ML17244A441
| ML17244A441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Moynihan D SENATE |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17244A440 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904090085 | |
| Download: ML17244A441 (16) | |
Text
wDAHICIj.:";MOYNIHAN NEW YORK
~
~
'R(nHcb W$akea Nen~fe WASHINGTON, D.C.
205 I0 February 16, 1979 Dear Commissioner Hendrie:
I have been very much concerned about the recent con-troversy over the safety of nuclear power plants.
I understand that the Lewis Reports'efutation of some of risk analysis measures in the Reactor Safety Study (the Rasmussen Report) has prompted you to conduct a review of your licensing and operating standards.
I commend this action and express my firm hope that this be accomplished as expeditiously as possible.
If nuclear power is to have a major role in our country's energy future, we must earn the public's confidence that the government is taking every measure possible to assure its health and safety.
It has been brought to my attention that the Ginna
-Nuclear Plant in Ontario, New York may be one whose safety standards should be reviewed by the NRC.
I urge that this be done with all due speed and urge that corrective action be taken where needed.
These are matters of great national concern and signi-ficance.
I am confident you will treat, them, as such.
Sincerely, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie Commi s sioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 cc:
Jim LaRocca, Commissioner, State Energy Office Chuck Zielinski, Chairman, Public Service Commission Robert, Flacke, Commissioner, State Dept. of Environ-mental Conservation David Axelrod', Commissioner, State Dept. of Health John Dyson, Commissioner, State Dept. of Commerce vg04090W '
'0 I
y ig'1
~
'C t
. ~,
FROM:
Sai>. 'FNrkk. 5@J IAHr1 TO:
~iio$l k;~J ig4i&lfm ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY F IN AL REPLY F ILE LOCATION DATES CONTROL NO.
DATEOF DOCUMENT PREPAR FO SIGNATURE OF:0 CHAIRMAN Q
EXECUTIVE DI R ECTO R DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER S~y~w<<45 + 'f$Sl~m P)RQt k3$ '"~14 k~+~ ~<4 Qf IF)Cs345 eI405Q S5fQLtg $ %aQB<<TR)+AS myri/g,flI~a f'4 g~VRg&3 kS
<<> &Su)4 I"f t>fiit65k".9Qf
""4S;i 3~&
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS DOCUMENT/COPY NO.
NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
CLASSIFIED DATA CLASS IFICATI0 N CATEGORY Q
NSI QRO Q FRD ""4> j.-~4~q.
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE l~>I
-e INFORMATIONROUTING LEGALREVIEW ASSIGNED TO:
DATE 0
FINAL Q
COPY NO LEGALOBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EDO ADMIN8 CORRES BR EXT COMMENTS, MOTIFY:
EXT.
JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:
Q YES Q
NO
~
NRC FORM 232 I11-75'I EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS
=
"Pg /t/OT REhfOI/E THIS COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
il 1
~
~ ~
gg 79-0334 NRC SECRETARIAT g'gggigg ggggg~226 7s 0 Com oner xec. Oir.loper.
~cong. Liaison Cl Public Affairs Oate CI.Gen. Counsel 0 Solicitor O Secretary Senato Patrick Mo nihan from; To:
Subject:
Oate
.0 Prepare reply for signature of:
0 Chairman 0 Commissioner 0 EOO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY 0
Signature block omitted Q. Return original ot incoming with response XQXFor direct reply C3 "For appropriate action 0
For information Q
For recommendation Suspense; March 7
.foe'0 ON Piet,o g
C ys to:
RF, OCA to Acknowled e NRC42 For the Commission:
,'Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Mail Facility ACTION SLIP
~.
~
~
L C.
I
' ~ ~
DAN&I~MI4JOYNIHAN NEW YOR~
'R(nBeb Wife+ &enable, WASHINGTON, D.C.
205 IO February 16, 1979
Dear Commissioner Hendrie:
I have been very much concerned about the recent con-troversy over the safety of nuclear power plants.
I understand that the Lewis Reports'efutation of some of risk analysis measures in the Reactor Safety Study (the Rasmussen Report) has prompted you,to conduct
- a. review of your licensing and operating standards.
I commend this action and expre'ss my firm hope that this be accomplished as expeditiously as possible.
If nuclear power is to have a major role in our country's energy future, we must earn the public's confidence that the government is taking every measure possible to assure its health and safety.
It has been brought to my attention that. the Ginna Nuclear Plant in Ontario, New York may be one whose safety standards should be reviewed by the NRC.
I urge that this be done with all due speed and urge that corrective action be taken where needed.
These are matters of great national concern and signi-ficance.
I am confident you will treat them as such.
Sincerely, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie Commissioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 cc:
Jim LaRocca, Commissioner, State Energy Office Chuck Zielinski, Chairman, Public Service Commission Robert Flacke, Commissioner, State Dept. of Environ-mental Conservation David Axelrod, Commissioner, State Dept. of Health John Dyson, Commissioner, State Dept. of Commerce
(
1
go +
~
V ~
~
~
J ~ '
u Michael L. Slade 1250 Crown Point Drive
- Webster, Nevi York 14580 j
r D STRrhuTInN December 28, 1977 Ketchen Reis
.'hapar/Enaelhardt/tirossman Reg Central:
LPDR Formal File (2)
T. Mamba ch A.Schwencer In the tiatter of Rochester Gas
& Electric Corporation (R. E. Ainna Nuclear Power Plant, tlnit No. 1),
Docket No. 50-244
Dear ter. Slade:
In my letter to the Licensing Board December 13, 1977, I suggested it would be appropriate for the parties to submit a proposal to the Hoard on the further course of this hearing in light of the Systematic Evaluation Program.
You indicated in our telephone conversation December 23, 1977 that late January - early February would be a more convenient time for a meeting to -discuss this.matter.
Accordingly, I will contact you mid-January to set an agreeable time.
In accordance viith your request, I have enclosed three items pertaining to spent fuel pools.
These are:
(1) Licensing Board decision in Northern States Power Comoan (Prairie island Nuclear 8enerating Plant, Uni~ts and 2, August 12, 1977, (2) Licensing Hoard decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor oration (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, August 30, 1977 and 3
the Commission's "Denial of Petition for Rule-making by Natural Resources Defense Council, 42 Fed.
~Re
. 34391-94 (July 5, 1977).
Oral argument on the Vermont Yankee and Prairie Island d i\\-hidlI'NAt i Sf ydLI\\~ApBd December 15, 1977.
For your information, the Safety Evaluation and Environmntal Impact Appraisal issued in support of Amendment No.
11 to the Ginna License, November 15, 1976, indicate that the change there authorized would increase the spent fuel storage to accommodate refueling plus, a full core unloading through 1985.
Sincerely, Auburn L. Ntchell Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Edward Luton, Esq.
Dr. Franklin C. Daiber Dr. Emmeth,A.
Luebke Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Warren B. Rosenbaun, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safet.
and Licensi
Ms["d-pane g
Informa ion Rtotttie-Sa sty-and'-Ltee
...................Appea,l..
oar.d.
OELn sing ---- ------- ALMS-tight.'H/d ORDICK SUIINAMEW DATC~
Porm hEC.318 (Rev. 9.f3) hECh1 0240 4 U, 5, OOVCIINMCNTPAINTINO OPPICEI I~Te 525 155
"4 0
~ I
MEMORANDUM TO:
Carlton Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs FROM:
SUBJECT:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director or Operations L<"~"~l>>>'","14 >~
THE ROCHESTER CON)ITTEE 60R SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION REPORT "CONTROL OF RADIATION ACCIDENTS AT THE R.E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT" In your melts to me dated Nay 6, 1976, you requested that the sMff (1) prepare an evaluation of the report "Control of Radiation Accidents at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantN and (2) prepare a concise explana-tion of NRC's role in the area of emergency planning including our respon-sibilities and relationships with the utilities and State and local authorities.
There are two items directly related to the evaluation of the report of which you shou'id be aware.
First, the Rochester Committee for Scientific Info@nation (RCSI) recent'ly requested the participation of the NRC in a public meeting and panel discussion to be titled "Are Ne Ready for a Nuclear Accident - GinnafN (a copy of the invitation letter is enclosed as Enclosure 1).
The report which you asked us to evaluate is to be.used as an aid to the discussion at that meeting, and copies will be availab)q for people in attendance.
The meeting, which may also have pprticipants from the New York State Health Department, the local county Civil Defense Agency, and the Rochester Gas and Electric Company, was originally scheduled for ttay 19, but has been postponed until sometime in June.
Me,,
have not yet made a decision as to whether we will participate in this RCSI forum.
The matter is currently being reviewed by the Office of the Executive Legal Director.
- Second, on February 6 of this year, the NRC was formally petitioned by the Public Interest research Group and the New York Public Interest Research;,
Group to issue an order to the Consolidated Edison Companyaald the Power Authority of the State of New York to show cause why their licenses for Indian Point Unit 3 hhould not be auspended until emergency planning satisfies existing regulatory requirements.
The petitioners also allege that the New York State emergency plans are inadequate.
Some members of the NRC staff believe that it would be inappropriate for us to appear at the RCSI forum to discuss the New York plan while the petition is still pending.
OPPICE3P EURNAME3P DATE3P Form hEC-318 (Rev. 9.53) hECM 0240 0 V, D: GOVERNMENT PRINTINO OPPICEI 1074 SEE IOE
Ph PP hh PP PP Ce ~ P
~
I
'I F
PII 1
~
I' h,
ll h
lh
~ lt J
F ll F
F Ig I
h h
,4
%2%
'With respect to the RCSI cotllents concerning deffciences fn the Wayne County emergency plan, since we have not reviewed this plan with respect to our published guidance (NUREG-75/111),
we cannot confirm or deny RCSI's evaluation.
However, the deficiencies fn the Wayne County plan as perceived by the RCSI in its report, are deficiencies that our published guidance (NUREG-75/ill) is designed to correct.
In answer to recent inquiries from Congressman Koch and Senator BuckHy of New York, concerning New York State emergency planning matters, we advised these officials that we have noted deficiencies fn New York State emergency plans.
These,inquiries and responses are cenclosed'as Enclosures 4 and 5 respectively.
We must emphasize.
however, that we have not reviewed any New York State emergency planning documents since the evaluative letter dated November 22, 1974, and there may be revisions of.
the plan of which we are not aware.
With regard to the second question, we have enclosed a "Fact Sheet" (Enclosure
- 6) whfch we recently prepared for the JCAE whfch describes NRC responsibilities and activities with State and loaal governments in radiological emergency response planning.
Enclosure 7 fs a Federal Register Notice outlining our "lead agency" role among Federal agencies fn providing guidance, training and assistance to the States in this area.
In addition to these activities, the NRC,has certain statutory responsi-bilities in emergency planning and has requirements for nuclear facflfty emergency plans.
Basically, these requirements are listed in 10CFR50 (Appendix E); Regulatory Guide 1.101 (under revision) and Section 13.3 of the "Standard Review P'lan" (Enclosures 8, 9 and 10).
The Office of Inspection and Enforcemont also plays a role fn emergency preparedness by assuring that the liconsee is prepared to implement Shat fs documented fn hfs emergency, plan.
In fulfillingthis role, Inspection and Enforcement inspects and enforces the requirements in the regulatfons, the 'license, the technical specifications, and license commitments in'he licanse application.
N Inspections of licensee emergency preparedness programs also include visits to and discussions with cdrtain State arid local agencies.
These'isits and discussions are not inspections of those agencies.,Rather, g
they are part58f the in> settee pf 53censeas.
verifying the coordfnatfok P
of emer enc lan n
a Our evaluation of New York State emergency planning documents on November 22, 1974 (Enclosure 2) outlined certain deficiencies fn these State planning documents.
The deficiencies fn the New York State plan outlined in the RCSI report either are similar to the deficiencies out-,
lfndd fn our aforementioned letter, or are deffcfencfes that our publfhhed guidance (NUREG-75/ill) for State and local government emergency plans is designed to correct.
NUREG-75/11'l is enclosed as Enclosure 3.
SURNAME~
DATE+
Eorm ABC-518 (Rer. 9.55) AECM 0240 4 V 2 OOYRRNMRNT PRINTINO OPPICKI IOTA 525 Iae
P 1
tF n
&3' local, State and Federal agencies for support of the licensee's plan.
There is no legal authority for NRC to inspect emergency planning and preparedness programs of State and 'local agencies (see Enclosure 6).
For your information, the Office of Planning and Ana'iysis is currently preparing a briefing for the Commission on the subject of'mergency planning and ppeparedness.
gt is due for completion the first part of June.
Enclosures:
As stated (SigIIed) WIjjIamJ, Pjpegg Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations bcc:
JDLafleur, AD: ISP GErtter 800320 LVGossick, EDO
- JBowers, ISP tOeston,PLA IRK OELD OPPICC~
SQRNAMSW DATC 3P':ISP HECollins:ch 5/14/76 Form hZC-318 (Rer. 9-53) hECM 0240 A
JDL p
fleur 5/
/76 AEDO
-, ttJDipgks...
5//P /76 EDO
...LYQos.s.i.ck 5/
/76, 0 V, SI OOYSRNMSNT PRINTINO OPPICKI IOTA SSS l44
I ltt%