ML080450180

Town of Cortlandt'S Reply to (1) NRC Staff'S Response to Town of Cortlandt'S Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene and (2) Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing Town of Cortlandt'S Request for Hearing and Leave to Interve

ML080450180
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/08/2008
From:	Wood T Sive, Paget & Riesel, PC, Town of Cortlandt, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY/RAS
References
07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS 15066
Download: ML080450180 (32)

Text

'7t45 16D6b DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION February 8, 2008 (3:40pm)

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matter of )

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247- LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) February 8, 2008

)

TOWNOF CORTLANDT'S REPLY-TO (1) NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND (2) ANSWER OF ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. OPPOSING TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE Thomas F. Wood Town Attorney Town of Cortlandt And Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 February 8, 2008 "Terp(Cte= CY- 037

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents...........................

Table of A uthorities ........................................................................... ....... .i Preliminary Statement ............................ ...................... 1 Argument .......................................................... 2 I. NRC Pleading Standards should be Construed to Allow Unreviewed Safety Concerns to be A djudicated ................................................................ 2 II. Entergy's License Renewal Application does not Adhere to the Standards Set Forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 ...................................... 4 III. Entergy's License Renewal Application does not Specify an Adequate Aging M anagement Plan in Accordance with the Law ............................................. 8

a. Applicant Needs to Address Alternatives to Spent Fuel Storage Pools in this Proceeding ........... ......................... ............. 8

b. Metal Fatigue on Key Reactors is an Appropriate Contention which should be H eard in this Proceeding ........................................................... ........ 11 IV. The Systematic Hardening of Entergy's Assets to Prevent or Minimize the Potential

• Impact of Terrorism is an Appropriate Contention for this Proceeding ............... 12

a. An Applicant's EIS for License Renewal must Analyze the Environmental Impact of Intentional A cts ............................................. ..................... 12

b. Applicant's Analysis of the Probability and Scope of Severe Accidents is Inadequate ..................................................................... ..... 16 Conclusion .................... .................................... 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Judicial Decisions Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 869 F.2d 719 (3d C ir. 1989) ........................................................... 14, 15, 16 Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) .............................. 17 MN v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979) .............. 7 Potomac Alliance v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 682 F.2d 1030 (D .C . C ir. 19 82 ) .................................................................. ................ 15 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 449 F.3d 1016, cert denied Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 127 S. Ct.

1124 (2007) ........................................................................... 13, 14, 15, 17 Twp. of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir. 1982)................................................... 12-13 Vill. of Grandview v. Skinner, 947 F.2d 651 (2d Cir. 1989) ............................. 5,6-7 Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Educ. Project, 454 U.S. 139 (1981)......6 Administrative Decisions AmerGen Energy Co. (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station),

CLI-07-08, 2007 W L 595084 (Feb. 26, 2007) ............................................ 14-15 Consol. Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 1 & 2), CLI-01-19, 54 NRC 109 (2001) ........ 11 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3),

LBP-04-15, 60 N.R.C. 81, aff'd, CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631 (2004) ........................ 9, 12 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-1 1, 49 N .R .C. 328 (1999) ............................ ........... .................................... 2 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-12 (O ct. 17 , 2 0 0 7) ........ ....................................................................... 99........

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-80-8, 11 N.R.C. 297 (1980) .................................................. 14,15 ii

Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 4331 .6, 17 42 U.S:C. § 4332 ............................................... 9, 13 Regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 ........................ ... ...... ........... 1, 2, 4, 11, 12 10 C .F .R. § 50.40 .................................................................. .......... .4 10 C.F.R. Part 51l.........................................................

... 6 10 C .F.R . § 51.10 .................................................................. ................ 14 10 C.F.R. § 51.53 .......................................... 9, 13, 17, 18 10 C.F.R. § 51.71 ................................................. 17 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 ................................................... 8 10 C.F.R. § 54.29 ............................................. 4 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1 .................................................. 6 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 ............................................ .... 5 Miscellaneous Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (May 1996) ........................................5,13 Gordon Thompson, Risk-Related Impacts from Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants (Nov. 28, 2007) (unpublished report, on file with Riverkeeper, Inc.) ....................................... ........................ ............. 18 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE, YUCCA MOUNTAIN: DOE HAS IMPROVED ITS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, BUT WHETHER ITS APPLICATION FOR A NRC LICENSE WILL BE HIGH QUALITY IS UNCLEAR (2007) ................................ 6 Letter from Grace Musumeci, Chief Environmental Review Section, Environmental Protection Agency, to Chief, NRC Rules and Directives Branch (Oct. 10, 2007)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML072960360) ............... ............... 7, 13 iii

Letter from Thomas F. Wood, Town Attorney, Town of Cortlandt, to Dale E. Klein, Chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, Commissioner, & Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner, NRC (Jan. 29, 2008) (on file with author)......................................3 The NRC Office of the Inspector General, Audit of NRC's License Renewal Program (OIG-07-A-15) (2007) ............ .................................. 3 Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (NRC) Review of "Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States, 11 SCIENCE&

G LOBAL SECURITY 203 (2003) ..................... .............................................. 16 Robert Alvarez, Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States, 11 SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY 1 (2003) ....................... 10, 15 iv

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247- LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) February 8, 2008 TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REPLY TO (1) NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND (2) ANSWER OF ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. OPPOSING TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The following constitutes the Town of Cortlandt ("Cortlandt") reply to the Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC. Staff') Answer and to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy" or "Applicant") Answer to Cortlandt's Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene in the above-captioned matter, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2). As both the NRC Staff and Entergy conceded, Cortlandt has established standing to intervene in the proceeding. However, the NRC Staff and Entergy argue that Cortlandt failed to proffer an admissible contention in accordance with 10 C.F.R.' § 2.309(a). Contrary to these allegations, Cortlandt has proffered admissible contentions, as detailed below.

While the Town Supervisor, Linda Puglisi, and the members of the Town Board do not oppose the relicensing, per se, they are constrained to intervene because the submissions in this proceeding do not ensure the safety and welfare of the Town's residents. Cortlandt's residents live in. close and surrounding proximity to the Indian* Point' facility. Therefore, it is understandable that its residents have a heightened concern.that Indian Point is "safe." Indeed,

their concern over the safety of Indian Point reflects the general public's primary concern over the continued and expanded use of nuclear energy in America. Because Cortlandt has standing and has offered an admissible contention, Cortlandt's request to intervene should be granted.'

ARGUMENT I.

NRC Pleading Standards Should be Construed to Allow Unreviewed Safety Concerns to be Adjudicated The purpose of the public hearing process is to adjudicate safety and environmental issues. Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C.

328, 334 (1999) ("Oconee"). Infurtherance of this purpose, a potential intervener must set forth at least one admissible contention sought to be litigated in the hearing. See 10 C.F.R. §2.309(a).

However, a contention must only proffer some minimal factual or legal foundation to support it with respect to safety. Id. Moreover, the "contention rule should not be turned into a 'fortress to deny intervention."' Oconee, 49 N.R.C. at 335 (quoting Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3), 8 AEC 13, 21 (1974)). Cortlandt's contentions, when viewed under normal administrative circumstances, are supported by reasonably specific factual and legal allegations, and therefore must be admitted. Oconee, 49 N.R.C at 335. However, there.

are several extenuating circumstances that warrant a liberal construction of this procedural rule.

Cortlandt has standing to intervene under the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). Cortlandt is located on the northwestern corner of Westchester County, bounded on the west'by the Hudson River, on the north by Putnam County, on the east by the Town of Yorktown, and on the south by the Towns of New Castle and Ossining. It is comprised of two incorporated villages, Croton-on-Hudson and Buchanan, and several hamlets, including Montrose, Crugers and Verplanck. Cortlandt has a total area of 34.5 square miles and an estimated 1998 population of about 28,672 persons. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 are located within the Village of Buchanan.

2

There are critical safety issues, not previously considered, relating to the storage of spent fuel rods as set forth in the accompanying affidavit of George Sansoucy, P.E..

The apparent opposition to considering this critical safety issue is based on the concept that it has already been reviewed in a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. This administrative legerdemain only cloaks a central issue of concern for the expressed Cortlandt community. (See Point I., infra.)

Moreover, Cortlandt has argued that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the "NRC")

should suspend its license renewal review for Indian Point pending an investigation of NRC Staff's review process and correction of deficiencies in that process, and for a wavier of the NRC 2

rule that ongoing safety issues will not be considered during a license renewal proceeding.

Letter from Thomas Wood, Town Attorney, & Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., Town of Cortlandt, to Dale E. Klein, Chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, Commissioner, & Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner, NRC (Jan. 29, 2008) (on file with author) ("Cortlandt Letter"). In support of these arguments, Cortlandt submitted the NRC Office of the Inspector General, Audit of NRC's License Renewal Program (OIG-07-A-15) ("GIG Report"), which found that in over 97% of NRC safety reports that OIG sampled, NRC, Staff reviewers did not conduct an independent safety review.

Additionally, in over one-third of the. reports sampled, NRC staff copied statements by licensees without providing ifidependent verification. Because of the issues raised in the Cortlandt Letter and OIG Report, the pleading standards under § 2.309 should be construed in a manner that does not prevent the public's opportunity for a realistic adj~udication of these safety issues.

2 On December 10, 2007, Concerned Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point filed a waiver of the NRC rule that ongoing safety issues are not considered in a relicensing petition. On January 3, 2008, Riverkeeper et al.

petitioned the NRC to suspend its license renewal review for Indian Point, inter alia.

3

II.

Entergy's License Renewal Application does not Adhere to the Standards Set Forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 Both NRC Staff and Entergy oppose the admission of this contention. (NRC Answer, at 128.) Contrary to the statements of NRC and Entergy, this contention shows that a genuine dispute exists, more than satisfies the minimal pleading requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, and is supported by facts or expert opinion.

As stated in Cortlandt's Petition, Applicant fails to justify the methods used for performing an "integrated plant assessment." 10 C.F.R. § 54.21. NRC may not issue a renewed license unless the activities the license authorizes will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis ("CLB"). 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(a). NRC's standards for licenses state that the use of the facility and the facility itself must not endanger the health and safety of the public. 10 C.F.R. § 50.40(a). Issuance of a license must not "be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public." § 50.40(c). Aging, leaking spent fuel pools are inimical to the common defense and security of the health and safety of the public.

This Commission has recently stated with regard to litigable issues that Indian Point petitioners "have a real and legitimate interest in the safe operation of the Indian Point facility and a need to know that, if it will continue to operate, it will operate safely." Licensing Board Order (Granting the NRC Staff's Motion to Strike FUSE's Superceding Request for Hearing) at 6 (Feb. 1, 2008)

(unpublished).

Foremost among those safety issues is the temporary storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel rods at Indian Point. However, the NRC Staff and the Applicant oppose the consideration of 4

this pertinent issue by invoking the 1996 Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GEIS")3 for the proposition that the GEIS's findings foreclose the issues of appropriateness and safety of these temporary nuclear waste facilities in a licensing proceeding. This argument is critically flawed. A 12-year old -GEIS is patently dated and inadequate, and therefore requires supplementation in these proceedings, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c). 4 The NRC apparently recognizes this fact, but the public will not have access to Entergy's preliminary draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") until August 2008,5 almost one year after parties have submitted petitions for leave to intervene and the opportunity to be heard.

Accordingly, NRC Staff must recede from its obdurate position that issues central to the safety of the Cortlandt community cannot be considered in this relicensing proceeding or agree to stay these proceeding until the draft Supplement is published and receives public scrutiny.

Lest there be any doubt that the 1996 GEIS is an invalid prop for foreclosing review of spent fuel rod storage, the intervening parties' contentions should be considered: Indian Point is uniquely located within a50-mile radius of the densely populated areas of New York City and its surrounding suburbs. 6 NRC's generic considerations pre-date September 11, 2001 and predate NRC literature detailing the risk of a spent fuel pool fire at a nuclear plant. (Aft. of George Sansoucy, sworn to Feb. 8, 2008, ("George Sansoucy Aff.") at ¶6.) An attack on a spent fuel pool could lead to a zirconium fire which would release large quantities of radioactive material into the surrounding environment. (Id.) Additionally, when NRC issued the 1996 GEIS, the 3Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (May 1996).

4 This regulation mandates a supplement where there is new information or differing circumstances. See also Vill.

of Grandview v. Skinner, 947 F.2d 651, 657 (2d Cir. 1991) (a supplemental EIS is required where "there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact").

' Entergy issues its draft SEIS to NRC on July 25, 2008. The Federal Register publishes a notice for comment on Entergy's draft SEIS on August 4, 2008. The public has until October 20, 2008 to comment on the draft SEIS. See Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 - License Renewal Application, at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/indian-point.html (Jan. 9, 2008).

6More than 20 million people live and/or work within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point.

5

spent fuel from nuclear plants was intended for transfer to a federal repository by the first quarter of the twenty-first century. (Id.) However, Yucca Mountain, the only federal facility currently being considered as the national nuclear waste repository, will most likely not be licensed within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, as NRC previously believed. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE, YUCCA MOUNTAIN: DOE HAS IMPROVED ITS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, BUT WHETHER ITS APPLICATION FOR A NRC LICENSE WILL BE HIGH QUALITY IS UNCLEAR (Aug. 2007). Therefore, spent nuclear waste will have to remain on-site longer than NRC ever intended.

Therefore, the prohibition of reviewing this critical safety issue in a relicensing proceeding is improperly based on the determinations and findings in an aged document, which needs to be supplemented. Where an EIS is required, as the NRC implicitly concedes in the instant proceeding, an agency cannot proceed to resolve the merits until there is a completed and valid EIS, not only before the matter proceeds to decision, but at an early stage of the proceeding to assist the staff and the administrative litigants in developing an informed record. See Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Educ. Project, 454 U.S. 139, 143 (1981); 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1 (environmental information must be available to the public before any decisions are made).

The LRA procedure must be consistent with the mandate of NEPA. See 10 C.F.R. Part

51. A critical aspect of NEPA is the adequacy of an applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"), which must address safety issues. See 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b). The critical safety issue of the aging spent fuel pools at Indian Point must be addressed either in a preceding and properly vetted Supplement or in this hearing. Cf Vill. of Grand View v. Skinner, 947 F.2d 651, 657 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (applicant must supplement EIS 6

where "there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impact") (internal quotations omitted).

Accordingly, this relicensing proceeding cannot move forward until such time as a draft SEIS is scoped, developed and subject to public comment. However, if the Commission does continue this proceeding without requiring Entergy to complete a supplemental EIS, then both storage and disposal concerns are relevant. See MN v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 602 F.2d 412, 419 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

These concerns are not mere procedural niceties. The abovementioned issues of law are essential to these proceedings because, inter alia leaks in the spent pool liner have been detected resulting in discharges of radioactive material, including tritium, strontium-90, and cesium-36.

The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") requires an Applicant to -prepare an adequate management plan for spent fuel pools and storage of spent fuel that will be sufficient for the extended 20-year license renewal period. Letter from Grace Milsumeci, Chief Environmental Review Section, Environmental Protection Agency, to Chief, NRC Rules and Directives Branch (Oct. 10, 2007) (ADAMS Accession No. ML072960360) ("Musumeci Letter"). The possibility of losing water in the spent fuel pools, resulting in a zirconium fire, is a very real threat to the health and safety of the public and environment. Therefore, the integrity of the spent fuel pools should be reviewed in Applicant's Environmental Report prior to license renewal. (George Sansoucy Aft., at ¶5.)

7

III.

Entergy's License Renewal Application does not Specify an Adequate Aging Management Plan in Accordance with the Law NRC Staff oppose the admission of this contention. (NRC Answer, at 128.) Entergy also opposes this contention. (Entergy Answer, at 35.) Contrary to NRC's and Entergy's statements, this contention does show that a genuine dispute exists, satisfies the pleading requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, and is supported by facts and/or expert opinion.

a. Applicant Needs to Address Alternatives to Spent Fuel Storage Pools in this Proceeding As stated in the Petition, ongoing and unmonitored leaks of liquid radioactive effluents, including tritium, strontium-90, and cesium-36 are leaking from the spent fuel pools. (See Cortlandt Petition, at 6.) Spent fuel pools are "systems, structures and components" within aging management review for a license renewal proceeding, and the Applicant must justify the methods used in properly maintaining the spent fuel pools. See 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(2).

However, Applicant's LRA fails to provide a detailed and workable aging management plan to deal with known leaks.

Applicant's Environmental Report concludes that degradation to groundwater is not an applicable issue it must address because Indian Point uses a once-through cooling system and not a cooling pond. (Environmental Report, at 4-26.) This non sequitor overlooks the fact that it is Cortlandt's groundwater that is nevertheless being contaminated.

8

The Environmental Report fails to address or recommend mitigating measures for the leaking spent fuel pools and their impact on groundwater. This omission must be addressed in Applicant's LRA because failure to address the impact of leaking spent fuel pools will likely result in harm to the health and safety of the public or environment. See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), LBP-04-15, 60 NRC 81, 89, aff'd, CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631 (2004) ("Millstone").

Corltandt only needs to show that there is some nexus between the alleged omission and the protection of the health and safety of the public. See Millstone. Entergy's failure to include a detailed and workable' aging management plan for the spent fuel pools will likely lead to deleterious effects to the groundwater, which terminates in the Hudson River. Therefore, Entergy needs to address an alternative to spent fuel pools for spent fuel waste storage.

A NRC application must contain a discussion of alternatives to major federal actions that will significantly affect the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii); 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii). However, Entergy fails to discuss alternatives to spent fuel storage in its LRA or Environmental Report even though it confirmed the presence of known leaks from the IP2 spent fuel pool and radioactive effluent in Indian Point groundwater. (Entergy Answer, at 36.) The presence of aging-induced leaks is a stated objective of a relevant aging management plan and must be adequately addressed in a license renewal application. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co.

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-12 (slip op. at 17) (Oct. 17, 2007).

One alternative to storing nuclear waste in spent fuel pools is to use dry cask storage, which is much more protective of the health and safety of the public and the environment than spent fuel pool storage. Dry cask storage provides a leak-tight containment of spent fuel.

(George Sansoucy Aff., at ¶6.) Dry cask systems are designed to resist floods, tornadoes, and 9

other scenarios. In the past twenty years there have been no radiation releases from dry cask storage which have affected the public, nor any suspected or known attempts to sabotage spent fuel casks. 7 (Id.)

Dry cask storage needs no water circulation or filtration, eliminating the production of "low-level" radioactive waste, which occurs in fuel pools and is capable of leaking into the groundwater, which has been evident at Indian Point. In addition, the absence of water eliminates the possibility of a nuclear reaction causing a chain reaction. Passive dry storage also eliminates mechanical apparatus which are susceptible to wear, breakdown, and malfunction. (George Sansoucy Aff., at ¶6.)

Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, also analyzed the results of loss-of-coolant from spent fuel pools and the likelihood of spent fuel pool fires that could result. Robert Alvarez, Reducing the Hazards from Store'd Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States, 11 SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY 1 (2003) ("Alvarez Re"ort"). A sudden loss in water from the pools, where spent fuel is densely packed, would likely heat up to a level where the zircalo ' cladding would burst and then catch fire. See Alvarez Report, at 2; (George Sansoucy Aff., at ¶5.) A spent fuel pool fire's release of cesium-137 would likely lead to property losses as high as hundreds of billions of dollars. Alvarez Report, at 3. Entergy's spent fuel pool is housed in an auxiliary building, susceptible to attack from an outside source (e.g.,

tornadoes, earthquakes, or terrorism), which would significantly affect the environment.

Entergy's failure to address these relevant safety issues renders its Environmental Report inadequate; Entergy must discuss alternatives to the spent fuel pools in this proceeding.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Backgrounder, Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.

10

b. Metal Fatigue on Key Reactors is an Appropriate Contention which should be Heard in this Proceeding In addition to the claims set forth in its Petition, Cortlandt adopts Contention 26 of the New York State Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene ("NYS Petition").

See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(3); Consol. Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 1 & 2), CLI-01-19, 54 NRC 109, 132 (2001) (where both petitioners have independently established standing, Presiding Officer may permit petitioners to adopt the others' contentions early in the proceeding).8 Entergy's LRA does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage the effects of aging due to metal fatigue on key reactor components. (NYS Petition, at 227.) Based on the NYS Petition, Entergy's data reflects that "(a) the pressurizer surge line piping for IP2 and IP3, (b) the reactor coolant system piping charging system nozzle for IP2, and (c) the pressurizer surge line nozzle for IP3 have exceeded the applicable CUF criterion and thus are at a higher risk for failure due to metal fatigue." (NYS Petition, at 228.) The issue of metal fatigue of plant systems falls within the purview of aging plant management review and is within the scope of this license renewal proceeding. Cortlandt designates the New York State Attorney General as representative for this contention.

We note that Entergy has tacitly conceded the inadequacy of this issue by filing a letter dated February 4, 2008 containing an explanation of how Entergy would address metal fatigue issues. This tardy document should either be precluded of additional time be given .to the parties for review and comment.

New York has.standing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(2) ("a State... that wishes to be a party in a proceeding for a facility located within its boundaries need not address the standing requirements").

11

W".

The Systematic Hardening of Entergy's Assets to Prevent or Minimize the Potential Impact of Terrorism is an Appropriate Contention for this Proceeding Both NRC Staff and Entergy oppose the admission of this contention on the grounds that NEPA does not require NRC to consider the impact of malevolent attacks. (NRC Answer, at 132; Entergy Answer, at 48.) Entergy also argues that the contention is inadmissible because "it impermissibly challenges. NRC environmental regulations." (Entergy Answer, at 50.) But Applicant analyzes external events in its Environmental Report, including, inter alia, the effect of tornadoes and nearby facility incidents, without analyzing the impact of a systematic hardening of the facility's assets to prevent or minimize the potential impact of terrorism or an accident or to make Indian Point a less tempting target. (Entergy Environmental Report, at 4-52.) This omission from Entergy's Environmental Report is detrimental to the health and safety of the public and environment. See Millstone, 60 NRC at 89. Contrary to the Answers of NRC Staff and Entergy, this contention is supported by legal authority and is material to findings that must be made in this license renewal proceeding. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(1)(i).

a. An Applicant's EIS for License Renewal must Analyze the Environmental Impact of Intentional Acts The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that an agency cannot avoid its statutory responsibility under NEPA merely by asserting that an activity it wishes to pursue will have an insignificant effect on the environment. See, e.g., Twp. of Lower Alloways Creek v.

12

Pub. Serv. 'Elec. & Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732, 741 (3d Cir. 1982) ("Lower Alloways Creek"). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also requires Entergy to include an analysis of intentional destructive acts like terrorism in its EIS for license renewal. See Musumeci Letter. Entergy fails to include an analysis of terrorism in its Environmental Report, bontrary to legal authority.

NEPA authorizes NRC to require an environmental study of the environmental impact of a proposed action if such action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An application for license renewal for an additional twenty years is'a significant and major action under NEPA. The Applicant'*s environmental report must include "any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware." 10 C.F.R. §51.53(c)(3)(iv). As stated in the Cortlandt Petition, the potential for a terrorist attack on Indian Point is "new and significant information" of which Applicant is aware. (Petition, at 11.)

NRC considered the impacts of an intentional attack on a nuclear facility in its 1996 GEIS for license renewal. See NUREG-1437. This review is over ten years old, during which time new and significant information has developed. NRC itself stated it is undergoing a "top to bottom" security review against threats of sabotage. See San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 449 F.3d 1016, 1031 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied Pac. Gas & Elec.

Co. v. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 127 S. Ct. 1124 (2007) ("Mothers for Peace"). NRC contradicts itself by "insist[ing] on its preparedness and the seriousness" of its response to post-.

September 11, 2001 terrorist threats "while concluding, as a matter of law, that all terrorist threats are 'remote and highly speculative' for NEPA purposes." Id. NRC fails to "conduct its domestic licensing and related regulatory functions in a manner which is both receptive to environmental concerns and consistent with the Commission's responsibility as an independent 13

regulatory agency for protecting the radiological health and.safety of the public." 10 C.F.R § 51.10(b).

It is "unreasonable for the NRC to categorically dismiss the possibility of terrorist attack.

as too 'remote and highly speculative' to warrant consideration under NEPA." Mothers for Peace, 449 F.3d at 1030. In its brief to the Ninth Circuit, NRC reasoned that it did not have .to consider terrorism under NEPA because Diablo Canyon was "not a particularly vulnerable or attractive terrorist target" and "given that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were in highly.

populated and visible areas while Diablo Canyon is on a remote area of the coast and not readily available to public scrutiny, it could be argued that this particular facility is an unlikely target."

(NRC Brief, at 27 n.7.)

Indian Point is in a highly populated and visible area. Indian Point is within 25 miles of the major metropolitan city, New York City, which has been the target of two terrorist attacks.

Unlike the facility at Diablo Canyon, Indian Point is particularly vulnerable and a highly attractive terrorist target. Over 20 million people, or 8% of the population, live and/or work within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point. Additionally, a nuclear plant's location will have a direct effect on the probability of risk of terrorist attack. See Limerick Ecology Action, 869 F.2d at 738. "[T]he population distribution in the vicinity of the site affects the magnitude and location of potential consequences from radiation releases." d_. (quoting 48 Fed. Reg. at 16,020)

(internal quotations omitted). Because of Indian Point's unique siting, NRC must minimize "the environmental aftermath of its actions." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-80-8, 11 N.R.C. 297, 307 (1980) ("Three Mile Island").

"[I]t is in the best interest of the agency and its stakeholders to move forward with a discussion of the best way to address [the impacts of terrorism under NEPA]." AmerGen Energy 14

Co. (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-07-08, 2007 WL 595084, at *6 (Feb. 26, 2007) (Jaczko, Comm'r dissenting). NRC "must . . . find a way to consider the impacts of terrorism in a NEPA analysis." Id. at *7. NRC stated that "the agency has long required analysis of means and methods of hypothetical attacks against specific facilities." Mothers for Peace, 449 F.3d at 1031.

The mere assertion of "unquantifiability" does not immunize the NRC from considering an issue as serious as sabotage of a nuclear facility. Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 869 F.2d 719, 744 (3d Cir. 1989) ("Limerick Ecology Action").

An asserted lack of quantifiable risk does not necessarily preclude further consideration under NEPA. Three Mile Island, 11 N.R.C. at 307; see also Potomac Alliance v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 682 F.2d 1030, 1036-37 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("while an agency cannot be asked to engage in a 'crystal ball' inquiry or to 'foresee the unforeseeable,' neither can it be allowed to abjure 'informed prediction' of possibilities"). Protective measures against the risk of attacks are prudent even if they are not quantifiable or predictable. (Brief for the Federal Respondents, at 10) ("NRC Brief.") If the petitioner sets forth some method or theory, NRC must analyze the risk of sabotage in the contention. See Limerick Ecology Action, 869 F.2d at 744. One possible test for Applicant to use to estimate the hypothetical impacts of severe accidents on the surrounding environment and members of the public is Level 3 model using MACCS2 consequence analysis software code. (See Environmental Report, at 4-52.)

Sandia National Laboratory researchers found that if a plane traveling at speeds greater than 135 miles per hour hit a spent fuel pool, the liquid in the pool would evaporate and create a fireball, leading to large radioactive releases. Alvarez Report, at 14. The planes which hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were traveling at speeds of approximately 590 mph, 15

and the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at a speed of approximately 350 mph. Alvarez Report, at 15. NRC disagreed with the Alvarez Report because it based much of its data on a 1997 Brookhaven National Laboratory ("BNL") study "which was performed for a reactor site location that represents an extremely high surrounding population density." Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (NRC) Review of 'Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States' 11 SCIENCE & GLOBAL SECURITY 203, 204 (2003) ("NRC Review of Alvarez Report"). Indian Point is surrounded by an extremely high population density of 20 million people. The BNL study addresses the exact issue that is in dispute from Applicant's license renewal application.

Entergy's LRA does not address the environmental impacts of an act of terror under NEPA, which the Ninth Circuit held must be considered and Commissioner Jaczko stated must be analyzed in a license renewal application. The mere fact that a terrorist act may not be quantifiable does not preclude NRC's analysis under NEPA. See Limerick Ecology Action, 869 F.2d 719. Therefore, Applicant must address this issue in its LRA prior to NRC issuing Applicant a license renewal for an additional 20 years.

b. Applicant's Analysis of the Probability and Scope of Severe Accidents is Inadequate Entergy's failure to completely and accurately analyze severe accident mitigation alternatives ("SAMAs") renders its Environmental Report insufficient under NEPA. Entergy has failed to address significant causes of severe accidents, including spent fuel pool fires and acts of sabotage, because of its underestimation of the off-site costs of severe accidents. NRC should require Entergy to redo its SAMA analysis more rigorously and accurately so that the purposes 16

of NEPA are satisfied. See 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(2) (the federal government must ensure the public's safety).

NEPA requires an EIS to 1e searching and rigorous, assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed action on the surrounding environment. Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 370-71 (1989) ("Marsh"). A nuclear power plant's EIS must examine "alternatives for reducing or avoiding adverse effects." 10 C.F.R. § 51.71(d). An applicant in its license renewal application must address SAMAs in its Environmental Report. 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

Entergy addressed some SAMAs using a present value of cost risk analysis. It determined the present value of cost risk for Indian Point by monetizing the estimated consequences of radioactive releases, multiplying that figure by their estimated probabilities, and summing the resulting value over time by discounting to the present value. EnvironmentalReport Section 4.21. Using these steps, Entergy estimated that the value of averted consequences was

$1,337,939 for IP2 and $1,340,515 for IP3. Environmental Report, at 4-62. However, these figures do not account for external events and uncertainty. Id. Two significant areas Entergy failed to analyze were the contribution to severe accident costs by a fire in the spent fuel pools or by an intentional act. Because Entergy did not analyze these events, it did not identify any SAMAs to avoid or mitigate the costs of such accidents. See Mothers for Peace, 449 F.3d at 1031 ("[T]he agency has long required analysis of means and methods of hypothetical attacks against specific facilities").

Entergy's SAMA analysis does not satisfy NEPA because it did not take a "hard look" at environmental impacts .or alternatives, Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, and failed to address several significant factors to costs of severe accidents. There is no discussion in the Environmental Report of any SAMAs that would avoid or mitigate the costs of severe accidents by a fire in the 17

spent fuel pools. See Gordon Thompson, Risk-Related Impacts from Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants 51 (Nov. 28, 2007) (unpublished report, on file with Riverkeeper, Inc.) ("Thompson Report"). 9 There is also no discussion of SAMAs that address the severe accident costs from intentional attacks on the Indian Point reactors or spent fuel pools.

Id. at Section 7. Using low-probability assumptions from NUREG-1353, the present value cost risk for a non-intentional accident at Indian Point's spent fuel pool would be $27.7 million. Id. at

49. The present value of cost risks from a terrorist attack on both the reactor and the spent fuel pools exceeds half a billion dollars. Id. However, Entergy does not account for this in its Environmental Report and does not include SAMAs for these possible situations. Because Entergy has not considered severe accident mitigation alternatives that will have a significant effect on the environment, its license renewal application is inadequate. 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii).

CONCLUSION The bases for Cortlandt's contentions from its Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene are incorporated herein. For the reasons set forth above, Cortlandt has established that it has standing and has proffered an admissible contention. Therefore, Cortlandt's Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene should be granted.

9 The Thompson Report is Attachment 2 of Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in the License Renewal Proceeding for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (Nov. 30, 2007).

18

On Behalf of Linda D. Puglisi, Supervisor of the Town of Cortlandt, and the Town of Cortlandt Dated:

February 8, 2008 New York, New York Respectfully Submitted, Thomas F. Wood Town Attorney Town of Cortlandt And Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Daniel Riesel 460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 421-2150 Facsimile: (212) 421-1891 Email: driesel@sprlaw.com 19

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247- LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) ) February 8, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR EXHIBITS

1. Affidavit of George E. Sansoucy, P.E........................ .... Exhibit A

02/08/2008 13-14 FAX 603 788 2798 GEORGE SANSOUCY PE LLC I1 001/001 EXFHIIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• NUCLEAtI RJ*.ULr.ATORY COMMISSION BEFOREilTHE AX( )MIC II SAFETY, AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of I:NTFRGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Doclket Nos. 50-247- LR and io-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) F'ebruary 8, 2008

)

A FDAVIT OF GEORGE E. SANSOUCY. P.E.

1. I ari a consulting enginc.r ocn private and public institutions regarding projects throughout the United States rangiug from regulatory issues, utility valuation, environmental.

real estate development policy, power engineering and civil engineering. I graduated from die Univemrqity of New Hampshire in 1974, with a Bachelor of Science and Masters of Scienuc Degree in Civil Engib.eering. I havc served as a Project Manager working in the mwiicipal and industrial wastewater and water treatment fields, and planning and civil nlgiaeeiing. Since 1980, I have m.anaged my own consulting engineering and construction fiuim, developing hydroelectric plants throughout New England and New York State as well as development and construction of commercial and indivtrial real estate, utiliLy valuations, regulatory consulting and policy dcvelopment.

2. 1have over 25 years expericnue working at the local, state and federal level advising clients regarding aspects of various civil engineering project design, construction, and economics for power related facilities before a variety of state and federal agencies including the NRC. the. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and before the knvironmnental ProLteution Agency,etc. My expertise includes environmental policy, regulatory policy, power related vahiations and project dosign as well as a variety of other civil engineering activitios which arc governed by various local, state and federal codes.

3. I have had the opportunity and have experienuo in advising clients°such as the U.S. Government, namely the U.S. Navy, states such as hoi State of Massachusetts, counties.

such as Lake County regarding the Perry Nucleur Plant in Ohio and communities such as Plymouth,Massacbusetts regarding the Pilgxih, Nuclear Power facility

4. 1have worked with thu Town of Cortlandt through the mnclear collaborative sponsored by the New York Public Service Commission which cleared the regulatory pathway for the sale t' the Indian Point Nuclear Plant from Consolidated Edison to Entergy. As such, I am familiar wiTh the factv stated herein.

Received Feb-08-2008 13:28 From-603 768 27gB To-Siva PAWet & Rievel Page 001

02/08/2008 12:42 FAX 803 788 2798 GEORGE SANSOUCY PE LLC 16002 EX1IBIT A

5. I am providing the following testimony to discuss why aihr spent fuel pool at the SIldiLau Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 Facility (FaciliLy) should be reviewed on a plant-specific basis and not as part of the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, as amended on December 18, 1.996, specify the envirmuixental impacts of a license renewal of a nuclear reactor, pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NF.PA). Impacts designated as belonging to Catcgory 2 must be considered in a plant-spectfic Fnvironmental Review (ER) and a plant-specific Environmental Impact Statement (FIS). Only Category I issues do not tei4uiL0 rc-considoration in each license renewal, but rather are considtrud generic.

Environmental impacts which constitute Category 2 are the result of severe accidcnts. The NRC dcfwtns severe accidents as follows: "the class of events, not am-ibutable to deliberate, malicious acts, in which nuclear fuel located within a reactor core expericnces a substantial loss of physical integrity." The NRC's historic interpretation of severe aduidents excludes events in which the integrity outside of the reactor, including the spent fuel pool or on-sitc dry cask storage facility, is impacted.

However, the possibility of losing the water in the spent fuel pools at the Facjilty, which results in a zirconium fire. is a potential ulucat to the hcalth and safety of the public and the environment. Therefore, the integrity of the spent fuel pool and tirel storage options should be reviewed with a plaut-specific ER and EIS.

6. Spent Fuel Pool Fire The NRC and others have published technical literature on the potential for a spcnt fael pool fire.

Three of these documents, which were published by the NRC and made available for public input, meet the standards of N KPA and are cited beluw; (i) NRC's August 1979 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GELS) on HAndling and Storage of Spent Light Witter Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG-0575);

(ii) NRC's May 1996 GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ,NUREG-1437); and (iii) NRC's September 1990 review of its Waste Confidence I )ecision (55 Fed. Reg.

38,474).

A review of the literature cited above demonstrates that the inafornaution relating to spent fuel pool firts predates the 1996 GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Ihowcvcr, subsequent literature published by the NRC in February 2001 addresses the risk of a pool fire at a nuclear plant and demonstrates the potential of a spent fuel puol fire. In addition, the National Academy of Science (NAS) published a 2(004 report addressing'thc risk of a spent fuel pool fire and t6und that under some condition., a terrorist attack that partially or completely drained a spent fuel pool could lead to a zirconium fire and rmlease large quantities of radioactive material.

This body of more recent lituiature and studies relative to spent firel pool accidents und fllrs demonstrates the need for the NRC to review gpent fuel pool issues on a plant-by-plant basis, especially since whou the 1996 GEIS was developed, the Department of Energy (DOE) was to Received Feb-06-2006 1247; From-003 708 2788 To-Siva Paget & Riesel Page 002

02/08/2008 12:42 FAl 803 788 2.798 GEORGE SANSOUCY PE LLC Id003 EXHIBIT A bughi removing fuel from commercial reactoro and transferring this fuwl to a central repository,

• id whivh is clearly behind schedule resulting in the use of dry cask storage systcems at the nuclear plant sites to ensure a safe and environmentally sound alternative to spent fucl pools.

Dry cask systems are designed to resist floods, Wtioadoes, and other scenarios. In the past twenty years there have been no radiation releases which have affected the public, nor any suspected or known attempts. to sabotage spent fuel uasks.

Dry ciask storage needs no water circulation or filtration, eliminating the production of "luw-level" radioactive waste, which occurs in spent fuel pools and as demonstrated at Indian PolIt is capable of lc'akig into the groundwater. In addition, the absence of water eliminates the possibility of a iuclear reaction causing a chain reaction. Passive dry storage also iliminates meclhfical apparatus which are susceptible to wear, breakdown, and malfunction.

7. 1recommend that aPemuch fuel as practical be moved as quickly as possible from the spent fuel pools to dry cask storage to minimize the riisk of spent fuel pool frees.

in the event that the NRC believes it cannot require Entergy to move tiel from the 1.

spent fuel pools to dry cask storage quickw than othcrwiso, the NRC should require a Thorough and detailed investigation throug, the appropriate regulatory mechanism to begin the process of hardening the fuel pool building roof, walls and systems from terrorist activity, leakage.

sabotage, error or mishandling so that the public is more adequately protected then it wu'ld otherwise be under the generic license renewal proposed

9. When one considers the unique pnsitioh the Town of Cowtlandt is in and the fact that hidian Point is located in one of, or the most densely populated uicas in a 50-mile radius of the plant, certain generic consideration.q by the NRC. especially those which pre-date 9/11, and the obvious propensity for terrorist attacks on areas of high population, the NRC should reconsider its position denyineg Category 1 contwltions for Indian Point itself. In short, as a matter of sound regulatory and environmental policy, Indian Point Units 2 and 3 should not be viewed as business-as-usual for licons renewal consideration.

CTEORdf E. SANSOUCY, Sworn to bcfore me this ... ...... .......

th day of February, 2008 -. '--.".

• . SUSAN f*r:~N ?*-*-*'y td*:i*  ; - .. _- - .

NO uclaYr I ul*yo rrF

'U.S. Nuclear Regukatvi'y Commission Backgrounder, Diy rCask Storage of Spent Nuc1oar Fuel.

Ristas ivad Fab-08-2008 1247 Rw~vgdFub08-008IZ;p Fum-603 788 27988 Tu Siva PauW & Rimswl p*4wo 003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247- LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) February 8, 2008

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 8, 2008 a true copy of the foregoing TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REPLY TO (1) NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND (2) ANSWER OF ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. OPPOSING TOWN OF CORTLANDT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE, were served by electronic mail and by first class mail upon all parties, upon the following parties and participants:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Office of Commission Appellate E-mail: LGM1@nrc.gov Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Mail Stop: O-16G4 Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel E-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary

• Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff E-mail: REW@nrc.gov Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Administrative Judge E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 190 Cedar Lane E.

Ridgway, CO 81432 E-mail: KDL2@nrc.gov

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.

Lloyd B. Subin, Esq. Senior Attorney for Special Projects Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. New York State Department of Office of the General Counsel Environmental Conservation Mail Stop 0-15-D-21 Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 625 Broadway, 1 4 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: set@nrc.gov E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us E-mail: lbs3@nrc.gov E-mail: bnml@nrc.gov Zachary S. Kahn, Esq. Kimberly A. Sexton Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-2 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: Kimberly.sexton@nrc.gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: ZXKl @nrc.gov William C. Dennis, Esq. Christopher C. Chandler Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Office of the General Counsel 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: Christopher.chandler@nrc.gov E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Goodwin Procter, LLP Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Exchange Place Martin J. O'Neill, Esq. 53 State Street Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Boston, MA 02109 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.

E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Assistant County Attorney E-mail: martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com Office of Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor Michael J. Delaney, Esq. White Plains, NY 10601 Vice President - Energy E-mail: jdp3@westchestergov.com New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCDEC) Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor 110 William Street James Seirmarco, M.S.

New York, NY 10038 Village of Buchanan E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com Municipal Building Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 E-mail: vob@bestweb.net 2

Richard L. Brodsky, Esq.

5 West Main Street John J.' Sipos, Esq.

Elmsford, NY 10523 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.

E-mail: brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us Assistants Attorney General richardbrodsky@msn. com New York State Department of Law Environmental Protection Bureau Susan Shapiro, Esq. The Capitol 21 Perlman Drive Albany, NY 12224.

Spring Valley, NY 10977 E-mail: john.sipos@oag.state.ny.us E-mail: mbs@ourrocklandoffice.comr Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman John LeKay New York Affordable Reliable FUSE USA Electricity Alliance (AREA) 351 Dyckman Street 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 Peekskill, NY 10566 New York, NY 10016 E-mail: fuse usa@yahoo.com E-mail: ajkremer@rmfpc.com kremer@area-alliance.org Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

112 Little Market Street Robert Snook, Esq.

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Office of the Attorney General E-mail: Mannajo@clearwater.org State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Diane Curran, Esq. .P.O. Box 120 Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, Hartford, CT 06141-0120 LLP E-mail: Robert. snook@po. state.ct.us 1.726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Ms. Nancy Burton E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06876 Victor Tafur, Esq. E-mail: nancyburtonct@aol.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Riverkeeper, Inc. Sarah Wagner, Esq.

828 South Broadway Legislative Office Building, Room 422 Tarrytown, NY 10591 Albany, NY 12248 E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org E-mail: sarahwagneresq@gmail.com vtafur@riverkeeper.org Janice Dean, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Janice.dean@oag. state.ny.us 3

By:

Thomas F. Wood Town Attorney Town of Cortlandt And Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

By: y _

Daniel Riesel 460 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 421-2150 Facsimile: (212) 421-1891 Email: driesel@sprlaw.com

• Original and 2 copies 4