|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | issue date = 08/17/1979 | | | issue date = 08/17/1979 |
| | title = Submits Summary of Areas of Concern Re Des.Requests Extension in Order to Continue Review & File More Detailed Comments | | | title = Submits Summary of Areas of Concern Re Des.Requests Extension in Order to Continue Review & File More Detailed Comments |
| | author name = MANN D | | | author name = Mann D |
| | author affiliation = SUSQUEHANNA ALLIANCE, LEWISBURG, PA | | | author affiliation = SUSQUEHANNA ALLIANCE, LEWISBURG, PA |
| | addressee name = MILLER D | | | addressee name = Miller D |
| | addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) | | | addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) |
| | docket = 05000387, 05000388 | | | docket = 05000387, 05000388 |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:REGULRYINFORMATION DISTRIBUTISYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSION NBR:7'70821031 iDOC.DATE:79/08/17NOTARIZED: | | {{#Wiki_filter:REGUL RY INFORMATION DISTR IBUTI SYSTEM (RIDS) |
| NOFACIL:-.squehanna SteamElectricStation>UnitiiPennsglva 50-388~squehanna SteamElectricStation>Unit2iPennsglva ATH.NEAUTHORAFFILIATION MANiD.Susquehanna AllianceRECIP.NAMERECIPIENT AFFILIATION MILLER'.Divisionof.SiteSaFetg5Environmental Analysis
| | ACCESSION NBR: 7'70821031 i DOC. DATE: 79/08/17 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET ¹ FACIL: . |
| | squehanna Steam Electric Station> Unit ii Pennsglva 05000387 50-388~ squehanna Steam Electric Station> Unit 2i Pennsglva 05000388 A TH.N E AUTHOR AFFILIATION MAN i D. Susquehanna Alliance RECIP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MILLER'. Division of. Site SaFetg 5 Environmental Analysis |
|
| |
|
| ==SUBJECT:== | | ==SUBJECT:== |
| SubmitssummaryoFareasofconcernreDES.Requestsextension tocontinuereview8:filemoredetailedcomments.
| | Submits summary oF areas of concern re DES. Requests extension to continue review 8: file more detailed comments. |
| DISTRIBUTION CODE'0028 COPIESRECEIVED: | | DISTRIBUTION CODE'0028 COPIES RECEIVED: LTR Q ENCL 0 ENVIRON. COMMENTS., |
| LTRQENCL0SIZE'ITLE:
| | SIZE'ITLE: |
| ENVIRON.COMMENTS., | | NOTES:so<o~~E. 9 s F58 ~ Nc.mors z. I EuF r&nlddRAI REC IP IENT COPIES RECIPIENT CQP IES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENC ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ACTION: . 05 PM P dE~H 1 17 BC EPD ~~ |
| DOCKET¹0500038705000388NOTES:so<o~~E.
| | 18 LA ERR >M AD nvoo RF INTERNAL: 'EG FIL. 1 02 NRC PDR 0 2 09 ENVN SPEC BR 10 CST BNFT ANL '1 11 TA/EDO 12 AD SITE TECH 2 14 ACDENT ANALY 15 EFLT TRT SYS 1 ih RAD ASMT BR 19 DIR DSE 1 AD ENVIRON TECH . |
| 9sF58~Nc.morsz.IEuFr&nlddRAI RECIPIENTIDCODE/NAME ACTION:.05PMPdE~H18LAERR>MINTERNAL:
| | AD SITE ANALY 1 OELD EXTERNAL: 03 LPDR 1 04 NSIC 20 NATL LAB g/t/L 5 ACRS LW CwC cuJW ~~ 8C QQ'j ~ ~ 74(d I g I5 ilgwu |
| 'EGFIL.010CSTBNFTANL12ADSITETECH15EFLTTRTSYS19DIRDSEADSITEANALYCOPIESLTTRENC112'12111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME 17BCEPD~~ADnvooRF02NRCPDR09ENVNSPECBR11TA/EDO14ACDENTANALYihRADASMTBRADENVIRONTECH.OELDCQPIESLTTRENCLEXTERNAL: | | / |
| 03LPDR120NATLLABg/t/L504NSICACRSLWCwCcuJW~~8CQQ'j~~74(dIgI5ilgwu/0TOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:
| | TOTAL NUMBER OF COP IES REQUIRED: LTTR 28'NCL 0 |
| LTTR28'NCL DanielMullerDirector, DivisionofSiteSafetyandEnvironmental AnalysisOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation USNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Susquehanna AlliancePOBox249Lewisburg, Pa17837August17,1979
| |
|
| |
|
| ==DearMrMuller,== | | Susquehanna Alliance PO Box 249 Lewisburg, Pa 17837 August 17, 1979 Daniel Muller Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 |
| Inalettertoyou,datedAugust7,Irequested anextension ofthepubliccommentperiodonbehalfoftheSusquehanna
| | |
| : Alliance, fortheDraftEnvironmental Statement relatedtotheoperation ofSusquehanna SteamElectricStations1and2(DocketNos50-387and50-388).Ihadindicated inthatletterthattheSusquehanna Alliancewasundertaking areviewofthestatement andfeltthatanextension shouldbegrantedtoallowtimeforinclusion ofdatanowbeingcollected onthecausesandeffectsoftheaccidentatThreeMileIsland.Specifically, wefeltthatthepexiodshouldbeextendedbeyondOctober25,1979atwhichtimethePresident sCommission isexpectedtoissuetheirfinalreport.Thisextension wouldalsoallowtimeforwiderpubliccommentonthestatement.
| | ==Dear Mr Muller,== |
| Weknowofmanycitizenswhoonlylearnedoftheavailability ofthedocumentduringthepastcoupleweeksandhavenothadsufficient timetoobtainacopyandreviewit.Inaconverstion onAugust16withMrLeech,ProjectManager,Ilearnedthatmyletterhadnotyetbeenreceivedandthatitwasunlikelythatadecisionwouldbemadeontheextension untilaftertheinitialdeadline, August21,hadpassed.Iamtherefore submitting toyouasummaryoftheareasofconcernthattheSusquehanna Alliancehasregarding theDraftEnvironmental Statement.
| | |
| Weanticipate thatyourofficewillgranttherequested extension andwewill,duringthattime,continueourreviewandfilemoredetailedexplanations ofourconcerns.
| | In a letter to you, dated August 7, I requested an extension of the public comment period on behalf of the Susquehanna Alliance, for the Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Stations 1 and 2 (Docket Nos 50-387 and 50-388). I had indicated in that letter that the Susquehanna Alliance was undertaking a review of the statement and felt that an extension should be granted to allow time for inclusion of data now being collected on the causes and effects of the accident at Three Mile Island. Specifically, we felt that the pexiod should be extended beyond October 25, 1979 at which time the President s Commission is expected to issue their final report. This extension would also allow time for wider public comment on the statement. We know of many citizens who only learned of the availability of the document during the past couple weeks and have not had sufficient time to obtain a copy and review it. |
| Here,then,areourinitialcomments: | | In a converstion on August 16 with Mr Leech, Project Manager, I learned that my letter had not yet been received and that unlikely that a decision would be made on the extension until after it was the initial deadline, August 21, had passed. I am therefore submitting to you a summary of the areas of concern that the Susquehanna Alliance has regarding the Draft Environmental Statement. We anticipate that your office will grant the requested extension and we will, during that time, continue our review and file more detailed explanations of our concerns. Here, then, are our initial comments: |
| 1)Severalcommentsinthestatement withregardtothepreservation ofculturalresources causeconcern.Thestaffindicates thattherehavebeenindications that.culturalresources mayexistontheplantsiteandonassociated PPSLproperties andthatiftheyexisttheymightqualifyforinclusion intheNationalRegister. | | goal |
| Nosystematic surveyhasbeenundertaken todetermine ifsuchsitesexistyetthestaffseemstofeelstronglyenoughaboutthepossibleexistence ofsuchsitestoincludeawarningintheirsummarythatsuchsitescouldbedamagedifnopreventative measuresaretaken.Yetthestaffdoesnotrequireaculturalresourcesurveybeundertaken todetermine whatsitesmayexistandwillbe(orhavealreacLy, Peen)damagedbytheconstruction oftheplantand44~i~~lfgoalQ~l~gQ~,(gljj(l(,,',I',',lp1'~}pg0Q08' associated projects.
| | : 1) Several comments in the statement with regard to the preservation of cultural resources cause concern. The staff indicates that there have been indications that. cultural resources may exist on the plant site and on associated PPSL properties and that they exist they might qualify for inclusion in the National if Register. No systematic survey has been undertaken to determine if such sites exist yet the staff seems to feel strongly enough about the possible existence of such sites to include a warning in their summary that such sites could be damaged measures are taken. |
| Thestaffspecifically mentionstherecrea-tionalareaneartheriver.Itisourunderstanding thattheapplicant hasrecentlybegun..construction therewithoutaculturalresourcesurveyhavingbeencompleted.
| | if no preventative Yet the staff does not require a cultural resource survey be undertaken to determine what sites may exist and will be (or have alreacLy, Peen) damaged by the construction of the plant and 44~i ~~lf Q~l~ g Q~,(glj j(l (,,', I ',', l p1 '~}pg 0 |
| Guidelines basedontheNationalEnvironmental PolicyActandestablished throughtheCouncilonEnvironmental QualityandtheAdvisoryCouncilonHistorical Preservation requirenotonlytheprotection ofproperties listedintheNationalRegisterbutalsothoseeligible. | | Q 08' |
| Furthermore, ifnosystematic surveyoftheareahasbeencompleted, itmustbeinitiated andthedatasubmitted totheOfficeofArchaelogy andHistoricPreservation foradetermination ofeligibility. | | |
| Wefeeltheseactionsshouldbeundertaken immediately.
| | associated projects. The staff specifically mentions the recrea-tional area near the river. It is our understanding that the applicant has recently begun ..construction there without a cultural resource survey having been completed. Guidelines based on the National Environmental Policy Act and established through the Council on Environmental Quality and the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation require not only the protection of properties listed in the National Register but also those eligible. |
| 2)Thediscussion oftheeffects..of theuraniumfuelcycleappearstobeincomplete. | | Furthermore, completed, itif no systematic survey of the area has been must be initiated and the data submitted to the Office of Archaelogy and Historic Preservation for a determination of eligibility. We feel these actions should be undertaken immediately. |
| Table4.14doesnotlistanyvalueforthe",effectofRadon222.Thestaffnotestheabsenceofthisfigureandthenproceedstodeveloptheirowncriteriaforevaluating theeffectofRadon.What,theyfailtomentionisthatthisnumberwasvacatedfromthetableastheresultofevidenceproducedduringthehearingsforthelicensing ofThreeMileIslandUnitIIinwhichDrChaunceyKepford,anintervenor, indicated that.thevaluepreviously usedwasinerrorbyanorderofmagnitude ofwellover100,000.Hiscalculations werebasedonthepreviousnumberusedbut.extendedoverthefullperiodduringwhichRadonwouldbeemittedtotheatmosphere.
| | : 2) The discussion of the effects..of the uranium fuel cycle appears to be incomplete. Table 4.14 does not list any value for the ", |
| Thistopicisstillunderconsideration bythecommission andtheirfinalreportshouldbeincludedintheenvironmental statement.
| | effect of Radon 222. The staff notes the absence of this figure and then proceeds to develop their own criteria for evaluating the effect of Radon. What, they fail to mention is that this number was vacated from the table as the result of evidence produced during the hearings for the licensing of Three Mile Island Unit II in which Dr Chauncey Kepford, an intervenor, indicated that. the value previously used was in error by an order of magnitude of well over 100,000. His calculations were based on the previous number used but. extended over the full period during which Radon would be emitted to the atmosphere. This topic is still under consideration by the commission and their final report should be included in the environmental statement. |
| Thestaffdrawstheconclusion that,dispitetheextremetoxicityofhighlevelwastes,therewill.benoenvironmental impactrelatedtotheirstorageinaFederalrepository.
| | The staff draws the conclusion that, dispite the extreme toxicity of high level wastes, there will. be no environmental impact related to their storage in a Federal repository. This does not take into account the current controversy over whether or not a 100% safe repository can be found (or developed). There are reports from several government agencies indicating that no demonstrably safe method exists of disposing of these wastes. |
| Thisdoesnottakeintoaccountthecurrentcontroversy overwhetherornota100%saferepository canbefound(ordeveloped).
| | The damage done to the environment by leaks at the Hanford low level disposal site and the reprocessing plant at West Valley should be sufficient to raise suspicions about the feasibility of developing such a repository. |
| Therearereportsfromseveralgovernment agenciesindicating thatnodemonstrably safemethodexistsofdisposing ofthesewastes.Thedamagedonetotheenvironment byleaksattheHanfordlowleveldisposalsiteandthereprocessing plantatWestValleyshouldbesufficient toraisesuspicions aboutthefeasibility ofdeveloping sucharepository.
| | : 3) In the discussion of the potential radiological effects of accidents at the plant site there is only a footnote about the accident at Three Mile Island indicating "these calculations do not take into consideration the experience gained ... ". There are those that contend that the accident was in fact a class nine accident. To our.knowledge no final ruling has been issued on this. Since the 'improbable" series of events did happen at Three Mile Island, the effects of other "improbabl~eaccidents should be considered. The full effects of this accident should be studied and included in any environmental impact accident issued in relation to the operation (or construction) of a nuclear plant. |
| 3)Inthediscussion ofthepotential radiological effectsofaccidents attheplantsitethereisonlyafootnoteabouttheaccidentatThreeMileIslandindicating "thesecalculations donottakeintoconsideration theexperience gained...".Therearethosethatcontendthattheaccidentwasinfactaclassnineaccident. | | : 4) The. report does not fairly represent the growing controversy over the effects of low level radiation. Time after time the assumption is made that as long as the radiation contributed to the environment is sufficiently lower than normal background levels or is below existing federal standards, that the health effects will be minimal. This does not take into account the growing feeling among the scientific community that there is not a radiation level below which there are no ill effects. |
| Toour.knowledge nofinalrulinghasbeenissuedonthis.Sincethe'improbable" seriesofeventsdidhappenatThreeMileIsland,theeffectsofother"improbabl~eaccidents shouldbeconsidered.
| | Mention should be made of the reports which indicate that continued exposure to even low levels of radiation can be damaging and those that propose that in light of recent studies, federal standards be lowered. n |
| Thefulleffectsofthisaccidentshouldbestudiedandincludedinanyenvironmental impactaccidentissuedinrelationtotheoperation (orconstruction) ofanuclearplant.
| | : 5) The report does not fairly treat the possibility of the use'f an anthracite fired plant as an alternative. The use of such a plant in the midst of Pennsylvania's anthracite fields could have a tremendous beneficial impact on the area. The use of modern technology to mine the anthracite in the area would offer opportunities for the revitilization of an economically depressed area, reclamation of lands previously surface mined and improvement of the water quality. The obvious benefits of lower taxes and more jobs should be weighed. In addition, the numbers used to illustrate the cost of operating a coal fired plant and the environmental impact of its operation should be based upon the operation of an anthracite fired plant. |
| 4)The.reportdoesnotfairlyrepresent thegrowingcontroversy overtheeffectsoflowlevelradiation. | | The report does indicate that at the operating license stage, considerations of alternatives involves only the decision as to whether the plan should operate or not. However, as can be seen from the projected reserve margins shown in tables 7.4 and 7.5, the operation of the Susquehanna station as a nuclear plant will preclude the need for an anthracite facility for many years to come and will therefore preclude the possibility of the area receiving the benefits that would be associated with such a plant. A full discussion of this alternative should be included. |
| Timeaftertimetheassumption ismadethataslongastheradiation contributed totheenvironment issufficiently lowerthannormalbackground levelsorisbelowexistingfederalstandards, thatthehealtheffectswillbeminimal.Thisdoesnottakeintoaccountthegrowingfeelingamongthescientific community thatthereisnotaradiation levelbelowwhichtherearenoilleffects.Mentionshouldbemadeofthereportswhichindicatethatcontinued exposuretoevenlowlevelsofradiation canbedamagingandthosethatproposethatinlightofrecentstudies,federalstandards belowered.n5)Thereportdoesnotfairlytreatthepossibility oftheuse'fananthracite firedplantasanalternative.
| | : 6) The benefit-cost analysis should, of course, be affected by all the above comments. In addition it is interesting to note the inclusion of a decommissioning cost of 59 million dollars. Is this an estimate based on a realistic plan for decommissioning? |
| TheuseofsuchaplantinthemidstofPennsylvania's anthracite fieldscouldhaveatremendous beneficial impactonthearea.Theuseofmoderntechnology tominetheanthracite intheareawouldofferopportunities fortherevitilization ofaneconomically depressed area,reclamation oflandspreviously surfaceminedandimprovement ofthewaterquality.Theobviousbenefitsoflowertaxesandmorejobsshouldbeweighed.Inaddition, thenumbersusedtoillustrate thecostofoperating acoalfiredplantandtheenvironmental impactofitsoperation shouldbebasedupontheoperation ofananthracite firedplant.Thereportdoesindicatethatattheoperating licensestage,considerations ofalternatives involvesonlythedecisionastowhethertheplanshouldoperateornot.However,ascanbeseenfromtheprojected reservemarginsshownintables7.4and7.5,theoperation oftheSusquehanna stationasanuclearplantwillprecludetheneedforananthracite facilityformanyyearstocomeandwilltherefore precludethepossibility oftheareareceiving thebenefitsthatwouldbeassociated withsuchaplant.Afulldiscussion ofthisalternative shouldbeincluded.
| | In light of the estimated $ 400 million to "clean up" Three Mile Island Unit II, it seems unrealistic to expect, to be able to decommission two units for the stated price. An outline of the expected method of decommissioning should be included. |
| 6)Thebenefit-cost analysisshould,ofcourse,beaffectedbyalltheabovecomments. | | The benefit,-cost. analysis does not include any information with regards to, the psychological effects on the residents of the area if the plant is allowed to operate. Surveys at a business located near the plant showed that 50% of the employees would quit their jobs if the plant was allowed to operate. Many area residents have already begun to make plans to leave the area. An analysis of these effects should be included. |
| Inadditionitisinteresting tonotetheinclusion ofadecommissioning costof59milliondollars.Isthisanestimatebasedonarealistic planfordecommissioning?
| | |
| Inlightoftheestimated
| | The benefit-cost analysis also assumes that the production of 2100 MW of electrical energy is enough to offset the accumulated costs. This assumes that the additional capacity is needed. |
| $400millionto"cleanup"ThreeMileIslandUnitII,itseemsunrealistic toexpect,tobeabletodecommission twounitsforthestatedprice.Anoutlineoftheexpectedmethodofdecommissioning shouldbeincluded. | | However, tables 7.4 and 7.5 seem to indicate that. without the operation of the plant there would still be sufficient reserves meet both the requirements of the interchange agreement and the to recommendations of the Federal Economic Regulatory Commission. |
| Thebenefit,-cost.
| | Therefore, the benefit of the additional power seems questionable. |
| analysisdoesnotincludeanyinformation withregardsto,thepsychological effectsontheresidents oftheareaiftheplantisallowedtooperate.Surveysatabusinesslocatedneartheplantshowedthat50%oftheemployees wouldquittheirjobsiftheplantwasallowedtooperate.Manyarearesidents havealreadybeguntomakeplanstoleavethearea.Ananalysisoftheseeffectsshouldbeincluded.
| | : 7) In the July 23 Federal Register there was a notice that listed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as one of those agencies that had not published proposed procedures to bring them in alignment with the new National Environmental Policy Act regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality and effective July 30, 1979. |
| Thebenefit-cost analysisalsoassumesthattheproduction of2100MWofelectrical energyisenoughtooffsettheaccumulated costs.Thisassumesthattheadditional capacityisneeded.However,tables7.4and7.5seemtoindicatethat.withouttheoperation oftheplanttherewouldstillbesufficient reservestomeetboththerequirements oftheinterchange agreement andtherecommendations oftheFederalEconomicRegulatory Commission.
| | It is our assumption, then, that this draft of the environmental statement may not follow these new regulations and we feel the commission should publish their proposed procedures and have them approved prior to releasing the final version of this report. |
| Therefore, thebenefitoftheadditional powerseemsquestionable. | | As we stated above, we are going to continue research on these topics. With the anticipated extension to the review period and the help of various local agencies we hope to more completely evaluate the draft environmental statement. In the wake of this country' worst nuclear accident it is, we feel, advantageous to provide as thorough an analysis as possible of the potential effects the operation of this plant could have on the environment. |
| 7)IntheJuly23FederalRegistertherewasanoticethatlistedtheNuclearRegulatory Commission asoneofthoseagenciesthathadnotpublished proposedprocedures tobringtheminalignment withthenewNationalEnvironmental PolicyActregulations adoptedbytheCouncilonEnvironmental Qualityandeffective July30,1979.Itisourassumption, then,thatthisdraftoftheenvironmental statement maynotfollowthesenewregulations andwefeelthecommission shouldpublishtheirproposedprocedures andhavethemapprovedpriortoreleasing thefinalversionofthisreport.Aswestatedabove,wearegoingtocontinueresearchonthesetopics.Withtheanticipated extension tothereviewperiodandthehelpofvariouslocalagencieswehopetomorecompletely evaluatethedraftenvironmental statement. | | David Mann for The Susquehanna Alliance}} |
| Inthewakeofthiscountry'worstnuclearaccidentitis,wefeel,advantageous toprovideasthoroughananalysisaspossibleofthepotential effectstheoperation ofthisplantcouldhaveontheenvironment.
| |
| DavidMannforTheSusquehanna Alliance}}
| |
|
|---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARPLA-5120, Forwards Change J to SSES Security Training & Qualification Plan.Without Encl1999-10-22022 October 1999
Forwards Change J to SSES Security Training & Qualification Plan.Without Encl
ML18040B2951999-09-0808 September 1999
Requests Info Re Any NRC or Susquehanna Documented Concerns with MSIV Reliability Prior to Plant Trip & Assurance to Public That NRC Able to Detect Mgt Problems Early
PLA-5094, Forwards,For Review,Change 00 to SSES Physical Security Plan.Without Encl1999-08-24024 August 1999
Forwards,For Review,Change 00 to SSES Physical Security Plan.Without Encl
ML18040A9741999-07-0808 July 1999
Forwards Rev 30 to SSES Emergency Plan, Adding EAL to Account for Potential Conditions Associated with Dry Cask Storage Sys Being Installed at Plant
ML20207G5051999-06-0707 June 1999
Informs That NRC Office of NRR Reorganized Effective 990328.As Part of Reorganization,Divison of Licensing Project Management Created
PLA-5072, Forwards Change Nn to SSES Physical Security Plan.Util Determined That Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR73.211999-06-0404 June 1999
Forwards Change Nn to SSES Physical Security Plan.Util Determined That Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR73.21
ML18040A9731999-05-24024 May 1999
Submits Response to RAI Re Exemption from Biennial Exercise Schedule.Changing of Drill Date Will Not Reduce Level of Emergency Preparedness at Plant
ML20195B2181999-05-20020 May 1999
Forwards Proprietary Decommissioning Status Rept for 10% Interest in Sses,Units 1 & 2.Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790
ML18040B2901999-04-30030 April 1999
Forwards Summary Rept of Safety Evaluations Approved During Period from 961024-981029,per 10CFR50.59(b).Format of Rept, Listed
PLA-5041, Forwards Proprietary & Redacted Decommissioning Rept of Financial Assurance for Util 90% Interest in Sses,Units 1 & 2,per 10CFR50.75(f)(1).Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.7901999-03-29029 March 1999
Forwards Proprietary & Redacted Decommissioning Rept of Financial Assurance for Util 90% Interest in Sses,Units 1 & 2,per 10CFR50.75(f)(1).Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790
ML17164A9891999-03-12012 March 1999
Informs That Util 990312 Ltr (PLA-5040) Submitted to NRC, Missing Encl C.Requests to Replace Package in Entirety with Encl
ML18040A9691999-03-12012 March 1999
Forwards Revised Proposed Amend 227 to License NPF-14, Proposing Changes to ANFB-10 Critical Power Correlation & MCPR Safety Limits
ML18040A9721999-03-11011 March 1999
Requests That Date for full-participation SSES Exercise, Scheduled for Week of 991115,be Changed Due to FEMA Region III Scheduling Conflicts.Fema Requests That Exercise Date Be Changed to Week of 001031
PLA-4852, Forwards non-redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Rept 739459-2-98,dated 980210.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.7901999-02-18018 February 1999
Forwards non-redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Rept 739459-2-98,dated 980210.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.790
ML20203G5821999-02-17017 February 1999
Second Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Documents Listed in App C Being Released in Entirety. Documents Listed in App D Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)
ML20202F4761999-01-29029 January 1999
First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App a Encl & Being Released in Entirety.App B Records Being Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 7C)
ML18040A9671999-01-29029 January 1999
Notifies That Util Implemented Severe Accident Mgt Strategy in Accordance with Ltr Dtd 950327.Emegency Plan Revs Which Were Required to Implement Strategy Were Submitted by Ltr Dtd 981125
ML18040A9681999-01-29029 January 1999
Requests Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50 App E,Items IVF.2.b & C,To Allowed to Reschedule Federally Observed Full Participation Emergency Exercise for SSES from Wk of 991115 to Wk of 001031
ML18040A9651999-01-12012 January 1999
Submits Addl Info Re Proposed Amend 184 to License NPF-22 for ANFB-10 Critical Power Correlation & MCPR Safety Limits
ML18030A1021998-12-16016 December 1998
Forwards Tables as Requested During 981202 Telcon Re Proposed Amend 184,dtd 980804,re ANFB-10 Critical Power Correlation & MCPR Safety Limits.Tables Provide Roadmap Identifying Applicability of References to TSs
ML18030A4331998-11-25025 November 1998
Forwards Rev 29 to SSES Emergecny Plan.Changes Has Been Made Without Commission Approval as It Does Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan & Plan as Changed Continues to Satisfy Applicable Requirements of App E to 10CFR50
ML20195J9101998-11-18018 November 1998
Forwards Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amends to Facility Operating Licenses (Notice).Notice Has Been Filed with Ofc of Fr.Amends Would Have Revised TS to Eliminate HPCI Pump auto-transfer on High Suppression Pool Level
ML20155F7201998-11-0303 November 1998
Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Documents Listed in App B Being Encl & Being Released in Entirety. Documents Listed in App C Being Withheld in Part (Ref Exemption 7C)
ML18026A2941998-10-19019 October 1998
Forwards SSES ISI Outage Summary Rept for Unit 1 Tenth Refueling & Insp Outage
PLA-4993, Forwards Change Mm to SSES Physical Security Plan.Encl Withheld,Per 10CFR73.211998-10-12012 October 1998
Forwards Change Mm to SSES Physical Security Plan.Encl Withheld,Per 10CFR73.21
ML18030A1001998-10-12012 October 1998
Forwards Rev 27 to SSES Emergency Plan. Changes Become Effective Upon Implementation of Improved Tech Specs
ML18030A4321998-10-12012 October 1998
Forwards Rev 28 to SSES Emergency Plan, IAW Requirements of 10CFR50.54q.Change Is Summarized
ML18030A4311998-09-29029 September 1998
Forwards Rev 27 & 28 to SSES Emergency Plan
ML20151W4951998-09-10010 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 SRAs for Region I
IR 05000387/19980081998-09-0808 September 1998
Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-08 & 50-388/98-08.Corrective Actions:Current Administrative Controls on Fuel Level in EDG Day Tanks Will Remain in Effect Until TS Change is Approved
ML18030A0991998-09-0808 September 1998
Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-08 & 50-388/98-08.Corrective Actions:Current Administrative Controls on Fuel Level in EDG Day Tanks Will Remain in Effect Until TS Change Is Approved
ML18026A4961998-08-31031 August 1998
Responds to NRC 980731 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-03 & 50-388/98-03.Corrective Actions:Procurement & Affected User Group Personnel Visited EDG Vendor Facilities to Appraise Vendor Work Practices & Discuss Expectations
IR 05000387/19980031998-08-31031 August 1998
Responds to NRC 980731 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-03 & 50-388/98-03.Corrective Actions:Procurement & Affected User Group Personnel Visited EDG Vendor Facilities to Appraise Vendor Work Practices & Discuss Expectations
ML20202F5501998-07-17017 July 1998
Responds to PP&L Corp Auditing Repts 739459-97,739459-1-97 & 739459-2-98 Re SSES Investigations Into Missed Alarm Tests
ML20236P9451998-07-15015 July 1998
Forwards Emergency Response Data Sys Implementation Documents Including Data Point Library Updates for Oconee (Number 255),Dresden (Number 257) & Susquehanna (Number 258)
ML18030A4291998-07-0808 July 1998
Forwards Final Version of SSES TS Implementing Improved TS of NUREG-1433.Implementation of Proposed Amend Is Predicted on NRC Issuance of Amends & Proposed to Not Exceed 90 Days from Date of Amend Issue
ML18017A2181998-07-0808 July 1998
Forwards Final Version of SSES TS Implementing Improved Tech Specs of NUREG 1433.Implementation of Proposed Amend Is Predicated on NRC Issuance of Amends & Is Proposed to Not Exceed 90 Days from Date of Amend Issuance
ML18026A2901998-06-0909 June 1998
Forwards Rev 26 to Emergency Plan IAW 10CFR50.54q.Summary of Changes Listed
ML18026A2891998-05-22022 May 1998
Submits Withdrawal of Expedited Review/Approval of Tech Specs/Bases 3/4.3.7.11 & 3/4.11.2.6 & Response to Request for Addl Info Re Offgas Sys Mods
ML18026A4941998-05-12012 May 1998
Responds to NRC Request to Resubmit Proposal to Change TS for Plant,Units 1 & 2,to Support Implementation of Improved TS & to Implement Provisions of GL 86-10 Re Relocation of Plant'S Fire Protection Program from TS to Another Document
ML20202H1331998-04-16016 April 1998
Partially Deleted Ltr Re Concerns Raised to NRC Concerning PP&L Susquehanna Facility
NUREG-0619, Informs That Staff Finds PP&L 980330 Request for Relief from Requirements of Section 4.3 of NUREG-0619,exams of Feedwater Nozzle Bore & Inner Radius for Another Operating Cycle to Be Acceptable1998-04-15015 April 1998
Informs That Staff Finds PP&L 980330 Request for Relief from Requirements of Section 4.3 of NUREG-0619,exams of Feedwater Nozzle Bore & Inner Radius for Another Operating Cycle to Be Acceptable
ML20216B6811998-04-0101 April 1998
First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards Documents Listed in App a Being Released in Entirety
ML17159A2341998-03-30030 March 1998
Forwards LER 97-007-01,per 10CFR50.73(a)(2)(i)(B).Revised LER Submitted to Modify Previous Position W/Regards to Entry Into TS 3.0.3 for Event
PLA-4865, Forwards Listed non-redacted Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Repts.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.7901998-03-11011 March 1998
Forwards Listed non-redacted Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Repts.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.790
ML17159A1781998-03-0202 March 1998
Forwards Proposed Amends 203 & 161 to License NPF-14 & NPF-22,revising Tech Specs to Be Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Std Tech Specs for GE Plants,Bwr 4.
PLA-4856, Forwards Proposed Amends to Licenses NPF-14 & NPF-22, Revising TS to Be Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Std TS for GE Plants,Bwr 4. Proposed TS Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Encl1998-03-0202 March 1998
Forwards Proposed Amends to Licenses NPF-14 & NPF-22, Revising TS to Be Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Std TS for GE Plants,Bwr 4. Proposed TS Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Encl
PLA-4854, Provides Summary of Investigations That PP&L Performed in Response to Concerns Identified by Former Nuclear Plant Operator.Summary Requested by Cj Anderson on 9802131998-02-27027 February 1998
Provides Summary of Investigations That PP&L Performed in Response to Concerns Identified by Former Nuclear Plant Operator.Summary Requested by Cj Anderson on 980213
ML20203M5071998-02-26026 February 1998
Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App a Being Placed in PDR & Encl.Records in App B Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 6)
ML20203B5931998-02-23023 February 1998
Ack Receipt of & Wire in Amount of $55,000 in Payment for Civil Penatly Proposed by NRC Ltr . Corrective Actions Will Be Examined During Future Inspections
1999-09-08
[Table view]
Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARPLA-5120, Forwards Change J to SSES Security Training & Qualification Plan.Without Encl1999-10-22022 October 1999
Forwards Change J to SSES Security Training & Qualification Plan.Without Encl
ML18040B2951999-09-0808 September 1999
Requests Info Re Any NRC or Susquehanna Documented Concerns with MSIV Reliability Prior to Plant Trip & Assurance to Public That NRC Able to Detect Mgt Problems Early
PLA-5094, Forwards,For Review,Change 00 to SSES Physical Security Plan.Without Encl1999-08-24024 August 1999
Forwards,For Review,Change 00 to SSES Physical Security Plan.Without Encl
ML18040A9741999-07-0808 July 1999
Forwards Rev 30 to SSES Emergency Plan, Adding EAL to Account for Potential Conditions Associated with Dry Cask Storage Sys Being Installed at Plant
PLA-5072, Forwards Change Nn to SSES Physical Security Plan.Util Determined That Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR73.211999-06-0404 June 1999
Forwards Change Nn to SSES Physical Security Plan.Util Determined That Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR73.21
ML18040A9731999-05-24024 May 1999
Submits Response to RAI Re Exemption from Biennial Exercise Schedule.Changing of Drill Date Will Not Reduce Level of Emergency Preparedness at Plant
ML20195B2181999-05-20020 May 1999
Forwards Proprietary Decommissioning Status Rept for 10% Interest in Sses,Units 1 & 2.Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790
ML18040B2901999-04-30030 April 1999
Forwards Summary Rept of Safety Evaluations Approved During Period from 961024-981029,per 10CFR50.59(b).Format of Rept, Listed
PLA-5041, Forwards Proprietary & Redacted Decommissioning Rept of Financial Assurance for Util 90% Interest in Sses,Units 1 & 2,per 10CFR50.75(f)(1).Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.7901999-03-29029 March 1999
Forwards Proprietary & Redacted Decommissioning Rept of Financial Assurance for Util 90% Interest in Sses,Units 1 & 2,per 10CFR50.75(f)(1).Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790
ML18040A9691999-03-12012 March 1999
Forwards Revised Proposed Amend 227 to License NPF-14, Proposing Changes to ANFB-10 Critical Power Correlation & MCPR Safety Limits
ML17164A9891999-03-12012 March 1999
Informs That Util 990312 Ltr (PLA-5040) Submitted to NRC, Missing Encl C.Requests to Replace Package in Entirety with Encl
ML18040A9721999-03-11011 March 1999
Requests That Date for full-participation SSES Exercise, Scheduled for Week of 991115,be Changed Due to FEMA Region III Scheduling Conflicts.Fema Requests That Exercise Date Be Changed to Week of 001031
PLA-4852, Forwards non-redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Rept 739459-2-98,dated 980210.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.7901999-02-18018 February 1999
Forwards non-redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Rept 739459-2-98,dated 980210.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.790
ML18040A9681999-01-29029 January 1999
Requests Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50 App E,Items IVF.2.b & C,To Allowed to Reschedule Federally Observed Full Participation Emergency Exercise for SSES from Wk of 991115 to Wk of 001031
ML18040A9671999-01-29029 January 1999
Notifies That Util Implemented Severe Accident Mgt Strategy in Accordance with Ltr Dtd 950327.Emegency Plan Revs Which Were Required to Implement Strategy Were Submitted by Ltr Dtd 981125
ML18040A9651999-01-12012 January 1999
Submits Addl Info Re Proposed Amend 184 to License NPF-22 for ANFB-10 Critical Power Correlation & MCPR Safety Limits
ML18030A1021998-12-16016 December 1998
Forwards Tables as Requested During 981202 Telcon Re Proposed Amend 184,dtd 980804,re ANFB-10 Critical Power Correlation & MCPR Safety Limits.Tables Provide Roadmap Identifying Applicability of References to TSs
ML18030A4331998-11-25025 November 1998
Forwards Rev 29 to SSES Emergecny Plan.Changes Has Been Made Without Commission Approval as It Does Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan & Plan as Changed Continues to Satisfy Applicable Requirements of App E to 10CFR50
ML18026A2941998-10-19019 October 1998
Forwards SSES ISI Outage Summary Rept for Unit 1 Tenth Refueling & Insp Outage
ML18030A4321998-10-12012 October 1998
Forwards Rev 28 to SSES Emergency Plan, IAW Requirements of 10CFR50.54q.Change Is Summarized
ML18030A1001998-10-12012 October 1998
Forwards Rev 27 to SSES Emergency Plan. Changes Become Effective Upon Implementation of Improved Tech Specs
PLA-4993, Forwards Change Mm to SSES Physical Security Plan.Encl Withheld,Per 10CFR73.211998-10-12012 October 1998
Forwards Change Mm to SSES Physical Security Plan.Encl Withheld,Per 10CFR73.21
ML18030A4311998-09-29029 September 1998
Forwards Rev 27 & 28 to SSES Emergency Plan
ML18030A0991998-09-0808 September 1998
Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-08 & 50-388/98-08.Corrective Actions:Current Administrative Controls on Fuel Level in EDG Day Tanks Will Remain in Effect Until TS Change Is Approved
IR 05000387/19980081998-09-0808 September 1998
Provides Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-08 & 50-388/98-08.Corrective Actions:Current Administrative Controls on Fuel Level in EDG Day Tanks Will Remain in Effect Until TS Change is Approved
ML18026A4961998-08-31031 August 1998
Responds to NRC 980731 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-03 & 50-388/98-03.Corrective Actions:Procurement & Affected User Group Personnel Visited EDG Vendor Facilities to Appraise Vendor Work Practices & Discuss Expectations
IR 05000387/19980031998-08-31031 August 1998
Responds to NRC 980731 Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/98-03 & 50-388/98-03.Corrective Actions:Procurement & Affected User Group Personnel Visited EDG Vendor Facilities to Appraise Vendor Work Practices & Discuss Expectations
ML18017A2181998-07-0808 July 1998
Forwards Final Version of SSES TS Implementing Improved Tech Specs of NUREG 1433.Implementation of Proposed Amend Is Predicated on NRC Issuance of Amends & Is Proposed to Not Exceed 90 Days from Date of Amend Issuance
ML18030A4291998-07-0808 July 1998
Forwards Final Version of SSES TS Implementing Improved TS of NUREG-1433.Implementation of Proposed Amend Is Predicted on NRC Issuance of Amends & Proposed to Not Exceed 90 Days from Date of Amend Issue
ML18026A2901998-06-0909 June 1998
Forwards Rev 26 to Emergency Plan IAW 10CFR50.54q.Summary of Changes Listed
ML18026A2891998-05-22022 May 1998
Submits Withdrawal of Expedited Review/Approval of Tech Specs/Bases 3/4.3.7.11 & 3/4.11.2.6 & Response to Request for Addl Info Re Offgas Sys Mods
ML18026A4941998-05-12012 May 1998
Responds to NRC Request to Resubmit Proposal to Change TS for Plant,Units 1 & 2,to Support Implementation of Improved TS & to Implement Provisions of GL 86-10 Re Relocation of Plant'S Fire Protection Program from TS to Another Document
ML17159A2341998-03-30030 March 1998
Forwards LER 97-007-01,per 10CFR50.73(a)(2)(i)(B).Revised LER Submitted to Modify Previous Position W/Regards to Entry Into TS 3.0.3 for Event
PLA-4865, Forwards Listed non-redacted Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Repts.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.7901998-03-11011 March 1998
Forwards Listed non-redacted Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Repts.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.790
PLA-4856, Forwards Proposed Amends to Licenses NPF-14 & NPF-22, Revising TS to Be Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Std TS for GE Plants,Bwr 4. Proposed TS Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Encl1998-03-0202 March 1998
Forwards Proposed Amends to Licenses NPF-14 & NPF-22, Revising TS to Be Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Std TS for GE Plants,Bwr 4. Proposed TS Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Encl
ML17159A1781998-03-0202 March 1998
Forwards Proposed Amends 203 & 161 to License NPF-14 & NPF-22,revising Tech Specs to Be Consistent w/NUREG-1433,rev 1, Std Tech Specs for GE Plants,Bwr 4.
PLA-4854, Provides Summary of Investigations That PP&L Performed in Response to Concerns Identified by Former Nuclear Plant Operator.Summary Requested by Cj Anderson on 9802131998-02-27027 February 1998
Provides Summary of Investigations That PP&L Performed in Response to Concerns Identified by Former Nuclear Plant Operator.Summary Requested by Cj Anderson on 980213
ML20216B7031998-02-22022 February 1998
Partially Deleted Ltr Requesting Copy of OI Rept on Plant, Unit 2,case 1-96-039
PLA-4851, Provides Info That Was Requested by Cj Anderson on 980213 Re Former Util Employee Concern on Radwaste Control Room Offgas Panel Alarm Testing1998-02-18018 February 1998
Provides Info That Was Requested by Cj Anderson on 980213 Re Former Util Employee Concern on Radwaste Control Room Offgas Panel Alarm Testing
ML20203M5791998-02-10010 February 1998
Enters Appeal Due to Lack of Response to FOIA Request 97-473
ML18030A0971998-02-0202 February 1998
Forwards Proprietary Response to RAI Re Proposed License Amend 209 to TS Supporting Cycle 11 Reload.Proprietary Info Withheld,Per 10CFR2.790
ML20203G6071998-01-26026 January 1998
Forwards Redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditings Interim Rept 739459-97,dtd 971015 & Affidavit Pursuant to 10CFR2.790 Justifying That Redacted Portions Be Withheld from Public Disclosure.Without Rept
IR 05000387/19970031998-01-0606 January 1998
Provides Updated Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/97-03 & 50-388/97-03.Corrective Actions:Util Currently Scheduling Issuance of All Procedural Revs by End of First Quarter 1998
ML18030A4071998-01-0606 January 1998
Provides Updated Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-387/97-03 & 50-388/97-03.Corrective Actions:Util Currently Scheduling Issuance of All Procedural Revs by End of First Quarter 1998
ML18017A2931998-01-0606 January 1998
Provides Responses to Improved TS Section 3.8 Per 970324 NRC Rai.Schedule 980628 for Improved TS Implementation. Submittal of Revised Specifications Is Planned for Jan 1998
PLA-4828, Expresses Appreciation for Support Received by Former Project Manager C Poslusny1997-12-29029 December 1997
Expresses Appreciation for Support Received by Former Project Manager C Poslusny
IR 05000387/19970041997-12-22022 December 1997
Resolves Commitments Made in Response to NOV Issued As Part of NRC Insp Repts 50-387/97-04 & 50-388/97-04 Dtd 970805. Proposed FSAR QA Program Description Changes,Reason for Changes & Basis Included for Approval
ML18026A4901997-12-22022 December 1997
Resolves Commitments Made in Response to NOV Issued as Part of NRC Insp Repts 50-387/97-04 & 50-388/97-04 Dtd 970805. Proposed FSAR QA Program Description Changes,Reason for Changes & Basis Included for Approval
ML20203M5741997-12-0505 December 1997
FOIA Request for Copy of Latest OI Rept on Susquehanna Ses Including All Exhibits & for Any Other Communication Between NRC & Susquehanna Ses/Pp&L
PLA-4818, Forwards Redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditings Rept 739459-1-97,dtd 971201 & Affidavit Pursuant to 10CFR2.790 Justifying That Redacted Portions Be Withheld from Public Disclosure.Without Rept1997-12-0404 December 1997
Forwards Redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditings Rept 739459-1-97,dtd 971201 & Affidavit Pursuant to 10CFR2.790 Justifying That Redacted Portions Be Withheld from Public Disclosure.Without Rept
1999-09-08
[Table view]
Category:PUBLIC ENTITY/CITIZEN/ORGANIZATION/MEDIA TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20244B0011989-03-0808 March 1989
Lists Facts to Consider for Action to Fix or Close GE Reactors Once & for All
ML20214E2281987-04-16016 April 1987
FOIA Request for PRAs for Listed Plants Be Placed in PDR
ML20211B6601987-01-0505 January 1987
FOIA Request for Documents Re Allegations,Investigations, Fines,Convictions & Other Dispositions of Cases in Which Operators of Listed Facilities Charged W/Violating Federal whistle-blowing Statutes
ML20128R1281985-05-23023 May 1985
FOIA Request for Facility PRA & Records Re PRA Review & Comments
ML20111B1131984-11-27027 November 1984
Expresses Concern That Every Stage of Nuclear Cycle Not Safe for Living Creatures.Moratorium on Operation & Further Licensing of Nuclear Reactors Until Resolution of Questions of Safety Re Handling of Radioactive Matls Requested
ML20101D9651984-05-0606 May 1984
FOIA Request for All Minutes,Meeting Summaries & Memoranda of Meetings Held W/Util on 831213 & 840320
ML20088A7531984-02-10010 February 1984
Expresses Concern Re Frequency of Incidents & Discoveries at Facility.Newspaper Articles Re Recent Spill of Water, Discovery of Crack in Hydrogen Recombiner & Listing of Things Gone Awry at Plant Encl
ML20071C6001983-01-20020 January 1983
Comments on Inadequacy of Radiological Emergency Response Planning for Areas Surrounding Facility
ML20065N9311982-10-0606 October 1982
Opposes Granting Facility OL Since No Suitable Evacuation Plan Exists
ML20054N0681982-07-11011 July 1982
Requests Util License to Load Fuel & Conduct Low Power Testing Be Stayed
ML20063C4221982-05-0303 May 1982
Informs of Items Which Have Been Ignored by Site Supervisors in Analysis of Small Bore Piping.Items Should Be Investigated During Next Audit
ML20049J6931982-02-22022 February 1982
Opposes Facility Licensing
ML20049J6901982-02-22022 February 1982
Requests 820222 Ltr Be Forwarded to Proper Location
ML20041E7261982-02-0909 February 1982
Requests Investigation Into Repts That Reactor Vessel Head or Cap Improperly Installed & That Concrete Pipe Holes Merely Patched
ML20038C2881981-12-0202 December 1981
Requests Extension Until 820101 to File Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
ML20005C0691981-10-29029 October 1981
Urges Commission to Use Oversight Powers to Prevent ASLB Decision Re OL Application,Pending Thorough Investigation of Util & ASLB Actions
ML20009G9511981-07-25025 July 1981
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing
ML20009G9551981-07-23023 July 1981
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing
ML18026A3621981-05-23023 May 1981
Forwards Comments on Suppl to Des Re Plant Operation.Second Draft Should Be Published to Incorporate All Previous Comments
ML18026A3611981-05-22022 May 1981
Forwards Comments on Suppl 2 to Des.Draft Inadequate. Document Neglects Costs Associated W/Physical & Psychological Health Effects of Accident
ML19347F0631981-04-20020 April 1981
FOIA Request for All Concrete Testing Repts Made on Concrete Poured for Containment Bldgs for Facilities in 1974-76
ML18030A5401981-04-10010 April 1981
Urges Operation of Facility.Delays Are Costly
ML19350C7511981-03-31031 March 1981
Requests Util Response to NRC Request for Addl Info Re Util Finance.Nrc 810304 Ltr to Util Requesting Addl Info Encl
ML18030A0201980-11-17017 November 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance at Licensing Hearing
ML18030A0151980-10-20020 October 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearings
ML19351D6301980-10-10010 October 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Prehearing.Also Requests That Hearing Be Scheduled During Evening Hours &/Or Weekends
ML18030A1451980-09-12012 September 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing for Facility
ML18030A5121980-09-0202 September 1980
Requests Time to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearings.Requests to Be Informed When & Where Hearings Will Be Held
ML18026A2991980-06-10010 June 1980
Forwards Comments on Draft Suppl to Des,Addl Comments on Des & Util News Release.Draft Suppl to Des Re Pond Hill Reservoir Is Inadequate & Incomplete.News Release Bolsters Contention That Need for Plant Was Inadequately Assessed
ML18030A1061980-05-26026 May 1980
Petitions NRC to Conduct Public Hearings at Berwick,Pa Re Des Draft Suppl on Pond Hill Water Storage Reservoir
ML19309H6761980-04-14014 April 1980
Requests Info Re Min & Max Radius from Plant That Would Have to Be Evacuated in Event of Meltdown
ML18017A1391980-03-27027 March 1980
Submits Comments Re NRC in post-TMI Period & Licensing Situation at Facilities.Recommends Suspension of CP Until Independent Auditors Assess Need for Power & Alternatives
ML18017A1051980-03-0707 March 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement on Behalf of Taxpayers Association of Lackawanna County at Licensing Hearings.Evening or Weekend Sessions Should Be Held for Citizen Participation
ML18017A0991980-02-14014 February 1980
Expresses Concern Re Excessive Number of Interrogatories Sent to J Johnsrud as Intervenor in Licensing Hearings. Appears That NRC Is Trying to Hinder J Johnsrud Effectiveness.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19294B5811980-02-0909 February 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Prehearing
ML17138B1161980-02-0808 February 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Prehearing
ML17138B0621980-01-25025 January 1980
Discusses Notarization of Intervenor 800118 Response to Interrogatory.Affidavit Will Be Forwarded When Respondent Has Recovered from Illness
ML19308C7821980-01-16016 January 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing
ML19308C7491980-01-16016 January 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing
ML19308C7831980-01-12012 January 1980
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing
ML18031A3441979-12-13013 December 1979
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19296C5371979-12-0303 December 1979
Comments on Des for Facilities & Economics & Radiation Hazards of Nuclear Power Generation.Public Has Been Excluded from decision-making Process in Growth of Nuclear Industry
ML19262A8431979-11-27027 November 1979
Requests to Make Limited Appearance Statement at Licensing Prehearing
ML19260B0681979-11-20020 November 1979
Requests to Make Appearance Statement at Licensing Hearings
ML18031A3011979-10-25025 October 1979
Comments on Des:Quality of Figure 2.1 Map Is Substd,More Data Required on Hosp Capabilities,Data on Fire & Police Protection Is Inadequate & Use of Results from Salt Study at MD Plant Is Invalid
ML20125B1551979-09-0505 September 1979
Requests Notification of Hearing & Opportunity to Participate in Public Hearings Re Issuance of Permits, Licenses & Approvals to Reopen TMI-2
ML19209A2101979-09-0404 September 1979
Comments on Des.Data Should Be Collected on Humans as Well as Wildlife & Fish for long-range Comparison Purposes. Objects to Planned Const of Reservoir to Be Used as Cooling Source
ML18031A2491979-08-31031 August 1979
Disagrees W/Need for Addl Nuclear Reactors.Would Like to See Environ Statement Prepared by Someone Other than Util
ML18031A2811979-08-30030 August 1979
Expresses Concern Over NRC Recommendation to License Plant on Susquehanna River.Believes Plant Should Not Be Licensed & Operated.Plant Poses Serious Threat to People of Central PA
ML18031A2531979-08-29029 August 1979
Comments on Des.Lacks Specific Analysis of Potential Problems Similar to Tmi.Nuclear Power Should Not Be Considered Until Alternatives Such as Conservation,Solar Power & Biomass Examined
1989-03-08
[Table view] |
Text
REGUL RY INFORMATION DISTR IBUTI SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 7'70821031 i DOC. DATE: 79/08/17 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET ¹ FACIL: .
squehanna Steam Electric Station> Unit ii Pennsglva 05000387 50-388~ squehanna Steam Electric Station> Unit 2i Pennsglva 05000388 A TH.N E AUTHOR AFFILIATION MAN i D. Susquehanna Alliance RECIP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MILLER'. Division of. Site SaFetg 5 Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT:
Submits summary oF areas of concern re DES. Requests extension to continue review 8: file more detailed comments.
DISTRIBUTION CODE'0028 COPIES RECEIVED: LTR Q ENCL 0 ENVIRON. COMMENTS.,
SIZE'ITLE:
NOTES:so<o~~E. 9 s F58 ~ Nc.mors z. I EuF r&nlddRAI REC IP IENT COPIES RECIPIENT CQP IES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENC ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ACTION: . 05 PM P dE~H 1 17 BC EPD ~~
18 LA ERR >M AD nvoo RF INTERNAL: 'EG FIL. 1 02 NRC PDR 0 2 09 ENVN SPEC BR 10 CST BNFT ANL '1 11 TA/EDO 12 AD SITE TECH 2 14 ACDENT ANALY 15 EFLT TRT SYS 1 ih RAD ASMT BR 19 DIR DSE 1 AD ENVIRON TECH .
AD SITE ANALY 1 OELD EXTERNAL: 03 LPDR 1 04 NSIC 20 NATL LAB g/t/L 5 ACRS LW CwC cuJW ~~ 8C QQ'j ~ ~ 74(d I g I5 ilgwu
/
TOTAL NUMBER OF COP IES REQUIRED: LTTR 28'NCL 0
Susquehanna Alliance PO Box 249 Lewisburg, Pa 17837 August 17, 1979 Daniel Muller Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr Muller,
In a letter to you, dated August 7, I requested an extension of the public comment period on behalf of the Susquehanna Alliance, for the Draft Environmental Statement related to the operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Stations 1 and 2 (Docket Nos 50-387 and 50-388). I had indicated in that letter that the Susquehanna Alliance was undertaking a review of the statement and felt that an extension should be granted to allow time for inclusion of data now being collected on the causes and effects of the accident at Three Mile Island. Specifically, we felt that the pexiod should be extended beyond October 25, 1979 at which time the President s Commission is expected to issue their final report. This extension would also allow time for wider public comment on the statement. We know of many citizens who only learned of the availability of the document during the past couple weeks and have not had sufficient time to obtain a copy and review it.
In a converstion on August 16 with Mr Leech, Project Manager, I learned that my letter had not yet been received and that unlikely that a decision would be made on the extension until after it was the initial deadline, August 21, had passed. I am therefore submitting to you a summary of the areas of concern that the Susquehanna Alliance has regarding the Draft Environmental Statement. We anticipate that your office will grant the requested extension and we will, during that time, continue our review and file more detailed explanations of our concerns. Here, then, are our initial comments:
goal
- 1) Several comments in the statement with regard to the preservation of cultural resources cause concern. The staff indicates that there have been indications that. cultural resources may exist on the plant site and on associated PPSL properties and that they exist they might qualify for inclusion in the National if Register. No systematic survey has been undertaken to determine if such sites exist yet the staff seems to feel strongly enough about the possible existence of such sites to include a warning in their summary that such sites could be damaged measures are taken.
if no preventative Yet the staff does not require a cultural resource survey be undertaken to determine what sites may exist and will be (or have alreacLy, Peen) damaged by the construction of the plant and 44~i ~~lf Q~l~ g Q~,(glj j(l (,,', I ',', l p1 '~}pg 0
Q 08'
associated projects. The staff specifically mentions the recrea-tional area near the river. It is our understanding that the applicant has recently begun ..construction there without a cultural resource survey having been completed. Guidelines based on the National Environmental Policy Act and established through the Council on Environmental Quality and the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation require not only the protection of properties listed in the National Register but also those eligible.
Furthermore, completed, itif no systematic survey of the area has been must be initiated and the data submitted to the Office of Archaelogy and Historic Preservation for a determination of eligibility. We feel these actions should be undertaken immediately.
- 2) The discussion of the effects..of the uranium fuel cycle appears to be incomplete. Table 4.14 does not list any value for the ",
effect of Radon 222. The staff notes the absence of this figure and then proceeds to develop their own criteria for evaluating the effect of Radon. What, they fail to mention is that this number was vacated from the table as the result of evidence produced during the hearings for the licensing of Three Mile Island Unit II in which Dr Chauncey Kepford, an intervenor, indicated that. the value previously used was in error by an order of magnitude of well over 100,000. His calculations were based on the previous number used but. extended over the full period during which Radon would be emitted to the atmosphere. This topic is still under consideration by the commission and their final report should be included in the environmental statement.
The staff draws the conclusion that, dispite the extreme toxicity of high level wastes, there will. be no environmental impact related to their storage in a Federal repository. This does not take into account the current controversy over whether or not a 100% safe repository can be found (or developed). There are reports from several government agencies indicating that no demonstrably safe method exists of disposing of these wastes.
The damage done to the environment by leaks at the Hanford low level disposal site and the reprocessing plant at West Valley should be sufficient to raise suspicions about the feasibility of developing such a repository.
- 3) In the discussion of the potential radiological effects of accidents at the plant site there is only a footnote about the accident at Three Mile Island indicating "these calculations do not take into consideration the experience gained ... ". There are those that contend that the accident was in fact a class nine accident. To our.knowledge no final ruling has been issued on this. Since the 'improbable" series of events did happen at Three Mile Island, the effects of other "improbabl~eaccidents should be considered. The full effects of this accident should be studied and included in any environmental impact accident issued in relation to the operation (or construction) of a nuclear plant.
- 4) The. report does not fairly represent the growing controversy over the effects of low level radiation. Time after time the assumption is made that as long as the radiation contributed to the environment is sufficiently lower than normal background levels or is below existing federal standards, that the health effects will be minimal. This does not take into account the growing feeling among the scientific community that there is not a radiation level below which there are no ill effects.
Mention should be made of the reports which indicate that continued exposure to even low levels of radiation can be damaging and those that propose that in light of recent studies, federal standards be lowered. n
- 5) The report does not fairly treat the possibility of the use'f an anthracite fired plant as an alternative. The use of such a plant in the midst of Pennsylvania's anthracite fields could have a tremendous beneficial impact on the area. The use of modern technology to mine the anthracite in the area would offer opportunities for the revitilization of an economically depressed area, reclamation of lands previously surface mined and improvement of the water quality. The obvious benefits of lower taxes and more jobs should be weighed. In addition, the numbers used to illustrate the cost of operating a coal fired plant and the environmental impact of its operation should be based upon the operation of an anthracite fired plant.
The report does indicate that at the operating license stage, considerations of alternatives involves only the decision as to whether the plan should operate or not. However, as can be seen from the projected reserve margins shown in tables 7.4 and 7.5, the operation of the Susquehanna station as a nuclear plant will preclude the need for an anthracite facility for many years to come and will therefore preclude the possibility of the area receiving the benefits that would be associated with such a plant. A full discussion of this alternative should be included.
- 6) The benefit-cost analysis should, of course, be affected by all the above comments. In addition it is interesting to note the inclusion of a decommissioning cost of 59 million dollars. Is this an estimate based on a realistic plan for decommissioning?
In light of the estimated $ 400 million to "clean up" Three Mile Island Unit II, it seems unrealistic to expect, to be able to decommission two units for the stated price. An outline of the expected method of decommissioning should be included.
The benefit,-cost. analysis does not include any information with regards to, the psychological effects on the residents of the area if the plant is allowed to operate. Surveys at a business located near the plant showed that 50% of the employees would quit their jobs if the plant was allowed to operate. Many area residents have already begun to make plans to leave the area. An analysis of these effects should be included.
The benefit-cost analysis also assumes that the production of 2100 MW of electrical energy is enough to offset the accumulated costs. This assumes that the additional capacity is needed.
However, tables 7.4 and 7.5 seem to indicate that. without the operation of the plant there would still be sufficient reserves meet both the requirements of the interchange agreement and the to recommendations of the Federal Economic Regulatory Commission.
Therefore, the benefit of the additional power seems questionable.
- 7) In the July 23 Federal Register there was a notice that listed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as one of those agencies that had not published proposed procedures to bring them in alignment with the new National Environmental Policy Act regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality and effective July 30, 1979.
It is our assumption, then, that this draft of the environmental statement may not follow these new regulations and we feel the commission should publish their proposed procedures and have them approved prior to releasing the final version of this report.
As we stated above, we are going to continue research on these topics. With the anticipated extension to the review period and the help of various local agencies we hope to more completely evaluate the draft environmental statement. In the wake of this country' worst nuclear accident it is, we feel, advantageous to provide as thorough an analysis as possible of the potential effects the operation of this plant could have on the environment.
David Mann for The Susquehanna Alliance
