ML083370508

Riverkeeper, Inc. Response to Applicant'S Board Notification of Indian Point Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool Remediation Activities

ML083370508
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/25/2008
From:	Musegaas P Riverkeeper
To:	Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-195
Download: ML083370508 (7)

Text

DOCKETED /2. A-a rý- (q!

USNRC November 25, 2008 (12:20pm)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY November 25, 2008 RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop

)

In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR RIVERKEEPER, INC. RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S BOARD NOTIFICATION OF INDIAN POINT UNIT I SPENT FUEL POOL REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES On November 17, 2008, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") notified the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") that it had performed certain remedial activities relating to the Indian Point I ("IP I") spent fuel pools.' Specifically, Entergy announced that it had drained and removed the fuel from the IPI west pool, thereby terminating the previously active leakage from the Unit 1 spent fuel pools into underlying groundwater. 2 Entergy asserts that this new information is relevant and material to the resolution of Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 (hereinafter "Consolidated 3

Contention), which is currently the subject of a pending motion for reconsideration by Entergy.

Riverkeeper, Inc. hereby respectfully submits a response to Entergy's Board Notification as it bears upon the pending Reconsideration Motion.

See Applicant's Board Notification Concerning Completion of Indian Point Unit I Spent Fuel Pool Remediation Activities, November 17, 2008 (hereinafter "Board Notification").

2 See id.

3 See id; Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Decision to'Admit Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1, August 11,2008) (hereinafter "Reconsideration Motion").

k-nýýý-03'

The Consolidated Contention challenges Entergy's assessment of the current and future environmental impacts of the ongoing spent fuel pool leaks and groundwater contamination. In refuting this contention, Entergy has consistently maintained that any "historical" contamination from the IP1 spent fuel pools is not relevant, in part because the leaks would cease once the pools were finally drained.5 Entergy has now notified the Board that the last IPI spent fuel pool has been drained in order to bolster its request that the Board reconsider its decision to admit the Consolidated Contention, or, at a minimum, clarify whether the history of leakage from the IP1 spent fuel pool is properly within the scope of the contention.6 While admittedly, the completion of draining of the IPI spent fuel pool is an occurrence that is of relevance to the Consolidated Contention and the licensing proceeding, it should not have any effect on the Board's decision to admit the contention. As Riverkeeper has already pointed out, the Board's ruling found a genuine issue of fact as to the significance of spent fuel pool leaks, without any reference or regard to the source of the leaks.7 Rather, the Consolidated Contention and the Board's decision focus on whether Entergy has properly assessed the contamination caused by the leaks. 8 That one source of the leakage has now ceased does not disturb the Board's finding that a question of fact exists as to whether Entergy has adequately assessed the impacts of spent fuel pool leaks. As such, this recent development should have no effect on the admissibility of the Consolidated Contention.

Furthermore, Entergy's Board Notification presents no information that should cause the Board to limit the scope of the Consolidated Contention. On the contrary, the leakage that has occurred from IP1 is still relevant and very much within the scope of this proceeding. At the outset, Riverkeeper notes once again that IP1 is generally within the scope of the instant licensing proceeding since, if not for Entergy's 4See Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene in Indian Point License Renewal Proceeding, November 30, 2007 (hereinafter "Riverkeeper's Petition") at 74-86.

5See Reconsideration Motion; Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing Riverkeeper Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene, January 22, 2008, at 139-151.

6 See Reconsideration Motion at 10.

7See EntergyNuclear Operations,Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC _

(slip op. July 31, 2008) (hereinafter "July 31 Ruling"), at 187-88.

8 See Riverkeeper's Petition at 74-86; July 31 Ruling.

2

license renewal application, IPI would be fully decommissioned and the site remediated. 9 The contamination that has resulted from IPI spent fuel pool leaks will remain in the groundwater and/or slowly leach into the Hudson River until such remediation occurs.10 Simply by virtue of the fact that the active leaking from IPI has stopped does not demonstrate that Entergy has adequately assessed the current and future environmental impacts of the extensive IPI spent fuel pool leaks on the groundwater and the Hudson River ecosystem."

Moreover, as Riverkeeper has already emphasized, the environmental impacts of the current ongoing leaks from IP2 spent fuel pools, and likely future leaks from IP3 spent fuel pools, cannot be viewed in a vacuum.' 2 Rather, an accurate impact assessment must take into account the cumulative effects of the contamination, which includes the IPI plume. Thus, even though the leaking from IPI has terminated, the releases that have occurred are still unquestionably within the scope of the Consolidated Contention since the environmental impacts of the releases that have collectively occurred must be sufficiently evaluated.

In any event, as Riverkeeper pointed out previously, the leaking from IPI 's spent fuel pool of seventy gallons of radioactive water per daycontinued to be ongoing for months, since Entergy's initial 3 This has contributed thousands and evaluations up until the draining of the west pool was completed.'

4 thousands of additional gallons of polluted water into the groundwater and eventually the Hudson River.'

It is not clear that this additional leakage was factored into Entergy's conclusions in its Environmental Report or subsequent Investigation Report. 5 Accordingly, since Entergy has ostensibly failed to 9See Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Reply to Entergy's and NRC Staff's Responses to Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene, February 15, 2008, at 63-64 ("Riverkeeper Reply"); Riverkeeper, Inc. Response to Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Decision to Admit Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1, August 21, 2008, at 7-8 ("Riverkeeper's Reconsideration Motion Response").

10See Riverkeeper Reply at 64.

" See Riverkeeper's Petition at 74-86; Riverkeeper's Reply at 60-76; Riverkeeper's Reconsideration Motion Response.

'2 See Riverkeeper Reply at 64.

13 See id. at 64-65, fn 109.

'4 See id.

" See id.

3

sufficiently analyze the full extent of the leaks from IP1, they are still within the scope of the Consolidated Contention.

Based on the foregoing, Riverkeeper respectfully submits that Entergy's Board Notification of Indian Point I spent fuel pool remediation activities is not relevant or material to Entergy's pending Reconsideration Motion. This new development should not give the Board any pause to reconsider its decision to admit the Consolidated Contention. Nor should this new information cause the Board to limit the scope of the contention in any way since the history of leakage from IPI is still of significance to the Consolidated Contention.

Respectfully submitted, Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Hudson River Program Director Riverkeeper, Inc.

828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224) phillip@riverkeeper.org 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 25, 2008 copies of the foregoing Riverkeeper, Inc. Response to Applicant's Board Notification of Indian Point Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool Remediation Activities, were served on the following by e-mail and first-class mail:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20555 By e-mail: Robert.Snook ni~po.state.ct.us Also by e-mail: Lawrence.McDadenrc.t -ov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York City Econ. Development Corp.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10038 Also by e-mail: Richard.Wardwell(anrc.gov Also by e-mail: mdelanev(a).nvcedc.com John LeKay Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

Heather Ellsworth Bums-DeMelo Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Remy Chevalier Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Bill Thomas Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.

Belinda J. Jaques Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP FUSE USA 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

351 Dyckman Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Peekskill, NY 10566 martin.oneill(namoraanlewis.com Also by e-mail: fuse usanyahoo.com pbessette(ii.morganlewis.com ksutton oamorganlewis.com Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977 Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: mbs@ouiTocklandoffice.com Also by e-mail: OCAAMAIL(nrc.gov John J. Sipos, Esq. Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Office of the New York Attorney General David E. Roth, Esq.

for the State of New York Jessica Bielecki, Esq.

The Capitol Marcia J. Simon, Esq.

Albany, New York 12224 Office of General Counsel Also by e-mail: John.Siposnoag.state.nv.us U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: Sherwin.Turk(a),nrcj.ov lbs3a'2a).nrc.gLov Beth.Mizuno&nrc. gov

David.Roth(_),nrc. -ov Jessica.Bielecki nenrc.pov Marcia. SimonO~nrc.gov Office of the Secretary William C. Dennis, Esq.

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: HEARINGDOCKET )nrc.gov Also by e-mail: wdennisn)entergv.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

303 South Broadway, Suite 222 112 Little Market Street Tarrytown, NY 10591 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Also by e-mail: sfiller(mnvlawline.com Also by e-mail: Mannaionhclearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.

Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Senior Attorney for Special Projects Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq. New York State Department Westchester County Attorney of Environmental Conservation 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor 625 Broadway, 14 1 floor White Plains, NY 10601 Albany, New York 12233-5500 Also by e-mail: idp3na.westchestergov.com Also by e-mail:

ilmatthews~gwv.dec.state.nv.us Zachary S. Kahn, Esq., Law Clerk Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Daniel Riesel, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 460 Park Avenue Also by e-mail: Zachary.Kahn(ynrc.gov New York, NY 10022 Also by e-mail: drieselOTsprlaw.com Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Nancy Burton 190 Cedar Lane East 147 Cross Highway Ridgeway, CO 81432 Redding Ridge, CT 06878 Also by e-mail: Kave.Lathrop(~)nrc.gov Also-by e-mail: NancyBurtonCTnaol.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Goodwin Procter, LLP Assistant Attorney General 53 State Street Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 120 Broadway, 2 6 th Floor Also by e-mail: ezolinigoodwinprocter.com New York, NY 10271 Also by e-mail: Janice.deannoag.state.ny.us Richard L. Brodsky, Esq. John L. Parker, Esc.

2

Assemblyman Regional Attorney, Region 3 Suite 205 New York State Department of 5 West Main Street Environmental Conservation Elmsford, NY 10523. 21 South Putt Comers brodskr.,assemblv.state.nv.us New Paltz, NY 12561 richardbrodskynamsn.com Also by e-mail: ilparkernawi.dec.state.nv.us Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.

Executive Deputy Attorney General Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 120 Broadway, 2 5 th Floor 1726 M. Street NW, Suite 600 New York, NY 10271 Washington, DC 20036 Also by e-mail: dcurrannaiharmoncurran.com mvian.denerstein woag.state.nv.us Sarah L. Wagner, Esq.

Room 422 Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12248 sarahwagneresqg(gmaiI.com Phillip Musegaas November 25, 2008 3