ML19338B932

Responds to Supporting Petition by Ucs Requesting Decommissioning of Unit 1 & Suspending Operations of Units 2 & 3.Advises That Commission Is Reviewing Comments on Matter

ML19338B932
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/25/1980
From:	Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Levinson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML19338B927	List: ML19338B926 ML19338B928 ML19338B932 ML19338B933
References
NUDOCS 8004030024
Download: ML19338B932 (3)

Text

/",' 'h"'

UNITED STATE 5 2:

E" 7

NiJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

l1.-

's WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 n

....2 OFFICt.0F THE February 25, 1980 COMMISSIONER O

Ms. Jo Levinson Jada Lane Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

Dear Ms. Levinson:

Thank you for your letter of February 8 expressing support for the petition filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists requesting the decommissioning of Indian Point Unit 1 and the suspension of operations at Units 2 and 3.

As you may know, the Commission's Staff has issued a decision partially granting and partially denying the UCS peition.

The Order requires the licensee to show why Unit 1 should not be decommissioned and to make a number of modifications to Units 2 and 3.

The Commission is currently reviewing the Staff's decision and has as);ed the public to comment upon the course of action it should follow (see enclosed Federal Registei notice).

After public comment has been received, the ommission will decide what further action to take.

I appreciate the interest which you have shown in this matter.

Sincerely, j-1 t.s; W i

k

/ e Victor Gilinsky Commissioner

Enclosure:

a/s clf l

N j'i 3

_ a.,;

0 1 1 Y500>

"mce of the seme;7 Tl 3

cck ung& smics Branc!:

• .a'f s

\\

g

\\

(P mi l

8 004 03c o gt

raccrat ne;pster /

'm n M.W /ITETf, N

.Q measures she.Jd implement [d in Safety Ev'aluation. All of these items are Dit'd**E*th5d* M "7I*"dLhi'2*hd'7 accordacewith tha:ch:dule av:ilabla for pcblic inspretion at th:

cf Febary.m prescribed by this Order.

Co==!ssion's Public Document Room.

HaroM R. De= ton.

Operation of the facility'en terms

. 1717 H Street. N.W., Wa shington, D.C.

Ult'C'3f 0// 3 0/Nu'I'Cf A'*####

. consist:nt with this Orderis not stayed '

and at the Cedar Rapids Public Ubrary, R'IM*

by the pendency of any proceedings on 42sn!rd Avenue.S.E., CedarRapids.

fro

• Nns N :W S 4 **1 th2 Order.

.4-

-P.

Iowa 52401. A copy ofite=s 2) and (3).

'8***" M -

D::ed et re6Mda.haryla. d.this 14th day

• maybe obt:!ned upon reque(st

{

cf Februa.j 1950.

... ",.~ ' ' ' ~.

addressed to the U.S. Nuc! ear ',

tDockets Nos. M,50-247,end 50-:ssl,,,

t Fer :he Nuclearydguhte':y Ccm=$s:c.i" ResuIa: Cry.Co-'ssion. Washingte::.

i

'.D.C.20355 Attention: Di ec*er.Dhisica Conseli,.ated Edison Co.of New York Escac.Can,. ~

. m.

(Indian Point, Units Nos.1 and 2) and ActL~s Directer. 0lSco ofNuclecrBecc::r of Operatm.g Reactoys.. -l Fower Authorlty of the State of New a

Rg", Mom t a., t.r:.

'rulyt

.?.

.. Dated at BeSesda. Maryland this 15:h day yc;g (!nelsn point, Unit No.3); *:.~"? -

pa r as-mo rt-d z-:2-az ais ra.C: e... ;! '.. cf February 1G30.j.

i.~.

"-t,,,

Solicitation of Comment on Director's "-

'i i

1 l ewws coccyswow grg...... y jf;;t:I'.

For the N.uclear6!stod, CM.=.Iissic?

a.3 Decision Under 10 CFR 2.235 P.

l

..:~.-....

.o....

'noz=as Mppolito...

on rebniary s,1930. the Nuclear..'.'. ~

. w- - - u..

J..

i

...e.......

[Docht No. 53 '33117,' P.5:,.g

".y."72.

Chief.OperethqtRecrter;Bre chN::n he.-3.

Rep;!racry Commhsien authorined the.

i Directcr ofits OfEce of NuclearReac%r -

2 v... ' W *:.'.' ".Tir '.Y.~ '.'-'

Divis.;w of 0 pen:ti.yRe:c ors..

~

lows Electric Ught & Power Co., et t!.;'

trar.aw.su n:,a ri-ax us d'. ~.1 " f* -

Regujation (NRR)'to issue orders Irsuanca of Amendinent to racl!!!y(.y

. h r' 2.,

'y,,

. relating to the Indian Point nuclear "

og gg;; -

Opcrating Ucense g.g.g.,.g.

r 4-

facility (Units 1,2 and 3)in Buchanan'-

nb U.S.NuclearRegulato'.y D " '

~~-

Co*ssion (the Co==ission) has% " E -

fDocket No.50'-331i ~

.7"-

Partial grant and a partial denial of a.

..f New York'nese orders ccnstitute a issued Amendment No. 57 to Facility -9. *.

r..

g petition to the Commission. filed by'the e

Opemti:g Ucense No. DPR-49 issued to lowa Electrio Ught & Power Co., et al.:

Union of Concerned Scientists in'.. !.

N Q Iowa Eltetric Ught and Power Company, bsuance of Director's Decision Under Septe=berIS79.The petition w s

~

g Centrallowa Power' Coo' perative, and.

10 CFR 2.235 treated as.a petition under 10 CFR 220s g

Corn Belt Power Cooperative, which -

~

of the CoWssion's rules.under whicL -

revis2s the Technical Spec!!ications for *...

On W B. M. goh.ce was published persons may icquest the Director of '

a F

operation of the Duane Arnold Energy 5 In the Federal Reg: ster (44 FR 39 A8) that NRR to institute a proceeding to modify, h

The amendment is effective as of the-"", (CURE). Com,ed for Responsible Ener;y Center located in Unn County, Iowa.a%.. Cihrens Unit suspend, revoke, or uke such other murury AchenResearch action as may be proper with regard to g

]o date ofits issuance.7 P- *d W *"w Group, and Iow;a Pubhc Interest '

specific license.

The amendment changes the.

.V

' Research Group had requested that the One order directs the licensee to show 7

Technical Specifications 15 allow the."

' Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cause why Unit 1 should not be p

count rate in the Source Range Monitor '

order suspension of Ucense A=endment decommissioned. A second order directe g

channels to drop below 3 counts per -

No. 46 to Ucense No. DpR-49 for the the licensees (Consolid:ted Edisca cf -

second then the entire reactor core is Duane Arnold Energy Center.The New York and the Power Autnority of g

r

't g

being removed o' replaced.'

Directorhas treated this petition as a the State of New Yorx) to take a number g

~

The application for the a='endment' "

request f' r action under 20 CFR 2006.

of shcrt-term actions designed to o

co= plies with the standards and *

~

After a review of the relevant increase the safety of Units 2 and 3.Th,.

q

'~

e-S trquirements of the Atomic'Ener;y'Aci info nation, the Director has deter:nined orders with respect to Units 2 and 3, q

of 1su. as amended (Se Act), and the that there is no basis for suspending were confirmatory orders.meanc3 p

Co=.miss!on's rules and regulations.The Amendment No. 46 to Ucense No. DPR-that they gave legal force to

?

Commission has made appropriate

. f.ndin;s as required by the Act ' nd the

49. Accordingly, the request by CURE. et ecmmhments already ngreed to by the a

al. has been denied.

Itcensees. ihe Director,s decision de:ues g

Commission's rules and regulations in 10 the UCS petition witn regard to Units 2, y

CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the Copies of the Director's decisica are

' license amendment. P:iory:blic notice available forinspection'in the

, and 3.

, In authon,u,ng the Director of NRR to g

of this c=endme:it was not required.

Cernmission's Public Document Rocm, issue inese orders, the. Commission..

a 4

sinca the a=endment does not invelda InniStreet. N.W Washingten. D.C.',

made clear that it had not made a final..

.g

~

signIEcant hanards considera tion. ';.

0555.hnd at the Cedar Rapids Public judgment as to the merits of the orderc.-

The Cornmissien'has determined (nat Ubrary. 42S Third Avenue. S.E., Cedar nor c,s to the form furtner Com=1.ssion,

s the issuance cf this amendment wil!not Rapids. Iowa 52401. A copyof this considerat.:on of the mattershould take.

[j result in any significant endronme'nta! '

decision will also be fi.ied with the The Commission expressed its intent to l= pact and'dat pursuant to 10 CFR Secreta.~ of de Cc= mission fer review seek tne views of theinterested pubhc 5:ction 51.s(d)(4) an end onmental by the Commiss!on in acccrdance with and parb,es before deciding which of.

impact state =ent or negative 10 CFR 2205(c) of the Commission's several possible forms its h:rther -.

dec!. ration a::d enviren=entali= pact code,gn de er s acb,ons m

. will ta,xe. ine Com=p, 7eSu13 tion 3, appraisal need not be prepared in tssion decided g

connection with issunnee of this As provided in to CFR

S(c).this against prohibitin3 operahon of Units 2 A -,

decisien will constitute the final acticn and ~! pendmg furtner considemhan cf r-j ame$EE-details with respect to Gis of the Commissica twenty (;0) days this matter. This dete rnination was e

Fo

,3 action, see (1) the application for after de date of issuance. unless the without prejucice to re-examining tn, e -

2 amendment dated January 2.1000 (:)

Commission on its own motica institutes continued acce;;tability of operaton of f

Amendment No. 57 to License No. DPR-a redew of this decisica w-din that these fac21ities in future cons,ideraton of g

G. and (3) the Commission's related '

r me.

this matte.The purpose of 6:s nonceis j

Qa

]IQV G

D L

a 1

g M

y A)

L70Garhpetw / Vyl. 45 ns. 37 / hrds>y. ca. mary zz. Uw i nouces li stlicit views both on ths cients of th

' merits of the Director's denicl.The separate Vhws cf Co==Isec;r Bradford D!::ctor't, decision and en the form that Co==lstion requests that these I a:;ree 6at this Federal Kr;ister Notica further Commission consideration comments be filed no later than states the de:Is!=a nached by the.

~

sh uld take.

February 29.1930. In order to permit Co==issics. and I therefo e c:ncur in issdag Under the Commission's rules, a thorough consideraJon of the Director's it.However.1 would have prefe red to base Director's partial or complete denial of a denialinlight of the co==ents thatInay takes t' e Dire:toa decisies as advhe y to "

petit!cn under 10 CFR 2.:105 is be Eled. the period within wh!ch the the Co==issica and put it cut for co==est reviewable by the Coin =Ission onits Commission may exercise its autherity on that basis. ne Co==!sdes itseM wedd

'W then have spoke: with :=a finality at the.

cwn initia tive. if the CoMssion to review the Director's det!al has been *

~

dccides within :'O days of the Director's '

extended until March 7.1930. -

outs et b char:ir.; the pro:ed:ral c:urse to n

deal we de quudm ra! sed by Indian

,, ]

ac' don to exercise that auierhy.The 20-

. Dated at Washingten. D.C, the 15th day of day period may be extended. In 7,g,,.y ggo, Pcu:t.

+ --

e-In the present Federal Repster Nati:3.1

.+f add.ition, as 10 CFR :L::Os(c) states For 6e Cc==,ssk-explicitly. the Cc= mission's power to think it a mistake o list Opdo:s 1 and 2 review staff actions'under this provisics Samuel J. Chi!k.

(review and no review).It isin:enceivable'. 7 of tha rules does notlimitin any way - Secre'c17o/de Cs==isslan.

. that the Co_.=issica win not redew a:=e -

'3 th2 Com:nission's supe.vis:ry auictity separate vieJs *f Cocumissio=er Ci:issky aspects cf the baan Peint questi:n.a:d

_- g

. ever delegated staff actions.The I epee that the Direct:( ceders dealing P*" "I ***"'"*"'.shedd not have been, g Co= mission also retains the authority to. with safety k. prove =ents at the l=dian Point asked to waste their ta=e preparing in!!! ate rule =2 king acticas khich =sy' -

and Zica power plants should be ce==ets e optfe:s not.:a!!y before us.

affect these and other nuclearpower -

i=n:ediately e'fe:tive. However. in Aditionally, the Federal Rep, ster Notice,,,,.

plants.

?V continuing to deal with this matter as a shedd have expressly coted that the..

The Commission's options include' V -

review of the Directers respo:se to a petition Cc==ussica's decisics in this =atter codd a!!ect other cudear power plants in densely thosa listed below. This list is not i under part r/t.6 cf the C==ission's exhaustive.'and some of the options are re;dations, the standard for whhh is repdated areas besides Indian Point 2 a:d 3.

not mut:ia!)y exdusive.

whether the Dire:ter abused h!s d!seretion.

For ext =ple the Director wi'l shortly issue

~

1. Review Director's den!51. Ur. der 6e Co==Ission is tip. toeing a :end its confir=atory crders for Zie: Units I and 2 this option, the Co= mission would nspasibilities when it shedd be c:nfronting which will be s!=!:ar to the crders for Indian 6e=

ecdy.

Pelat Units 2 and 3.

r;. view the Director's denial on Itt De L=portance of the quesSons fa,,.ng the Based on the staff assessment that the 2.

cline to re itector's denicl.

hf s o de

. desWs publi: health and safety is adequately Under this option, th'e Commission p.,i=t ne NRC staff esti=ates that operauen protectems =y pw eat Man {, t 2 e

"'N' P'* f I "P"'** ' ! east penng Cc=miss.'8 would continue to exerciseits

o. the Indian Point and Zica plants in, supervisory power over the staff, and contributes ap;mxi=ately 40 percent of the n&w of t.se o==ects solicited here..

could step in if it saw the need for.

total accident risk attributable to nudear additional actich..

po'wer sencratic: In the United States.

Never6eless, there see=s to be wide

3. initicle rulemcking proceeding to '

ne Cc==ission =ust c:=e to pips. as spec =a:t 6at be inian PMnt site wodd consider sccietalrisks at nuclectpower s=cn as Possih1c with three questions;

• t b * * * * * ? '*b b '* d*1 "*

• d

• E'-

Y plents in high-densitypopuleflon crecs/ " whether it should adopt the safety pelicy and Consequent!y. the !cng run acceptability of Under this approach, the' generic issues obje:tive for existing reacto s near high tnese two units, even with the preposed.

common to facilities Iccated in high-cgna:Uades cf populatica (=;!!:it in de changes, re=ains an open question in my ec /s appmach. or whe6 erit shou.d yiew. !t is a question that requres a density pop.u!ation areas would be.

adept encther safety cbjective; wheder the I max =u= o! infer =ed assess =ent of the risks 1

considered in a rn,.e=aking proceeding.

ce.ssures prescribed by de Directer =eet theI and the beneihs and the attematives by

, This proceeding would explore issues safety standard approved by the dti: ens in the cea and by the govem=ent of such as the safetyIncasures appropriate -

Co=.ission: and whether 6e plants may 1

the state o! New York as well as by this i

for nuclea power reactors in high continue to cperate while the first avo agen:y. Future proceedin;s will need to be

. population density areas., /to a questions are be,'ns resolved.

st xt.ed wi6 Ws need t mbd.

4. Refer Director s cemc ne Cc==ussten should now cbtain pub!.:

licensing bocrd cr to the Commission,

co==ent to help it fo=date the safety

( M * " * * *='* "=1 itselffor ed'udicction. Under this

. policy and objective that sho;1d guide ses ccx rnce-u n=edial actic at Indian Febt and Zion.

approach. t e n'eceptability of the

' Director's denial would b' tested in a After such a peticy has been adepted. and I

h We shpdd take no =ca 6an Ways the (Docket No. 80N-00S3]

fornal ad'udicato#7 ear ag. If the Cc==ussion should appoint Atc=,c Safety u-decision were referryd

• 2 a licensing.

and Ucensing Esards to adjudicate 6e Potasslum tod'de for Th'yroid'E'ocking board, the Commisstor. would have the eiequacy of the safety racesures pres:ribed in a Radiation Emergency Only-opportuntly to review the dects10.2 by the Directeri: ter=s of the safety Approvaland Ava!! ability

~

reached by that board.

objective adopted b,.he Co==issies.In

5. CJaduct en informal;rcceeding dew of the s!;ni~.can:e cf the issues to be Cross

Reference:

For a doeurnent.

before the Commissica. Under this de !ded by be U:ensing Board, the issued by the Food and Drug approach.. designated parties would Cc= missies sheuld now decide bat it will Administration that announces approval present their views on the correctness revim the Ec:rd's deter =insti:n. Finally, the and availabili?v of potassium iodide fo' '

.and sufficiency of the Director's.

Co==issien should decide at.the cutset on thyroid blocking in a radiation decision in an informal format. Such a

(*[3,',' {0I *

"j*(,' 2"[ ' * *l c','

emergency, see FR Doc. No. Eo-six.

3 proceeding could either precede or the plants during the foregoirn hearin;is.nat appeanng elsewhere in the " notices" follow a Comm,ssion de= ton on record should cover not only t'he safety state.

section of,this issue of the Federal whether to review the Director's denial.

et. affairs at the Indian Point and Zion ;Iants.

Reg! ster.

The Cor.=!ssion welcomes the views er,d the depe, of puhti prote:ti:n pessibic.

cecc,,,,g3,

, ~

of interested parties and the public on but also the present need for the electricity thes2 and other options, and on the generated by 6ese plants.

D D

R @! @,] yaL g[

'D) m

.