ML080300530
| ML080300530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/18/2008 |
| From: | Matthews J L State of NY, Dept of Environmental Conservation |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, 50-247-LR, 50-271-LR, 50-286-LR, 50-293-LR, RAS 14947, RAS 14948, RAS 14985, RAS 14986 | |
| Download: ML080300530 (11) | |
Text
PAIS-(Y/c~A/(7 January 18, 2008 UNITED STATES ýOF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC January 18 2008 (4:48pm)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND In the Matter of ADJUDICATIONS STAFF AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)Docket No.50-219-LR In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)Docket No.50-247-LR and 50-286-LR In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)Docket No.50-293-LR Docket No.50-271-LR STATE OF NEW YORK'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION TO SUSPEND LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS FOR OYSTER CREEK, INDIAN POINT, PILGRIM, AND VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PENDING INVESTIGATION OF NRC STAFF REVIEW PROCESS AND CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES
- 1. The State of New York submits this response in support of the petition dated January 3, 200[8], submitted by Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc.; Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety; New Jersey Public Interest Research'Irn lae Sjcv- 0;2-1 Group; New Jersey Sierra Club; New Jersey Environmental Federation; Riverkeeper, Inc.;Pilgrim Watch; and New England Coalition (collectively, "Environmental Groups!).'
The Environmental Groups' petition requests that the NRC suspend its license renewal. reviews of four nuclear power plants -Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee -pending an investigation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("Commission" or "NRC") of the NRC Staff review process and correction of deficiencies in that process. As noted in the above'caption, Entergy Nuclear Operations
("Entergy")
operates three of those plants: Indian Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee.2. On November 30, 2007, the State'of New York submitted a Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene in the Indian Point relicensing matter. Entergy Operates Units 1, 2, and 3 at Indian Pointlocated in Buchanan, New York. Approximately 20 million people reside or work within a 50-mile radius of these plants, the highest surrounding population.density of any nuclear power station in the nation. The State of New York's petition in the Indian'Point relicensing.
matter is pending before the NRC's Atomic Safety Licensing Board ("ASLB").3. The NRC Staff review process and deficiencies that form the basis of the Environmental Groups' petition to suspend license renewal reviews for Indian Point and the three other plants were identified in therecent report of the NRC Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"), entitled Audit of NRC's License Renewal Program (OIG-07-A-l15), dated September 6,'The State of New York makes this submission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2021(1) as well as pursuant to its status as a petitioner in ASLB Proceeding No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOI.
Last week, the Commission issued a scheduling order directing that responses to the instant petition be filed by January 18, 2008. New York's application for party status in the Indian Point ASLB Proceeding has not yet been decided. The State's participation in this petition at this juncture does not waive any of the State's rights to participate as a party in the Indian Point ASLB Proceeding..
2007 Report").4. The 01G Report wasabastdtOnasnto ae" in6...Reportaudit that was to determine the effectiveness of NRC's licenseirenewal safety reviews." OIG Report, p. i-. It identified a number of problems with the NRC Staff reviews of nuclear power plant relicensing applications, including the following:
failure of NRC Staff todemonstrate that they conducted an independent safety review in over 97%'of the 458 representative NRC safety reports sampled by the GIG;NRC Staff copying and pasting statements of licensees without demonstrating that they in fact came from the licensees' applications or that Staff independently verified those licensee statements; and failure of NRC Staff to follow up on commitments made by licensees in the application process...5. The State of New York supports the concerns raised in the Environmental Groups'.petition because the deficiencies in the NRC Staff reviews that were enumerated in the OIG Report,,go to the very heart of the NRC review of license renewal applications:'
safety and the protection of the public health and welfare. Unless those deficiencies are vigorously examined and addressed by .the NRC, the aging management analysis and review that should be performed by NRC Staff for license renewal applications will fall far short of ensuring safety and protecting the public health and welfare.6. The OIG report supports two possible conclusions.
The first possible conclusion is that the Staff has not done the independent and thorough review of the license renewal'applications and thus, there is no assurance that such an inadequately reviewed license renewal application provides reasonable assurance that the license renewal, if granted, will meet NRC safety requirements.
The second possible conclusion is that the Staff has done the independent and thorough review required but has not chosen to document the work it did and has chosen instead to merelyparrot the language contained in the application and other pre-existing documents.
At this point, no investigation has been conducted to determine which of these possibilities is correct and until that investigation has been undertaken, the Commission cannot legally permit pending license renewal applications to proceed'and should consider suspending license renewals already granted until it is confident that those license renewals meet NRC safety standards.
It is worth noting that in its recent response to the Staff response to the OIG report, OIG recommended that until there was evidence that the Staff was in fact conducting the necessary safety review, current pending license renewal applications should not be resolved.See S. Dingbaum to L. Reyes, January 7, 2008, Audit Report, Audit of NRC's License Renewal Program OIG-07-A-15, Status of Recommendations, at 1 ("Given that the agency has been aware of OIG's recommendations since May 24, 2007, OIG anticipates that NRC management's expectations and report-writing standards, while not finalized in guidance form until April 2007, will be reflected in license renewal audit, inspection, and safety evaluation reports issued henceforth.
OIG will close Recommendation 1 upon receipt and review of the revised report-writing guidance to ensure the final product satisfies the recommendation.")
- 7. The OIG report calls into question the adequacy of the Staff review of applications.
The Staff has apparently not done a "root cause" analysis to detennine how it happened that Staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) documents were demonstrably inadequate and that no internal Staff process detected this problem although it has existed for many years. Only with a"root cause" analysis, by an independent entity, will it be possible to know which of the two possible conclusions from Paragraph 6 above is correct and to know what solutions are needed to prevent a recurrence of this problem. The Staffs October 30, 2007, response to the OIG report merely offers to fix the immediate..problem of imrproving the quality of the SER, but fails to identify the "root cause" of the problem much less evaluate the implication of that "root cause" for the more serious question of whether'license renewals have been granted to plants that do not actually meet NRC safety requirements.
- 8. The NRC Staff's inadequate review in relicensing matters is further compounded because of theNRC's narrow scope of issues to review in the first instance.
In the State's view, the NRC has improperly limited the scope of review of license renewal applications
-spanning.from its adoption of regulations that narrowed the scope of issues that the NRC will review in a license renewal application to the NRC's issuance of a now-stale Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Generic EIS) that limits environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), .42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. The effect of these issue-limiting regulations is to place sole responsibility for assuring that license renewal applicants meet all required safety regulations that are outside the scope of licensing hearings with the Staff. The OIG report raises significant and profoundly troubling issues that require the Commissioners' attention and the suspension of the ongoing renewal proceedings.
- 9. The problem created by the Staff's failures, as documented by the OIG report, is far deeper than whether or not the Staff can write a good report that does or does not reflect the Staff's analysis and exercise of regulatory expertise.
Because .of the manner in which the NRC regulations limit the issues that can be reviewed in a license renewal proceeding, there are many safety issues that may only be addressed by the Staff and may not be reviewed by the public or subjected to full public hearings..
See e.g. 10 C.F.R. §§54.30, 54.33 and 54.35, which, when, certain preconditions are met, prohibit consideration of a wide range of relevant safety issues in the license renewal process. See Final Rule, Nuclear PowerPlant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,46t, 22,464 (May 8, 1995). instead, the NRC has expressed its desire to rely solely on the NRC Staff to identify, review, and resolve such safety issues. Accordingly, the quality of the NRC's Staff's review and analysis becomes all the more importanrt.
- 10. Given the NRC's interpretation of Part 54, the GIG report takes on even greater importance since the report raises serious questions as to whether the NRC Staff has properly fulfilled its important responsibilities under the NRC's license renewal framework, especially with respect to those structures, systems, and components that the NRC interprets as outside the scope of Part 54. It is not possible on the record before OIG for the Commission to conclude that NRC Staff faithfully executedits responsibilities at several facilities that have undergone or are now going through a license renewal process, but the GOIG findings certainly raise a substantial possibility that the inadequate SER was symptomatic of inadequate safety reviews. Thus, if the Staff is not doingits job, there is no effective means for the public to force an independent review, of those safety issues in a public hearing before an impartial, licensing board.11. For example, even if all its many procedural hurdles could be overcome, 10 C.F.R. §2.206 provides no viable or effective tool for public scrutiny of safety issues missed by the Staff in its -license renewal review. That provision requires the petition to be filed with the Very entity, the NRC Staff, whose failure to carry out its safety responsibilities necessitates the petition being filed. It is unrealistic to imagine that the Staff, or any one else, could, would, or ever has had sufficient impartiality to give serious consideration to a petition that is based, in the first instance, on the inadequacy of that party's own work.12. Thus, the NRC Staff's inadequate review of an extraordinarily limited spectrum of issues for review only magnifies the absence of meaningful and thorough review for plants undergoing license renewal. The detailed and documented concerns raised by the OIG Report*
regarding the NRC Staff s review of relicensing applications adds to the already flawed review process.13. To date, the NRC Staff has completed its audit of the aging management program for Indian Point Units 2 and 3. That audit is a crucial step in the license renewal review process that the OIG Report examined.
The NRC expects to issue'Safety Requests for Additional information (RAIs) by March 28, 2008. Following responses to the RAIs, the NRC expects: to issue the SER (with open items) for Indian Point on September 5, 2008. TheACRS Committee is scheduled to meet on the SER with open items in October 2008, and the final SER is expected to be issued on March 27, 2009. Thus, the schedule for Indian Point can well accommodate the relief that New York seeks.14. Unless the deficiencies noted by: the OIG Report are addressed by the NRC itself-prior to any continued processing and review of Entergy's license renewal application for Indian Point -the 'State of New York and the general public do not have confidence that the review will be purposeful, meaningful, or thorough.
The NRC must take steps to ensure and promote a different attitude and atmosphere within the agency for NRC Staff review of license renewal.applications.
- 15. Accordingly, the State of New York respectfully requests that the Commissioners undertake the following actions: 1. Suspend the recently-initiated Indian Point license renewal proceeding until such time that the Commission has confirmed
-in a transparent and documented manner -that the Staff will. conduct, a thorough, independent, and objective review of all safety issues relevant to license renewal, including issues, if any, that are precluded for consideration in the licensing hearing; and
- 2. Have an independent entity conduct a formal "foot cause" analysis of the problems identified in the OIG Report, including whether the Staff's failure to properly document its review reflects that the required.reviewed was not conducted, and to implement whatever measures are necessary to correct the root cause, including assuring that NRC Staff have appropriate training to ensure a thorough commitment to a culture of safety.Albany, New York January 18, 2008 Respectfully submitted,tMATTHEWS Senior Counsel for Special Projects New York State Department.
of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel 625 Broadway, 1 4 th Floor Albany, New York 12233-5500 (518) 402-9190 ilmatthe(ýw.dec.state.nv.us CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE certify that on January 18, 20.$08, cpies of the foregoing state ofwNew York's Responsnee in Sup "rof the PetitiontoSwspenid Licise Re RewlRiews for Oyster, Creek, Indiain Point; Piilgrim, and, Vermont Yankee'.Nuclear Povwer Plants Pending inveggaton ofq fNRC S.taff ReviewPres' anid Correction of Deficiencies were served on the following b' e-mail r tand firstcass rriail: La wrence G."McDaide, Chair Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Panel' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W ashin gt ~~~~~~n ;D~ e i 2 : 5 .* " ...... .... .. .. .... ...............
.............
Walshington,-D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.% 20555.Also by e-mail LGM@NRC.com Also by e-mail: KDL2@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J.ý Delaney, V:P. -Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York City Econ. Development Corp.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street: Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10038 Also by e-mail: REW@nrc.gov Also by e-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com John LeKay Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.Heather Ellsworth Bums-DeMelo Kathryn.M.
Sutton, Esq."Remy Chevalier Paul M.. Bessette, Esq.Bill Thomas Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.Belinda J. Jaques Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP FUSE USA 111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.3351 Dyckman Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Peekskill, NY 10566 Also by e-mail: Also by e-mail: fuse usa@yahoo.com martini.oneiill@morganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com ksutton@morganlewis,.com mlemoncelli@morganlewis.com Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY. 10977 Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail:, mbs@ourrocklandoffice..com Also by e-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov John J. Sipos, Esq, Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.Assistant Attorney General Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.Office of the Attorney General Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.for the State of New York David E. Roth The Capitol Office of the General Counsel State. Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12224 Mail stop 0-15 D21 Also by e-mail: John.Sipos@oag.state.ny.us Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: sbt@nrc.gov; lbs3@nrc.gov; bnm2@nrc.gov; der@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary, Willia C.,Dennis, Esq.Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatgiry.yCommi'ssion Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Washingtn, D.C. 20555 440 HamiltonAvenue Also. by e-m ail: .*HEARINGDOCKET@nr7c.gov VWthite Plains, NY, 10601 Also by e-mai:wdennis@entergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board' Member Manna Jo'Greene.
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.303 South, Broadway, Suite 222 112. Little Market Street Tarrytown, NY 10591 .
1260.1.Also by e-mail:* sfiller@nylawline.com.
Also by e-mail: Mannajo@clearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. ..Diane Curran, Esq.Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato,.Esq' L.L.P.Westchester County Attorney.
1726 M Siteet N-W., Suite 600 1h 148 Martine Avenue, 6t Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com Also by e-mail:, jdp3@westchestergov.com Zackary S. Kahn, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.Law Clerk Daniel Riesel, Esq., Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.. Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.460 Park Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10022 Also by e-mail: ZXK1@nrc.gov Also by e-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com Robert D. Snook, Esq. Nancy Burton Assistant Attorney General 147 Cross Highway 55 Elm Street Redding Ridge, CT. 06878 P.O. Box 120 Also by e-mail: NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Hartford, CT 06141-0120 By e-mail: Robert. Snook@po.state.ct.us Richard Webster, Esq. Mary Lampert Eastern Environmental Law Center Pilgrim Watch 744 Broad Street 148 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 Duxbury, MA 02332 Also by e-mail .rwebster@kinoy.rutgers.edu Also by e-mail mary.lampert@comcast.net Philip Musegqas.
Robert L. Stewart i.6eikeeper, Inc.,. I NeEngland Clition 828 South Broadway 229 Kibbe'e Extension Tarrytown, NY 1,0591- .Br6l6kfield Vermont 05036'Also by e-maiI phiilip@riverkeePer.org Also by e- ail Jakeskis@a0l.com Daniel'E.
Q'Neill, Mayor Richard L. Brodsky Village 'of Buchaan A ssemblyman-, James Seirmarc, M.S., Liaison to Indian Point 5 West Main Street 236 Tate Avenue Suite'205 Buchanan, NY 10511 Elrnsford, NY 10523 Also by e-mail brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us oa eary M