|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20217B3331999-10-0707 October 1999 Responds to 990825 Telephone Call Re Presense of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Wastes at Plant,Unit 1 ML20212F4481999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards NRC Form 536 Containing Currently Proposed Site Specific Operator Licensing Exam Schedule & Estimates of Number of Applicants for Generic Fundamentals Exams Through Cy 2003 ML20212F7051999-09-14014 September 1999 Forwards Rev 19 to Ipn,Units 1 & 2 Physical Security Plan. Plan Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d) & 73.21 ML20211N0681999-09-0202 September 1999 Informs That Commission Requested Publication of Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to Fol,Proposed NSHC Determination & Opportunity for Hearing. Amend Changes Senior Reactor License Requirement for Operations Manager ML20211H6291999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards NPDES Discharge Monitoring Rept for July 1999 for Indian Point,Units 1,2 & 3. Rept of Noncompliance Is Attached for Noncompliance Which Occurred at Unit 3 ML20211E1531999-08-18018 August 1999 Forwards Semi Annual fitness-for-duty Program Performance Data for 990101-990630,IAW 10CFR26.71(d) ML20211H6051999-08-18018 August 1999 Forwards Rev 8 to Security Force Training & Qualification Plan, for Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant.Rev Facilitates Transition of Duty Weapons Carried by Security Force Members from Revolvers to Semiautomatic Pistols ML20211A9241999-08-11011 August 1999 Informs That IPS Currently Estimates,That Approx Two Licensing Actions Will Be Submitted to NRC During Remainder of 1999 NRC Fiscal Yr & Approx Ten Will Be Submitted During 2000 NRC Fiscal Yr ML20210M7251999-07-26026 July 1999 Forwards Projection of Ability to Pay Retrospective Premium Adjustment for Period of Aug 1999 to 000731, Which Demonstrates That Ceny Will Have Sufficient Cash Flow &/Or Cash Reserve Available Throughout Period to Pay Premium ML20210G8911999-07-20020 July 1999 Forwards Application for Amend to License DPR-5 for Proposed New TS 3.2.1.i,revising Senior Reactor License Requirement for Operations Manager ML20209B6611999-06-29029 June 1999 Returns Recently Submitted Renewal Applications,Nrc Form 398,for Three Reactor Operators,As They Are Not Completed Properly.List of Docket Numbers & Block Numbers That Contain Incorrect Info & Block Numbers Not Completed.Without Encls ML20196A6371999-06-15015 June 1999 Forwards Rev 19 to Physical Security Plan.Rev Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d) & 73.21 ML20207D1861999-05-27027 May 1999 Informs That Effective 990328,NRC Office of NRR Underwent Reorganization.Mt Masnik Section Chief for Indian Point Station,Unit 1.JL Minns Remains Primary Contact for All Routine Licensing & Administrative Matters.Chart Encl ML20205R1981999-04-15015 April 1999 Requests That Dept of Environ Conservation Modify SPDES Permit for IPS IAW Proposed Rev Attached & Described as Listed ML20205R2961999-04-15015 April 1999 Forwards Copy of Proposed Change to Indian Point SPDES Permit NY0004472.Proposed Change Requests Permission to Add Permitted Outfall to Plant as Well as Change Character of Existing Outfall.Without Encl ML20196K8111999-03-31031 March 1999 Forwards Decommissioning Funding Status Rept for Indian Point,Units 1 & 2 Through 981231 ML20205F9711999-03-25025 March 1999 Informs That Under Separate Cover,Licensee Transmitted to Ofc of Nuclear Regulatory Research Annual Rept of Results of Individual Monitoring at Indian Point,Units 1 & 2,for CY98 ML20204F7931999-03-17017 March 1999 Forwards Table Outlining Nuclear Property Insurance Which Has Been Placed on Behalf of Consolidated Edison Co of Ny, Inc.Insurance Covers Indian Point,Units 1 & 2 ML20204J9971999-03-0909 March 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-003/98-19 on 981130-990222.No Violations Noted ML20203B9001999-02-0808 February 1999 First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards Documents Listed in App a Already Available in PDR, Documents in App B Released in Entirety & Documents in App C Being Withheld in Part (Ref Exemption 6) ML20202J6171999-02-0505 February 1999 Forwards Transcript from 990120 Public Meeting Held in Peekskill,Ny Re Decommissioning ML20199H3731999-01-11011 January 1999 Informs That T Schmeiser,Con Ed Plant Manager for Plant Is Retiring,Effective 990111.AA Blind Will Assume Duties & Responsibilities of Plant Manager Until Replacement Named ML20198E9561998-12-21021 December 1998 Forwards Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities Re Deliberate Misconduct in Violation of Regulation When False Info Was Provided to Two NRC Licensees ML20198C2371998-12-15015 December 1998 Ltr Contract:Task Order 237, Review & Evaluation of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Application for Conversion to Improved TS, Under Contract NRC-03-95-026 ML20198C4911998-12-11011 December 1998 Forwards Rev 18 to Physical Security Plan,Reflecting Organizational Changes & Incorporating Administrative Corrections & Clarifications.Encl Withheld ML20198C3251998-12-11011 December 1998 Responds to ,Responding to NRC Ltr Re Concerns Raised About Potential Chilling Effect from Temp Denial of Site Access to Employee Raising Safety Issues to Util Senior Mgt ML20155H2901998-11-0303 November 1998 Responds to to Lj Callan Expressing Concern About Continued Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station.Explanation Why NRC Do Not Think Revoking OLs for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Justified,Provided ML20155F9181998-10-28028 October 1998 Forwards Changes to SPDES Permit,Removing Requirement to Monitor Svc Boiler Blowdown for Phosphates,Eliminate Redundant Sampling of Oil or Grease Entering Flow Tributary to Floor Drains,Per Ts,App B,Section 3.2 ML20155D2791998-10-23023 October 1998 Forwards Corrected Pages for Indian Point Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept for 1997 ML20154Q1761998-10-21021 October 1998 Second Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Documents Listed in App C Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 7) ML20154L8031998-10-16016 October 1998 Ack Receipt of & Payment in Amount of $55,000 in Electronic Funds for Civil Penalty Proposed by NRC in .Corrective Actions Will Be Examined During Future Insp ML20155H3021998-09-24024 September 1998 Urges NRC to Revoke Operating Licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station,Units 2 & 3 & Not Renew OL for Unit 1 ML20154A1391998-09-22022 September 1998 Informs That Effective 980724,AA Blind Assumed Position of Vice President,Nuclear Power & Ja Baumstark Assumed Position of Vice President,Nuclear Power Engineering,Effective 980813 ML20153F0661998-09-18018 September 1998 Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-286/98-05 & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dtd 980819.Corrective Actions:Existing Drawings for Spare Switchgear Cubicles Have Been Revised ML20151W4871998-09-10010 September 1998 Informs That as Part of NRC Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Plan,Commission Assigned Two Senior Reactor Analysts (Sras) to Each Regional Ofc.T Shedlosky & J Trapp Has Been Assigned as SRAs for Region I ML20151W9511998-09-10010 September 1998 Informs That as Part of NRC PRA Implementation Plan, Commission Has Assigned Two Senior Reactor Analysts (Sras) to Regional Ofc.T Shedlosky & J Trapp Has Been Assigned SRAs Duties for Region I ML20155F4391998-08-26026 August 1998 Forwards Demand for Info,Being Issued to Enable NRC to Fully Understand Recipient Views on Facts & Circumstances Surrounding Allegedly False Info Provided to Two NRC-licensed Activities ML20238F5151998-08-26026 August 1998 First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Documents Listed in App a Being Released in Entirety. Documents Listed in App B Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 6) IR 05000286/19980051998-08-19019 August 1998 Discusses Insp Rept 50-286/98-05 on 980528-0612 & Forwards NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $55,000.Most Significant Violation Involved Failure, Following Design Mod in Oct 1997 ML20237B1001998-08-0505 August 1998 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-247/97-13,50-247/97-15,50-247/98-02 & Investigation Rept 1-97-038,respectively.Corrective Actions:Acted Promptly to Assure Conforming to Testing Requirements ML20236X8511998-07-31031 July 1998 Forwards Rept Re Projection of Ability to Pay Retrospective Premium Adjustment for Period 980801-990731,per 10CFR140.21 ML20236V4211998-07-13013 July 1998 Forwards SER Approving Topical Repts WCAP-14333P & WCAP-14334NP (Proprietary & non-propiretary, PRA of RPS & ESFAS Test Times & Completion Times ML20236Q1431998-07-0808 July 1998 Responds to Administrative Ltr 98-03 Re Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates IR 05000247/19970131998-07-0606 July 1998 Discusses Insp Repts 50-247/97-13,50-247/97-15 & 50-247/98-02 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $110,000 ML20238F5231998-06-29029 June 1998 FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC Office of Investigation Rept 1-97-038,meeting Minutes of Summary of Enforcement Conference on 980506 & Meeting Minutes or Summary of 980520 Predecisional Enforcement Conference ML20154Q1831998-06-29029 June 1998 FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC OI Rept 1-97-038,meeting Minutes of Summary of Enforcement Conference on 980506 & Meeting Minutes or Summary of 980520 Predecisional Enforcement Conference ML20236J9871998-06-24024 June 1998 First Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Documents Listed in App a Already Available in Pdr.Documents Listed in App B Being Released in Entirety ML20248F2891998-05-26026 May 1998 Ltr Contract:Task Order 8, Indian Point 2,A/E Follow-up Insp, Under Contract NRC-03-98-021 ML20248L9861998-05-21021 May 1998 Forwards Rev 7 to Security Force Training & Qualification Plan.Review to Verify Receipt of Revised Plan & Sign & Return Receipt Ack Form Provided ML20247M6951998-05-20020 May 1998 Forwards RAI Re GL 96-06, Assurance of Equipment Operability & Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions, for Plant,Unit 2 1999-09-02
[Table view] Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20212F4481999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards NRC Form 536 Containing Currently Proposed Site Specific Operator Licensing Exam Schedule & Estimates of Number of Applicants for Generic Fundamentals Exams Through Cy 2003 ML20212F7051999-09-14014 September 1999 Forwards Rev 19 to Ipn,Units 1 & 2 Physical Security Plan. Plan Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d) & 73.21 ML20211H6051999-08-18018 August 1999 Forwards Rev 8 to Security Force Training & Qualification Plan, for Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant.Rev Facilitates Transition of Duty Weapons Carried by Security Force Members from Revolvers to Semiautomatic Pistols ML20211E1531999-08-18018 August 1999 Forwards Semi Annual fitness-for-duty Program Performance Data for 990101-990630,IAW 10CFR26.71(d) ML20211A9241999-08-11011 August 1999 Informs That IPS Currently Estimates,That Approx Two Licensing Actions Will Be Submitted to NRC During Remainder of 1999 NRC Fiscal Yr & Approx Ten Will Be Submitted During 2000 NRC Fiscal Yr ML20210M7251999-07-26026 July 1999 Forwards Projection of Ability to Pay Retrospective Premium Adjustment for Period of Aug 1999 to 000731, Which Demonstrates That Ceny Will Have Sufficient Cash Flow &/Or Cash Reserve Available Throughout Period to Pay Premium ML20210G8911999-07-20020 July 1999 Forwards Application for Amend to License DPR-5 for Proposed New TS 3.2.1.i,revising Senior Reactor License Requirement for Operations Manager ML20196A6371999-06-15015 June 1999 Forwards Rev 19 to Physical Security Plan.Rev Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790(d) & 73.21 ML20205R2961999-04-15015 April 1999 Forwards Copy of Proposed Change to Indian Point SPDES Permit NY0004472.Proposed Change Requests Permission to Add Permitted Outfall to Plant as Well as Change Character of Existing Outfall.Without Encl ML20196K8111999-03-31031 March 1999 Forwards Decommissioning Funding Status Rept for Indian Point,Units 1 & 2 Through 981231 ML20205F9711999-03-25025 March 1999 Informs That Under Separate Cover,Licensee Transmitted to Ofc of Nuclear Regulatory Research Annual Rept of Results of Individual Monitoring at Indian Point,Units 1 & 2,for CY98 ML20204F7931999-03-17017 March 1999 Forwards Table Outlining Nuclear Property Insurance Which Has Been Placed on Behalf of Consolidated Edison Co of Ny, Inc.Insurance Covers Indian Point,Units 1 & 2 ML20199H3731999-01-11011 January 1999 Informs That T Schmeiser,Con Ed Plant Manager for Plant Is Retiring,Effective 990111.AA Blind Will Assume Duties & Responsibilities of Plant Manager Until Replacement Named ML20198C4911998-12-11011 December 1998 Forwards Rev 18 to Physical Security Plan,Reflecting Organizational Changes & Incorporating Administrative Corrections & Clarifications.Encl Withheld ML20155F9181998-10-28028 October 1998 Forwards Changes to SPDES Permit,Removing Requirement to Monitor Svc Boiler Blowdown for Phosphates,Eliminate Redundant Sampling of Oil or Grease Entering Flow Tributary to Floor Drains,Per Ts,App B,Section 3.2 ML20155D2791998-10-23023 October 1998 Forwards Corrected Pages for Indian Point Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept for 1997 ML20155H3021998-09-24024 September 1998 Urges NRC to Revoke Operating Licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station,Units 2 & 3 & Not Renew OL for Unit 1 ML20154A1391998-09-22022 September 1998 Informs That Effective 980724,AA Blind Assumed Position of Vice President,Nuclear Power & Ja Baumstark Assumed Position of Vice President,Nuclear Power Engineering,Effective 980813 ML20153F0661998-09-18018 September 1998 Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-286/98-05 & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Dtd 980819.Corrective Actions:Existing Drawings for Spare Switchgear Cubicles Have Been Revised ML20237B1001998-08-0505 August 1998 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-247/97-13,50-247/97-15,50-247/98-02 & Investigation Rept 1-97-038,respectively.Corrective Actions:Acted Promptly to Assure Conforming to Testing Requirements ML20236X8511998-07-31031 July 1998 Forwards Rept Re Projection of Ability to Pay Retrospective Premium Adjustment for Period 980801-990731,per 10CFR140.21 ML20236Q1431998-07-0808 July 1998 Responds to Administrative Ltr 98-03 Re Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates ML20238F5231998-06-29029 June 1998 FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC Office of Investigation Rept 1-97-038,meeting Minutes of Summary of Enforcement Conference on 980506 & Meeting Minutes or Summary of 980520 Predecisional Enforcement Conference ML20154Q1831998-06-29029 June 1998 FOIA Request for Documents Re NRC OI Rept 1-97-038,meeting Minutes of Summary of Enforcement Conference on 980506 & Meeting Minutes or Summary of 980520 Predecisional Enforcement Conference ML20248L9861998-05-21021 May 1998 Forwards Rev 7 to Security Force Training & Qualification Plan.Review to Verify Receipt of Revised Plan & Sign & Return Receipt Ack Form Provided ML20217F8501998-03-20020 March 1998 Forwards Table Which Outlines Nuclear Property Insurance That Has Been Placed on Behalf of Util,Per 10CFR50.54(w)(3) ML20199L9531998-01-26026 January 1998 Forwards Addl Info on Rev 6 to Security Force Training & Qualification Plan,Per 980113 Telcon Request of G Smith.Encl Withheld ML20199F7541998-01-21021 January 1998 Forwards Rev 17 to Physical Security Plan,Per Requirements of 10CFR50.54(p).Rev 17 Contains Summary of Changes, Detailing Changes Incorporated.Encl Withheld ML20198N1151998-01-20020 January 1998 Submits Status of Response to NRC Request for Addl Info, for Licenses TR-3 & R-93.Request for Commitment to Complete Decommissioning Activities by 2007 Has Been Persued Up Through Nasa Mgt ML20202F8281997-11-26026 November 1997 Reports Mod to Indian Point SPDES Permit as Required in Ts. Copy of New York State Dept of Environ Conservation Ltr That Modifies Permit Is Encl ML20198P7901997-10-31031 October 1997 Forwards Rev 6 to Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.4(b)(4) to Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.54(p).Rev 16 Contains Summary of Changes, Detailing Changes Incorporated. Encl Withheld ML20198P3181997-10-30030 October 1997 Forwards Corrected Pages to Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept for 1996 ML20211H7771997-10-0202 October 1997 Forwards Responses to RAIs 650.1 Through 650.8 Re Generic Issues & Generic Communications on Valve Testing & Valve Qualification.Westinghouse Status for Subject Issues Will Be Confirm W Pending Rev to Ssar & WCAP-13559 ML20211B4241997-09-19019 September 1997 Requests Withdrawal of Revs 16 & 18 to Physical Security Plan.Rev 16 re-submitted Per Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p)(2) & Deals W/Specific Operational Criteria of New Sys.Plan Withheld ML20211A9411997-09-18018 September 1997 Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-286/97-80.Corrective Actions:Revised Administrative Procedure AP-3 to Establish Responsibility for Engineering Review & Revised EOP ES-1.3 ML20149J2491997-07-16016 July 1997 Forwards Environ Ts/Nonroutine Event Rept for Units 1 & 2. Appropriate Ny State Agency Notified ML20148S5731997-06-26026 June 1997 Forwards Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-247/96-80;96-07;96-08;97-03 & Imposition of Civil Penalties on 961027-970405.Corrective Actions:Unique Tag Numbers for Louvers Were Generated ML20148J1431997-06-0404 June 1997 Forwards Rev 15A to Ipn Units 1 & 2 Physical Security Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(p)(2).Plan Withheld ML20137M8371997-04-0101 April 1997 Provides Supplemental Response to RAI Re TS Change Request 96-01 on Conversion to Framatome Cogema Fuel.Tech Specs, Encl ML20137A8301997-03-13013 March 1997 Forwards Response to NRC Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-286/96-80 on 961213.Corrective Actions:Expert Panel Has Agreed to Include Turbine Bldg & Power Conversion Equipment Bldg in Scope of IP3 Maint Rule Program JPN-97-008, Forwards Comments on Draft NUREG-1560, IPE Program: Persprctives on Reactor Safety & Plant Performance1997-03-0404 March 1997 Forwards Comments on Draft NUREG-1560, IPE Program: Persprctives on Reactor Safety & Plant Performance ML1004713451997-02-26026 February 1997 Forwards Proprietary & non-proprietary Versions of W Rept Entitled, Conditional Extension of Rod Misalignment TS for Indian Point 3. Authorization Ltr & Affidavit,Encl. Proprietary Encl Withheld Per 10CFR2.790 ML20135C7121997-02-21021 February 1997 Forwards Table That Outlines Nuclear Property Insurance on Behalf of Util Covering Units 1 & 2 ML1004713471997-02-18018 February 1997 Authorizes Utilization of Encl Affidavit by Util Re WCAP-14669,Rev 1, Conditional Extension of Rod Misalignment TS for Indian Point 3. Rept Should Be Withheld Per 10CFR2.790(b)(4) ML20134N6481996-12-24024 December 1996 Provides Further Details Re Corporate Reorganization of Consolidated Edison Co of Ny for Indian Point Units 1 & 2 ML20132C8071996-12-12012 December 1996 Forwards Check for $100 for Payment of NRC Invoice 7I0053 for Indemnity Fee on License DPR-5 for One Year Period 961204-971203.W/o Check ML20129D9611996-10-11011 October 1996 Forwards Controlled Copy of Plant Physical Security Plan,Rev 18,re Access Control Upgrade Which Adopts Biometric Hand Geometry.W/O Encl ML20117P6151996-09-11011 September 1996 Forwards Rev 9 to Security Training & Qualification Plan.W/O Encl ML20117E3891996-08-21021 August 1996 Forwards Four Copies of IP3 Security Contingency Plan,Rev 4. W/O Encl JPN-96-035, Informs NRC That Boraflex Not Used as Neutron Absorber in Either Util or Plant Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks,Per GL 96-041996-08-0606 August 1996 Informs NRC That Boraflex Not Used as Neutron Absorber in Either Util or Plant Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks,Per GL 96-04 1999-09-17
[Table view] Category:OTHER U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY/DEPARTMENT TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20236B7311987-07-21021 July 1987 Forwards Suppl to post-exercise Assessment of Remedial Activities Performed as Result of Deficiencies Noted at 860604 Exercise at Plant.Tables Updated to Provide More Complete Picture of Exercise Activity ML20215N6791986-11-0404 November 1986 Responds to 861010 Memo Requesting Final Schedule of Remedial Drills/Actions Established to Correct Deficiencies Identified at 860604 Offsite Exercise for Plant.Schedule Listed ML20215J5841986-10-21021 October 1986 Forwards FEMA Memo Identifying Addl Deficiency in 860604 full-scale exercise.Post-exercise Assessment Forwarded on 861006 Incorrectly Categorized Inadequacies at Orange County Personnel Monitoring Ctr.Related Info Encl ML20210V2021986-10-0606 October 1986 Forwards Post-Exercise Assessment 860604 Exercise of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans of State of Ny, Rockland,Orange & Putnam Counties for Indian Point Nuclear Power Station ML20215A9911986-09-24024 September 1986 Forwards FEMA to State of Ny Re Need for Ltrs of Agreement to Assure Availability of School District Resources in Rockland County.Ltr Inadvertently Omitted from FEMA Indian Point Finding Sent to NRC on 860917 ML20203N0931986-09-17017 September 1986 Responds to 851206 Request for Finding & Determination Re Adequacy of Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Protecting Health & Safety of School Children.Plans Do Not Provide for Adequate Protection.Interim Findings Encl ML20214M2011986-08-26026 August 1986 Advises That Delay in Reporting Siren Failures During 860604 Exercise Will Not Be Addressed by FEMA in Official Rept Since Problem util-related,per s.Followup W/Util Suggested ML20197A7891986-04-30030 April 1986 Requests Addl Extension to 851206 Request for Finding & Determination on Adequacy of Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plans,Per New York Pirg 2.206 Petition.Extension Needed to Incorporate Info from 860509 Meeting ML20151U9801986-02-0505 February 1986 Forwards Status Rept on Certain Items in Commission Decision CLI-85-06 Per 851206 Memo.Annual Plan Revs Received Since 850801 for Three of Four Counties Involved in 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone Contain No Ltr of Agreement ML20134M7141985-08-30030 August 1985 Forwards Response to ASLB 850508 Decision CLI-85-06 Re Current Status of Emergency Planning,Advance Alerting of Public During Adverse Weather Conditions & Measures for Communicating W/Handicapped or non-English Speaking People ML20128K4451985-05-28028 May 1985 Forwards Response to Suppl II to New York Pirg 841213 Petition Re Emergency Planning for Protection of School Children.Response May Not Reflect All Changes Contained in County Emergency Plans ML20127M9121985-05-17017 May 1985 Forwards Post-Exercise Assessment 850410 Remedial Exercise of Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plans of Ny State & Westchester,Rockland,Orange & Putnam Counties for Indian Point Nuclear Power Station ML20094D9951984-07-31031 July 1984 Clarifies Addl Issues Raised by NRC in 840626 Telcon Re New York Pirg Petition to Suspend OLs Due to Emergency Planning Inadequacies.Fema Rept & State of Ny Response to FEMA Encl ML20127N1911983-11-16016 November 1983 Forwards Executed Std Order for DOE Work: Safety Evaluation of Core-Melt Accidents:Operating Reactor Reviews for Indian Point & Zion ML20127M8981983-09-14014 September 1983 Forwards Executed Std Order for DOE Work: Safety Evaluation of Core-Melt Accidents:Operating Reactor Reviews for Indian Point & Zion. W/O Encl ML20127M7581983-08-26026 August 1983 Forwards Executed Std Order for DOE Work: Safety Evaluation of Core-Melt Accidents:Indian Point Operating Reactor & Zion Operating Reactor ML20072A3521983-06-0808 June 1983 Forwards Evaluation of Offsite Emergency Planning,Providing Factual Basis for Use in Commission 830609 Licensing Decision ML20073S2421983-05-0404 May 1983 Responds to Re Westchester County,Ny Bus Driver Issue,Rockland County,Ny Plan Issue & Questions Raised Re FEMA Briefing & Status Rept on Offsite Emergency Preparedness ML20204G3021983-04-25025 April 1983 Forwards Indian Point Plans Verification Analysis Re Emergency Planning,For Info.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20073P1971983-04-15015 April 1983 Forwards post-exercise Assessment of 830309 Exercise of Radiological Emergency Response Plans of State of Ny & Westinghouse,Rockland,Orange & Putnam Counties.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20073S4271983-04-15015 April 1983 Responds to Request for Clarification of Issue on Whether State Emergency Plan Can Substitute for County Which Does Not Have Emergency Plan.State Can Substitute Plan But NUREG-0654 Places Heavy Resource Burden on State ML20127M5691983-02-25025 February 1983 Forwards Property Certification of Equipment Purchased Under FIN A-3392.Disposition Instructions Requested by 830315 ML20071B5271983-02-14014 February 1983 Forwards FEMA Supplemental Testimony on Commission Questions 3 & 4 ML20127M4941983-02-10010 February 1983 Forwards Executed Std Order for DOE Work, Safety Evaluation of Core-Melt Accidents:Indian Point Operating Reactor & Zion Operating Reactor ML20127M3751983-01-10010 January 1983 Forwards Executed Std Order for DOE Work: Safety Evaluation of Core-Melt Accidents:Indian Point Operating Reactor & Zion Operating Reactor ML20062E5641982-08-0202 August 1982 Forwards FEMA Interim Findings Rept on Adequacy of Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness of State & Local Govts at Indian Point Power Station.Plans & Preparedness Inadequate ML20055C0081982-08-0202 August 1982 Forwards Interim Findings Rept on Adequacy of Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness of State & Local Govts at Indian Point Power Station.Plans & Preparedness Inadequate ML20054H7051982-06-16016 June 1982 Forwards Rs Jurkowski,Ab Delbello,Fc Bohlander,As Curran, Wg Borghard,M Kaminski & AR Marasco Testimony Re Emergency Evacuation Plan.F Bohlander & AB Delbello Should Be Added to Witness List.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20126L9331981-04-0606 April 1981 Forwards FEMA Review of Draft Ny State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan,Including Westchester County, Ny Plan.W/O Encl ML19309H2951978-12-15015 December 1978 Forwards EPA Comments Per Commission 781129 Order.Nepa Does Not Authorize NRC to Impose Any Cooling Requirement Other than One Established by EPA or State Govt Pursuant to Clean Water Act 1987-07-21
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ _
1/. .
15' .
800siso go9 ptc sr<r,,
- 6% 9 YM79 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY *
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 r oqqcember.15,22978
.3 099lCE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
/
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary .
" " 'S 'fE '< #
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 y, , , . g .,,g ,
Re: Docket No. 50-247, F 4 /;. /[is . ,2 . .j., ,
OL No. DPR-26 ,
(Indian Point Unit No. 2) ( /,gg ,
/
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Pursuant to the i'nvitation in the Commission's Order j of N,ovember 29, 1978, I am enclosing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's comments in the above-referenced matter.
.j We are also serving copies on the parties. ,
'; Very trul ; urs,
.Y -
1 Richard G. Stoll, Jr.
j Deputy Associate General Counsel
- j' i
Water and Solid Waste Division (A-131) i N '
.I;
~ THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS
'P00.R Q.UAUTY PAGES O
e 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
}
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-247 CONS 0LIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF ) OL No. DPR-26 NEW YORK, INC. ) (Determination of Preferred
) . Alternative Closed-Cycle Cooling System)
(Indian Point Station Unit No. 2) )
)
)
COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S ,
ORDER OF NOVEMBER 15, 1978 On November 15, 1978, the Commission (NRC) ordered the partici-pants in this proceeding to brief the issue of whether and to what extent NRC has authority to determine the type of cooling system to be used in nuclear power plants. NRC also invited the United States Environmental Protec' ion Agency (EPA) to submit comments.
Our comments may be summarized as'follows: the National Envir-onmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not authorize NRC to impose any cooling reauirement other than one which is established by EPA (or a State) pursuant to the Clean Water Act. */ This lack of NRC authority is clear both on the face of 'the Clean Water Act and in its legislative history.
Section 511(c)(2) was added to the Clean Water Act in 1972.
It provides in part:
- / P.L.92-500 (1972) as amended by P.L.95-217 (1977), 33 U.S.C.
Until the 1977 Amendments, this legislation was S1251 el sea.
generally known as the " Federal Water Pollution Control Act."
l l
Nothing in [NEPA] shall be deemed to --
(B) authorize any [ Federal) agency to im-pose, as a condition precedent to the issuance of any license or permit, any effluent limita-tion other than any such limitation established pursuant to this Act.
Only EPA or a State can establish an effluent limitation pursuant to the Clean Water Act. SS101(d), 401, 402(b). Thus, the only water quality requirements which NRC could include.as license conditions under NEPA authority would be those which have been established by EPA or a State.
The legislative history shows that Congress was well aware .
of the NRC (then AEC) Indian Point closed-cycle license condition and that SS11(c)(2)(B) would nullify the condition. The most per-tinent history is a discussion between Senators Buckley and Muskie during debate on the final version of the 1972 Conference Bill.
A copy of the full discussion is attached to these comments.
Senator Buckley first introduced into the record New York Times and Washington Post articles about the AEC staff recommenda-tion to impose closed-cycle cooling on Indian Point No. 2. He stated "it appears to me that environmental decisions of this type are barred by clause 511(c)(2)(B) ." and that "the AEC is precluded from setting higher standards than those imposed by EPA." Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Senate Committee on Public Works Serial No.
93-1 (1973), at 198. (This document will hereinafter be cited as "Legis. Hist.")
i L
i l __
Senator Muskie, who has been described by the Supreme Court as "perhaps the Act's principal author," 1/ repeatedly stated in response to Senator Buckley's questions that SS11(c)(2)(B) pro-hibited the AEC from imposing more stringent conditions than im-posed by EPA under the Clean Water Act. Legis. Hist. at 198-99.
Senator Jackson, a principal author of NEPA, stated immediately thereafter: "I read SS11(c)(2)(B) as prohibiting the AEC-Indian Point action." Legis. Hist. at 202.
The legislative history on the House side is equally strong.
The " Highlights" summary of the Conference Report states that under 5511(c)(2)(B), nothing in NEPA "may be construed as the basis for
'the establishment by other Federal agencies of more strincent controls on the discharge of pollutants than those provided under this Act . . . .
" Legis. Hist. at 239, emphasis added. Congress-man Dingell said that the section " seeks to overcome that part of the Calvert Cliffs decision requiring AEC or any other licensing or permitting agency to independen'tly review water quality matters."
Legis. Hist. at 256. Congressman Wright stated that the section Legis.
"has primary application to the Atomic Energy Commission."
Hist. at 538.
EPA's own contemporaneous interpretation of the statute is in agreement with the legislative history. Then-Administrator Ruckelshaus, in offering EPA's formal comments on the pending legislation for the record, stated that SS11(c)(2)(B) " requires
- / duPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112,'129 (1977).
Federal agencies to accept effluent limitations of EPA and State certificates with respect to water quality as conclusive . . . ."
Legis. Hist. at 151.
We should note in conclusion that nothing in the Clean Water Act prohibits NRC from imposing closed-cycle cooling' requirements on non-water quality grounds. Nor does the Clean Water Act prohibit NRC from imposing more stringent water quality conditions under any non-NEPA leg'islative authority it may have.
~
In fact, 5301 (b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act requires that water pollution dischargers achieve any more stringent limitations necessary to meet "any other Federal law or regulation." Because of
.5511(c)(2)(B), however, NEPA is not among the "other", Federal laws on which NRC could rely to impose water gudlity conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
/
December /3,1978 '
[w -
OAN Z.j Bp NSTEIN eneral wounsel a
b 9
e
- m - - .
.=
I f
M 83/,,C;,"$g;* } coxxterms rane A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-ACT ;
AMENDMENTS OF 1972 .
i .
/ TOGETHElt WITH
~1 A SECTION-BY-SECTION INDEX .
FItEFARED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION .
OF THE ' !
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE e
or THE . .
. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ,
VOLUME 1
- l SERIAL NO. 93-1 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works ,
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87-313 0 WASHINGTON : 1973 l
For safe t*y the Superlatendent of Documents, U.S. Covernment Printteg Omce. .
Washtogton, D.C. 20402. Price 35.55 donnestle postpa!J cr $5 GPO Bookstore
. 9 J
I l
i 100 regulatory action.1To undertook to undertake a study on the question, the results of which are not vet available. The sensibfe course would be to get the results of this study, have it reviewed by the appropriate ~
committees. and take such action as is appropriate.
The exemption presently contained ny Section 511(c)(1) is a bad precedent.1 regret that it cannot be deleted from the water legislation.
As I say, Mr. President,I am deeply concerned about clause 5 (FT'JATOn. BUCKLTY) - y(2)(B). This clause may, I understand, bar anyingFederal or p licensing agency, such as AEC, from imposing, as a condition prece.
dent to the issuance of any license or permit, any efiluent limitation other than limitations established pursuant to S. 2770.
Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from today's New York Times entitled "En-vironmentalists IIail AEC Ruling on Con Ed" and an article from today's Washington Post, entitled "AEC Orders Con Ed to Italt Thermal Pollution of River." .
/ tFrom the New York Times, oct. 4.19721 EarraoxurxTALIsis IIArt. AEC Rrr.rso os Cox En (By David Bird)
Environmental 1sts, who generally bare been critical of the Atomic Energy Commission, were openly praising it yesterday for the decision to ask Con.
solidated Edison to add an expensite cooling system to its nuclear plant to protect osh life in the Hudson River.
"It's unprecedented for the 1.E.C. to order a utility to do something that it doesn't want to do," said Angus 31scbeth, atterney for the Hndson River Fisher.
men's Association, which has been opposing the original desi:n of the plant on the Hudson River at Indian Point on the ground that it would kill much of the river's fish. . .
A spokesman for the A.E.C. ss!d it was the first time the agency had said a utility must modify its cooling system to protect the environment.
The original design called for a "once through" system, which drawr water from a lake or river, passes it through the e,ooling system once and then dumps it back where it esme from. heated.
The staff report. Issued in Wa=hington on >!onday, still must be npproved by the A.E.C. licensing board,which has been conducting hearings on the nuclear plant. The plant is virtually complete but has not yet received a license.
The report said Con Edison should be required to submit a plan for a self.
contained or closed-cycle. cooling system by July 1. It would have to be instatted by Jan.1. ID78. . .
Licensing hearings are expected to resume next month or la December. But environmentalists are already counting the A.E.C. staff report a solid victory that could set a precedent.
With a once-through system, the nuclear plant would suck some 2.650 cubic feet of water from the river every second and the Fishermen's Association said this would kill much of the river's ff=b by henting and battering them.
Con Edison has argued that the fish kill would be minimal and that any other system than the "once-through" method woul;l be prohibittrely expenstre.
MrIUo3s ARE INroLvED A Con Edison spnkesman said that providing a self. contained cooling system for the plant that was now awaiting a license would add up to $37.million to the plant's $200-million cost.
But that could be only the beginning. The A.E.C. staff report dealt in detail only with the plant called Indian Point No. 2, which is now under consideration.
The report said, however, that it was reasonable to expect that the same re.
quirements would be placed on the Indian Point No. I plant, which has been in operation for 10 years. and on Indian Point No. 3 which Con Edison is adding to that generating cc,mpler 03 miles north of New York City.
i 4
19e Con Edhon ha.1 no estimato on how much more it would cost to equ!p its other plants with self-contained cooling systems. ,
USUAL 9T87EM DESCalDG Usually scif cont'alned cooling systems are giant cylindrical towers, or chimneys, .
where the water is allowed to cool in a draft of air and then returned tu the plant to be used over and over again. ' .
While gerietally pleased with the A.E.C. report, 3Ir. 31acbeth said, that when g
the hearin:s resunie he espects to press for speeding up the schedule to require the plant 1e ready by 1977.
Rnd \*atidirert, environmental consultant to the Scente Hudson Preservation Conference, said the A.E.C. staff's reasoning should apply just as well to Con .
Edison's pumped-storage plant at Storm liing, nhich would pump Hudson River water up to a mountaintop reservoir to be tapped to power generators during times of peak demand.
(From the Washlostos Post. Oct. 3.19721 AEC OnoEas Cox Eo To HALT TRERMAL PoLLUrfox or Rrna f (By Thomas OToole)
The Atomic Energy Commission yesterday told Consolidated Edison Co. It '
nust stop removing large volumes of water from the Hudson River to cool its two atomic power plants at Indian Point, N.Y. It was the first tirne the AEC {
has acted to regulate the way a power plant is cooled. .
In a more sure to have far. reaching legal, erivironmental and financial im.
plications, the AEC told Con Ed it must install a " closed cycle cooling system at Indian Point, which could cost Con Ed as much as S10 million to build and enother $75 million to operate over the plant's 30-yearlifetime. *j The AEC gave Con Ed until 107S to have the closed cycle enoling system in cperation, partly twause the power crisis is so critical in New York and part!y because the nudear plants at Indian Point give Con Ed a chance to close older plants that are polluting the air in New York City.
The AEC rnoved against Con Ed because it felt that continded operation of dinn Point's present cooling system would kill the entire striped bass population .
In the waters around New York, since the fish spawn in the Hudson Itirer right ,
gt Indian Point. '
At present, the two nuctent power plants at Indian Point draw more than 1.1 million gallons of water a minute out of the 11udson River pulling in thousands of .
fingerlings and fish larvae with it. A third nuclear plant at Indian Point will j raise the inta' d e to almost 2 rulliton gallons a minute, which the AEC feared would be disastrous not only to the striped bass but to other fish in the Hudson.
What the AEC wants Con Ed to do is to install giant cooling chimners at Indian Point, chimneys that recycle the water taken from the river throupa the plant so that the water enn be used over and over again.
Without the cooling chimneys, the water is dumped back into the river 00 degrees warcier than it was when taken from the river. This heat not only means a continuous use of river water for cooling. It also threatens the river itself.
The AEC tigures that Con Ed will need at Indian Point at least two cooling chimneys, each 400 feet high. The chimneys could enst as much.as $75 m!Ilion each and an estimated S1 million a year to operate.
The more against Con Ed is the first time the AEC has acted to regulate what might be called a "non-nucient" activity in an atomic power plant. The move is a '
direct result of nn action last year by a Federal nptwals court, which told t!)e ,
AEC in the Calvert ClifD,3!d., case it had to regulate discharge of heated water Into rivers. Skes and streams.
The AD, ans given Con Ed n year to come up with a cooling plan; but fully sIpects the company to challence the more in court.
"The question of legality is likely to be raised again." a source said,"just to see !
hnw far AEC nuthority extends." l Mr. Becntxv. Mr. President, the irticles document an important environmental policy decision. For the first time the,AEC had said to i O
e O
e
- IM n utility that it must add an expensive " closed cycle" cooling system to its second nuclear plant at Indian Point, N.Y., to protect fh'h life in the Hudson River.
It appears to me that environmental decisions of this typ are barred by clause 511(c)(2)(B) of the conference report on S. '.gTO. This ap-p'eam to be an "efiluent limitation" which is a " condition precedent" to a license. I would like to ask the Senator from Maine if I am cor-rect in my understanding that environmentalists will be barred from intervening in AEC licensing procedures in order to obtain tougher ciliuentlimitations-perhaps to protect wetlands, wildlife refuges, and so forth-than the limitations prescribed by the standards of the EPA-run water quality program? Am I correct in assuming that environmentalists and citizens groups particularly concerned about the effects of water pollution at, for instance, the sites of proposed industrial powerplants are entirely at the mercy of EPA and the general, nation wide standards it has set t Mr. Mrsun. Mr. President, I am not sure I heard clearly all of -
the Senator's question, but if I may try to state it, the Senatoi is ask.
ing whether EPA,in its authority to set efiluent limitations controls with respect to the subject matter which the Senator has raised, can set those limitations and whether the AEC has to accept them. The answeris yes.
Mr.Eccu.tr. The A'ECis
- than thoseimposed by EPA. precluded from setting higher standard Mr. Mesnit. Does the Senator mean more rigorous from an en'-
vironmental standpointi I must say that such an action by AEC is not a possibility that occurred to the conferees. It has not occurred to me in my esperience over the years. We considered that this kind of authoritv should be in EPA and not in AEC, and in order to put the.
nuthority there, we put it in this act, and that is where it is.
Mr. Brem.rr. It is not ti.e intention of the conference committee to exclude the right of other regulatory bodies to impose more stringent environmental conditions on discharges 1 Mr. Mesarr Again I must say yes, we gave the authority to EPA.
The whole concept of EPA is that environmental considerations are to be determined in one place by an agency whose sole mission is pro-
~
tection of the environment. It did not occur to us that AEC might be more conscientious in this itspect than EPA, so we have given EPA the total authority on the assumption that the risk from AEC was, not of the nature described by the Senator but, rather; the op-ponte, as history demonstrates.
If AEC develops a stringent environmental conscience, and I think it is developing a more stringent environmental conscience than EPA, then we can consider whether or not AEC ought not to have new authority.
Mr. EccKr.tv. Apparently that conscience has been developed, ac-cottline to what is stated in this morning's newspapen.
Mr. Mrsum. I do not think I would lend that too umch credence.
Mr. Buenr.y. I just want to reiterate the point here that action on
{ this bill will preclude the right of other agencies to insist on other standards,:or the rights of in-depth environmental groups to go to
100 wurt and insist t!.at the AEC maintain standards more stringent than those employed by the EPA, which under this legislation is not te-
quired Mr. Mrsnit.1 to lilethink an' environmental impaa I have answered the queststatement; ion. Yes; that is '
coriett.
Mr. Jaensox. Mr. President, I have certain basic questions concern-ing the policy reflected in section 511(c). I would like to determine, to the extent that we can clarify it, the intent of that section of the conference repoit.
Therefore, I would like to address some questions to the manager of the report.
Finst, how broad is the exemption proposed for EPA in section 511 (c)(1)t I)oes the exemption cover only section 102(2)(C) and the !
requirement for preparing environmental impact statements! I.am j i referring, of course, to the National Environmental Policy Act. Is it i clear that EPA would be subject to all other requirements of NEPA -
f except Mr. Musnm. section f 102(2) (C) dent, may I say first to the Senator,topreface Mr. Presi ;
my answer to the question, and in response to something the denator ,
ir'om New York has said on the same subject that in mv judgment it i was clearly intended at the time Congress enac,ted NEPA~that environ-mental regulatory agencies such as those authorized by the Federal i Water Pellution Control Act and the Clean Air Act wotild not be sub- i ject to NEPA's provisions. The Senator and I had discussions on this :
point, and it was ciently understood, from the colloquies in the Con- !
gressional Record on the subject it is clear, that it was the intention of -
NEPA to put mission-oriented agencies, not the environmental en-hanecment agencies under an environmental stricture and that the environmental enhancement or improvement agencies such as the Fed- ,
e ' Water Pollution Control Administration and the Clean Air Act s .dd not be subject to NEPA's provisions.
So the effect of the languace to which the Senator has referred is to breach that understanding,'and to bring activities of the Adminis. .
trator which would not be under NEPA in terms of that history under l KDPA.
So let me answer the Senator's
- Ilecause the language of 511(c)(question. 1) speaks of" major Federal actions significantly aficctmg the quality of the human environment"-a .
phrase which only appears in section 102(2)(C) of NEPA-some will '
argue that the conferees intended to limit their attention to section 102 (2)(C and that all of the other provisions are therefore meant to be cpplica)ble to actions of the Administrator. I address myself to those '
who would grasp at this slender straw. The term " major Federal ac- i tion" and NEPA are synonymons in the minds of the conferees. It is .
ths clear intent of conferees'of both Houses-it was certainly the clear
~
intent of the conferees when this provision was unanimousiv' adopted-that all of the provisions of NEPA should apply to the' makinc of grants under section 201 and the granting of a permit under section 402 for a new source and that none of the provisions of NEPA would .-
appl3toany otheraction of the Administrator. '
O e
4