 's "Si nificant Operatin Ex erience Report" res onsive to the 2007 request from the INPO? (b)(5)

(b)(5)

Dear FOIA Requester:

The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which was enacted on June 30, 2016, made several changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Federal agencies must revise their FOIA regulations to reflect those changes by December 27, 2016. In addition to revising our regulations, we intend to update the Form 464, which we use to respond to FOIA requests.

In the interim, please see the comment box in Part l.C of the attached Form 464. The comment box includes information related to the recent changes to FOIA that is applicable to your FOIA request, including an updated time period for filing an administrative appeal with the NRC.

Sincerely yours,

.S~B~/5/

Stephanie Blaney FOIA Officer