ML110070603
| ML110070603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 01/07/2011 |
| From: | Lampert M Pilgrim Watch |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML110070602 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 19400, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
| Download: ML110070603 (36) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket # 50-293-LR Entergy Corporation Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application January 7, 2011 Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers Opposing Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention Entergy (Entergy Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention, hereinafter Entergy Op) and the NRC Staff (NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watchs Request for Hearing on New Contention, hereinafter Staff Op) make essentially the same arguments seeking to show that this contention should not be admitted. For convenience, Pilgrim Watch (PW) will address both here.
I.
Introduction Pilgrim Watch filed a Request for a New Hearing (November 29, 2010) based on new information indicating that no third party has assumed responsibility for cleanup after a severe nuclear reactor accident, no cleanup standard had been set, and no source is identified to pay for the cleanup.
2 This new information is relevant to Entergys application for license renewal of Pilgrim Station. Entergy is required to perform a Severe Accident Mitigation Analysis (SAMA) - a cost/benefit analysis weighing the costs of offsite consequences against the costs of putting in place measures to reduce the risk of a severe accident. Absent a set clean-up standard, there is no way Entergy can fulfill its obligation to estimate the cost of offsite consequences or perform a meaningful cost-benefit analysis; and there is no way either Entergy or American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) can answer the question how clean is clean for purposes of either cleanup or determining what is considered contaminated for purposes of compensation.
Research shows that the cost to clean up, or remediate the affected area, depends on the cleanup standard applied to the event and is highly sensitive to this standard1; and, the potential standards appear to range from 15 mrem/yr to 5 rem/yr. or higher.2 1 Economic Consequences of a Rad/Nuc attack: Cleanup Standards Significantly Affect Cost Barbara Reichmuth, Steve Short, Tom Wood, Fred Rutz, Debbie Swartz, Pacific Northwest National laboratory, 2005 2 Range of Cleanup guidance-no decision about which one to use. 15 mrem/yr EPA, Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites With Radioactive Contamination (e.g., Hanford Site); 25 mrem/yr NRC, Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination (10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E); 100 mrem/yr Health Physics Society Position Statement, Guidance for Protective Actions Following a Radiological Terrorist Event; 500 mrem/yr EPA, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," 400-R-92-001, doses in any single year after the first will not exceed 0.5 rem; 2 rem/yr EPA, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," 400-R-92-001, doses in first year will not exceed 2 rem; 5 rem/yr NRC, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, recommendation and established dose limit for workers of 5 rem/yr (10 CFR 20 Subpart C)
3 (Source: Battelle Study (Attachment 1) Locations range from a small rural community to densely populated NYC)
4 The Battelle study focused on a hypothetical dirty bomb event. However, the Battelle study illustrates PWs position that the cleanup standard is key to offsite cleanup costs. A reactor accident would affect a far larger area and have a far greater impact than a dirty bomb.
Also, even if there were an agreed cleanup standard, absent an indentified third party in charge of the cleanup, the cleanup process will be less efficient and more costly, and will encounter delays. Lessons learned from Chernobyl and the Gulf show that the cost of cleanup (and likelihood that it even can be remediated) is time dependent. Last, absent an identified funding source, it is clear that the job will never be done to properly compensate the public for losses and costly liable suits are inevitable.
This is the problem that the new information identifies. There are two solutions. One option is simply to deny the license application until a responsible party for cleanup is identified, a cleanup standard set, and a source for funding identified. The second option is to recognize that without a standard, identified third party and source of monies, Entergy was unable to perform a meaningful SAMA analysis using standard practices; and that, as a result, Entergy now should be required by this Board to perform a meaningful, and far more conservative, SAMA analysis and to take all possible steps to mitigate the risk of a severe accident and extent of potential offsite consequences.
A more conservative and appropriate SAMA analysis to protect the public health and safety was identified by the Petitioner. It included: the use of a conservative source term using release fractions no lower than those specified in NUREG-1465 or used by the NRC in studies such as
5 NUREG 1450; the assumption in the Entergys SAMA analysis of a cleanup to a dose rate of not more than 15 millirem a year3; the use of the 95th percentile to average the total consequences determined by the EARLY and CHRONC modules of the MACCS2 Code; and not reducing any costs by using a discount factor or probabilistic analysis.
This second option, requested by the Petitioner, is a reasonable response to the current large and unacceptable uncertainty regarding the extent of cleanup, responsibility for, and cost of offsite consequences. Increased conservatism is likely to bring in more SAMAs that will, in turn, reduce the probability of a severe accident and potential cleanup for which we now know there is no identified party responsible, standard set or funding source identified.
II.
PW does not seek to reopen the record.
Rule 2.236 is clear. It applies to A motion to reopen a closed record. The Rule does not apply here, for a simple reason - the record in this proceeding has not been closed. The evidentiary record relating to Contention 1 was, as the Staff says, closed some time ago. But Pilgrim Watch does not seek to introduce any new evidence as to Contention 1; rather it seeks to add a new, in scope, contention to the proceeding.
The Staff fails to recognize that the record in this proceeding (as contrasted with the record for Contention 1) unquestionably has not been closed. (Staff Op, 2-3) As a matter of fact, a hearing at which new evidence as to Contention 3 will be accepted is scheduled for March of 2011.
3 To the best of the Petitioners knowledge, Entergy never said what cleanup standard they used in their SAMA analysis. Clearly it is important that this be documented by the Applicant.
6 Entergy says that the Commission remanded Contention 3 to the Board, recognizing that the record in this proceeding remains open. Its argument that PW has not met the standards for reopening the record is its assertion that the Commission has not reopened the record to allow new contentions to be admitted, again implicitly recognizing that the overall record remains open. (Entergy Op, 4-5) Entergy cites no decision supporting its apparent view that a new contention cannot be admitted without the advance permission of the Commission.
In short, the record in this proceeding is open until and unless the Board and the Commission close it with respect to everything involved in this proceeding. At the time PW submitted its new contention, and as of today, the record before this Board remains open.
There is no need to reopen it; and Sec. 2.326 is simply inapplicable.
Further, this contention should be accepted even if the record had been closed. It is clear that the Board has the duty to reopen sua sponte when [it] becomes aware, from any source, of a significant unresolved safety issue or of possible major changes in facts material to the resolution of major environmental issues. See NRC Practice Manual, Post Hearing Matters, 11-12.4 Second, the only other arguments that Entergy and the NRC Staff make relative to Section 2.326 are timeliness, which is discussed below, and lack of an expert affidavit. Even if 2.236 were applicable, there is no need for an affidavit here. The critical fact - that no cleanup 4 The inclusion of this provision in Post Hearing Matters provides additional evidence that the record is not now closed and 2.236 is not applicable.
7 standard, funding source or responsible party has been established - is not technical, and is effectively admitted by both Entergy and the Staff. Further, the emails between government staff at the respective federal agencies, obtained by Inside EPA under the Freedom of Information Act (provided as part of PWs Request for Hearing), establish that no cleanup standard, funding source or agency authority has been established. Neither Entergy nor NRC Staff has provided any reason why we should not take the government officials who authored the emails at their word.
III.
PWs filing of this new contention was timely.
The substance of this new contention is that since no third party has responsibility for cleanup after a severe nuclear reactor accident and no standard or funding source has been established, there is no way in which the costs of clean-up could be included in any SAMA analysis. Absent any way to determine and pay for clean-up costs, public health and safety can be protected only by either denying the license application or requiring the Applicant to take additional steps to perform a more conservative analysis and inevitably to add SAMAs to mitigate the potential need for significant clean-up.
Pilgrim Watch first learned that there was no established standard or funding source on November 17, 2010, twelve days before it filed this Contention. (Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention, hereinafter PW Request, 10)
The NRC Staffs and Entergys arguments that this was not timely are wrong.
8 The Staff (Staff Op, 9-10, 11-13) argues that Pilgrim Watch should have known that this contention is untimely because the Price-Anderson Act, CERLA and the Stafford act, and what the Staff calls overlapping or conflicting authority... since their enactment existed before Pilgrim Watch filed its initial request to intervene in October of 2006. Although the Staff never comes out and says so, the Staffs apparent position seems to be that although these three acts required that a radiological accident clean-up standard be established, PW should have know that this was not done because of differences between the NRC and EPA as to what that standard should be. But this only reinforces that PWs contention is timely. Does the Staff really believe that this contention is untimely because PW should have know that disagreements between these two agencies have resulted in no clean-up standard, funding source or responsible party being established; and that the NRC has not done what it should have done? And, because the lack of cleanup standard has considerable bearing on the validity of Entergys SAMA analysis and NRC Staff knew about it, why didnt NRC Staff bring this issue forward?
Entergy makes a different argument (Entergy Op 5-12). First, Entergy says that PW knew that the NRC had not established a standard in 2006. They point to PWs Motion to Intervene that specifically referenced the Site Restoration Study. Entergy correctly says that the study says there is no agreed upon cleanup standard (Entergy Op at 8) and that there is disagreement regarding what agency is responsible for cleanup (Entergy Op at 11). However, Entergy fails to say that the Site Restoration Study was published in 1996. They fail to provide a rationale why Pilgrim Watch should have known that NRC would fail to establish a
9 standard, identify a responsible party or figure out a funding source in the subsequent 14 years since the Site Restoration Study was published - especially when license renewal applications were beginning. Second, Entergys argument that PWs contention is not timely rests on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the new contention is.
At the outset, it is important to note that Entergy, perhaps without recognizing the fact, supports PWs contention that there is no clean-up standard or funding source. Entergy repeatedly refers to guidance in the Code Manual, differing assumptions one could make concerning the applicable cleanup standards, and NRC guidelines (Entergy Op, 8-9), but it never says that any of these are standards or regulations.
Entergy also says, incorrectly, that PWs position is specious because the article does not support the modeling changes that Pilgrim Watchs new contention seeks. (Entergy Op, 7). As PW understands it, Entergys basic position is that the contention is not timely because PW has long known that source term, percentile of consequences, discount factors, and probabilistic modeling are used in the normal SAMA analysis.
Entergy misunderstands this contention. PW recognizes that this Board (incorrectly in PWs view) has already refused to consider whether the NRCs normal practice with respect to source term, use of the mean to average consequences, discount factors, and probabilistic modeling is proper. This contention, however, is directed to quite a different proposition:
10 Until and unless some third party assumes responsibility and a cleanup standard and a funding source are established, the public is at significant risk that there will be no effective clean-up. This being so, normal practice should be put to one side, and Entergy should take mitigation steps that may better insure that a severe accident is less likely to occur, and that it is less likely that significant clean-up will be required.
This new contention identifies the problem: although a SAMA analysis is required in PNPS license renewal, without an established standard, responsible party, and source of funding, Entergy could not estimate the costs of offsite consequences in a severe accident.
This being so, it could not conduct a valid cost-benefit analysis to determine what mitigation steps should be taken.
Again, there are two obvious solutions for the Board to impose. One is for this Board simply to refuse to relicense PNPS until a cleanup standard, funding source, and responsible third party is established. Second, as a practical matter, it seemed to the Petitioner that relicensing properly could go forward - IF, and only if, steps were taken to substantially reduce the risk that any significant clean-up would be required.
Entergy correctly recognizes that PW believes that the NRCs normal SAMA analysis practice is inadequate5. But this contention is not directed to normal practice. Rather it is focused on the fact that there now is no responsible party, established cleanup standard or funding source. This contention does not ask the NRC change its normal practice.
5 Pilgrim Watch SAMA Remand Pre-Filed Testimony, January 3, 2011
11 IV.
PW has met the 8-part test for presenting a new contention.
In most of their respective oppositions, the NRC Staff and Entergy seem to recognize that the real question here is whether PWs filing of its new contention was timely.6 But neither seems to question that PW did not know that the NRC had no established standard, and that there was no funding source, until November 17, 2010.
Sec. 2.309 list eight factors. The Staff seems to question only two (factors one and seven); and Entergy seem to question only three (factors one, seven and eight). Both seem to concede that the other five factors favor Pilgrim Watch.
The first factor, the one that is recognized to be by far the most important, is whether PW has shown good cause for not filing this contention earlier.
As noted above, the NRC Staffs only argument that there is no good cause is that All three [Price Anderson, CERLA, and the Stafford Act] were laws on the books when Pilgrim Watch filed its original petition in 2006. (Staff op, 9) The Staff provides nothing to show that the mere existence of these laws should have put Pilgrim Watch on notice that no clean-up standard or funding source had been established. (Staff Op, 9) 6 The Staff makes essentially the same argument with respect to both Sec. 2.309 and inapplicable Sec.
2.236. Entergy quotes the must be timely statement in Sec. 2.236(a), but argues timeliness only with respect to Sec. 2.309.
12 Entergy says the new contention is not timely because PWs Motion to Intervene references the Site Restoration Study that says no standard for cleanup is established; but that study was in 1996, fourteen years ago. Entergy also argues that PW earlier said that several aspects of the NRCs normal SAMA analysis, e.g., the choices of source term, percentile of consequences, discount factors, and probabilities), were inadequate. (Entergy Op, 5-12) As discussed above, this misunderstands the new contention. What PW previously sought in its Contention 3 was for Entergy significantly to improve the manner in which it used the MACCS2 code and what the Board and Commission have referred to as the normal way of conducting a SAMA analysis.
This contention is addressed to the fact that, until a clean-up standard, responsible third party and funding source for clean-up have been established, the only way that public health and safety can be protected is by insuring, to the maximum possible extent, mitigation steps are taken to ensure that there will be no severe accident and that no significant clean-up will be required.
The seventh factor, addressed by both the Staff and Entergy, is whether admitting a new contention would unduly broaden or delay the proceedings. The short answer here is two-fold. First, if mere broadening of a proceeding was a basis for rejecting a new contention, no new contention could ever be admitted. Second, and as pointed out in PWs request, this factor includes only that delay which can be attributed directly to the tardiness of the petition.
(Request, 14, citing the NRC Practice Manual) Since PW was not tardy, the seventh factor is essentially irrelevant.
13 Finally, Entergy (but not the Staff) argues that it cannot be reasonably expected that Pilgrim Watch will assist in developing a sound record, inaccurately and unfairly stating that Pilgrim Watch makes no showing of any ability to meaningfully contribute to a sound record, and that Pilgrim Watchs conduct in prosecuting the remanded contention is again illustrative of the lack of contribution that can be expected. (Entergy Op 15)
Taking the latter first, Entergy points to the fact that the Board provided eight months for remand testimony to be prepared. What it overlooks is that when only a few of those months had elapsed, the Board issued its September 23 Order that no cost issues would be considered on remand unless PW was able to show that meteorological concerns, on their own, would significantly affect Entergys SAMA analysis, and that exactly two months later the Board eliminated any remaining chance that PW might be able to do so by taking averaging concerns off the table. The September Order made clear that PW could not succeed in the remand hearing unless averaging concerns were addressed. The November Order made clear that there was no way in which PW could succeed, and PW filed its memorandum that it would not submit additional evidence nine days later.
PW has always been willing and able to meaningfully contribute to a sound record, and its Request (pp., 14-15) illustrates how it would do so here. What PW will not do is expend its limited resources developing a record that, because of the Boards prior orders, pursues a lost cause and would not be meaningful at this stage of the process.
14 V.
This contention raises a genuine dispute that is within scope Finally, Entergy (Entergy Op 16-24) and the NRC Staff (Staff Op 14-19) say that the new contention does not meet the admissibility requirements of Sec. 2.309(f).
The Staff appears to argue that PWs dispute is with the NRC, not Entergys application for relicensing, and thus does not raise an issue within the scope of this proceeding. Entergy says much the same thing, but phrases its argument in terms of lacks an identified basis, not within the scope and material to findings the NRC must make, and no genuine dispute.
However their arguments may be phrased, both the Staff and Entergy are wrong. To be sure, Pilgrim Watch would not have brought this contention if the NRC had resolved its dispute with the EPA and established a cleanup standard, funding source and responsible party. But the fact that PW is not able to challenge entities that are not before the Board and not subject to the Boards jurisdiction does not mean that this Board cannot resolve the issues raised by the Cleanup Contention (Staff Op. 15, 16) - issues that do not challenge the NRC but rather seek a SAMA analysis at Pilgrim consistent with the site specific facts as they now exist.
PW does not understand the Staffs assertion that the new contention is not material because NEPA imposes no obligation on the NRC to require Entergy to implement mitigation alternatives identified in a SAMA analysis (Staff Op. 17), and Entergys similar
15 statement that [t]here is no requirement in the NRCs license renewal rules that an applicant must mitigate severe risk in order to protect the public health and safety. (Entergy Op. 19)
SAMA analyses are clearly a Category 2 issue within the scope of a relicensing proceeding.
The Staff and Entergy may be arguing, just in a different way, that a contention seeking NRC action would not be within scope. But SAMA analyses clearly are. And if, as the NRC Staff and Entergy appear to be arguing, SAMA analyses are beyond scope because the NRC has no obligation to require mitigation steps no matter what a SAMA analysis indicates, what have we all been doing since 2006?
Finally, Entergys arguments that the new contention lacks an identifiable basis (Entergy Op. 16-18) and raises no genuine dispute (Entergy Op. 20-24) once again illustrate its failure to understand that the new contention is not directed at whether any particular factor used in a SAMA analysis is improper, but to whether more mitigation steps should be required to minimize potential clean-up that might be required should there be a serious accident at PNPS. And the Staffs final argument that is it some unfair to require Entergy to implement mitigation alternatives because three federal agencies have reportedly been unable to come to consensus (Staff 19) fails to balance that unfairness with the more important issue unfairness to the public. Which is more unfair - that Entergy be required to perform a more conservative SAMA analysis as described and inevitably then take additional mitigation steps to significantly reduce the likelihood of an accident and potential cleanup that will be required after a severe accident; or that the public be left holding the bag?
16 VI.
The Issue Raised in the Contention is Material to these proceedings and has a substantial Basis PWS Request for Hearing on a New Contention (November 29, 2010) clearly supports that the issue raised is material (Section III) and that there is substantial basis for the contention (Section IV). Entergy incorrectly says that Pilgrim Watchs references to the Inside EPA article and underlying FOIA materials lack basis. Portions of this draft are clearly erroneous. For example, the assertion that Price Anderson would be unavailable to pay for environmental cleanup costs from a nuclear incident is wrong. The nuclear liability insurance under the Price Anderson Act covers environmental cleanup costs resulting from an extraordinary nuclear occurrence ("ENO) Consequently, the materials to which Pilgrim Watch refers have no probative value. (Entergy Op, 17-18)
PW re-reviewed the copies of emails obtained by Inside EPA, provided in the Request for Hearing, and they clearly contradict Entergys unfounded accusation. For example, from the NRC-FEMA-EPA White Paper: Potential Authorities and/or Funding Sources for Off-Site Cleanup following a Nuclear Power Plant Incident it explains that American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) does not cover environmental cleanup costs under their primary policy. It is anticipated that the secondary insurance policy will behave in a similar manner. Looking at the costs projected by DHSs Battelle study for a cleanup after a far lesser accident, it is understandable that ANI is both unwilling and unable to pay.
17 Copies of other emails that contradict Entergys assertion that Price Anderson would be unavailable to pay for environmental cleanup costs from a nuclear incident is wrong are in Appendix 2. It is not surprising that Entergy failed to provide documentation to support their unwarranted accusation; the Governments own documents support Pilgrim Watch.
18 V. Conclusion The new contention should be admitted. Entergy did not perform a credible SAMA analysis, as they are required to do, absent a set cleanup standard and identified third party responsible for cleanup after a severe accident to pre-accident conditions and a funding source for offsite cleanup is identified. Therefore public health, safety and economic well-being are at risk going forward.
Respectfully submitted, Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 781-934-0389 Mary.lampert@comcast.net
Appendices
Appendix 1 Economic Consequences of a Rad/Nuc attack: Cleanup Standards Significantly Affect Cost Barbara Reichmuth, Steve Short, Tom Wood, Fred Rutz, Debbie Swartz, Pacific Northwest National laboratory, 2005 The document is provided as a separate attachment electronically and reproduced here in hard copy.
APPENDIX 2 Excerpts from Pilgrim Watchs Request for Hearing on a New Contention (November 29, 2010)
Inside EPA FOIA Documents that Discuss Price Anderson. These are provided in response to Entergys Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch Request For Hearing on a New Contention (December 27, 2010) that incorrectly said, Pilgrim Watchs references to the Inside EPA article and underlying FOIA materials lack basis. Portions of this draft are clearly erroneous. For example, the assertion that Price Anderson would be unavailable to pay for environmental cleanup costs from a nuclear incident is wrong. The nuclear liability insurance under the Price Anderson Act covers environmental cleanup costs resulting from an extraordinary nuclear occurrence ("ENO) Consequently, the materials to which Pilgrim Watch refers have no probative value. (Entergy Op, 17-18)
- 1. The following excerpt from Stuart Walker email, EPA, says that The insurance funds are not used to cover cleanup costs associated with the incident.
Appendix 2 - Page 2
- 2. The following except from the July 27, 2010 Draft White paper says that, NRC also indicated the Price Anderson Act would be unable to pay for environmental cleanup after the nuclear power plant incident only for compensation for damages incurred (e.g., hotel stays, replacement costs for property and personal items, lost wages etc.
Appendix 2 - Page 3
- 3. The following except from the July 27, 2010 Draft White paper lays out the potential cleanup authority and funding source of the Price Anderson Act. It essentially repeats what Stuart Walker, EPA, emails said in the first example, ANI does not cover environmental NRC-FEMA-EpA Wh ;t~ Paper.
p.. lem.. l Alllb.. rilits aadfor Fundinl: Soan:os for Off-site C lcaau p F.. lI.... -i.1: a Nudaor p.... -er Plant Incidut ckground:
The En~ironmenl4l ProIeclion Agency (EPA), the Nuclear RegulalOf)' Commission (NRC), ood 1M Fed<<aI Emergency Management Ag~cy (FEMA) began a seria of quartniy ~ings in 2009 to d'!;I;U5$. unresolvcd f;OI'1ce~
regarding off.. ile
"'"vironm.... lal c....... up following a nuclear power plan~ic:len l.
Evaluation Ii i
the dKumstancc:s of the incidenl government.
The Report 10 Congress from the Presidential Commission on Catastrophic Nudur Accidents (!We Auachmem 0)' : outlines a n..... ber of f;OI'1...ems regarding nuclear pow....
plant incidmu. The R"port Ol.",cn the sourcing of rllnd~ under a - Major Disaster," a "Catastrophe.'" and hew to prepare and respOnd to a "eataSlTOpIDc distil",r."
o C.... enl plallS do not cov~r "long-durMion accic:lenu that have impacu O~ large land areas ~.
o Tht authority of the Court 10 a'A.'3I"d damages does not extend to eXCIllti\\'c blMCh P"~
{-
- Provide current undcrstandin& on pottrltialll;.Ulhof;i1;ies and sources of fund in!: fOf ofT-sile clennup fello.... ing " nudear 1"'.... ". plnn' inddenl-J
Appendix 2 - Page 4 cleanup costs under their primary insurance policy. It is anticipated that the secondary insurance policy will behave in a similar manner.
Potential Cleanup Authority and/or Funding S<>ur<c /I t : Prlc~A.,.thrstm Act Exampl.,. of Potential Circum.tances Where It May Be ADllirulriate 10 Use the Price-Andcuo" 4,,1' In addition to !In occident. the nuclear power ptont incident may be the result of: theft or.abotage; the transportation of nuclear fuel 10 a reactor site; or the storage of n\\ICl~ar fu~1 at a reactor site, Possible Actions under t~. Price_A'lderson Act:
o Provide financial assistance to utilities openning m!Clear r><>wer plants toot l>ave experienced an in~ldent.
o for individ!l8ls wh" ha,'. sufkred d<lma,~s; Those who suffeml bod ilr '~ann, siclmeM, or dise~ will receive financial ~istance~ii E,'acue"" r""cive property dams e and loss ""pen.", "t. well a. i"tn, expenses.
- ~
o L""al ;md Stat. go*,.rmneIQ can receive fmanei
.al,is~e.JO 41sis! with evacuations, sI1e ter"fjnd OIher immediate re'l.£WL'" activities.
FUMing Swrce fof Ihe Pr,'<!( *A",*~,lR" ACI~
o Under !he r,ice-ANkrsrm Acl. American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) plovidts nuclear ~r pi""', with financial asstuanee by creating insurance fund"'g pool.
under both a primary and a secondary insurance polky.
o Primary IlI, unna Polky; Each year, a premium is paid by utilities thl.! operate nuclear power pfaru-this premium provides offsite privale insurd""e of$300 million.
o
$eC<)lIdary )D.'!unn<e Policy: If an incident exceeds the $300 million. eitl::h reactor ",'ould pay a pr<>T3led sbare of up to $95.& million, This S<<OOda/)' pool contains ftpproximttelyU.6billio n_
Potential Gap in C()vering Off-site Cleanup under the P'ic.t -A~derw~ del' o
These funding pools can Oflly be accessed by a f~der81 agency if the federal agency itself has property tbat has suffered damage. during an incident.
o ANI docs nOl cOver environmental cleanup coots under their primary ifl'lurnh""
policy. While not explicitly stated. there is no eXp<'claiion that th~ ~CC()nctary insurance policy ",ill differ in co,-crage from !he primary insurance polio;;'.
Fh.dlD.gI:
Potential AUlhorilie,.000or Funding Soors:es for Off.Sile Clunup Following a I\\uc:Jear Powu Plant Incidelll
~iGf/ -A",*-r!ON Act; o
ANI does 1101 COVer environmental ~ leantrp costs under their prim:wy insuran~e policy. 1\\ iI; ilIltieipaled that the 5~d ary ins"","",e policy will behave in a similar manner.
Appendix 2 - Page 5
- 4. The following except from the July 27, 2010 Draft White paper from Kathryn Snead, EPA, explains again that there is a gap in authority to perform or oversee and fund offsite cleanup and that, at bullet 3, NRC also indicated the Price Anderson Act would be unable to pay for environmental cleanup after a nuclear power plant incident only for compensation for damages incurred (e.g., hotel stays, replacement costs for property and personal items, lost wages, etc.
Appendix 2 - Page 6 NRC-FEMA-ErA While r apu:
Potentitl Authorities and/or l'undinl1. Sou Il:es for Off-5it. Cleanup FolI01\\inl1. a Nucl<1tr Po""~r Plant Incident The En~ironmentall'roteCl iO!l Agctll;y (EPA), the Nuclear Regulalory Commi"ioo (NRC), Md the Federal Emc~n~y MW1ag~mcnl Agency (FEMAj ~gM U i(.'TiC$!;If quanerly medings in 2009 to discIW. unrcsoJved cOlICcml rtgarding oft:,it(:
e.wironmcntal cleanup following B ""clear power p'lanl incid..,..
II i i
Evalulllion of language Irom the I'rke-Aflllcr$I)II Arl,. the SIIIJ}'!'" At/, I!I!! t.rr\\ 'f preyioys policies and eXD£S.wion lbl tit!; weLd (C9mmMllii'I:.EIl~lf",'lIIlm1I!
RewQosc, Comoenwion, and Liabjlj'Y Mil ","wid generally not be Uled {OJ Itlpons act;OIli to addrm reie!!es trw NRC_ljcensed Ijles including nuclear !I(Iv,S'f plMIS may indicate a potenlial gap in authorily 10 p." fonn or OYersee and fund ofT-site cleanup following n nudenr power plnnt incident, depending 011 lhe circnmstances of the incident and the subsequent dedanuioOl; ofth: federal govcmmcm.
The Rqwn to Conilre" from the President;.1 Commi" ion on Cala"rnphi<: Nllclcat Acddenli (Sec Attachment D)': outlines a n~m ber of cot>(em, n:garding nud~ar JIOwer plMI inei(\\cnl!, The report eo~c rl thl: IOlm:ing of Fllnd, un~~r a "Major ()i ~astL"'," M "Calastmflhe," ilIld ~ ow to jmpare alld respond 10 a "citlll!;lroflhi< diSlI!;lCr,"
o Curr<n! plillta do 1101 CQv~... "1~ iI..Jurnt ioo accidCl'ts th8tlla~e impiSCU over lar~
land al'<'as",
o The authority of the Court I(l award damages docs not ext~'!1d 10 cltecutive branch POWtll'S.
I
,{ IHI-....
" ';/0(,1..< <<:_
!'.""""'_....,.,..., c _
Appendix 2 - Page 7
- 5. The following drafts repeat the same language.
From NRC-FEMA-EPA White paper: Potential Authorities and/or Funding Sources for Off-site Cleanup Following a Nuclear Power Plant Accident, July 27, 2010, Pg., 3
Appendix 2 - Page 8 At 6, Funding Source for the Price-i4nderson 'Act:
o Under the Price-6 nderson Act, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) provides nuclear power plants with financial assurance by creating insurance funding pools under both a primary and a secondary insurance policy.
o Primary Insurance Policy: Each year, a premium is paid by utilities that operate nuclear power plants - this premium provides offsite private insurance of$300 million.
o Secondary Insurance Policy: If an incident exceeds. the $300 million, each reactor would pay a prorated share of up to $95.8 million. This secondary pool contains approximately $8.6 billion.
Potential Gap in Covering Off-site Cleanup under the Price-Anderson Act:
o These funding pools can only be accessed by a federal agency if the federal agency itself has property that has su.ffered damages during an incident.
o ANI does not cover environmental cleanup costs under their primary insurance policy. While not explicitly stated, there is no expectation that the secondary insurance policy will differ in coverage from the primary insurance policy.
Findings:
Potential Authorities and/or Funding Sources for Off-Site Cleanup Following a Nuclear Power Plant Incident
- Price-Anderson Act:
o ANI does not cover environmental cleanup costs under their primary insurance policy. It is anticipated that the secondary insurance policy will behave in a similar manner.
Appendix 2 - Page 9 At 17, I
~.'
~J H J,II a [I !
.. { h hi i~ it ;;1
~ !l I ! i Ii ~I~
~' t' ~ 'II. I{ I ~ I i~ !=1 d If i IiI !I Ii ~ i, ~f liH
'I " df It Hi' HI it,;
l
~ If f !~I I' t"
- ! ~..,I!
I 11
!jl 'I 11 ! I' l! Ilil
~i t! I htl Ii n I 11 p.," ~m
,.~
I. ii' r 'io ~.i *
.-!} I i Ii! U j llU if W! ~ Mi liH
-.., ~ll!! ~ h~1.'lIi I IliHI !~H
'i~ Iii 1-F:ll* W!
'iH! ~!!*
I ' 'I
!I! it ".' I
"!" 'ii'
!.,II I fin. f ~ ihi ~ htlJ Ii'!'! lu~
.... ""al
!......!i.l!.~ f i
~,.:
rI..,
us,.:
Appendix 2 - Page 10 At 33, F"",,;
Hi 600..,..
s..., ~~
"";111'0'11 Colby Stan"", thai began [ PA's Onvot.ement win NRCIFl:MA eIbls 10 cArWy
""'" __ lOa sigruIic.ont,....... (a.g. Th'ee Mile 1SIand.~)"om a """,,,,,,rtDI......-
--<.. PP)_... "........
1\\11. 3 ~
<>1M, Age_ at __.""""IIe _ oeoo.... t......- """'. bolt> C_
~_..,.,
",h~... a __
..--""""" """"""II "'"'- O'A~
strategy lot __
no..............-- _
"'"" """" QriOCQ d.rint;l_"'" mcc1ingo....,., CoIby'. _, _
. ~;
- 1...._
r:ole<:ted frt>m......- indu5lty to PIIY 0"' in Ihe......... of.. _
I<>tident'" \\IC to....
- ,."",oce comJ>II"V for disburse...... l "._IS "'" monin ""'Y only II" 10<..... *''~nl! dama~
(e.1!
- eos, ot..",..,.....ry... _t
.. location. ~
lOr i>OIi<:<trnen, __
propeI1)'.eoI_,... 1I.
_J end ooten.itiA.'....... -......
- 2. Tn... awealS 10 "'" be ~*~tilied..... "'"' cI funding 1m _ i~"" __. NRC $"'"
Appendix 2 - Page 11 At 36, At 45
Appendix 2 - Page 12 The above (12/08/09) paragraph 5 -6 says that, NRC does not currently know if the $10 billion can only be used for compensation for damages suffered by member of the public, of if it can be used for site cleanup. Also they have not asked the insurance companyhow they will answer the question of How clean is clean for purposes of either cleanup or determining what is considered contaminated for the purposes of compensation. By the time they wrote the July 27, 2010 Draft, they were clear that ANI only would pay for damages not cleanup, as the preceding emails show.
Appendix 2 - Page 13 At 45, From:
'Greten, Timoll1y" <T l110thy.Gre.en@dhs.g<lV>
To:
Stuart WalkerlOC/uSEPAlUS@EPA,KatlvynSneadIDCIUSEPNUS@EPA Cc:
Charles OpenchowskllDC.tISEPAlUS@EPA, Colby StBntonlOCIUSEPNUS@EPA,
<grllCf),kim@nrc,gov>, "BenooMtz. Howard" <Howard.Benowltz@mc.gov>,Jean SdlumaMlDCIUSEPA/US@EPA. Lee TynerJDClUSEPMJS@EPA, "M ligan, Patricia"
<Patrida,Mlllgan@nrc,gov>, Sara DecailOClUSEPA/US@EPA, Susan StahleiDClUSEPAlUS<<lIEPA. 'Greten, T1roo!hy' <T1mothy,Gretell@dhs,gov>
Dale:
1113012009 07:16 PM StAljoct:
RE' Agenda: EPA,NRC.FEMA Recovery Diswssion
Appendix 2 - Page 14
,~
~u 1..
j' iB,!
'11 I j
g, H ~ ~.;
'!"Hi
~.. "'
- " 1*-
- 0 0
- .t: r : -;:
".. ~ -..
, 'I,,*!
Jj
~
I!'
~~.~.3
~1... _
.. < ~
i'
- o.~",
I 1*,**
.<J::
- .l/,...,
1, <0' tn
!i~~...
.., ~
~~
I l'l'i
..,j **
! ""(s"
"'~.-~
I!'
~ -!: O;:.oBi
~.. s
~
~
~~r"'
f ~!,!!
I
__,.,1
~........
~
'[""'",-
I
~... -
i" "... ~._'"
0 o~".......
,~"
..... ~
...t: *
.l! 0..
~:!i... u 1.\\
~
.. ~
~"~.H ft' ~
- EI.. ~t8.
~.. ""
- ", '.. ~. ~
.Jl i~~ "
"". ;;"1""
.. "0' v
~,.."'
' M**
a u
"'lOll.,..
W
~I.'
1
~"i.*ll
.. 1:sa.... "
~ '...
I~!*.*.. j
~
YO"
!.<l J......,.....
C)
.oo.....
~
o
_o _ C "')_
00
"' ~,"......
"..,II
. 1.... J... B
"." ".;/
1-*, '! --
~..
.. ~..
.... ~
... j
~"';l'
..f:o; *.
"~
'1
-:1
':;.... !l'i:"'"
~ g
.J! '"'-
.. u,, ",
'~i
(;d,* *:!~
p.~.~
~:.l!. '1'
.,d r~ ' ~ 'il.... ~
'~...
~.""~...i e.~
!.In'2::l.
1.!~"'g'~
....!.... "~...
- 0. '"
,'. ¢;
"}'.'
~.
.",,~..
.. 0
'".'u
~ v.,-<
o.
,,,. 1"1"*"
. d,.,
"1 Jj.*** j.
- "1 H
j " ;"'1' :'.. '
.... ~.
~"
~..
~... ~ -" 'I'" '"......... "
'".~.....
., ~,.
,"""y, '001--
~,"
"... ~
oJ 0,0
~
'm'~" ",,"..
- ~.'"
1/'
..:{::~.~
~~~=.!!I.
~~.
a..
~,~" M.
"I" II "l.......
~.,.....
~J ~i
~<t ~rA.~ u ~... ~81h
\\
.. a ~
Q.....
!....... t5i::l.. ~
1**,~*
- 0!1
.... ""0-""
i
~'lI.",...
~*.ii * ]8'h1!
,"~ '.".
.... " '1" I
,,*t~"~".l!....
- o.;a.!"fl~*l{
h"'" U. ~ !I'
~"'..
~.-:i
~~'di!!." ~
ii~~:~tjj
- 'j"
- S]& -e:!U
~~H~U: ~
--1""........
i "'*"..,.-
- h~~"U ~
..,,,... -i
.. 0.........
- .:I.... "O~
~... :;; s.. 8~i'
.~.! 8.... -
~... I!'....,".,
.. a--.'....
...:I0ell. - ' 3
~; e-*~... !l";::
"l;it~;s.i
~.. " *. d....
~
~
-o.... "
"'~.. ~.. ~
~
~.,O".,..,
"'"j
- 0...,.....
, ~
., I" j...,"
~...
~.. u 1,"r*.,lI ~~
, ~.lr * ",~ ~~
I "a *w
,..".....,0., "
!'~.:~*I~:: O: 5 l*1
... ~ ** :! *.
~
~...
'.1"1" '1'*
~i u... ~ ",u.5
,.. ~ "...
-.. ~
~....
. ~.
.'!~~O o~
- ,,1.. '1"1
- ". e-",
.~~-;:i~!' t.'3 Ii... ~-il u::;a..
I
- M
- ~
~...... o:>.-"
~~~3.. ~<l~~i!.:
"'*"-'1*"
~ 8........
,. 1"~'11 iU: :
H* : ~. ~o ! ~
. ~~fH!F : ~,!
.... '.... a.....
~
~
'l ~ ~ -'
" "' 'j'
- ... ~!.. ~.. -
~!
".03j '"
-;:.. ~
... ""~.ll!
- ",""0," *
.., ".ll".""B..ll......
gLs!"~E.!:3j
~...,.,
~. Q"
- ".".," I*
.~....
I '.. u _ I""
- 0
~.
I
- I
Appendix 2 - Page 15
'l'h~ on **
h.ln~ 1 '. nuorno.bly.~u abo~t i. tho co.t for o... jor l",ng"ter. d.. n,,!> "'Q,4 bo i n ucn. of $l~~ Il.
H either SnUord -'ct or Supo;r!uM ore u~
for ". the Mil 10 goin\\! to be ao high thn C<>n\\iro.... Ill hav. to o~p.""rlou fun~.**the<. h no other ",oy thlo Mil "ill bo paid.
And i Ottlr\\9 thou tu *. 4. "ill "".. pOHticol dod.l=
negoUote4 tho Iloo'" of "VA,
,.....,.NH~, m,<-"
~""9r..., on" tn. Wn.te Moo.e.
Tha flut <HlIve roblo thh \\jr~ 0l>ou14 P"t tOi"'o"' r i. 0... ""/p<por that tead.... gul4. through tM ** doti.ion.. king proo..... ""Uininl the 0. 01'0 and tho difl... "t dooi.iop ".,int..
I thi"", it. h<r,ld.hy
... oy h"" uy1"i to tOU tho funding t>ur<l<:n Ovor the f o~oe nd oay
'."parIuna,""Ot dO tnlO !
- Or *S'oU or~ aot ~un do thi. '.**. d otleX to
- n.utra\\ e"pl.~t l on of ~hat the eona.~nc~. of.o~h !wn~ing oction
""""ld be (I _..
' [blo~k[ coul d be funded by CIRCU*
- the h"iUAgO 0110><$
it. "".... vu. CERCI.>. I. inerodlbly ~n<le<lu."\\tl.d for *.,.,.tll.i.... Ilk. thbl
)., politicol 'ool-Ht, H you wlll. t hAt l.yo OUt; "",dOll. ond trodeoU *.
Appendix 2 - Page 16 January 7, 2011 Re: Fw: Price Anderson Info I)
Stuart Walker to: Jeff Maurer Co: Gilberto Irizarry, Kathy Jooes, Lois Ganl'oef. Randy Deitz 081111201005:44 PM We haven'l ever spelled this out an)'Where, Nor has final cleanup levels been discussed by the FEMA, NRC, EPA workgroup looking at Price Anderson Act Issues. So I don', have a clear answer, but here are some of my thoughts, 0\\
EPA has said that under CERLA and some other environmental laws \\e.g" SDWA, CM, AEA) that 251100 mrem Is not protective. So I don't tNnk we would want to say we would p'romOling mat as a cleanup level. Also, at one point during the DHS rAG (guidance foe di~ bombs ahd nuclear weapons) development process NRC said t!leY wa nt~ a ftval cleanup leyel 011 to 10 rem (that is 1,000 mrem to 10,000 mrem) and they wanted to apply those oreanup numberS 0 nuclear power plant meltdovms. I am not sure ~ NR ' still f~ the same way now.
In some ~I the M I~ el JOAR, OSWER, OW, OGC) which were followed up by Gina MCcarthy 01 OAR meeting With lisa JackSon, it was decided we would NOT be using optimization In the aRIA PAG (Protective Action Guidelines) thai would be proposed for final cleanup. We woold instead be talking about using existing standards. Since It1ls language still has too be drafted it is not certain if/hOlN specifICally CERCLA will be mentioned.