ML17053B985
| ML17053B985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1980 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053B984 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8010030208 | |
| Download: ML17053B985 (38) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Hatter of
)
NIAGARA MOHAWI'. POWER CORPORATION
)
(Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
Docket No. 50-20 REVISED ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF LICENSE I ~
I The Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation {licensee) is the holder of Faci lity Operating License No.
DPR-63 which authorizes the operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 at power levels up to 1850 megawatts thermal
{rated power).
The facility consists of a boiling water reactor located at the 'licensee's site in Oswego County, New York.
I I.
I I
On November 4, 1977, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) filed with the Corrrnission a "Petitio'n for Emergency and Remedial Relief."
The petition sought action in two areas:
fire protection for electrical
- cables, and environmental qualification of electrical components.
By Memorandum and Or der dated April 13, 1978 (7 NRC 400), the Commission denied certain aspects of the petition and, with respect to other aspects, ordered the NRC staff to take several related actions.
UCS filed a Petition for Reconsideration on May 2, 1978.
By Memorandum and Order, dated May 23, 1980, the Commission reaffirmed its April '13, 1978 decision 8010 03 0208
I I
E
regarding the possible shutdown of operating reactors.
However, the Commission's Nay 23, 1980 decision directed licensees and the NRC staff
'o undertake certain aetio'ns.
With respect to environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment, the Commission determined that the provisions of the two staff documents
- the Division of Operating Reactors "Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental gualification of Class, lE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors" (DOP, Guidelines) and NUREG-0588, "Interim Staff Position on Environmental gualification'of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment,"
December 1979 "form the requirements which licensees and applicants must meet in order to satisfy those aspects of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A General Design Criterion (GDG-4), which relate to envi-ronmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment."'he Commission directed, for replacement parts in operating plants, "unless there are sound reasons to the contrary, the 1974 standard in NUREG-0588 will apply."
The Commission also directed the staff to complete its
- 1, review of the information sought from licensees by Bulletin 79-01B.
a'nd to complete its review of environmental qualification of safety-related f
electrical equipment in all operating plants, including the publication of Safety Evaluation Reports, by February 1,
1981.
The Cowoission 4
1 Bulletin 79-01B was not sent to licensees for plants under review as part of the staff's Systematic Evaluation Program.
The information sought by Bulletin 79-010 was requested from these licensees bj.a series of letters and meet'ings during the months of February and tlarch, 1980.
imposed a deadline that, "by no later than June 30, 1982 all safety-r elated electrical equipment in all operating plants shall, be qualified to the DOR Guidelines or NUREG-0588." 'he Corwnission requested the I
staff to, "keep the Coronission and the public apprised of any further findings of incomplete environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment, along with corrective actions taken or planned,"
and requested the staff to provide bi-monthly progress reports to the Commi ssi on.
The Commission further directed the staff to add certain documentation I
requirements to each license after the specific requirements were approved by the Cormnission.
The Commission also pointed out that the. various deadlines imposed in its Order, "do not. excuse a licensee from the obligation to modify or replace inadequate equipment promptly-"
The information developed during this proceeding emphasizes the importance of adequate documentation, the prompt completion of the review of environ-mental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment, and the prompt completion of any plant modification needed to assure conformance with the DOR Guidelines or NUREG-0588.
A significant aspect of this 'review is the timely submittal of environmental qualification information by the operating plant licensees to enable the staff to complete its review in accordance with the Commission's Order.
The staff has a program h
presently underway to reevaluate, using the DOR Guidelines
'and. HUREG-0588, the qualificat i ons of sa fety-r el ated el ectri ca 1 equi pment exposed
E
to environments that may exist following postulated accidents.
These accidents are Loss of Coolant Accident and Main Steam Line Break inside containment, and High Energy Line,Breaks inside and outside containment.
In this onnection the licensee was requested by ICE Bulletin 79-01B o'f January 14, 1980 to provide a detailed review of the environmental qualification of Class lE electrical equipment.
This review was to include all equipment required to function under postulated accident conditions, both inside and outside the primary containment, and recognize all conditions specified in the bulletin.
Evidence of qualification together with methods and justification, was requested.
Clarification was provided by supplemental information; briefings, and in some cases, meetings with the licensee.
Timely completion of the
. staff's review of environmental qualification of electrical equipment and timely completion of needed modifications by the licensee is'.
required to provide continuing reasonable assurance of public, health and safety.
Such complet,ion is dependent on. the prompt receipt of a
'omplete response by the licensee to the 'staff's requests for information.
However, the licensee's
- response, to date, is incom'piete.
Therefore, I have concluded that the public health,
- safety, and interest require that a firm schedule for the timely submission of all the information previously requested by the staff should be
'established'y Order effective immediately.
T k.
c e
IV.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
- amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, IT IS ORDERED THAT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Facility Operating License No. DPR-63 is hereby amended to add the following provisions:
"Information which fully and completely responds to the staff's reques't as specified in I 5 E Bulletin 79-01B, shal'1 be submitted to the'Director,
.Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, by the licensee not later than November 1, 1980."
An earlier response is encouraged
.to facilitate staff review and issuance of the safe'ty evaluation report.
The licensee or any person whose interest may be'affected by this Order may request a heai ing within 20 days f<<
fpbli i
f hi R
i d01 i
h
~Fd 1R Any request for a hearing will not stay the effective date of this Order.
Any request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.
C-20555.
A copy of the, request should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
- 20555, and to Eugene B. Thomas, Jr., Esquire,
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 5
- llacRae, 1333 New Hampshire
- Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D. C.
20036, attorney for the licensee.
I' t
If a hearing is held concerning this Order, the issue to be considered at the hearing shall be whether the license should be modified to require submission of information as set forth in Section IV. of the Order.
Operating of'the facility on terms consistent with this Order is not stayed by the pendency of any proceedings on the Order.
This Order
- revises, in its entirety, the Order issued August 29,
- 1980, and published in the Federal Re ister September ll, 1980,
{45 FR 60085).
'OR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION arre G. 'hut, D>rector Division of L censing Effective Date:
September 19, l980
- Bethesda, Maryland
ILt
.I
22 January 1979
~ll<h<on or Honorable Joseph M, Hendxie Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ye@
Vashlngton, D.C. 20555
$@5e
Dear Chairman Hendrie,
P.O. Box 2029, Albany, N.Y. 12220 I am writing in regard to the imminent construction af the fixst phase of a radwaste incinerator by the Niagara-Mohawk Power Corp at Nine Mile Point, N.Y.
As you are probably aware, the proposed facility has never been tested with radioactive materials.
Public concern aver the possible escape of low-level radiation from the facility are being
.compounded by a lack of public hearings, an environmental impact statement, and a process for licensing such a facility that allows for the expressian and consideration af adversary opinion.
Ve do not believe that a radwaste incinerator should be built now at Nine Mile Point.
Ve believe that construction of the building in which the incinerator would be housed. at this time ls premature.
The company expects to break graund in February, l979.
In view of the recent action of the Commission which has called into question the evaluations of the Rasmussen
- Study, we believe the Commission should allow no project to pragress, especially one as expeximental ln nature"as the Niagara-Mohawk incinerator.
Ve call upon you, Chairman Hqndrle, to halt the radwaste incinerator project; at Nine Mile Point by withdrawing Niagara-Mohawk's permit to begin construction ln February, until such time as public concerns. are satisfied.
Sine our Richard Herman
, chalrpsn,
~pe,
$0 pe.
g
~%co yK~4 q,oO 0
Tnomas Ippolito Nuclear He<~1 tory Washington, DC o%
vY 0qo i@iL 4 gst Fig.g -giQ"'.
x 94.
- Oswego, H~w cwork 13126 December 29, 1978 Dem t~w. Ippolito:
We want to comment on Niag"ra Nohawk Power Corp.'s pl n to install a new radioactive waste solidification and handling system at Nine t<le Unit 1, as outlined in the company's letter to you on November 30, 1978
'e strongly disagree with Niagara tCohawk's conclusion that the new system does not involve an unreviewed safety question and will h-.ve no significant environmental impact.
Zurther, this new system is intimately connected to Niagara Mohawk s pl~ to install a radioactive waste incinerator at ibis plmt. As we understand it, the incinerator would be housed in the building that the company now proposes to constructs The Commission staff is now reviewing the radwaste incinerator proposale It seems to us that Niagara Yohawk's 1;.-test application is merely a ploy to allow the incinerator project to begin before. Commission approval. In any case, it doesn'0 make sense to consider the new building alone, For instance, it may be true that'he present system breaks down often (as Ni"gara Hohawk admits) and the resulting maintenance increases worker exposure.
But in that case, it might be wiser to replace the present equipment with more reliable components of the same sort not witn remote barrel grab mechanisms, overhead cranes and tv cameras.
This very sophisti-cated equipment is necessary only to handle the intensely radioactive ash from the proposed radwaste incinerator, This is the kind o problem that makes it difficult to separate the incinerator from the buildings One special problem is posed by construction o
the new building next to the present waste storage building. In its annual environmental reports, Niagara Hohawk has mentioned several times that radiation levels in the vicinity of the radwaste building are unusually high. In view of this, the company should be required to estimate the maximum radiation doses that will be received by construction workers on this job.
Niagara t~iohawk's description of the new system is vague and offers no justification for its claims that the system will reduce. worker exoosure nd provide superior perfonnance and reliability. Mhat i'acts, either from design specifics or actual experience, can the company provide to prove its assertion that the new system will work better than the old? What will be the consequences of a breakdown of the remote handling equipment or a leak in the decant tanks2 What kind, of maintenance will be required2 Zone of these questions are even addressed in the November 30 letters The company says there is no potential for a new "type" of accident because the total radwaste input hasn't changed.
One could say the same
Page 2
thing about applications to enlarge the capacity of spent fuel pools at
- reactors, The total -waste input is the same; the only difference is that there is more of it at one time in one place, Here, Niagara Mohawk wants to build a new waste building that is about twice'" large as the old one, with z vastly increased storage
- capacity, Is this so different from an applic~tion to store more spent fuel'? Surely no one is claiming that low level waste is a benign substance.
The logical result oZ Niagara, Mohawk'8 reasoning is th,t an unlimited amount of low level waste can be handled and stored at Nine Nile Point as long as it all comes from Unit l, The environmental aspects of this proposal are treated even more cavalierly than the safety questions Niagara Mohawk offers nothing more than the bald statement that there won't be a significant impact, Wnat will the radiation levels be within the new building'Z It is reasonable to assume the levels will be high in an area with limited access Will ventilation of the building increase radiation emissions from the Unit l site2 liow much additional liquid waste will come from the. decant tanks'?
How much additional solid waste will be created the equipment and related com-
- ponents, and the building itself2 What will be done with the old radwaste building2 What is the cost of this new system2 Can it be justified if there is no incinerator2 Can it be justified at all2 The problem of low level waste has been blissfully ignored by the industry and the Commission in the pasti Yet it is precisely this kind of radioactive waste that has escaped into the environment from disposal
- areas, Th'e Commission must stop allowing reactor operators tq keep treating low level waste like ordinary garbage instead of radioactive materiali We ask that the Niagara Mohawk radwaste handing proposal be considered along with the radwaste incinerator application, not separately We reiterate the request we made in connection with the incinerator plan:
for he 'rings with opportunity for public intervention, and a full environmental impact statement, Sincerely, C~
Sue Reinert Ecology Action of Oswego Copieh to: Joseph
- Hendrie, Sen Patrick Moynihan, Sen.
Jacob Javits, Assemblyman John Zagame, James
- Larocca, Herbert VanSchaack (Chairman, Oswego County Legislature),
James Best (Oswego County Legislature Nuclear Facilities Conznittee)~
Thomas Cochran (Natural Resources Defense Council),
David Berick (Environmental Policy Center),
Jim Cubic (Union:of Concerned Scientists),
Lorna Salzman (Friends of the Earth), Marvin Resnikoff (Sierra Club), Richard Hermans (Safe Energy Coalition of New York State ) ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSSION 0 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B
In the Matter of
)
)
NIAGRA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION
)
(Nine Mile Point, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-220 NRC Staff Response to New York's Interested State Petition On November 7,
- 1978, the Commission published a notice'f opportunity for hearing concerning a
proposed amendment to Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation's (licensee)
Facility Operating License No.
$43 Fed.
Reg.
51883.j The proposed amendment would authorize the licensee to increase its spent fuel storage capacity from 1984 fuel assemblies to 3009 fuel assemblies.
The New York State Energy Office (State) filed a petition on December 4,
1978 requesting leave to participate as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(c) in the event hearings are held on the licensee's application.
The State specifically did not request a hearing.
Absent a
request by a
person whose interest may be affected by the proposed action there will be no on-the-record proceedings on this matter.
In the event a request which satisfies the requirements of the Commis-sion's regulations is received and a hearing is noticed, the NRC Staff has no objection to the admission of the State pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(c).
Respectfully Submitted, William J.
Olmstead Counsel for the NRC Staff Dated at Sethesda, Maryland this 21st day of December 1978
cy UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q+
Cp BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ANO LICENSING BQARO
+
4 In the Matter of NIAGRA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION (Nine Mile Point, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-220 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NEW YORK'S INTERESTED STATE PETITION", dated December 21, 1978, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, firstN class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 21st day of December, 1978:
William A. Shapiro Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Eugene B. Thomas, Jr.,
Esq.
- LeBoef, Lamb, Leiby 8 MacRae 1752 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Secretary.of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.
20555 William J.
Ol stead Counsel for NRC Staff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSS ION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of NIAGRA MOHAWK POWER. CORPORATION (Nine Mile Point, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-220 NRC Staff Response to New York's Interested State Petition On November 7,
- 1978, the Commission published a notice of opportunity
'or hearing concerning a
proposed amendment to Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation's (licensee)
Facility Operating License No.
[43 Fed.
Reg.
51883.j The proposed amendment would authorize the licensee to increase its spent fuel storage capacity from 1984 fuel assemblies to 3009 fuel assemblies.
The New York State Energy Office (State) filed a petition on December 4,
1978 requesting leave to participate as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(c) in the event hearings are held on the licensee's application.
The State specifically did not request a hearing.
Absent a
request by a
person whose interest may be affected by the proposed action there will be no on-the-record proceedings on this matter.
In the event a request which satisfies the requirements of the Commis-sion's regulations is received and a hearing is noticed, the NRC Staff has no objection to the admission of the State pursua'nt to 10 CFR 2. 715(c).
Respectfully Submitted, William J.
Olmstead Counsel for the NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of December 1978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of NIAGRA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION (Nine Mile Point, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-220 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
TO NEW YORK'S INTERESTED STATE PETITION", dated December 21, 1978, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, firsts
- class, or, as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 21st day of December, 1978:
William A. Shapiro Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Eugene B. Thomas, Jr.,
Esq.
- LeBoef, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1752 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.
20555 William J.
Ol stead Counsel for NRC Staff
0
~-~4 STATE g YORK T+
aOI.h RZAGAISK ASSEIWSlYMAII IITTF CISTRICT ACOM 32S LECIS~TIVE OFFICE SI.CC.
ALBANY,N. Y. I2248 ISISI ~ 72 SS20 DISTRICT OFFICE:
34 E. BRIDOE STREET OSINEOO, N, Y. I3IRe (SIS) 34S 4ISS December 12, 1978 Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman U. S. Nuclear RecpQatozy Ccmmission 1717 H Street Nashingtcn, D. C.
20555
@0 gV O~
(g+
Dear Mr. Hendrie:
Tne Niagara Mohawk Pcwer Corporation has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Ccnmission for a pe~t to construct and operate a low-level waste reduction system at the Nine Mile 1 Nuclear Station in Oswego, New York.
Since that tim the Om~o County Legislature has gone m record by resolution requesting full NRC hearings on this proposed system.
t wish to add my stag support to this request.
Several factors lead me to my position:
1.
The hearing process will provide additional information on the safety of this system by allowing interested parties access to proprietory information within guidelines designed to protect against disclosure of this information to com-petitors of the Radwaste system developer.
2.
My can study and observations have led m to conclude that this system should be tested on a full-scale operational basis in a less populated area before it is in-stalled in Oswego County.
This point would be developed further during full NRC hearings.
3.
The decision-making process for such new ancillary nuclear technologies should be as protective of the public as possible.
To assure this protection, it is advis-able to provide a mechanism for intelligent public input at the local. level rather than relegating the decision to Washington alone.
Z urge you to take these considerations into account in your decision on the question of hearings.
The ~le of Oswego County deserve the maximum opportunity afforded ader federal law to take an active part in t¹ decision-making process, based on ad~ate dis-closure and discussion of the many issues surrounding this proposed plant.
4 S Rcerelv Joe wl R o Zag a~I<
November 6, 1978 l(/ P8
'rank R. Church, Clerk Town of Scriba Scriba Municipal Building R.D. 82, Creamery Road Box 76.
- Oswego, New York 13126 In the Matter of NIAGARA MOHAWK POllER CORPORATION (Nine Mile Point, Unit No. 1)
Docket No. 50-220
Dear Mr. Church:
The Piesolution passed at a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Scriba, New York on October 18, 1978, a copy of which you forwarded to Harold R. Denton has been referred to me for reply.
The subject of the Resolution is the Niagara Mohawk Corporation request for NRC approval of a proposed Radwaste Reduction System installation at the Nine Mile Point Unit,l facility.
The Resolution requests that NRC publish a notice of opportunity for hearing in the Federal Register.
It also authorized the Scriba Town Planning Board to intervene on behalf of the town "in public hearings."
The matters raised in the Resolution are under consideration and I will apprise you of any decisions in that regard at the time they are made.
In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me at 301-492-8674 if you have any questions.
DISTRIBUTION Sincerely, Formal Files BMBordenick JTourtellotte HOlmstead HPaton Shapar/Engelhardt/Scinto Counsel for NRC Staff PPolk.
BGrimes cc:
Robert Deyle, Oswego County, -N.Y.
VStello Jay Dunkleberger, N.Y. State Energy Office NRC Central Robert Vessels, N.Y. State Public Service Commission POR/LPDR Thomas Cashman and Paul Merges N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation Robert
- Ryan, NRC Thomas
- Elsasser, NRC Region 1
~~~
cc c 6"~~
oaalcs5o; I
SVRNAMCW OELD Bt1Bordenick:
11/~ /78 jtp JRTo eliot e 1,
/78 Form hEC-518 (Reo. 9.55) AZCM 0240 Q v. s: oovsRNQCNT aRINTINa oaalcel loTa.sre-lee
t%
i
,I
q~v~ ~t.G
~qV t2 po>p'D i.g,'
t( $0 At a egular Heeting of the Town Board of the Town of Scriba, held at the Town Offic Building, Creamery Road, Scriba, New York, on October 18, 1978.
WHEREAS, Niagara Mohawk has proposed construction of a radioactive aste volume reduction incinerator at Nine Nile Point, Unit One, and IlHEREAS, considerable public concern has been registered, including a petition signed by 2,321 persons.
NOll, on motion of Zu t e
seconded 'by Councilman Ke t
, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Scriba requests that thy United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission place a notice in the Federal Register of Niagara f'mohawk appli cati on to.instal 1 a radi oacti ve waste volume reduction incinerator at Nine Nile Point, Unit One, to facilitate holding of a public hear ing on the application, and be it further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorizes the Scriba Town Planning Board to intervene as party-at-interest on behalf of the Town in public hearings on the proposed incinerator, and be it further RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be directed to Harold R.
Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Coomission; Joseph H. Hendrie, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Jay Dunkleberger, N.Y. State Energy Office; Robert Vessels, N.Y, State Public Service Commission; and Thomas Cashman,and Paul flerges, N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation.
ROLL CALL (Aye)
(Aye)
(Aye)
(Aye)
(Aye)
Robert Parker Leo Dillenbeck Kenneth Hartin Vernard Baxter Norma Canale Supervisor Justice Councilman Councilman Counci lwoman
Natgal Resources Defens+ouncil, Inc.
917 15TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 202 7/7-$ 000 IPcstcrn Ogicc 284'ALE STREET PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94806 415 827-IO80 October 25, l978
¹'ur )'ork Opec 122 EAST 42ND STREE NET YORK> N.Yo IOOI r
>>2 949"oo49 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn: Secretary of the Commission
~~o.
>u~"..~'
11
~v.
+~ +qe~O
Dear Sir,
Please provide me with any technical information you have describing the health ahd safety consequences of operating the low level waste ir cinerator planned for installation at Nine Mile Point, Unit No. l in New York.
Have you, or do you intend to prepare an environmental assessment of this technology?
Zf not,,
why not? if so, please send me a copy when it becomes available.
Given the public co'nce'rn'ver the installation of this incinerator, an environmental impact statement, or at least an environmental assessment would appear appropriate.
Sincerely, Thomas B. Cochran I\\
TBC/ps rood Reveled Paper
~p in0h
~ I 5c ~~4 RESOLUTION NO. g~
OCTOBER 12, 1978 RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE NIAGARA MOHAWK PROPOSED RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME INCINERATOR BY LEGISLATOR JAMES BEST:
- WHEREAS, NIAGARA MOHAWK HAS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION INCINERATOR AT NINE MILE POINT UNIT ONE:
AND
- WHEREAS, CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN HAS BEEN REGISTERED INCLUDING A PETITION SIGNED BY 2d321 PERSONS'OW ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THIS BODY, BE IT
- RESOLVED, THAT THE OSWEGO COUNTY LEGISLATURE REQUESTS THAT THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PLACE A NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER OF NIAGARA MOHAWKIS APPLICATION TO INSTALLt A RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION INCINERATOR AT NINE MILE POINT UNIT ONE TO FACILITATE HOLDING OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION; AND FURTHERMORE BE IT
- RESOLVED, THAT THIS COUNTY LEGISLATURE AUTHROIZES THE hh COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE'S REPRESENTATIVE TO g INTERVENE AS PARTY-AT-INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY IN PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED INCINERATOR; AND FURTHERMORE BE IT
- RESOLVED, THAT COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION BE DIRECTED 8 TO HAROLD R.
- DENTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, o U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, U.S.
NUCLEAR
~ REGULATORY COMMISSION;"JAY DUNKLEBERGER, N.Y.
STATE ENERGY OFFICE:
m ROBERT VESSELS, N.Y.
STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; AND THOMA CASHMAN AND PAUL MERGES, N.Y. STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
ROLL CALL AYES
. 7 NAYS PASS
~.WZd d774 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF OSWEGO OFFICEOF THECLERKOF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE This is to certify that I, the undersigned clerk ofthe County Legislature of the said County of Oswego, have compared the foregoing copy of resolution with the original resolution now on file in this office, and which was adopted by the County Legislature of said County of Oswego, on the~ 'day of=
r/,
19 , and that the same is a correct and true. transcript of such original resolution and the whole thereof.
In wiiaew whereof, I have hereunto set roy hand and the officialseal oi said county Legislature this~w day of
~"'-', 19
~ c=rdr. /Nh.tk.........
CL F T COUNTY LEGISLA E OF THE COUN OF OSWCGO