ML20212F183: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:- | {{#Wiki_filter:a | ||
- | |||
-- | |||
~ | |||
~ | |||
ea *80g | |||
g | |||
UNITED STATES | |||
* | |||
g* | |||
j | |||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
i | |||
". | |||
WASHINGTON, o.C. soteHopt | |||
October 23, 1997 | |||
, , , , , * | |||
1 | |||
Mr. Douglas G. Farber | |||
Citizens Awarenens Network | |||
54 Old Tumpike Road | |||
Haddam, Connecticut 06438 | |||
Dear Mr. Farber. | |||
Your letter of August 11,1997, addressed to Chairman Jacksnn, has been referred to me for a | |||
reply. Your letter voices concems about severalissues. | |||
Your first concem is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)is unwilling to penalize the | |||
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCo) for radiation control violations. We | |||
disagree with your statement; in fact, the NRC has taken very strong regulatory action issuing a | |||
Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL No. 197 007) dated March 4,1997, to the licensee as a result | |||
of NRC identified radiological work control violations. The violations prompting the CAL were | |||
principally associated with a November 2,1996, rt actor cavity airbome radioactivity event and | |||
events concoming control and monitoring of radioactive materials identified in February 1997. | |||
(Reference NRC inspection Report Nos. 50 213/9612,97 01, and 97 02.) The CAL effective!v | |||
restrains the licensee from performing any significant radiological work, including | |||
decommissioning activities, until radiological control program improvement is realized and | |||
venfied by the NRC. In addition, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to the licensee on | |||
August 12,1997, as a result of radiological controls violations idantified during inspections | |||
, | |||
conducted in June and July 1997 (Ref. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-213/97 06.) | |||
NRC is aware of assertionu by the Connecticut Public Utikties Commission (CPUC) involving | |||
radioactive soil contamination and potential environmentalimpact from previous radioactive spills | |||
and events at Haddam Neck (HN). In response, NRC has expanded its ongoing inspections to | |||
include a comprehensive reevaluation of Connecticut Yankee's historical record to determine | |||
i | |||
' | |||
what effect, if any. Connecticut Yankee's actions may have had on public health and safety. The | |||
reevaluation includes independent radiological surveys and sample analysis by both NRC and | |||
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Personnel. Although NRC's review to date | |||
indicates there is no health and safety concem to the public or licensee employees, our | |||
evaluation is continuing. | |||
Due to issues identified in the CAL, and information from the ongoing inspection efforts, NRC is | |||
, | |||
' | |||
currently considering additional enforcement action in regard to the radiation control program at | |||
the Haddam Neck plant, in addition to the CAL on radiation control violations, on May 12,1997, | |||
the NRC proposed a $650,000 civil penalty against CYAPCo (F.A 96-001 et al.) for other | |||
violations found during inspections conducted by he NRC between November 21,1995, and | |||
g | |||
; | |||
November 22,1996; the licensee paid the civil penalty on June 11,1997. | |||
y\\ | |||
t | |||
b | |||
I | |||
, | |||
hMh13 | |||
< | |||
i | |||
H | |||
pm | |||
, | |||
, | |||
l | |||
, | |||
a | |||
,._._ _ | |||
_. | |||
_ | |||
_ | |||
_ _ _ | |||
_ _ . . | |||
_ | |||
__ | |||
___ | |||
_ | |||
. | |||
- | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. | . | ||
Mr. Douglas Fart >er | |||
2 | |||
Because your second concem involves a rate caso presently before the Federal Energy | |||
Regulatory Commission (FERC), the NRC will not comment at this time on the specific issues in | |||
this haaring. However, the NRC continues to believe that 10 CFR 50.75 prescribes acceptable | |||
methods to assure and to maintain reasonable assurance for decommissioning funding. Prior to | |||
permanent cessation of operations, CYAPCo had provided reasonable assurance that funds | |||
would be available for decommissioning. The information provided in the Post Shutdown | |||
Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), submitted on August 22,19g7, Indicates that the | |||
licensee has ample funds to commence decommissioning activities and to place the facility in a | |||
SAFSTOR condition should a concem arise that decommissioning funding may become | |||
inadequate. We are aware that issues brought forth in the FERC case currently in progress may | |||
affect the level of financial assurance that CYAPCo can provide in the future. Upon resolution of | |||
the rate case before FERC and after submittel of the site specific decommissioning cost | |||
estimate, which is expected by December 5,1998, the NRC will reassess the adequacy of | |||
decommissioning funding for HN. The NRC is holding a public meeting at 6:30 p.m. O,, | |||
October 27,1997, in the Haddam Killingsworth High School, Higganum, CT to solicit public | |||
comments on the decommissioning of HN. | |||
Your third concem deals with a presumed insufficiency in our regulations regarding | |||
decommissioning costs. In CAN's judgment, the cost of site remediation and environmental | |||
impacts at HN were underestimated and NRC employee Richard Conte's remarks at the July 30, | |||
1997, Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) meeting would indicate that | |||
such underestimation is happening at all U.S. nuclear plants. However, examination of the | |||
formulas in 10 CFR 50.75(c) indicate that escalation factors are provided for labor, energy, and | |||
burial costs. | |||
As part of our assessment of the decommissioning cost estimates, the FERC case's resolution, | |||
and public comments, as discussed above, the NRC will use the appropriate formula and <W ilo | |||
determine compliance with the regulation. This assessment will determine if the overall cost | |||
estimate is within the bounds of the regulation. Also, Mr. Conte's comments at the CDAC were | |||
made in the context of a general statement that it is not totally unexpected to find some soil | |||
contamination at a nuclear power plant site, especially at those with outdoor storage tanks that | |||
hold radioactive fluids. He did not impty, nor did he intend to imply, that the extent of | |||
contamination and the scope of work for remediation was fully known. Detailed site | |||
characterization is being conducted by the licensee and will be subject to NRC inspection. This | |||
information should allow a more precise determination of the scope and extent of contamination | |||
levels. In this regard, an NRC staff member, specializing in site cleanup, remediation, and costs, | |||
will attend the October 27 meeting and will be able to provide more information in these areas. | |||
Finally, a rut amendment to NRC regulations,10 CFR 20.1401, Subpart E, addresses | |||
residual radioactivity after decommissioning and provides for protection to the public, plant | |||
workers, and the environment. This regulation was formulated with extensive public | |||
involvement, and was coordinated with other Federal agencies. It provides this protection in a | |||
cost effective manner. I have enclosed an NRC press release, dated May 21,1997, that | |||
contairm more information about this recently approved regulation. | |||
, | |||
, , | |||
, | |||
, | |||
- | |||
, | |||
,---m | |||
-- , - , , | |||
~ | |||
. | . | ||
Mr. Douglas Farber | |||
3- | |||
October 23, 1997 | |||
Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Morton Fairtile of my staff at | |||
(301)415 1442. | |||
Sincerely, | |||
@sWhy | |||
BamuelJ.Comns | |||
Samuel J. Collins, Director | |||
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | |||
Docket No. 50 213 | |||
Enclosure: As stated | |||
cc w/ enclosure: See next page | |||
plSTRIBUTION: | |||
iContral File (w/ original incoming) , | |||
SCollins/FMiraglia | |||
OPA | |||
PUBLIC (w/ incoming) | |||
RZimmerman | |||
OCA | |||
EDO# GT97609 | |||
BSheron | |||
SECY (GT#970844) | |||
SCallan | |||
WTravers | |||
MClark (GT#970609) | |||
AThadani | |||
PDND r/f (w/ incoming) | |||
EHylton (w/ incoming) | |||
HThompson | |||
JRoe | |||
Region l | |||
PNorry | |||
DMatthews | |||
MBoyle (MLB4) E mail only | |||
JBlaha | |||
SWeiss | |||
LThonus | |||
SBurns | |||
SBajwa | |||
ASLBP | |||
JLieberman | |||
MFairtile(w/ incoming) | |||
JHickey | |||
HMiller, RI | |||
OGC | |||
AMarkley | |||
PHarris | |||
RDudley | |||
TFredrichs | |||
MMasnik | |||
JMinns | |||
MWebb | |||
KBohrer (012-G18) | |||
MClark | |||
Econner (ELC) E-Matt | |||
EDO r/f | |||
NRR Mall Room (EDO#GT97609 w/ incoming) | |||
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE | |||
PDND:PM | |||
PDND:LA,'v | |||
PDND:(A)SC | |||
TECH ED.* | |||
OGC* | |||
MFairtile | |||
EHylton/f,p | |||
MMasnik | |||
RSanders | |||
MRafky | |||
9/ 097 | |||
E | |||
9p7 | |||
9/11/97 | |||
9/16/97 | |||
9/)W97 | |||
3 | |||
PDND.DA | |||
(A)D | |||
R | |||
- | |||
OC | |||
SWeiss P | |||
-JR | |||
S ollins ' | |||
SJackson | |||
# | |||
_9/JV97 | |||
4/g 7 | |||
10/ | |||
f | |||
7 | |||
9/ /97 | |||
- | |||
d\\I | |||
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY | |||
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_lTM\\G1609 | |||
, | |||
- | |||
. . - - - _ . | |||
. . | |||
~ | |||
. . - - . - . -. . - . . - - - | |||
- - . | |||
. . | |||
_ | |||
. | |||
. | . | ||
. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
Mr. Douglas Farber | |||
3- | |||
; | |||
; | |||
Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Morton Fairtile of my staff at | |||
(301)415 1442. | |||
t | |||
Sincerely, | |||
' | |||
i | |||
amuel J. Chilins, Director | |||
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation | |||
; | |||
, | |||
Docket No 50 213 | |||
I | |||
Enclosure: As stated | |||
cc w/ enclosure:- See next page | |||
, | |||
. | |||
. | |||
A | |||
. - | |||
. . . | |||
,_ . | |||
- - . | |||
_ , . . - , , , - _ _ . - | |||
. _ . , _ , _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ - | |||
- | |||
,- | |||
.- - - | |||
_ | |||
- | |||
. - --- | |||
. | . | ||
. . | |||
-, | |||
- | |||
. | |||
o | |||
' | |||
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. | |||
Haddam Neck Plant | |||
,' | |||
Docket No. 50 213 | |||
r | |||
I | |||
CC: | |||
; | |||
Resident inspector | |||
: | |||
Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq. | |||
Haddam Neck Plant | |||
_ | |||
i | |||
, | |||
Senior Nuclear Counsel | |||
clo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||
Northeast Utilities Service Company | |||
362 injun Hollow Road | |||
l | |||
P. O. Box 270 | |||
East Hampton, CT 06424 3099 | |||
' | |||
Hartford, CT 06141 0270- | |||
Mr. James S. Robinson | |||
Mr. Kevin T. A. McCarthy, Director | |||
Manager, Nuclear Investments and | |||
i | |||
Monitoring and Radiation Division | |||
Administration | |||
Department of Environmsntal | |||
Now England Power Company | |||
Protection | |||
25 Research Drive | |||
- 79 Elm Street | |||
Westborough, MA 01582 | |||
Hartford, CT 00106 5127 | |||
Mr. G. P. van Noordonnen | |||
- Mr. Allan Johanson | |||
Manager - Nuclear Licensing | |||
Assistant Director | |||
Northeast Utilities Service Company | |||
Office of Policy and Management | |||
362 Injun Hollow Road | |||
Policy Development and Planning | |||
East Hampton, CT 06424 3099 | |||
+ | |||
Division | |||
450 Capit-l Avenue MS#52ENR | |||
Regional Administrator | |||
, | |||
P. O. Box 341441 | |||
r;egion i | |||
4 | |||
Hartford, CT 06134 1441 | |||
U.S. Nucles- Regulatory Commission | |||
475 Allendale Road | |||
Mr. F. C. Rothen | |||
King of Prussia, PA 19406 | |||
Vice President Work Services | |||
Northeast Utilities Service Company | |||
Board of Selectmen | |||
P. O. Box 128 | |||
Town Office Building | |||
Waterford, CT 06385 | |||
Haddam, CT 06438 | |||
Mr. D. M. Goebel | |||
Vice President - Nuclear Oversight | |||
Northeast Utilities Service Company | |||
P. O. Box 128 | |||
Waterford, CT 06385 | |||
i | |||
Mr. J. K. Thayer | |||
Recovery Officer Nuclear Engineering | |||
and Support | |||
' | |||
Northeast Utilities Service Company | |||
P. O. Box 128 ' | |||
Waterford, CT 06385 | |||
, | |||
e | |||
a | |||
n | |||
an, | |||
,- | |||
m- | |||
en-e=~m | |||
e-ws, | |||
e-w-~ | |||
- | |||
v | |||
, tr | |||
, | |||
-~ | |||
, fWtp1/www.mc gov /OPAlgmo'ntr.rcvi97 08).htm | - -- | ||
i | ~ - . . | ||
- | |||
_ _ . - . | |||
. _ | |||
- . | |||
- - _ . _ - | |||
.-__.- -- | |||
- - | |||
, fWtp1/www.mc gov /OPAlgmo'ntr.rcvi97 08).htm | |||
httpAwww.nre gov OPA:'gmo'nrarevS7 083.htm | |||
i | |||
. _ _ | |||
._ | |||
_ | |||
._ | |||
. | |||
_ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ | |||
-._ | |||
f._ | |||
Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||
Office of Public Affairs | |||
l | |||
Washington DC 20555 | |||
t | |||
t | |||
Telephone: 301/415-8200 - E mail: opaWnre. gov | |||
' | |||
. - . . | |||
. | |||
.- | |||
- | |||
- | |||
- - . | |||
. _ - . . | |||
.- | |||
. | |||
-. | |||
. . . . . | |||
No. 97-083 | |||
May 21,1997 | |||
NRC APPROVES MAXIMUM PERMISSil3LE RADIATION LEVELS | |||
FOR LICENSE TERMINATION | |||
I | |||
The Nuclear Repulatory Commission has approved an amendment to its regulations to establish | |||
maximum permissible radiation levels when a nuclear facility permanently shuts down, is released foi | |||
other uses, and the license is tenninated. | |||
; | |||
-The new rules will require licensees of pennanently shutdown facilities to reduce remaining | |||
; | |||
radioactivity to sumciently low levels to pennit the license to be terminated safely. Release of the | |||
property may be either: | |||
Unrestricted, in which case it could be used for any purpose, or | |||
Restricted, so that it could not be used for certain purposes, such as residential housing. | |||
The Commission believes that the new standards are consistent with specific recommendations of both | |||
national and international bodies tasked with the development of guidance for radistion protection; are | |||
appropriately based on risk, cost benefit, and socio economic standards; provide the needed flexibility to | |||
accommodate site specific conditions; and are sufficiently conservative to ensure protection of public | |||
health and safety and the environment. | |||
Unrestricted Release | |||
Under the new regulations, a site may be released for unrestricted use if the radiation dose from | |||
contamination remaining on the property wni be as far below 25 millirems per year as is reasonably | |||
achievable. (Twenty five millirems may be compared to a dose of about 5 millirems of background | |||
radiation from one round trip cross-country airline ilight: 50 millirems average per year from medical | |||
examinations; and 300 millirems per year average in the United States from natural background | |||
radiation.) | |||
Restricted Release | |||
The new regulations permit release of a site for restricted use provided that the dose from contamination | |||
remaining on site is as low as is reasonably achievable and that legally enforceable institutional controls | |||
1 | |||
(such as deed restrictions) will ensure that the dose does not exceed 25 millirems per year. | |||
, | |||
in addition, if a site is released for restricted use, the licensee must provide financial arrangements to | |||
allow an independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary control and | |||
maintenance of the site. | |||
Further, a licensee that intends to decommission by restricting use of the site must seek advice- from | |||
individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decommissioning--on whether | |||
n8'20'9711:245 | |||
iof3 | |||
M SURE | |||
- | |||
- . - | |||
- | |||
. | |||
~ | |||
_ | |||
- | |||
_ | |||
- | |||
. | |||
. | |||
_ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ | |||
__ _ | |||
_ | |||
, | |||
_ | |||
- | |||
_ _ - | |||
. | |||
_ | |||
__ | |||
_ | |||
* | * | ||
. hap //ww w.ntc. guWOPAlgmo'nrarev/97-083.htm | |||
hupWwww nre gowOPAlgmo'nrcrcwn08).htn | |||
' | |||
individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decommissioning -on whcther | |||
e | |||
the provisions for institutional controls proposed by the licensee (1) will provide reasonable assurance | |||
! | |||
that the radiation dose from co. taminat on remaining on site will not exceed 25 millirems per year,(2) | |||
will be enforceable, and (3) will not impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected | |||
parties, | |||
in obtaining this advice, the licensee must provide for participation by a broad cross section of | |||
community interests, provide an opportunity for a comprehensive discussion on the issues by | |||
participants, and make public a summary of the results of such discussions. | |||
The Commission expects that institutional controls will be very effective in keeping doses to levels | |||
below 25 millirems per year. Nevertheless the Commission has included an additional level of protection | |||
in the rule to protect against the situation where the 25 rnillirems per-yea' level could be exceeded by | |||
requiring that licensees provide reasonable assurance that, if the institutional controls were no longer in | |||
efTect, the maximum yearly radiation dose from contamination remaining on site would not exceed 100 | |||
millirems per year, and be as low as is reasonably achievable. | |||
Licensees in rare circumstances could also propose that, in the event i- stitutional controls were no | |||
longer in effect, the residual radioactivity could be as high as 500 millirems per year. Ilowever, licensees | |||
who propose to use the 500 millirem criterion must (1) demonstrate that furt ber reductions in remaining | |||
radioactivity are not technicJly achievable, would be prohibitively expensive, or would result in net | |||
3ublic or environmental harm: (2) make provision for durable institutional controls, such as engineered | |||
3arriers or government control or ownership; and (3) provide sufficient financial resources to enable an | |||
independent third parv to carry out periodic rechecks of the site at least every 5 years to make sure that | |||
the institutional controls remain in place, and to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary | |||
controls and maintenance of those controls. | |||
Altemate Criteria for 1.icense Termination | |||
The Commission expects the vast preponderance oflicensees to reduce residual radioactivity to levels | |||
that meet the new enteria for unrestricted or restricted release, liowever, the Commission is concemed | |||
about the possible presence of certain diflicult sites that could present unique decommissioning | |||
problems. | |||
Ilecause it is preferable to have provisions in the rule to deal with these sites cather than have licensees | |||
seek an exemption process outside the rule, the rule contains provisions under which the Commission | |||
may tenninate a license using allemate criteria, greater than 25 millirems per year, if the licensee | |||
provides assurance that public health and safety would continue to be protected, and that it was unlikely | |||
that the radiation dose from all potential man made sources combined would be more than 100 Allirems | |||
per year. The licensee must also place restrictions on site use to the extent practical and reduce the | |||
radiation dose to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable. | |||
The Commission expects the use of attemate criteria to be contined to rare situations. To ensure that this | |||
is the case, the Commission is requiring that licensees who propose to use alternate criteria must seek | |||
advice or comment from alTected parties and, as in the case where restricted release is sought, provide | |||
for participation by representatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may be affected | |||
by the decommissiomng, an o pportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues, and a | |||
publicly available summary ol the results of all such discussions, | |||
in addition, the use of alternate criteria to terminate a license will require the approval of the | |||
Commission, aller consideration of NRC staff recommendations that address any comments provided by | |||
the Environmental Protection Agency and by the public. | |||
Public input | |||
To provide ample opportunities for public comment, when the Commission receives a license | |||
tennination or decommissioning plan, or a proposal for cestricted release of a site or release using | |||
2 of 3 | |||
08009711:24:33 | |||
. | |||
- | |||
-- | |||
_ | |||
-. | |||
- | |||
- | |||
* | |||
hnp://www.nre gov /OPA/gmo nr:rev/97 083.htm | |||
http:// | |||
nre goviOPAlgmo'nrarn/97 083 hu | |||
, | |||
* | |||
alternate criteria, the agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register. In addition, it will provide | |||
* | |||
local notincation via a notice in local newspapers, letters to state or local organizations, or other | |||
appropriate means. It will also notify the Environmental Protection Agency, appropriate local and statc. | |||
govemments and Indian Nations and solicit their comments. | |||
Specific additional requirements for public input are described above for the restricted use and alt rnate | |||
entena cases. | |||
Pronosed and Final Rule | |||
> | |||
A proposed rule on this subject was published for public comment on August 22,1994. The full text of | |||
the final rule and a description of specific changes made as a result of the comments received on the | |||
' | |||
proposed rule, and additional NRC analysis, will be contained in s Federal Register notice to be | |||
published soon. | |||
The Commission did not adopt a separate groundwater protection standard, as recommended by the | |||
Environmental Protection Agency. NRC agrees with the need to control exposures from drinking | |||
groundwater that is potentially contaminated a..d agrees that the environmental integrity of the nation's | |||
groundwater needs to be prot <:cted. Ilowever, NRC has concluded that protection of public health and | |||
safety in the use of this valuable resource is achieved by limiting e- | |||
sure to person., from all potential | |||
pathways of exposure (i.e., radiation from the ground, eating food aom soil or fish from surface water, | |||
inhalation of dust, etc.), including the groundwater pathway, to as far below 25 millirems per year as is | |||
reasonably achievable and that imposition of a separate stan(' rd for groundwater would not provide any | |||
significant enhancement of public health and safety and is therefore unnecessary. | |||
Yesterday Shirley Ann Jackson, Chainnan of the NRC, met with Fred liansen, Deputy Administrator of | |||
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to discuss the proposed final rule. At that meeting, she | |||
discussed the features of the rule, and NRC's position on the adequacy of the 25-millirems-per year all | |||
pathways standard, the concept of"as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) included in the NRC's | |||
rule, and the NRC's position that, in light of the all pathways standard and ALARA, there is no need for | |||
a separate groundwater standard. Ilansen expressed EPA's interest in continuing discussions with NRC | |||
regarding timely notice to EPA of proposed NRC license termination in some specific categories of | |||
cases. The Commission has agreed to continue a dialogue with EPA following finalization of the rule. | |||
The new cleanup criteria for decommissioning will not a 3 ply to sites already covered by a license | |||
tennination or decommissioning plan approved previous y by the Commission or approved within 24 | |||
months of the clTective date of the rule (w hich will be announced in the Federal Register). | |||
The final rules that the Commission has promulgated wili generally apply to most NRC licensees and to | |||
most liccasec.aegu!ated by Agreement States (which are states that have assumed, by mutual | |||
agreement, part of the NRC's regulatory authority). An Agreement State may implement more stringent | |||
standards ifit finds a need to impose such standards for local conditions. | |||
### | |||
-. | |||
-__ | |||
-. .- | |||
NRC llome Pag l News and Infornmtica l E-mail | |||
3 of 3 | |||
08'20/9711:2 8:33 ~ | |||
_- | |||
. | |||
__ | |||
_ _ | |||
_ _ | |||
. | |||
. | |||
_ _ . . | |||
-- | |||
y. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
. _._. | |||
__ _ - | |||
_ | |||
' | |||
y. | |||
.. | |||
' | |||
,O: | |||
._ :/ | |||
o | |||
AW hh ct. | |||
tuf G | |||
' | ' | ||
. | |||
. | |||
o u t- | |||
#c5 | |||
8 kN/h | |||
[ | |||
$ | |||
feeA | |||
b- | |||
Control | |||
' | |||
DO CONTAOL: G970609 | |||
kuC- | |||
DOC DT: 08/11/97 | |||
FINAL REPLY: | |||
TO: | |||
8 ,,2 I 'l - | |||
. Chairman Jackson | |||
FOR SIGNATURE OF : | |||
** GRN | |||
** | |||
CRC NO: 97-0844 | |||
' Collins | |||
DESC: | |||
ROUTING: | |||
CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, CAN, CONCERNS RE THE | |||
Callan | |||
NRC'S UNWILLING % ESS TO PENALIZE THE | |||
Thadani | |||
' | |||
CONNECTICUT-YANREE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY DESPITE | |||
Thompson | |||
DOCUMENTED RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL VIOLATIONS AT | |||
Norry | |||
HADDAM NECK STATION | |||
Blaha | |||
Burns | |||
DATE: 08/21/S7 | |||
Lieberman, OE | |||
Miller, RI | |||
ASSIGNED TO: | |||
CONTACT: | |||
NRR | |||
Collins- | |||
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: | |||
Put EDO and Chairman on for concurrence. | |||
Chairman's office to review response prior | |||
.to dispatch. | |||
NRR RECEIVED: | |||
AUGUST' 21, 1997 | |||
NRR ACTTON: | |||
.ORPM: ROE | |||
NRR ROUTING: | |||
COLLINS' | |||
q | |||
Mu l lv,M | |||
ap sp | |||
MIRAGLIA | |||
81 | |||
, | |||
ZIMMERMAN | |||
f [*g J Q Q R D}R {C J C.R'$ [syr,7,] 3 | |||
'SHERON | |||
TRAVERS | |||
6Y N _l u,C A | |||
/ | |||
t | |||
. | |||
_ _ . . | |||
. | |||
4 | |||
- | |||
- | |||
.. | |||
. | |||
, | |||
. | |||
, . - .- - . . | |||
- | |||
. | |||
, , | |||
. | |||
1 | |||
* | |||
l | |||
.. | |||
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY- | |||
* | |||
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET | |||
* | |||
! | |||
~ PAPER NUMBER: | |||
CRC-97-0244 | |||
LOGGING DATES.:Aug 19-9.7 | |||
* | |||
' | |||
' ACTION OFFICE: | |||
:EDO | |||
, | |||
'NUTHOR: | |||
DOUGLAS FARBER | |||
' | |||
= AFFILIATION - | |||
CONNECTICUT | |||
i | |||
-ADDRESSEE: | |||
CHAIRMAN JACKSON | |||
' LETTER DATE: | |||
.Aug 11 97 | |||
FILE CODES. | |||
SUBJECT: | |||
CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK,'CAN,-CONCERNS REGARDING | |||
THE NRC'S UNWILLINGNESS TC PENALIZE THE CONNECTICVT | |||
YANKEE-ATOMIC POWER COMPANY-DESPITE DOCUMENTED | |||
RADNLOGICAL CONTROL VIOLATIONS AT HADDAM NECK STA | |||
ACTION: | |||
($gpa; | |||
hth | |||
k | |||
DISTRIBUTION: | |||
CHAIRMAN, RF | |||
SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY.TO ACK | |||
-CONSTITUENT: | |||
dtyg,C | |||
M | |||
i | |||
NOTES' | |||
:DATE DUE - | |||
Sep | |||
5 97 | |||
SIGNATURE: | |||
DATE SIGNED: | |||
AFFILIATION: | |||
, | |||
. | |||
4 | |||
EDO -- G970609 | |||
' | |||
- | |||
. | |||
vr | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:20, 4 December 2024
| ML20212F183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1997 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Farber D CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212F188 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-96-12, 50-213-97-01, 50-213-97-02, 50-213-97-1, 50-213-97-2, CAL-1-97-07, CAL-1-97-7, NUDOCS 9711040205 | |
| Download: ML20212F183 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000213/1996012
Text
a
-
--
~
~
ea *80g
g
UNITED STATES
g*
j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
i
".
WASHINGTON, o.C. soteHopt
October 23, 1997
, , , , , *
1
Mr. Douglas G. Farber
Citizens Awarenens Network
54 Old Tumpike Road
Haddam, Connecticut 06438
Dear Mr. Farber.
Your letter of August 11,1997, addressed to Chairman Jacksnn, has been referred to me for a
reply. Your letter voices concems about severalissues.
Your first concem is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)is unwilling to penalize the
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCo) for radiation control violations. We
disagree with your statement; in fact, the NRC has taken very strong regulatory action issuing a
Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL No. 197 007) dated March 4,1997, to the licensee as a result
of NRC identified radiological work control violations. The violations prompting the CAL were
principally associated with a November 2,1996, rt actor cavity airbome radioactivity event and
events concoming control and monitoring of radioactive materials identified in February 1997.
(Reference NRC inspection Report Nos. 50 213/9612,97 01, and 97 02.) The CAL effective!v
restrains the licensee from performing any significant radiological work, including
decommissioning activities, until radiological control program improvement is realized and
venfied by the NRC. In addition, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to the licensee on
August 12,1997, as a result of radiological controls violations idantified during inspections
,
conducted in June and July 1997 (Ref. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-213/97 06.)
NRC is aware of assertionu by the Connecticut Public Utikties Commission (CPUC) involving
radioactive soil contamination and potential environmentalimpact from previous radioactive spills
and events at Haddam Neck (HN). In response, NRC has expanded its ongoing inspections to
include a comprehensive reevaluation of Connecticut Yankee's historical record to determine
i
'
what effect, if any. Connecticut Yankee's actions may have had on public health and safety. The
reevaluation includes independent radiological surveys and sample analysis by both NRC and
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Personnel. Although NRC's review to date
indicates there is no health and safety concem to the public or licensee employees, our
evaluation is continuing.
Due to issues identified in the CAL, and information from the ongoing inspection efforts, NRC is
,
'
currently considering additional enforcement action in regard to the radiation control program at
the Haddam Neck plant, in addition to the CAL on radiation control violations, on May 12,1997,
the NRC proposed a $650,000 civil penalty against CYAPCo (F.A 96-001 et al.) for other
violations found during inspections conducted by he NRC between November 21,1995, and
g
November 22,1996; the licensee paid the civil penalty on June 11,1997.
y\\
t
b
I
,
hMh13
<
i
H
pm
,
,
l
,
a
,._._ _
_.
_
_
_ _ _
_ _ . .
_
__
___
_
.
-
.
.
.
Mr. Douglas Fart >er
2
Because your second concem involves a rate caso presently before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), the NRC will not comment at this time on the specific issues in
this haaring. However, the NRC continues to believe that 10 CFR 50.75 prescribes acceptable
methods to assure and to maintain reasonable assurance for decommissioning funding. Prior to
permanent cessation of operations, CYAPCo had provided reasonable assurance that funds
would be available for decommissioning. The information provided in the Post Shutdown
Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), submitted on August 22,19g7, Indicates that the
licensee has ample funds to commence decommissioning activities and to place the facility in a
SAFSTOR condition should a concem arise that decommissioning funding may become
inadequate. We are aware that issues brought forth in the FERC case currently in progress may
affect the level of financial assurance that CYAPCo can provide in the future. Upon resolution of
the rate case before FERC and after submittel of the site specific decommissioning cost
estimate, which is expected by December 5,1998, the NRC will reassess the adequacy of
decommissioning funding for HN. The NRC is holding a public meeting at 6:30 p.m. O,,
October 27,1997, in the Haddam Killingsworth High School, Higganum, CT to solicit public
comments on the decommissioning of HN.
Your third concem deals with a presumed insufficiency in our regulations regarding
decommissioning costs. In CAN's judgment, the cost of site remediation and environmental
impacts at HN were underestimated and NRC employee Richard Conte's remarks at the July 30,
1997, Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) meeting would indicate that
such underestimation is happening at all U.S. nuclear plants. However, examination of the
formulas in 10 CFR 50.75(c) indicate that escalation factors are provided for labor, energy, and
burial costs.
As part of our assessment of the decommissioning cost estimates, the FERC case's resolution,
and public comments, as discussed above, the NRC will use the appropriate formula and <W ilo
determine compliance with the regulation. This assessment will determine if the overall cost
estimate is within the bounds of the regulation. Also, Mr. Conte's comments at the CDAC were
made in the context of a general statement that it is not totally unexpected to find some soil
contamination at a nuclear power plant site, especially at those with outdoor storage tanks that
hold radioactive fluids. He did not impty, nor did he intend to imply, that the extent of
contamination and the scope of work for remediation was fully known. Detailed site
characterization is being conducted by the licensee and will be subject to NRC inspection. This
information should allow a more precise determination of the scope and extent of contamination
levels. In this regard, an NRC staff member, specializing in site cleanup, remediation, and costs,
will attend the October 27 meeting and will be able to provide more information in these areas.
Finally, a rut amendment to NRC regulations,10 CFR 20.1401, Subpart E, addresses
residual radioactivity after decommissioning and provides for protection to the public, plant
workers, and the environment. This regulation was formulated with extensive public
involvement, and was coordinated with other Federal agencies. It provides this protection in a
cost effective manner. I have enclosed an NRC press release, dated May 21,1997, that
contairm more information about this recently approved regulation.
,
, ,
,
,
-
,
,---m
-- , - , ,
~
.
Mr. Douglas Farber
3-
October 23, 1997
Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Morton Fairtile of my staff at
(301)415 1442.
Sincerely,
@sWhy
BamuelJ.Comns
Samuel J. Collins, Director
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket No. 50 213
Enclosure: As stated
cc w/ enclosure: See next page
plSTRIBUTION:
iContral File (w/ original incoming) ,
SCollins/FMiraglia
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
RZimmerman
EDO# GT97609
BSheron
SECY (GT#970844)
SCallan
WTravers
MClark (GT#970609)
AThadani
PDND r/f (w/ incoming)
EHylton (w/ incoming)
HThompson
JRoe
Region l
PNorry
DMatthews
MBoyle (MLB4) E mail only
JBlaha
SWeiss
LThonus
SBurns
SBajwa
JLieberman
MFairtile(w/ incoming)
JHickey
HMiller, RI
AMarkley
PHarris
RDudley
TFredrichs
MMasnik
JMinns
MWebb
KBohrer (012-G18)
MClark
Econner (ELC) E-Matt
EDO r/f
NRR Mall Room (EDO#GT97609 w/ incoming)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
PDND:PM
PDND:LA,'v
PDND:(A)SC
TECH ED.*
OGC*
MFairtile
EHylton/f,p
MMasnik
RSanders
MRafky
9/ 097
E
9p7
9/11/97
9/16/97
9/)W97
3
PDND.DA
(A)D
R
-
OC
SWeiss P
-JR
S ollins '
SJackson
_9/JV97
4/g 7
10/
f
7
9/ /97
-
d\\I
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ACTN_lTM\\G1609
,
-
. . - - - _ .
. .
~
. . - - . - . -. . - . . - - -
- - .
. .
_
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Douglas Farber
3-
Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Morton Fairtile of my staff at
(301)415 1442.
t
Sincerely,
'
i
amuel J. Chilins, Director
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
,
Docket No 50 213
I
Enclosure: As stated
cc w/ enclosure:- See next page
,
.
.
A
. -
. . .
,_ .
- - .
_ , . . - , , , - _ _ . -
. _ . , _ , _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ -
-
,-
.- - -
_
-
. - ---
.
. .
-,
-
.
o
'
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.
Haddam Neck Plant
,'
Docket No. 50 213
r
I
CC:
Resident inspector
Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.
Haddam Neck Plant
_
i
,
Senior Nuclear Counsel
clo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Northeast Utilities Service Company
362 injun Hollow Road
l
P. O. Box 270
East Hampton, CT 06424 3099
'
Hartford, CT 06141 0270-
Mr. James S. Robinson
Mr. Kevin T. A. McCarthy, Director
Manager, Nuclear Investments and
i
Monitoring and Radiation Division
Administration
Department of Environmsntal
Now England Power Company
Protection
25 Research Drive
- 79 Elm Street
Westborough, MA 01582
Hartford, CT 00106 5127
Mr. G. P. van Noordonnen
- Mr. Allan Johanson
Manager - Nuclear Licensing
Assistant Director
Northeast Utilities Service Company
Office of Policy and Management
362 Injun Hollow Road
Policy Development and Planning
East Hampton, CT 06424 3099
+
Division
450 Capit-l Avenue MS#52ENR
Regional Administrator
,
P. O. Box 341441
r;egion i
4
Hartford, CT 06134 1441
U.S. Nucles- Regulatory Commission
475 Allendale Road
Mr. F. C. Rothen
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Vice President Work Services
Northeast Utilities Service Company
Board of Selectmen
P. O. Box 128
Town Office Building
Waterford, CT 06385
Haddam, CT 06438
Mr. D. M. Goebel
Vice President - Nuclear Oversight
Northeast Utilities Service Company
P. O. Box 128
Waterford, CT 06385
i
Mr. J. K. Thayer
Recovery Officer Nuclear Engineering
and Support
'
Northeast Utilities Service Company
P. O. Box 128 '
Waterford, CT 06385
,
e
a
n
an,
,-
m-
en-e=~m
e-ws,
e-w-~
-
v
, tr
,
-~
- --
~ - . .
-
_ _ . - .
. _
- .
- - _ . _ -
.-__.- --
- -
, fWtp1/www.mc gov /OPAlgmo'ntr.rcvi97 08).htm
httpAwww.nre gov OPA:'gmo'nrarevS7 083.htm
i
. _ _
._
_
._
.
_ _ . _ _ _ . _ _
-._
f._
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Public Affairs
l
Washington DC 20555
t
t
Telephone: 301/415-8200 - E mail: opaWnre. gov
'
. - . .
.
.-
-
-
- - .
. _ - . .
.-
.
-.
. . . . .
No.97-083
May 21,1997
NRC APPROVES MAXIMUM PERMISSil3LE RADIATION LEVELS
FOR LICENSE TERMINATION
I
The Nuclear Repulatory Commission has approved an amendment to its regulations to establish
maximum permissible radiation levels when a nuclear facility permanently shuts down, is released foi
other uses, and the license is tenninated.
-The new rules will require licensees of pennanently shutdown facilities to reduce remaining
radioactivity to sumciently low levels to pennit the license to be terminated safely. Release of the
property may be either:
Unrestricted, in which case it could be used for any purpose, or
Restricted, so that it could not be used for certain purposes, such as residential housing.
The Commission believes that the new standards are consistent with specific recommendations of both
national and international bodies tasked with the development of guidance for radistion protection; are
appropriately based on risk, cost benefit, and socio economic standards; provide the needed flexibility to
accommodate site specific conditions; and are sufficiently conservative to ensure protection of public
health and safety and the environment.
Unrestricted Release
Under the new regulations, a site may be released for unrestricted use if the radiation dose from
contamination remaining on the property wni be as far below 25 millirems per year as is reasonably
achievable. (Twenty five millirems may be compared to a dose of about 5 millirems of background
radiation from one round trip cross-country airline ilight: 50 millirems average per year from medical
examinations; and 300 millirems per year average in the United States from natural background
radiation.)
Restricted Release
The new regulations permit release of a site for restricted use provided that the dose from contamination
remaining on site is as low as is reasonably achievable and that legally enforceable institutional controls
1
(such as deed restrictions) will ensure that the dose does not exceed 25 millirems per year.
,
in addition, if a site is released for restricted use, the licensee must provide financial arrangements to
allow an independent third party to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary control and
maintenance of the site.
Further, a licensee that intends to decommission by restricting use of the site must seek advice- from
individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decommissioning--on whether
n8'20'9711:245
iof3
M SURE
-
- . -
-
.
~
_
-
_
-
.
.
_ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _
__ _
_
,
_
-
_ _ -
.
_
__
_
. hap //ww w.ntc. guWOPAlgmo'nrarev/97-083.htm
hupWwww nre gowOPAlgmo'nrcrcwn08).htn
'
individuals and institutions in the community who may be affected by the decommissioning -on whcther
e
the provisions for institutional controls proposed by the licensee (1) will provide reasonable assurance
!
that the radiation dose from co. taminat on remaining on site will not exceed 25 millirems per year,(2)
will be enforceable, and (3) will not impose undue burdens on the local community or other affected
parties,
in obtaining this advice, the licensee must provide for participation by a broad cross section of
community interests, provide an opportunity for a comprehensive discussion on the issues by
participants, and make public a summary of the results of such discussions.
The Commission expects that institutional controls will be very effective in keeping doses to levels
below 25 millirems per year. Nevertheless the Commission has included an additional level of protection
in the rule to protect against the situation where the 25 rnillirems per-yea' level could be exceeded by
requiring that licensees provide reasonable assurance that, if the institutional controls were no longer in
efTect, the maximum yearly radiation dose from contamination remaining on site would not exceed 100
millirems per year, and be as low as is reasonably achievable.
Licensees in rare circumstances could also propose that, in the event i- stitutional controls were no
longer in effect, the residual radioactivity could be as high as 500 millirems per year. Ilowever, licensees
who propose to use the 500 millirem criterion must (1) demonstrate that furt ber reductions in remaining
radioactivity are not technicJly achievable, would be prohibitively expensive, or would result in net
3ublic or environmental harm: (2) make provision for durable institutional controls, such as engineered
3arriers or government control or ownership; and (3) provide sufficient financial resources to enable an
independent third parv to carry out periodic rechecks of the site at least every 5 years to make sure that
the institutional controls remain in place, and to assume and carry out responsibilities for any necessary
controls and maintenance of those controls.
Altemate Criteria for 1.icense Termination
The Commission expects the vast preponderance oflicensees to reduce residual radioactivity to levels
that meet the new enteria for unrestricted or restricted release, liowever, the Commission is concemed
about the possible presence of certain diflicult sites that could present unique decommissioning
problems.
Ilecause it is preferable to have provisions in the rule to deal with these sites cather than have licensees
seek an exemption process outside the rule, the rule contains provisions under which the Commission
may tenninate a license using allemate criteria, greater than 25 millirems per year, if the licensee
provides assurance that public health and safety would continue to be protected, and that it was unlikely
that the radiation dose from all potential man made sources combined would be more than 100 Allirems
per year. The licensee must also place restrictions on site use to the extent practical and reduce the
radiation dose to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable.
The Commission expects the use of attemate criteria to be contined to rare situations. To ensure that this
is the case, the Commission is requiring that licensees who propose to use alternate criteria must seek
advice or comment from alTected parties and, as in the case where restricted release is sought, provide
for participation by representatives of a broad cross section of community interests who may be affected
by the decommissiomng, an o pportunity for a comprehensive, collective discussion on the issues, and a
publicly available summary ol the results of all such discussions,
in addition, the use of alternate criteria to terminate a license will require the approval of the
Commission, aller consideration of NRC staff recommendations that address any comments provided by
the Environmental Protection Agency and by the public.
Public input
To provide ample opportunities for public comment, when the Commission receives a license
tennination or decommissioning plan, or a proposal for cestricted release of a site or release using
2 of 3
08009711:24:33
.
-
--
_
-.
-
-
hnp://www.nre gov /OPA/gmo nr:rev/97 083.htm
http://
nre goviOPAlgmo'nrarn/97 083 hu
,
alternate criteria, the agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register. In addition, it will provide
local notincation via a notice in local newspapers, letters to state or local organizations, or other
appropriate means. It will also notify the Environmental Protection Agency, appropriate local and statc.
govemments and Indian Nations and solicit their comments.
Specific additional requirements for public input are described above for the restricted use and alt rnate
entena cases.
Pronosed and Final Rule
>
A proposed rule on this subject was published for public comment on August 22,1994. The full text of
the final rule and a description of specific changes made as a result of the comments received on the
'
proposed rule, and additional NRC analysis, will be contained in s Federal Register notice to be
published soon.
The Commission did not adopt a separate groundwater protection standard, as recommended by the
Environmental Protection Agency. NRC agrees with the need to control exposures from drinking
groundwater that is potentially contaminated a..d agrees that the environmental integrity of the nation's
groundwater needs to be prot <:cted. Ilowever, NRC has concluded that protection of public health and
safety in the use of this valuable resource is achieved by limiting e-
sure to person., from all potential
pathways of exposure (i.e., radiation from the ground, eating food aom soil or fish from surface water,
inhalation of dust, etc.), including the groundwater pathway, to as far below 25 millirems per year as is
reasonably achievable and that imposition of a separate stan(' rd for groundwater would not provide any
significant enhancement of public health and safety and is therefore unnecessary.
Yesterday Shirley Ann Jackson, Chainnan of the NRC, met with Fred liansen, Deputy Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to discuss the proposed final rule. At that meeting, she
discussed the features of the rule, and NRC's position on the adequacy of the 25-millirems-per year all
pathways standard, the concept of"as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) included in the NRC's
rule, and the NRC's position that, in light of the all pathways standard and ALARA, there is no need for
a separate groundwater standard. Ilansen expressed EPA's interest in continuing discussions with NRC
regarding timely notice to EPA of proposed NRC license termination in some specific categories of
cases. The Commission has agreed to continue a dialogue with EPA following finalization of the rule.
The new cleanup criteria for decommissioning will not a 3 ply to sites already covered by a license
tennination or decommissioning plan approved previous y by the Commission or approved within 24
months of the clTective date of the rule (w hich will be announced in the Federal Register).
The final rules that the Commission has promulgated wili generally apply to most NRC licensees and to
most liccasec.aegu!ated by Agreement States (which are states that have assumed, by mutual
agreement, part of the NRC's regulatory authority). An Agreement State may implement more stringent
standards ifit finds a need to impose such standards for local conditions.
-.
-__
-. .-
NRC llome Pag l News and Infornmtica l E-mail
3 of 3
08'20/9711:2 8:33 ~
_-
.
__
_ _
_ _
.
.
_ _ . .
--
y.
.
.
. _._.
__ _ -
_
'
y.
..
'
,O:
._ :/
o
AW hh ct.
tuf G
'
.
.
o u t-
- c5
8 kN/h
[
$
feeA
b-
Control
'
DO CONTAOL: G970609
kuC-
DOC DT: 08/11/97
FINAL REPLY:
TO:
8 ,,2 I 'l -
. Chairman Jackson
FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN
CRC NO: 97-0844
' Collins
DESC:
ROUTING:
CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, CAN, CONCERNS RE THE
Callan
NRC'S UNWILLING % ESS TO PENALIZE THE
Thadani
'
CONNECTICUT-YANREE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY DESPITE
Thompson
DOCUMENTED RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL VIOLATIONS AT
Norry
HADDAM NECK STATION
Blaha
Burns
DATE: 08/21/S7
Lieberman, OE
Miller, RI
ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
Collins-
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Put EDO and Chairman on for concurrence.
Chairman's office to review response prior
.to dispatch.
NRR RECEIVED:
AUGUST' 21, 1997
NRR ACTTON:
.ORPM: ROE
NRR ROUTING:
COLLINS'
q
Mu l lv,M
ap sp
MIRAGLIA
81
,
ZIMMERMAN
f [*g J Q Q R D}R {C J C.R'$ [syr,7,] 3
'SHERON
TRAVERS
6Y N _l u,C A
/
t
.
_ _ . .
.
4
-
-
..
.
,
.
, . - .- - . .
-
.
, ,
.
1
l
..
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY-
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
!
~ PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-97-0244
LOGGING DATES.:Aug 19-9.7
'
' ACTION OFFICE:
- EDO
,
'NUTHOR:
DOUGLAS FARBER
'
= AFFILIATION -
i
-ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
' LETTER DATE:
.Aug 11 97
FILE CODES.
SUBJECT:
CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK,'CAN,-CONCERNS REGARDING
THE NRC'S UNWILLINGNESS TC PENALIZE THE CONNECTICVT
YANKEE-ATOMIC POWER COMPANY-DESPITE DOCUMENTED
RADNLOGICAL CONTROL VIOLATIONS AT HADDAM NECK STA
ACTION:
($gpa;
hth
k
DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, RF
SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY.TO ACK
-CONSTITUENT:
dtyg,C
M
i
NOTES'
- DATE DUE -
Sep
5 97
SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
,
.
4
EDO -- G970609
'
-
.
vr