ML20139A086
| ML20139A086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/2020 |
| From: | Duke A State of PA, Dept of Environmental Protection, State of PA, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | NRC/SECY |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-320 LT, General Proceeding, RAS 55681 | |
| Download: ML20139A086 (30) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY
)
In the Matter of )
)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR )
STATION, UNIT NO. 2; )
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ) Docket No. 50-320 LT TRANSFER OF LICENSE AND )
CONFORMING AMENDMENT )
)
REPLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO APPLICANTS ANSWER OPPOSING ITS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A HEARING REQUEST Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.309(i)(2), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection (Department or DEP), submits this reply to the GPU Nuclear, Inc.
(GPU Nuclear), Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Company (collectively referred to as the FirstEnergy Companies) and the TMI-2 Solutions, LLC (TMI-2 Solutions) (collectively, Applicants) Answer filed on May 11, 2020 to the Departments Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for an Extension of Time to File a Hearing Request (Petition). The Departments Petition was submitted in response to Applicants filing of an Application to transfer the Possession Only License No.
DPR-73 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) from the FirstEnergy Companies to TMI-2 Solutions (Application).
1
INTRODUCTION The Departments Petition met the requirements of 10 CFR § 2.309 relating to petitions to intervene. In their Answer, even Applicants admit that requirements for a contention were formulated and filed in accordance with the rule. (Answer p. 39). The Departments limited request for an extension to file a hearing request demonstrates a measured and efficient approach. It provides all parties with official notice of the Departments concerns, provides for judicial economy by promoting discussion among the parties, and preserves the Departments rights to request a hearing if it is unable to verify after these discussions that the record in front of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is complete. Requesting a limited extension during the unprecedented global pandemic of COVID-19 while still filing a timely Petition and Public Comments on the TMI-2 Application is hardly justification for Applicants claim that the Department should be fully able at the present time to determine whether a hearing may be necessary. (Answer pp. 38-39).
As previously stated in the Departments Petition, the Department welcomes a properly conducted and expedited cleanup and restoration of TMI-2. However, the obvious risk of a funding shortfall and the attendant significant health, safety, environmental, financial and economic risks to the Commonwealth and its citizens raise serious questions about the realization of that benefit. (Petition p. 3). The Department appreciates that Applicants are interested and ready to engage with DEP to discuss plans for TMI-2. (Answer p. 6). However, it is paramount that a full record is developed before the Commission in order for the NRC to properly determine whether the current and proposed licensees have sufficient funds available now, and into the future, to satisfactorily decommission and restore the TMI-2 site given its unique factual history and its location in the middle of the Susquehanna River.
2
- 1) The Departments contention meets the requirements of 10 CFR § 2.309 In contrast to what Applicants claim in their Answer, the Departments contention cites to specific sections and page numbers of the Application. The Petition provides references to specific statements in the Application and points to missing information for several assumptions made by Applicants including the sufficiency of funds accruing in the nuclear decommissioning trust fund (NDT), what funds will be withdrawn from the NDT, whether necessary information was provided to understand how the contingency costs were estimated to verify that the estimations conform with regulatory requirements, and whether the information provided is sufficient to evaluate the validity and sufficiency of the financial guarantees made by TMI-2 Solutions. (See generally Petition pp. 6-10) The Departments Petition is also accompanied by the Declaration of Department Radiation Bureau Director, David J. Allard (Declaration). Page 6 of the Petition states [t]he facts outlined below are confirmed by the Declaration of David J.
Allard filed with this Petition. Nowhere in Applicants Answer do they acknowledge the Declaration let alone state how the Declaration is insufficient.
DEP offered far more than a generalized conclusory opinion that the information is inadequate, and DEP did explain why the information is insufficient, contrary to Applicants statements on Pages 5 and 20 of their Answer. Rule 10 CFR § 2.309(f)(vi) specifically states if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, [the petitioner must include] the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioners belief. The rules governing a contention specifically contemplate pointing out where there is missing information. As the Department explains throughout its Petition, the missing information does not allow anyone, including the NRC, to verify whether 3
Applicants are meeting the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq. (AEA) and the regulations promulgated by the NRC, as they claim.
Contrary to Applicants assertions, DEP is not seeking to apply an absolute or beyond a reasonable doubt standard in this matter, nor is DEP engaging in the mere casting of doubt on aspects of the application. (Answer p. 14). Instead, DEP is genuinely concerned about the financial guarantees and is seeking to have the NRC require Applicants to provide reasonable financial assurances by including sufficient detail which will enable it to assess the financial guarantees beyond the conclusory assertions contained in the Application.
DEPs Petition describes how the Application is unclear identifying and describing what are the financial assurance instruments valued at up to $100 Million and what up to means.
(Petition p. 9). Also, the Department stated that there is nothing in the record that explains if the economic climate resulting from COVID-19 has affected any of these guarantees. (Petition p. 9).
Applicants in their Answer do not address these points at all. They simply restate that up to
$100 million in guarantees provided was in its Application. (Answer p. 25).
Applicants state the Application fully complies with the NRC requirements to provide financial assurances and to the extent the Department is challenging the sufficiency of the NRC regulations such a challenge is prohibited. (Answer p. 23). Applicants reiterate this point and add that they have included all the information in the application. (Answer p. 26). This mischaracterizes the Departments argument in its Petition. The Department does not take issue with the regulations themselves. Rather, it is concerned about the dearth of information provided by the Applicants to verify that they are meeting their legal obligations. Stating that the Application fully complies with the regulations is not a fact, but a conclusory statement.
4
Applicants attempt to provide factual support for the notion that they have fully complied with the regulations by stating contingencies in cost estimates were evaluated by risk modeling software to quantitatively evaluate the integrated impact of uncertainty and discrete risk events on the project objectives, baseline schedule, and costs, as well as EnergySolutions own significant experience decommissioning commercial and other reactor facilities -- all of which were reviewed in detail as part of the acquisition discussion between TMI-2 Solutions and First Energy Companies. (Answer p. 28). Applicants do not identify what the risk modeling software is nor whether this software has ever been used previously to estimate costs in this context. Applicants admit that this analysis was done as part of discussions among themselves.
Applicants do not state in their Answer whether the analysis they allude to has been supplied to the NRC for it to verify the assumptions made by the risk modeling software nor do the Applicants provide the details of the private discussions among the Applicants.
Furthermore, since the underlying calculations behind the assumptions are not included in the Application, Applicants are unable to address the Departments concern on page 6 of its Petition that the new Decommissioning Cost Estimate is lower than what was previously provided to the Commission. ($1.06 Billion in 2019 dollars versus $1.22 Billion in 2014 dollars). Applicants correctly point out that the Department has not expressed concerns about cost estimates or the NDT fund value in the past. However, it is more than appropriate to raise these issues at this time, when a license transfer request is pending, especially considering the recent developments associated in light of (1) the creation of a new limited liability company, (2) a change in ownership, (3) a change in the decommissioning plan and timeline, (4) proposed new funding mechanisms, and (5) withdrawal for unverified expenses. (Answer p. 18 n. 95). Given the 5
uncertainties, the Department filed the Petition to identify its contentions and detail the specific places in the 1Application where information was omitted or insufficient. (See Petition pp. 6-10).
Applicants also provide only a conclusory retort to what funds will be withdrawn from the NDT. (Answer pp. 29-30). Applicants merely restate the legal requirement of what funds can be withdrawn and generic language in the Purchase Agreement that GPU will withdraw funds to pay unreimbursed expenses. Again, no specific information or breakdown is provided about the funds to be withdrawn.
In response to the Departments concerns that there is not enough information provided in the Application to make a determination that the trust will have sufficient funds, the Applicants generically reference the additional financial assurance instruments described in the Application. (Answer p. 30). Again, Applicants do not cite to specific information in the Application that describes what these assurances are or even provide as much as a page number where one can review the accuracy and completeness of these financial assurance instruments.
- 2) The Departments request for an extension to request a hearing provides for administrative efficiency and should be granted.
The Department is the state agency charged with administering environmental protection laws for many programs, including radiation protection. As outlined on Page 2 of the Declaration, since 2008 the Department has issued licenses and completed inspections for all forms of radioactive materials as part of a formal agreement between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the NRC. The Department is certainly well versed in balancing the need for an efficient review process of an application for a variety of license transfers while also confirming that applicants have provided verification for claims made in the application materials to ensure that an approval is not just rubber stamped.
6
The Department has no interest in unnecessarily delaying this license transfer application, and is committed to a prompt, yet reasoned, resolution. The Applicants, however, completely distort the Departments request for an extension to ask for hearing by referring to it as an unbounded extension. (Answer p. 32). On page 10 of its Petition, the Department specifically asks for a precise amount of time, one month after DEPs physical offices reopen, following the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the Department states that if it is satisfied that the record before the Commission is complete in accordance with the AEA then it will not pursue its hearing request even if an extension is granted. (Petition p. 11). Nowhere in its Petition does DEP state it is opposed to having conversations now with Applicants while its staff is teleworking to keep the process moving along. As Applicants admit in their Answer, the Department has already discussed and entered into a joint motion with Applicants to receive and review information marked as Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
(Answer p. 8).
At the time it filed its Petition of April 15, 2020, the Pennsylvania stay-at-home Order was set to extend through April 30, 2020. (Petition p. 13). As of the date of filing this reply, the Pennsylvania stay-at-home Order has been extended until June 5, 2020. DEP can appreciate that there is some uncertainty as to the exact date its physical office will reopen. As admitted by Applicants, the Department has made significant strides in adjusting to teleworking. Therefore, the Department amends its previous request to now request an extension of time to file a request for a hearing by August 3, 2020. Such a request would not unduly delay the Applicants request for a decision to be reached before the end of 2020. (Applicants cover letter p. 3).
Interestingly, Applicants acknowledge that while its staff has been working remotely DEP has still provided detailed comments on the LTA and formulated and filed a petition to 7
intervene with a proposed contention - thereby submitting the type of information required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309. (Answer pp. 38-39). Applicants contradict themselves within their Answer and ultimately acknowledge that the Department formulated and filed a contention that meets the regulatory requirements. Furthermore, by Applicants own admissions in their Answer, the Department has attempted to do everything in its power to respond and to file its Petition and public comments, despite receiving notice through the March 26, 2020 Federal Register in the middle of the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Applicants wrongly claim that the Departments request for an extension should be guided by 10 CFR § 2.323 Motions, and since the Department did not include a certification with its request that it consulted with all parties in its filing, its request should be denied. (Answer p. 33).
However, Section 2.323(a) specifically excludes motions filed under 10 CFR 2.309(c) from the certification requirements. Section 2.309(c) outlines the requirements for filing request for a hearing and the specifications for new or amended contentions are found. Section 2.309(c) also does not require that a separate motion asking for an extension of time be filed along with the Petition. 10 CFR § 2.309(c). Furthermore, if Applicants truly believed that the Departments request should be treated as a motion, then the Applicants would have been required to file their answer within ten days of service, as set forth in, 10 CFR § 2.323(c). Applicants did not do this.
Therefore, following Applicants own argument and practice in this case, their objection to the request for an extension of time would have passed.
The Departments request for an extension is also in line with 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart M and the Commissions policy for timely and efficient license transfer proceedings. As Applicants point out on Page 35 of their Answer, 10 CFR § 2.1316 provides that NRC staff are expected to 8
promptly issue approval or denial of license transfer requests. Notice of such action shall be promptly transmitted to the presiding officer and parties in the proceeding. However,
[N]o license granted hereunder * *
- shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall give its consent in writing. (42 U.S.C. 2234; 10 CFR 30.34 (b), 40.46, 50.80, 72.50)
Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers, 63 FR at 66,721-66,722 (emphasis added).
In contemplating a streamlined process for certain license transfers, the Commission provided examples such as a holding company over an existing licensee, as well as direct transfers, such as transfer of the ownership and operating authority of a single or majority owner. 63 FR at 66,722. The Commission also stated that NRC staff review of such applications consists largely of assuring that the ultimately licensed entity has the capability to meet financial qualification and decommissioning funding aspects of NRC regulations. These financial capabilities are important over the long term, but have no direct or immediate impact on requirements for day-to-day operations at a licensed facility. Id. Here, the financial capabilities are of utmost importance because the license is being transferred to a completely new and different company specifically for decommissioning activities and not day-to-day operations.
In defending the proposed streamlined process, the Commission has also stated:
[The process is] not pro forma but in fact provide[s] ample opportunity for the parties to raise appropriate issues and build a sound evidentiary record for decision. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that issues might arise that could require additional procedures. Therefore the rule explicitly provides that the Commission may use additional procedures or even convene a formal hearing on specific and substantial disputes of fact necessary for the Commission's decision, that cannot be resolved with sufficient accuracy except in a formal hearing. See § 2.1322(d).
9
63 FR at 66,723.
Also, the Commission described that in its rulemaking adopting the streamlined process, it was making a generic finding that administrative amendments which do no more than reflect an approved transfer and do not directly affect actual operating methods and actual operation of the facility do not involve a significant hazards consideration. 63 FR 66,728.
A license transfer to a new company to conduct the expedited cleanup and restoration of the TMI-2 site, where a historic accident took place and caused the closure of the facility, most certainly deserves far more than a pro forma review and the NRC should ensure that a sound evidentiary record is available. The TMI-2 site, which experienced the worst commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history, should not fall under the generic finding that there is no significant hazards consideration to be made, especially where the Department has raised a credible contention regarding the lack of specificity over financial assurances.
Applicants claim that an extension to file a hearing request is not needed because state consultation can proceed independently and in parallel with any evidentiary hearing. (Answer p.
36). However, the NRC has twice written to the Department stating that, because the license transfer application is under review, it cannot discuss specifics but only the license transfer process generally. (See NRC letters April 23, 2020 and May 6, 2020 attached as Exhibit A). The NRC also stated that, in the current climate of limited travel and social interaction, it would anticipate that any meeting would have to be conducted remotely. (May 6, 2020 letter, Exhibit A).
Applicants believe a hearing request is also not warranted because 10 CFR § 2.315(c) would allow the Department to participate at a hearing without being a party. (Answer p. 36). However, that section, which pertains to participation by a person not a party, would only allow the 10
Department to have one representative at the hearing and, although it allows the Department to file a petition with the Commission for review with respect to its contention, it does not guarantee appeal rights beyond the hearing since the Department would not be treated as an admitted party to the case.
CONCLUSION The Department and the citizens of Pennsylvania have a direct and ongoing interest in all aspects of the decommissioning, flood protection, environmental monitoring, radioactive waste management, and site restoration of TMI-2. Although the Department welcomes the possibility of a properly conducted and expedited cleanup and restoration of TMI-2 (where the historic reactor core meltdown took place), it believes the current record needs to be further developed for the Commission to find, as it must, that the license transfer application would, if approved, provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public. 42 U.S.C. § 2232(a). For these reasons, the Department requests that the NRC/ASLB grant the Petition to Intervene and the associated request for an extension of time to request a hearing, as amended to allow the Department until August 3, 2020 to file its request for a hearing, should the Department determine that such a hearing remains necessary.
Respectfully submitted, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection By their attorney, Signed (electronically) by Alicia R. Duke Assistant Counsel PA ID No. 209672 Southcentral Regional Office 909 Elmerton Avenue, Third Floor Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200 Telephone (717) 787-8790 Fax (717) 772-2400 Dated: May 18, 2020 Email: alduke@pa.gov 11
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Exhibit A WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 April 23, 2020 Patrick McDonnell Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
Dear Secretary McDonnell:
On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of April 6, 2020, addressed to Chairman Svinicki regarding the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2)
License Transfer. Your letter expresses concern regarding the transfer. Further, a response letter dated April 13, 2020, to you from the presidents of GPU Nuclear and EnergySolutions, copying Chairman Svinicki, was also received.
Because the NRC has received requests for an adjudicatory hearing on the matter, your letter bears on what is now a contested proceeding before the Commission. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to respond to the questions in your letter or to comment generally on the matter at this time. This is because the Commission must remain impartial during the pendency of the proceeding.
Additionally, your letter requests a briefing of your staff from the NRC staff and the applicant as well as a local PSDAR public meeting. These requests are being referred to the technical staff to provide a response.
A copy of your letter, the GPU Nuclear/EnergySolutions letter, and this response will be served on the participants in the TMI-2 license transfer proceeding.
Sincerely, Annette L. Vietti-Cook
April 6, 2020 Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Chairman Mail Stop O-16 B33 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Three Mile Island Unit 2 License Transfer
Dear Chairman Svinicki:
I am writing to you to express my serious concern regarding the proposed license transfer of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI Unit 2) nuclear power plant from GPU Nuclear Corporation to the EnergySolutions subsidiary TMI-2 Solutions, LLC (TMI-2 Solutions).
As you are aware, in 1979, the TMI Unit 2 power reactor had the worst nuclear accident in U.S.
history. The TMI Unit 2 nuclear accident resulted in damage to the majority of the reactor core, released millions of curies of radioactive noble gases into the environs, and grossly contaminated the interiors of the containment and auxiliary buildings. Because of this, we understand there are very high radiation areas within TMI Unit 2 that present a grave risk to personnel that enter.
Despite the limited entries into the containment building to remove damaged nuclear fuel in the 1980s, there are vast areas in the plant with unknown radiological conditions related to the TMI Unit 2 accident. I firmly believe TMI Unit 2 is the most radiologically contaminated facility in our nation outside of the Department of Energys weapons complex.
When it was announced that TMI Unit 1 was going to be permanently shut down, the Commonwealths residents and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP))
believed this to mean that TMI Unit 1 would enter into a SAFSTOR status for several decades and be decommissioned first. This would allow for the further decay of radioactivity within TMI Unit 2 and reduce worker exposure and possible environmental releases of radiation during clean up.
However, this understanding is no longer the case. With the announcement of GPU Nuclear Corporation planning to shed its responsibility for TMI Unit 2 to TMI-2 Solutions, we now understand that TMI-2 Solutions plans to immediately begin the decommissioning of TMI Unit 2 with the accrued $800 million in the financial assurance fund that GPU Nuclear Corporation and the NRC currently control. This leaves us with many questions and concerns, which I outline in more detail below, about what a license transfer of TMI Unit 2 will mean for Pennsylvania, the local environment, and the communities surrounding Three Mile Island.
Secretary Rachel Carson State Office Building l P.O. Box 2063 l Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 l 717.787.2814 l www.dep.pa.gov
Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman April 6, 2020 Concerns with Three Mile Island Unit 2 License Transfer Environmental & Safety Impacts Due to the TMI Unit 2 power reactor partial meltdown, it is our understanding there are still very high radiation areas within TMI Unit 2 that would present a grave risk to any personnel that enter.
Related to this understanding, I have the following questions about environmental impacts and safety associated with the decommissioning of TMI Unit 2:
x What increased environmental surveillance and pollution controls will the NRC require during clean-up of TMI Unit 2 to ensure any radiological releases are detected?
x The TMI Unit 2 facility is in the middle of the Susquehanna River, a major water supply for the region that drains into the Chesapeake Bay. What environmental and pollution controls will be put in place to ensure no contamination of this critical water source?
x What flood controls will be utilized during decommissioning to mitigate a worst-case flood scenario on the Susquehanna (e.g. a weather event similar to Hurricane Agnes in 1972 that produced 19-inches of rain in Pennsylvania)?
x Will the NRC require a local decommissioning advisory committee to be established to assure the clean-up of TMI Unit 2 is transparent to the public and local and state governments?
Cost of Clean-Up & Financial Responsibility As noted above, GPU Nuclear Corporation and the NRC currently have $800 million in its financial assurance fund for decommissioning TMI Unit 2. However, estimates have shown it will cost $1.2 billion to decommission TMI Unit 2. For these reasons, I have the following questions, related to the cost and financial responsibility of cleaning up TMI Unit 2:
x Given there is a significant disparity between the estimated cost to decommission TMI Unit 2 from the amount of funds currently available, what funding source will be used to cover the deficit?
x Since the radiological conditions inside TMI Unit 2 are unknown, the actual cost to decommission it could be much higher than the current estimate of $1.2 billion. What legal and financial assurances will be put in place to address this potential?
x Who will the NRC require to retain financial responsibility to clean-up TMI Unit 2 after the license has been transferred?
Radioactive Waste Handling Due to the severe contamination from the partial meltdown and the unknown radioactivity levels of materials that will need to be disposed, I request to know the following information related to how the radioactive waste from TMI Unit 2 will be handled:
x Has the U.S. Department of Energy agreed to dispose of the TMI Unit 2 reactor vessel, which has a portion of the damaged nuclear fuel from the 1979 accident still fused inside?
Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman April 6, 2020 x How will TMI-2 Solutions dispose of any contaminated lead shielding, which is now mixed waste, that may be present in TMI Unit 2?
x Are there volume and activity estimates of the Class B & C low-level radioactive waste that cannot be shipped to the EnergySolutions disposal site in Utah?
x Has the low-level radioactive waste disposal site in Texas agreed to accept the Class B & C waste?
x Is there any greater than Class C low-level radioactive waste in TMI Unit 2? If so, will that remain onsite?
x If asked by the licensee, will the NRC consider and approve very low-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in non-hazardous landfills in Pennsylvania?
Given my stated concerns, I hope you and your fellow Commissioners will thoughtfully consider the unique aspects of the severely damaged TMI Unit 2 nuclear reactor and not approve a license transfer until all parties are satisfied that the decommissioning can be done safely. Equally important, we require firm legal assurances that financial resources are available to complete decommissioning once started, including bonding between the Commonwealth and licensee.
I also expect no radioactive waste from TMI Unit 2 will be left on Three Mile Island.
Additionally, I ask your executive staff and the current and proposed licensee brief my fellow local and state officials responsible for protection of the public and environment. Obviously, the current health crisis will dictate whether this meeting is in person or virtual. Furthermore, in that the licensee has recently amended the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) and has proposed a significant schedule change, the Pennsylvania DEP expects the NRC to hold a local PSDAR meeting after the COVID-19 situation has resolved so that the proposed clean-up work at TMI Unit 2 and timeline can be presented to the public, with ample opportunity for questions and discussion.
Should you or your staff have any questions regarding my stated concerns or wish to discuss them further, please feel free to contact David J. Allard, Director for Bureau of Radiation Protection, by e-mail at djallard@pa.gov or by telephone at 717.787.2480.
Sincerely, Patrick McDonnell Secretary cc: David J. Allard, Director, Bureau of Radiation Protection, DEP NRC Commissioner Jeff Baran, Washington, DC 20555-0001 NRC Commissioner Annie Caputo, Washington, DC 20555-0001 NRC Commissioner David A. Wright, Washington, DC 20555-0001 David Lew, Regional Administrator, U.S. NRC Region I, 2100 Renaissance Blvd., Ste. 100, King of Prussia, PA 19406-2713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
FirstEnergy Companies ) Docket Nos. 50-320 LT
)
TMI-2 Solutions, LLC )
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
Unit 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LETTER FROM COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK TO PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECRETARY PATRICK MCDONNELL have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission First Energy Service Company Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 76 South Main Street Mail Stop: O-16B33 Akron, OH 44308E Washington, DC 20555-0001 Gregory H. Halnon E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov Karen A. Sealy E-mail: ksealy@firstenergycorp.com ghalnon@firstenergycorp.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Counsel for GPU Nuclear, Inc.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Grant W. Eskelsen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ryan K. Lighty Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel John E. Matthews Mail Stop: T-3F23 Timothy P. Matthews Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: grant.eskelsen@morganlewis.com E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com E-mail: Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov John.matthews@morganlewis.com timothy.matthews@morganlewis.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Energy Solutions, LLC Mail Stop - O-14A44 121 West Trade Street, Suite 2700 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Tison A. Campbell Gerard Peter Van Noordennen Anita G. Naber E-mail:
David E. Roth gpvannoordennen@energysolutions.com Jeremy L. Wachutka E-mail: Tison.Campbell@nrc.gov Anita.Naber@nrc.gov David.Roth@nrc.gov Jeremy.Wachutka@nrc.gov
Counsel for TMI Solutions, LLC State of Pennsylvania Hogan Lovells US, LLP Department of Environmental Protection 555 13th Street, NW 909 Elmerton Avenue Washington, DC 20004 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Sachin S. Desai, Esq. Alicia R. Duke E-mail: sachin.desai@hoganlovells.com E-mail: alduke@pa.gov Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Eric Epstein E-mail: epstein@efmr.org Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of April 2020.
2
May 5, 2020 Patrick McDonnell, Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
SUBJECT:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION APRIL 6, 2020, REQUEST FOR MEETINGS REGARDING PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 LICENSE
Dear Mr. McDonnell:
Thank you for your April 6, 2020, letter addressed to Chairman Svinicki. This letter supplements our April 24 response (Agencywide Document Access Management System [ADAMS]
Accession Number ML20114E321) and addresses the requests your letter for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) executive staff to brief Pennsylvania state and local officials regarding the proposed transfer of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (TMI-2) license and for the NRC to hold an additional public meeting on the TMI-2 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR).
Relative to the first request, it is standard practice for NRC staff to conduct government-to-government meetings with state and local officials whenever requested, to discuss NRC-regulated topics related to decommissioning facilities. In this current climate of limited travel and social interaction, we would anticipate that any such meeting would be conducted remotely. As indicated in our April 24 letter, since the license transfer application is under review, the NRC will not be able to discuss specifics of the license transfer application. The NRC staff will be able to discuss the license transfer process generically.
Relative to the second request, consistent with its regulations, the NRC held a public meeting on the TMI-2 PSDAR near the site on August 28, 2013. Although the PSDAR was subsequently updated in November 2013 and December 2015 to reflect updated cost figures and analyses, as well as revised agreements and administrative clarifications, the NRCs regulations require written notification of these updates to the NRC, with a copy to the affected State. The NRC has not conducted additional public meetings at any reactor decommissioning sites based on PSDAR updates. Additionally, since it is contingent on the completion of the proposed license transfer, the NRC staff is treating the December 2019 update to the TMI-2 PSDAR as a supplement to the license transfer application.
The NRC is not planning an additional public meeting specifically on the TMI-2 PSDAR.
However, NRC staff has, upon request, attended and participated in public meetings in the vicinity of decommissioning nuclear reactors to better understand community concerns and
P. McDonnell 2 clarify NRCs role in the decommissioning process. NRC staff would consider participation in a public meeting in the vicinity of TMI-2, consistent with any limitations during the hearing process, as well as current travel and safety restrictions.
Please contact Doug Tifft in the NRC Region I office (Doug.Tifft@nrc.gov, 610-337-6918) to coordinate a government-to-government meeting. Please contact Theodore Smith (Theodore.Smith@nrc.gov, 301-415-6721) or Bruce Watson (Bruce.Watson@nrc.gov, 301-415-6221) in the Reactor Decommissioning Branch if you have any other questions.
Sincerely, Patricia K. Holahan, Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket No. 50-320 cc: D. Allard, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection, PADEP
P. McDonnell 3
SUBJECT:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION APRIL 6, 2020, REQUEST FOR MEETINGS REGARDING PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO. 2 LICENSE DATE: May 5, 2020 DISTRIBUTION: Ticket Number: LTR-20-0141-2DUWP Public DTifft RidsRgn1 ADAMS Accession Number: ML20115E536 *via email OFFICE DUWP DUWP OGC RI/RSLO DUWP NAME TSmith* BWatson* JWachutka* DTifft* PHolahan*
DATE 4/23/2020 4/23/2020 5/4/2020 5/4/2020 5/5/2020 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY
)
In the Matter of )
)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR )
STATION, UNIT NO. 2; )
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ) Docket No. 50-320 LT TRANSFER OF LICENSE AND )
CONFORMING AMENDMENT )
)
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that copies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protections Reply to Applicants Answer Opposing its Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for an Extension of Time to File a Hearing Request have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs e-filing system, in the above-captioned proceeding this 18th day of May 2020.
Signed (electronically) by Alicia R. Duke Assistant Counsel PA ID No. 209672 Southcentral Regional Office 909 Elmerton Avenue, Third Floor Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200 Telephone (717) 787-8790 Fax (717) 772-2400 Email: alduke@pa.gov Dated: May 18, 2020