ML12262A547

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
State of New York Motion for Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Additional Cross-Examination Questions Concerning Consolidated Contention NYS-12C
ML12262A547
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/18/2012
From: Liberatore K, Sipos J
State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23480, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12262A547 (35)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. September 18, 2012

x STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT AND ADDITIONAL CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-12C Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York 12224

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR ALLOWING THE STATE TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS .......................3 A. There Is No Question that the Additional Exhibit in Which Staff Takes a Position in Direct Conflict with Staff and Entergys Central Argument on Sample Problem AIs Relevant ........................................................................3 B. This Exhibit Is Necessary to Develop a Sound Hearing Record and to Determine the Reliability of the Evidence Presented by Staff and Entergy.....................................................................................................................4 C. The State Only Recently Became Aware of This Additional Exhibit and Allowing Its Filing Will Not Cause Delay or Prejudice Any Party.........................5

1. Background on the States Discovery of the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan.....................................................................................................5
2. Although the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan Is Available on ADAMS, It Was Not Reasonably Available to the State and, Thus, the State Could Not Have Previously Introduced It ................................................7
3. The Introduction of the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan as an Exhibit Will Not Cause Delay or Prejudice....................................................................8
4. The State Submitted the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan in a Timely Fashion...............................................................................................................9 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10 i

INTRODUCTION Recognizing that the deadline set for filing rebuttal exhibits and cross-examination questions has passed, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the State of New York respectfully requests leave to file an additional exhibit and corresponding cross-examination questions for Contention NYS-12C, the States contention which explains how the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) analysis for Indian Point significantly underestimated the economic costs of a severe accident by using data developed for a site in rural Virginia (i.e., Sample Problem A). Entergy does not oppose the States motion for leave to submit the document as an exhibit, but does oppose the request to submit additional cross-exam questions. NRC Staff opposes the motion in its entirety.

The additional exhibit is an email chain and document authored by Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Staffbut not previously disclosed by Staffthat expresses views contrary to the positions taken by Staff and Entergy regarding NYS-12C. See E-mail from C.

Ader, NRO to M. Johnson, NRO:

Subject:

FW: Action YT-2011-0003: Request Parallel Concurrence on Document: Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013 (ML12024A077) (FY13 Long-Term Research Plan), attached hereto as Attachment 1. The document reveals that applicants often begin with input values that are found in Sample Problem A . . . taken from a calculation for Surry done for NUREG-1150, which was published in 1990. The pedigree of some of those input values is not known. FY13 Long-Term Research Plan, ML12024A077 at 5 (emphasis added). The text, in context, is reproduced below.

1

One of the central arguments advanced by New York in support of NYS-12C is that it was inappropriate for Entergy and Staff to rely upon input values from Sample Problem A to determine severe accident consequences at Indian Point because, inter alia, those input values are not site-specific for Indian Point and there is not evidence that those input values were developed with reliable technical analyses. See, e.g., State of New York Revised Statement of Position at 7-14 (NYS000419). In their Statements of Position and Pre-Filed Testimony, both Staff and Entergy reject this position. See n.1, n.2, infra. The heretofore undisclosed Staff document directly refutes Staff and Entergys assertions.

On September 10, 2012, the State became aware of the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan, which directly contradicts the central argument raised by Staff and Entergy in NYS-12C to support the use of Sample Problem A. The FY13 Long-Term Research Plan appears to be an attachment to an email chain that includes Sherwin Turk, Staff counsel in this proceeding, and Tina Gosh, Staff witness in this proceeding. Additional email addressees include Michael Johnson, NRC senior manager who briefed the Commission on Fukushima Lessons Learned; Scott Flanders, an NRC Attorney; Gary Holahan, Deputy Director of NRCs Office of New Reactors; Eric Leeds, Director of NRCs Nuclear Reactor Regulation; and Charles Miller, Leader of the Near-Term Task Force for Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident.

2

Although the document date is January 19, 2011, it was not added to NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) until January 26, 2012after the States initial pre-trial submissions, but before Staff and Entergys. Staff has failed to disclose the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan and, as will be described in more detail below, good cause exists for the Board to allow the State to file this additional exhibit and proposed cross-examination questions, which have been filed in camera as Attachment 2.

ARGUMENT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR ALLOWING THE STATE TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS A. There Is No Question the Additional Exhibitin Which Staff Takes a Position in Direct Conflict with Staff and Entergys Central Argument on Sample Problem AIs Relevant The FY13 Long-Term Research Plan is highly relevant. Standing in direct conflict with Staff and Entergys arguments in this proceeding, the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan explains that while applicants often begin with input values that are found in Sample Problem A[,] . . . .

[t]he pedigree of some of those input values is not known. FY13 Long-Term Research Plan, ML12024A077 at 5 (emphasis added).

In its Statement of Position and Pre-filed Testimony, Staff contends that Entergys SAMA analysis is reasonable by arguing that NUREG-1150 . . . was subjected to an extensive peer review and public comment.1 Entergy faults the State for not acknowledg[ing] the source 1

See NRC Staffs Initial Statement of Position on Consolidated Contention NYS-12C at 10, 13 (NRC000039); Testimony of NRC Staff Experts Nathan Bixler, S. Tina Gosh, Joseph A. Jones, and Donald Harrison Concerning NYS 12/16 at A39 (NRC000041). In the FSEIS, Staff asserted that Sample Problem A values were primarily developed for the Surry plant analysis in NUREG-1150 and represent best estimate information for that site and time. Appendix G of the FSEIS (NYS00133I) at G-23.

3

and pedigree of the inputs used by Entergy.2 Since FY13 Long-Term Research Plan directly contradicts these assertions, it is highly relevant and thus, good cause exists to allow the State to file it as an exhibit along with cross-examination questions addressing it.

B. This Exhibit Is Necessary to Develop a Sound Hearing Record and to Determine the Reliability of the Evidence Presented by Staff and Entergy The Board should also grant the States request for leave to file this exhibit to ensure that the ultimate decision on relicensing is based on a complete record. It is of the utmost importance that the Board have a full record of all material and relevant evidence when rendering its relicensing decision. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-580, 11 N.R.C. 227, 230 (Appeal Board 1980) (No conceivable good is served by making empty findings in the absence of essential evidence.). In addition to being relevant, the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan is both material and materially different from any evidence offered in this proceeding. In fact, on its face, the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan renders evidence offered in this proceeding unreliable and contradictory by impeaching pre-filed witness testimony. It meets all the criteria of admissibility under 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a) with flying colors. Consequently, good cause exists to allow its filing for the Boards consideration at the hearing.

2 Testimony of Entergy Experts Lori Potts, Kevin OKula, and Grant Teagarden on NYS-12C (ENT000450) at A76 (emphasis added); see id. at A26, A35, A72, A78, A160; see also Entergys Statement of Position Regarding Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis) at 5 (ENT000449).

4

C. The State Only Recently Became Aware of This Additional Exhibit and Allowing Its Filing Will Not Cause Delay or Prejudice Any Party

1. Background on the States Discovery of the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan Despite the fact that the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan is directly relevant to Contention NYS-12C, Staff never disclosed it in this proceeding. See Declaration of Kathryn M.

Liberatore in Support of State of New York Motion For Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Additional Cross-Examination Questions Concerning Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (Sept.

18, 2012) (Liberatore Decl.) ¶ 9 (Attachment 3). This Board has put Staff on notice of Staffs disclosure obligations. See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part State of New York and Riverkeepers Motion to Compel) at 10 (Mar. 16, 2012) (unpublished) ([I]f the NRC Staff has in its possession documents that provide support for or opposition to its expert testimony, then those documents must be disclosed. Intervenors will then have ample opportunity to prepare rebuttal testimony, to propose questions for the Board to ask these witnesses, or to move for the ability to cross-examine these witnesses.).

As explained in the Declaration of Kathryn M. Liberatore, the State did not discover the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan until the evening of September 10, 2012. Liberatore Decl. ¶ 5.

Ms. Liberatore was conducting research in preparation for a September 11, 2012 meeting the NRC Commissioners were holding to discuss economic consequences of reactor accidents. Id. ¶

2. Ms. Liberatore was reviewing SECY-12-0110, Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Regulatory Framework (Aug. 14, 2012)

(ML12173A479),3 and its Enclosure 9, titled MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System, 3

Entergy disclosed this document (Doc Id No. 1553) on Septemeber 5, 2012.

5

Version 2 (MACCS2) (ML12173A509). Id. SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9, contains a discussion of MACCS2 inputs that relates to the States arguments in NYS-12C:

It is not obvious to current MACCS2 experts at both the NRC and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) that rehabilitation and clean up, land contamination area, or economic models and results are excessively conservative. Economic results and some land contamination area results are controlled by user inputs and could be biased to be either conservative or nonconservative, depending on the input values selected by the user.

SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9 at 2 (emphasis added); compare with State of New York Initial Statement of Position NYS-12C (Dec. 21, 2011) (NYS000240) at 14-15 (explaining that MACCS2 input values are user-defined and . . . . [t]he MACCS2 Users Guide makes clear that the user is responsible for selecting appropriate input values.).

SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9 also stated that a new and alternative economic model for MACCS2 is under development. . . . based on the existing Regional Economic Accounting Tool (REAcct), which SNL developed for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Liberatore Decl. ¶ 4 (quoting SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9 at 7). This was the first time Ms.

Liberatore has seen the term REAcct. Id.

After discovering this information, Ms. Liberatore conducted some searches on the ADAMS in further preparation for the September 11 meeting. Liberatore Decl. ¶ 5. One search using the terms MACCS2 and REAcct yielded two results: (1) SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9, and (2) ML12024A077 titled E-mail from C. Ader, NRO to M. Johnson, NRO:

Subject:

FW:

Action YT-2011-0003: Request Parallel Concurrence on Document: Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013. Upon reviewing ML12024A077, which contained an NRC email and attachment (i.e., the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan), Ms. Liberatore realized the relevance and importance of the document. The State included the document in a supplemental disclosure to the parties on September 14, 2012.

6

2. Although the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan Is Available on ADAMS, It Was Not Reasonably Available to the State and, Thus, the State Could Not Have Previously Introduced It The Commission has upheld an ASLBs consideration of a late-filed document for good cause. See Crow Butte Res., Inc. (North Trend Expansion Area), 40-8943-MLA, 69 N.R.C. 535, 549 (June 25, 2009). In Crow Butte Resources, which concerned an application to expand operations at uranium recovery facility, a petitioner successfully introduced a document the day of the prehearing conference despite the fact that unbeknownst to [p]etitioners, the document had been publicly available on NRCs public document management system, ADAMS for almost two months prior to the hearing. Id. The ASLB had found that, even though the document was on ADAMS, it was not previously available to [p]etitioners in any reasonable sense prior to the date they received it from [an]other organization, that the information and analysis found in it is materially different than information previously available, and that it was submitted in a timely fashion based on when it did become available to [p]etitioners. See Crow Butte Res., Inc. (North Trend Expansion Area), 40-8943-MLA, 67 N.R.C. 241, 259 (ASLB May 21, 2008). The Commission affirmed the ASLBs decision to consider the document, noting that the document was not indexed by license number, making it unlikely to be found by persons interested in the proposed . . . expansion. 69 N.R.C. at 549.

So too here. Throughout this proceeding the State has conducted searches on ADAMS using terms relevant to the various admitted contentions and other issues of interest. Liberatore Decl. ¶ 7. The State has not, however, previously located the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan through its ADAMS searches. Id. Although the document date is January 19, 2011, it was not added to ADAMS until January 26, 2012after the States initial pre-trial submissions, but before Staff and Entergys. Id. at 8. The State only happened upon the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan in performing an ADAMS search including the term REAccta term that the 7

State first encountered in preparing for the September 11 Commissioners meeting unrelated to this relicensing proceeding. Id. ¶¶ 2-5. Thus, the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan was not previously available to the State in any meaningful way. All in all, good cause exists to allow the State to file it as an exhibit along with corresponding cross-examination questions despite the fact that it was available on ADAMS.

3. The Introduction of the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan as an Exhibit Will Not Cause Delay or Prejudice First and foremost, the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan is an NRC document. It is NRC that chose to wait over a year to add the document to ADAMS, despite the fact that NRC policy requires documents be available on ADAMS within six days.4 See Liberatore Decl. ¶ 8 (The document date is January 19, 2011, but it was not added to ADAMS until over a year later on January 26, 2012). It is NRC who decided not to disclose the document in this proceeding. And it is NRC who chose to take positions in this proceeding that contradict statements it made in this document. Just like the Commission found in Crow Butte that neither [the applicant] nor the Staff can claim that they were unfairly surprised by the introduction of Exhibit B, as both were in possession of the document for approximately 2 months prior to the time [p]etitioners learned of its existence, id. at 549-50, the Staff cannot be prejudiced by a document that has been in its possessionincluding the possession of its attorney and expert witnessfor over a year and a half.

Additionally, the introduction of the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan as an exhibit and additional cross-examination questions will not delay the hearing. The FY13 Long-Term 4

See, e.g., NRC, Open Government Plan Revision 1.1 (June 7, 2010) (ML101550309) at 6

([T]he agency policy stated in NRC Management Directive 3.4, Release of Information to the Public, dated February 6, 2009, requires most documents to be released to the public within 6 business days after issuance.).

8

Research Plan squarely addresses Staff and Entergys position on the central issue of NYS-12C:

the unreasonableness of Entergys reliance on Sample Problem A. This issue was a likely hearing and cross-examination topic before the State found the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan and, thus, its introduction will not expand the scope of the hearing, delay the hearing, or have any adverse effect on the proceeding. Cf. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Entergys Answer in Support of Staffs Motion for Leave to Introduce Two Additional Exhibits (Aug. 24, 2006) (ML062430029) at 2 (supporting Staffs August 23, 2006 motion5 to introduce two 25-year-old documents it had recently located on ADAMS as additional exhibits at an ASLB hearing scheduled for September 13-15, 2006 because [t]here would be no significant impacts on any party as a result of the admission of these clearly relevant documents[,] . . . . they do not represent a change in position by the Staff, nor raise issues that have not been previously addressed[,] . . . . [and] [t]heir admission would not delay or expand the hearing or require the Board to address matters that it would not have otherwise been considered.). In sum, no prejudice or delay weighs against allowing the State to file the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan as an exhibit along with the proposed corresponding cross-examination questions.

4. The State Submitted the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan in a Timely Fashion Lastly, the timeliness of the States submission supports allowing it to file the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan and cross-examination questions. The State is submitting the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan to the Board a little over a week after discovering it. Given the time required to review the document and prepare cross-examination questions, draft this motion, and 5

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), NRC Staffs Motion for Leave to Introduce Two Additional Hearing Exhibits (Aug. 23, 2006) (ML062360102).

9

consult with other parties on this motion, the States submission is timely and shows good faith on the part of the State.

CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the State respectfully requests that the Board grant the State of New York leave to file the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan as an additional exhibit and the proposed corresponding cross-examination questions.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Signed (electronically) by Kathryn M. Liberatore John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York for the State of New York 120 Broadway The Capitol New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12227 (212) 416-8459 (518) 402-2251 Dated: September 18, 2012 10

Certificate Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 In accordance with the Boards Scheduling Order of July 1, 2010 (at 8-9) and 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for the State of New York has made a sincere effort to contact other parties in the proceeding and resolve the issues raised in the motion. The State of New Yorks efforts to resolve the issues with NRC Staff have been unsuccessful, and NRC Staff opposes this motion. The State of New Yorks efforts to resolve the issues with Entergy have been partially successful as Entergy does not object to the addition of the subject document as a new exhibit. Entergy does, however, oppose the States request to update previously-submitted proposed Board examination questions.

Signed (electronically) by Kathryn M. Liberatore Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York 120 Broadway New York, New York (212) 416-8482 September 18, 2012

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. September 18, 2012

x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 18, 2012, copies of the State of New York Motion For Leave to File an Additional Exhibit and Cross-Examination Questions Concerning Consolidated Contention NYS-12C were served electronically via the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Shelbie Lewman, Esq. Law Clerk Richard E. Wardwell, Administrative Judge Anne Siarnacki, Esq., Law Clerk Michael F. Kennedy, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 3 F23 Mailstop 3 F23 Two White Flint North Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Shelbie.Lewman@nrc.gov Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mailstop 16 G4 Mailstop 3 F23 One White Flint North Two White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ocaamail@nrc.gov

Office of the Secretary Bobby R. Burchfield, Esq.

Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Matthew M. Leland, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Clint A. Carpenter, Esq.

Mailstop 3 F23 McDermott Will & Emery LLC Two White Flint North 600 13th Street, NW 11545 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20005-3096 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 bburchfield@mwe.com hearingdocket@nrc.gov mleland@mwe.com ccarpenter@mwe.com Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

David E. Roth, Esq. Richard A. Meserve, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP Brian G. Harris, Esq. 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Anita Ghosh, Esq. Washington, DC 20004-2401 Joseph A. Lindell, Esq. rmeserve@cov.com Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Elise N. Zoli, Esq.

Mailstop 15 D21 Goodwin Procter, LLP One White Flint North Exchange Place 11555 Rockville Pike 53 State Street Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Boston, MA 02109 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov ezoli@goodwinprocter.com david.roth@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov William C. Dennis, Esq.

brian.harris@nrc.gov Assistant General Counsel anita.ghosh@nrc.gov Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Joseph.Lindell@nrc.gov 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. wdennis@entergy.com Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Jonathan Rund, Esq. Robert D. Snook, Esq.

Raphael Kuyler, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Office of the Attorney General 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW State of Connecticut Washington, DC 20004 55 Elm Street ksutton@morganlewis.com P.O. Box 120 pbessette@morganlewis.com Hartford, CT 06141-0120 jrund@morganlewis.com robert.snook@ct.gov rkuyler@morganlewis.com Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Office of the Westchester County Attorney Suite 4000 Michaelian Office Building 1000 Louisiana Street 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Houston, TX 77002 White Plains, NY 10601 martin.oneill@morganlewis.com MJR1@westchestergov.com Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor James Seirmarco, M.S.

2

Village of Buchanan Manna Jo Greene, Director Municipal Building Karla Raimundi, Environmental Justice 236 Tate Avenue Associate Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Stephen Filler, Esq., Board Member vob@bestweb.net Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

724 Wolcott Avenue Daniel Riesel, Esq. Beacon, NY 12508 Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Mannajo@clearwater.org Victoria S. Treanor, Esq. karla@clearwater.org Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. stephenfiller@gmail.com 460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Richard Webster, Esq.

driesel@sprlaw.com Public Justice, P.C.

vtreanor@sprlaw.com Suite 200 1825 K Street, NW Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Washington, DC 20006 Director rwebster@publicjustice.net Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC Department of Environmental Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Protection Deborah Brancato, Esq.

59-17 Junction Boulevard Riverkeeper, Inc.

Flushing, NY 11373 20 Secor Road (718) 595-3982 Ossining, NY 10562 mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Signed (electronically) by Kathryn M. Liberatore Assistant Attorney General State of New York (212) 416-8482 Dated at New York, New York this 18th day of September 2012 3

ATTACHMENT 1 Clark, Theresa From: Ader, Charles (-

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:42 AM To: Johnson, Michael Cc: Dube, Donald; Chokshi, Nilesh; Flanders, Scott' Holahan, Gary; Clark, Theresa; Lombard, Mark; Bergman, Thomas

Subject:

FW: ACTION: YT-2011-0003: Request Parallel concurrence on document: "Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013" Attachments: ADAMS Document.APK Importance: High Mike.

I recommend concurring on the subject paper with the foliowing omrnents:

1) Memorandum page 4 under "Assessinci Climate Variability Contribution to Risk at Nuclear Facilities" -

Need to clarify or delete commen't (Drn. ORCA under the climate variability project. While it is true that SOARCA found external events risk to perhaps dominate total risk, this was mainly from seismic. This is unrelated to climate variability,

2) Same section - to clarify that the sentence is intended to refer to events such as flooding and not all external events (e.g., seismic) modify the sentence that reads:

"The treatment of external events in PRA and risk-informed decisions is currently much less mature than the treatment of internal events although the risk from external events may dominate total facility risk."

to read as:

"The treatment of these external events in PRA and risk-informed decisions is currently much less mature than the treatment of internal events although the risk from external events may dominate total facility risk."

Enclosure

3. 2 page 5 under , .. R' latorv Issues o:' -,e Thorium Cycle" - The last sentence refers to fuel rmnarufacturig i s .. . ', 1hou

.... n t th.ms refer to fuel m anufacturinn issues with Th-232 as the fertile fuel is made with z Tn--32 not U-232. L...2312 is a byproduct of the nuclear reactions, but is in-situ (unless this sentence is intended to discuss processing the spent fuel, which contains U-233 and U-232. the latter giving way to decay products that are hard gamma emitters, complicating the shielding requ,,rmnents).

From: Correa, Yessie Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:31 AM To: Penny, Melissa Cc: Clark, Theresa; Lombard, Mark; Coates, Anissa; Berry, Lee

Subject:

ACTION: YT-2011-0003: Request Parallel concurrence on document: "Agency Long-Term Research ActiVities for Fiscal Year 2013" Importance: High ACTION:

YT-2011-0003: Request Parallei concurre-erce on document: "Agency Long-Term PResearch Activities for Fiscal Year 2013" Assiqned To: C. Ader, bD5,A bue bate: 01/20/2011 by noon Inst.: Requesting review and commrnerconcut rence.

SeeM, Johnson's e-mail below; Per his concur'rnce

Thanks,

.z.1. Correspondence Team NRC .............. . .. ..... .......... ............

From: Johnson, Michael Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:20 AM To: Correa, Yessie; Berry, Lee Cc: Holahan, Gary; Williams, Donna

Subject:

FW: Action: Request Parallel concurrence on document: "Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013" Ple.ase licket. DSRA lead. My concurrence From: Bano, Mahmooda Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:16 AM To: Lui, Christiana; Case, Michael; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource; RidsNrrOd Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; RidsFsmeOd Resource; RidsNroOd Resource; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource; RidsNsirOd Resource; Turk, Sherwin; Leeds, Eric; Miller, Charles; Johnson, Michael; Mitchell, Reggie; Wiggins, Jim Cc: Ghosh, Tina; Santiago, Patricia; Bano, Mahmooda; Wach, Lisa; Greenwood, Carol

Subject:

Action: Request Parallel concurrence on document: "Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013"

All, Please review and comment / concurrence requested by January 20t' , 2011 by noon:

"Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013" Thank you ADAMS Package: ML110100020 Policy Issues: MLl10100018 : ML110100029 : ML110100032

Clark, Theresa From: Ader, Charles Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:00 AM To: Bano, Mahmooda Cc: Ghosh, Tina: Santiago, Patricia, Clark, Theresa: RidsNroMailCenter Resource; Johnson.

Michael; Chokshi, Nilesh; Bergman, Thomas: Flanders, Scott- Gibson, Kathy; Dube, Donald

Subject:

RE. NRO concurrence on FY13 long.-term res SECY (YT-2011-0003)

Mahmooda, Mike Johnson concurs on the SECY "Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013" (ML110100020, YT-2011-0003), subject to the following comments:
1) Memorandum page 3 under "Evaluating Service Life of Nuclear Power Plant Concrete Structures" -

Consider discussing the relationship with the FY11 long-term research topic (Enclosure 2, page 4) on nondestructive evaluation and surveillance of civil structures.

2) Memorandum page 4 under "Assessing Climate Variability Contribution to Risk at Nuclear Facilities" -

Need to clarify or delete comment on SOARCA under the climate variability project. While it is true that SOARCA found external events risk to perhaps dominate total risk, this was mainly from seismic. This is unrelated to climate variability.

3) Same section - to clarify that the sentence is intended to refer to events such as flooding and not all external events (e.g., seismic) modify the sentence that reads:

"The treatment of external events in PRA and risk-informed decisions is currently much less mature than the treatment of internal events although the risk from external events may dominate total facility risk."

to read as:

"The treatment of these external events in PRA and risk-informed decisions is currently much less mature than the treatment of internal events although the risk from external events may dominate total facility risk."

4) Enclosure 2 page 5 under "Safety and Regulatory Issues of the Thorium Cycle" - The last sentence.

refers .to fuel manufacturing issues with U-232. Shouldn't this refer to fuel manufacturing issues with Th-232 as the fertile fuel is made with Th-232, not U-232? U-232 is a byproduct of the nuclear reactions, but is in-situ (unless this sentence is intended to discuss processing the spent fuel, which contains U-233 and U-232, the latter giving way to decay products that are hard gamma emitters, complicating the shielding requirements).

This completes action on NRO YT-2011-0003

NRO Suggestions for FY13 Long-Term Research Plan Background and Guidance (more info at the RES SharePoint site);

Q The LT Research Projects Review Committee will prioritize allsubmissions that are within the scope of the RES mission and will report to the RES Office Director who will determine whether each will befunded, based on priority and availability of funds. This process-will' be completed by Defcember 2010, starting with the submittal of NRO's consolidated suggestions by.October 30.

Fill out each row, with as much information as. possible to support the committee's review. Use the last five rows to indicate-how-the follbwing.prioritizatio.nfactors apply to the topic:

o Leverages resources while maintaining NRC's independence and supporting the needed schedule for issue resolution (weight.10%)

o Advances the state-of-the-art in a:subject.area with.significant incertainties and significant: risk or safety implications (weight 30%)

o Provides anindependent tool. or information that is needed.for future regulatory decisionmaking (weight 10%)° c) Improves more than one program area or the integration between multiple program areas (weight 20%)

o Addresses gaps created by. technology advancements that may be employed by licensees or applicants (weight 30.%)

ITitle Licensing Support for Liquid Metal Fast Reactor Brief Summaryof Need Contact-Name William Reckley-I SCost.Estimate $.30,000 FTE Estimate 1.0 Description of Work " To fully assess NRC capabilities and gaps in our ability to evaluate and license liquid metal fast reactors. Although some !ow-level work has been undertaken in "recent years (eg., knowledge managernent, metal fuel oualification assessment),

.a more detailed study is needed to assess previous activities (Clinch River, PRISM, SAFR) and begin research activities to address significant gaps in technical and regulatory areas. This activity would ssJpport initial efforts that would then form the basis for a longer term program to support the licensing of fast reactors.

Prioritization Leveraging iNational laboratories currently involved in research and licensing support for new Factors., . Resources nuclear plants, integrated pressurized water reactors, high-temperature gas-

-cooled reactors and other activities. These recent and ongoing efforts provide a

!logical basis for the addition of activities for fast reactor technologies.

Advancing State Some of these, activities would logically advance the state of the art as revision of of the Art !existing tools and development of new tools are needed for a different

-.technology.

Independent. The initial efforts would ultrnately lead To the adoption or development of Decisionmaking independent decision-m,,aking tools for applications related to fast reactors Tool Multi-Program T1he fast reactor technologies are likely to be- part of multi-program activities Improvement related to both reactor licensing and changes to the nuclear fuel cycle. These activities will need to be coordinated with NMSS activities related to waste, ryin Irecycling, and fuel cycleý facilities.

Addressing Gapsi*Ti-, natlre ot this .-ctivit/ is to irdenilfy cand begin resolution of gaps in technical

," ,g,,u to,.ry a re- lated ,to h0,, licensing and oversight of fast reactors.

iTitle New Improved MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS)

Brief Summary of Need hr e nian'd to r-view, and udWte or apg .dt, as nece ssar',, certain iniut O wes .... r o -ri, th, MACCS? for off-,ie radielorlcai a ond --crio mic consequunc* ,' ovwe a-cdervLs, ya as epor"d iin Se-wver Acclad't

,Mana510 er1 Alt oA:t natIv- (-AN,) ; Sever e Accident Managerent Design

. rAIrer atiw2 (SAMOA) anaiyses submitted as part of combined operatng hcense apprications and standard reactor design certifIcation applications. For instance,

,applicants oftfre begin wrth input values that are found in "Sample Problem A" ahatis distributed with the MACCS2 code (NUREGiCR-6613). The values in Sample Prob"lem A were taken from a calculation for Surry done for NUREG-1t50, which was published in 1990. The pedigree of some of those input valueS is not known.

Conitact NMie, Jay Lee (NRO/DSFR)

Estimate tCost "- .. OK FTE Estimate i-Description of Work nRevnew and- updase or upgrade as necessary, certain input values often used i ' the MACCS tu'r off-site ra'l*logicai and economirc onsequences or severe IN Non o;ite-serific parameters ,bevrad. by a rnOuLof experts f-om the US and th.e con-.rmnsron of European Comrrunities NCEC), to be important to or uninifnt Or dri no-st Oing consequences were subjected to an expert emit on -iuning the late 1995.s Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) prepared ranges on and degrees of belief and associated correlation coefficients ov'aLis for all M the non site"-pecaiit parnmeters. This information shoud be 1 incorporated intote impe opved new code (Ref. 3).

i hianticipation of the Commission approval in near future for use of the

)i-i ncroved maut paiameters used in the development of Stae-of-the Art

Reactor Consequence Analyses MSOARCA), incoirporate these new parameters rint the irproved new code
14)r umornpete and incorporate new improved economic model being developed by SNL as an alternative to the current model in MACCS2 (See SRMs dated Septemher in,2,t10. aridJune 2, 2009). The new model will be based on an

. xi rrng code, 1regional Economic Accountng (REAcct)" which uses an l input/output model to calculate loss of gross dornesticproduct (GDP) due to economic clisruptions caused by natural and/or manmade disasters. The main i ssue i ernarinig to ne resolved is extending the iodelei to longer-teriii impacts on Me ecoriomy that could potentially result from a reactor accident (See COCO 2 rnodel), if approprate.

SR!e*rcne.o- NE. Bixer. a i., "Evaluation of Distribution Representing importanIt Non*Site-.pecifoc Parameters in Off-Site Consequence Analyses," Draft NUREG/CR-1 S IXXXX, SAND20T0XXXX.

lProritization Leverging Factors Resources Advancihg State of the Art Independent Multi-Program i Improvement jAddressing Gaps!I

NRO Suggestions for FY13 Long-Term Research Plan Background and Guidance (more infoat the RES SharePoint site);

The LT Research. Projects Review Committee will prioritize all submissions that are within the scope 0fthe RES mission and will'report to the RES'.Office Director who will determine whether each will be funded, based on priorityandlavailability-offunds, This process will be completed by December 2010, starting with the submiittal of NRO's consolidated suggestions by October 30.

o Fill outýeach,,roW~with.as:,much-inform ation as possible-to support the commrittee's.review..use the last five!': -

rows.to indicate how the following prioritization factors apply.to the topic:"

c Leverages Iresourceswhilemaintaiiiing NRC's independence and Isupportingthe needed schedule for issue.

resoluti6n (w*ight0%),. ""

o Advances the:state-of-tbe-art in a subject area with significant uincertainties and significant risk or safety implications (weight 30%)

o Providesan, independent tool or information that is needed for future regulatory decisionmaking (weight 10%)

0 Improves more than one program area or the integration between multiple program areas (weight 20%)

0 Addresses gaps created by technology advancements that may be employed by licensees or applicants (weight 30%).'

Title. Hyperion Power Module Brief Summaryof Need.

Contact:

Name 1Neil Ray (NRO/DE) _

Cost'Estimate $ý10000 FTE Estimate 10.5 DescriptionofWork.. Follow developments in neutronics and materials behavior, Materials proposed for powei module and its interaction with the coolant lead-bismuth eutectic (L1E).

Also, proposed fuei is Uranium Nitride may require further collection of data while Istudying fuel crackinF.

A compact, low-power reactor concept is being studies at Los Alamnos National Priodritization; Leveraging&

Factors Resources.* laboratory. Hyperion corporation is formed and there is private investment through venture capital and strategic oartnerships fortmed.

Advancing State of theArt " 1."__

Independent Decisionmaking Tool Multi-Program Improvement. _

Addressing-Gaps

'Title Accident Source Terms for Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs)

Brief Summary of Need !The Departrnernt of Energy continues to press for closing the nuclear fuel cycle.

The strategy they have devised for this includes sodiurn-cooled fast reactors for iremoving actinides from _spent fue! from water reactors. It is anticipated in the looming years that DOE wvii begin seriously detailed design studies of a sodium-cooled actinide burner with he"intention of submitting the design for certificaton by NRC (Rer;erence ])I hn addition, there are several SFRs being pursued by different reactor vendors e.g., -oshiba 4S, C ElH PRISM) and NRC is expecting design certificatiorn appicition s'ubmittais in 2013.(Reference 2)

Contact Name Jay Lee (NRO/DSER)

Cost Estimate S280K iFTE Estimate 1.0 FTE L

iDescription of Work A part of this certification effort wil requite that NRO have an understanding of the possible releases of radionuclrde- 'rom the sodium in the event of accident either withiin or beyond the design basis, NRO will need independent capabilities to assess the consequ *n'ces or arccidental releases of radionuclides to the containment or aontonement and lea-'kage of radionuclides into the environment.

This capability will be verv much differ ent than that now available for light water reactors. There is an opportunity to leverage resources on the investigation of the source term for SFRs. OECD and IRSN in France have augmented their efforts in this particular area. Specific activities that should be undertaken:

Assemble data base on known information concerning the release of radionuc~ides from liquid sodiufm 0 Assemble data oase of sodium aerosol behavior

  • Develop a therrruc,heirical model of radionuclide release from sodium to s/sternatire roe above data base, allow extrapolation of the data base, and id-nf' v :rias of Lrlciai missing data

" Q uantitat ivei y va'i.aLe the inmportance of these phenomena and the efor addc'toona! eixpeanrnmentaj research o Identify additional phuhnonmena that are high importance and have a high need for additionai extp erimental research Reference i: D, A. Powers, et ai., "Advanced Sodium Fast Reactor Accident Source Terms: Research Needs," Sand Report, SAND2010-5506, September 2010.

Reference 2: (Sensitive NRC Internal Information) "Advanced Reactor Program Plan," Revision 1. August 2010, Advanced Reactor Program/NRO/NRC lPrioriftization .1Leveraging.

Factors Resources Advancing State of the Art Independent

'Decisionmaking Tool

!Multi-Program Improvement Addressing Gaps.

Tte. ,. New Improved MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS)

Brief Su mmaryofNeed, There is a need to review, and update or upgrade as necessary, certain input values often used in the MACCS2 for off-site radiological and economic consequences of severe scients. such as reported in Severe Accident Management Alternative (,S/\NMA*.' or Severe Accident Ma.agemnent Design Alternative (SAMDA) anayvses submitted as part of combined operatinp licen* e apptications and standard reactor design certification arpiications. For instance, applicants often begin with input values that are found in "Sample Problem A"

  • that is distributed with the MACCS2 code (NUREG/CR-661,3). The values in Sample Problem A were taken from a calcuiation for Surry done for NUREG-itSO, which was published in 1990. The pedigree of some of those input values is not known.

Contact-,Name. ay Lee (NRO/DSER)

Cost Estimate: . . . i(

FTEcEstimate f W " FTE Description of Work 0) Review, and update or qograce as necessary, certain input values often used in the MACCS2 for off-sire radiologicai and economic consequences of severe accidents.

  • 2) onsite,-specific par amters b._ieved', b y a group of experts from the US and the Commission oi European Con]mu nities (CEC), to be important to or significant for determining off-site consequences were subjected to an e pert elicitation during the late 1990s. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) prepared ranges of values and degrees of belief and associated correlation coefficients for all of the non site-specific p.rarneters. This information should be incorporated into the improved new code (Ref. 3).

In anticipation of the Commission approval in near future for use of the improved input parameters used in the development of State-of-the Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA), incorporate these new parameters into the improved new code

  • 4) Complete and incorporate new improved economic model being developed by SNL as an alternative to the current model in MACCS2 (See SRMs dated September 1.0, 2008 and June 23, 2009). The new model will be based on an existing code, "Regional Economic Accounting (REAcct)" which uses an input/output model to calculate loss of gross domestic product (GDP) due to econornic disruptions caused by natural and/or manmade disasters. The main issue remaining to be resolved is extending the model to longer-term impacts on the economy that couid potentially result from a reactor accident (See COCO-2 model), if' appropria.te.

Reference:

N.E. Rixier, 1 , atin of Distribution Representing important Non-Site-Specific Parmrn F.*,er-:, in Off Sitenequence Analyses," Draft*NUREG/C.1-

.XXXX, SAND21OOXXXX Prioritization Leveraging Factors Resources Advancing State of the Art Independent Decision Tool Multi-Program.

Improvement.

Addressing Gapsj

jTitle General Site Suitability Criteria fo malMoua Reactors (SMRs)

Brief Summary of Need i he cur rent 2Uide, 'KegluY~or'y Cuidiý 4.7, "(--neral Site SUitahility Critpria for Nuclear lPowet StatIions," discusses meP nlaio site -_,haraczleristics related to public health dfId saftLy jai ernvironwr~ital Y~ tha tie"VC staff considers in determining the SUitability of sites ifor Iar e LWP~s, !'e advamceci ie' mr5, ilClUde small~ rnodula r Intecrai PW~s, hi-h

~ a~-o Pmper3W ~ctors, ýoc~ur-cooled fast reactors, and all other designs or rea Itechnoi Jgres (rxcptTor Icige 1,VVRs (g~eater than 700 MV~e). The SfvR dpsjgns are rcmrnarkbly different in si.c. (po vi levels) and reactor configuration.. Thereforp, there is a need to develop new regulatory guinance -or the NRC staff to consider in determining the su~itability of siees f(,: tho S iR,1

'Contact Name Jay Lee NRO/DSIR)

Cost Estimate S280K FTE Estimate 1. 0 FFTE Description of Work Develop riew regulatory piosroic i' -' l I-e 0PoUlazior densityv; excluison bounrdary and low populrition ;:(cre: focouiation l~ne ldistalce; use of the site environs indcluing proximrity to rran-mc1-e had;adpyil a,,i-c~ef stics of the site, inlcdicing seismnology.

IMetearmlogy, ýcolcgy, and hydroio-y irndteý-nimng the accepta bility o- a. site for a SMR.

Prioritization Leveraging Ft a r .R s_ou rc s . .....

R'ore ---- -- _.... . . ..... .. .....

!Factors "Advancing State*

... of theArt* .

.. ndependent DecisiorimakiIng

'Tool I.jilmprovement I

IMulti-Program

_ jAddressing

' GapsI

Title !Operational Considerations of Liquid Metal Reactor Designs BriefSurnmary of Need. The LMR designs present a numcer operational considerations not Currently evaluated by the current SRPs, sucn as oroertion with enrichment percenMtags i much greater than 5%,vwhich impacts fuel storage requirments, radiation monitoring requirements and AOO and accident analysis source terms. Some LMR reactors have exoerienced coolant contamination that has resulted in fuel damag*l I(e.g. Fermi 1, Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experiment), coolant purification (cold Itraps) cnd other methods of monitoring and ensuring coolant purity are not well Idocumented for use by NRC personnel. Methods for performing In Service Inspections and related RCS components inspections is not available to the staff.

Contact Narfle Ron i aVera (NRO/DCIP/CIAPB)

- I Cost Estimate FTE Estimate Description of Work Collect the required industry, DOE, DOD and international operating experionce information, to support development o f the appropriate evaluation crciea and methods* Fhen develop the ruidlince.

Prioritization Leveraging, The current NRC guidance does not appear t-o address these types of arpas Factors Resources Advancing State Based on participation in some [,MR ARP concept presentation meetings, of the Art. i experience in these areas are poorly understood and not well corrmunicated.

Independent*, The current SRP and RG guidance does not encompass these types of operations Decision making in LMR.

Tool, Multi-Program This guidance will be applicable to all of the IMR designs.

Improvement Addressing Gaps As noted above,, this type of informration and guidance does not appear to be currently available in the commrtercial environment.

Title. *Evaluation of ARP Specific Pressure Boundary Failure Modes and Precursors Brief Summary of Need A number of the Advance Reactor Projects use design configurations that extend beyond the boundaries of current regulatory puidance. For instance, one design lenvisions mcviic threr entire reactor vessel inuclding spent fi, as sa" of the Irour~ne rfe ng ac . A dropped bundle analysis would possibiy extend es._

beyondas~euidie, and instea d wouid nvolve the entire core. Other design proposais invlve the use of steam o fee ,rter pipes inside the PCS pressure bou ndary, e - t L failure in orn of' hor.e ines could resiIt in an RCS primary toi secondary leak that far exceeds the. flow i aie of a single SG tube, utilized in the current analysis. Other designs are proposing the use of inert gases at high pressure as an RCS cooling medium. How the current Leak Before Break methodology (such as CG:1.45) would be extended to these designs should be determined, as well as how to analvze for non-traditional core damage modes experienced at similar plants (e.g. carbon moderated core fires at Windscale and Chernobyi)

Contact Name Ron LaVera (NRO/DC0P/CHPB)

[Cost Estimate%

IFTE Estimate Description of Work !Collect .he required industry and operating experience information from national j(DOE and DOD) and international sources, to support development of the pe'~,

the regoulatory guidance.

iapproriate analvticai methods. Then develo Prioritization [Leveraging I his ouidmc' will hbeapicable across a number of the ARP design concepts.

Factors !Resources iraclud'nrz some of ,the non-LWR des*gns, Advancing State Basedon par-ticipat on in several ArP concent presentation meetings, experience of the Art hrn these areas are poorly understood and nor well communicated.

independent fihe cui tent S'P and PC guKidance does not encompass these types of f.ailure Decision making Imoodes Tool,

Multi-Program !Asnoted, information developed in support of the I.WR ARP designs, may be

[improvement:, applicable to other design centers, such as HTCR.

Addressing, Gaps As noted above, this type of information and gLidance does not appear to be

  • " .crrntly avaiLboeinthecommercial environment.

Title Environmental Qualification of Internal Reactor Vessel Electrical Components Brief Summary of.Need IA number cf the Advance Reactor Projects are planning on the use of high electrical current comrnonoo ts, such as Reactor Coolant Pump motors, and Controi IRod Drive Mechari rs M,ýPnocs, that hove traditionally bo located o tride of the

!Reactor uoolant System ressuro bour(o ary. FI ctr i a;ilr rre of traditionally

!located components had few consequences, other than loss of RCS flow, or 1dropping a controi rod. !n the ARP desLns, faiure, of internally located electrical components, due either to overheating, or electrical short circuits could result in ruptures of containment devices intended to separate electrical insulation and metals (copper, aluminum or lead) that could be inimical to the fuel or the RCS Jpressure boundary, In addition, electrical faults in high current penetrations to the RCS pressure boundary could change the accident freouency for Small Break LOCAs, at the point of the penetration. Allowable limits and the associated models, methods and assumptions needed to assess and monitor the expected land actual conditions fot these :omponents should be developed, and lpromulgated, preferably in a Regulatory Guide format.

Contact Name Ron LaVera (NRO/DCI P./(CH1PiI)

Cost Estimate FTE. Estimate Description'of Work lCollect the required industry and operating experience information, both within, the nuclear indust ry and Iother high temperature and high pressure industries, to support development of the appropriate analytical methods. Then develop the

.. "regulatory guidance.

Prioritization Leveraging. This guidance will be applicable across a number of the ARP LVVR design conceptc, Factors,. !Resources and oossibly some of the non-LWR designs.

-Advancing State Based on participation in several ARP concept presentation meetings, experience of'the,Art .in these areas are poorly understood and not well commulnicated.

Independent EQ evaluations are currently required by SRP section 3.11. The guidance provided Decision making in thatSRP section and the referenced Industry Standards are insufficient to Tool . support an adequate evaluation of equipment qualification, MultiProgra.mni As noted, information developed in support of the LWR ARP designs, may be Improvement applicable to other tdesign centers, such as HTGR.

Addressing GapsSIAs noted above, based on the ARP presentations, this type of information and guidance does not appear to be:currently available.

ATTACHMENT 2

[Filed In Camera]

ATTACHMENT 3 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. September 18, 2012

x DECLARATION OF KATHRYN M. LIBERATORE IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT AND ADDITIONAL CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-12C Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Kathryn M. Liberatore hereby declares as follows:

1. I serve as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York, counsel for petitioner-intervenor State of New York in this proceeding. I submit this declaration and in support of the State of New Yorks Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibit and Cross-Examination Questions Concerning NYS-12C.
2. On September 5, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a media advisory announcing that it would hold a meeting on September 11, 2012 to discuss economic consequences of reactor accidents.
3. In preparation for the September 11 meeting, I reviewed SECY-12-0110, Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Regulatory Framework (Aug. 14, 2012) (ML12173A479), and its Enclosure 9, titled MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System, Version 2 (MACCS2) (ML12173A5091).
4. In reviewing SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9, I noticed a discussion of MACCS2

inputs that related the States arguments in NYS-12C:

It is not obvious to current MACCS2 experts at both the NRC and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) that rehabilitation and clean up, land contamination area, or economic models and results are excessively conservative. Economic results and some land contamination area results are controlled by user inputs and could be biased to be either conservative or nonconservative, depending on the input values selected by the user.

SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9 at 2. The document also discusses a new and alternative economic model for MACCS2 [that] is under development. . . . based on the existing Regional Economic Accounting Tool (REAcct), which SNL developed for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9 at 7. This was the first time I had heard of REAcct.

5. On the evening of September 10, 2012, in further preparation for the September 11 meeting, I conducted some searches on the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). One of the searches I performed was search within the Content Search tab using the terms MACCS2 and REAcct in the Document Content field.

This search returned two documents: (1) SECY-12-0110 - Enclosure 9, and (2) E-mail from C.

Ader, NRO to M. Johnson, NRO:

Subject:

FW: Action YT-2011-0003: Request Parallel Concurrence on Document: Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2013 (ML12024A077).

6. Upon reviewing the NRC email chain and attachment (FY13 Long-Term Research Plan) in ML12024A077, I realized that it contradicts positions Staff and Entergy have taken in this proceeding regarding the Sample Problem A inputs to the MACCS2 code.
7. From time to time throughout this proceeding I, along with others at the Office of the Attorney General, have conducted searches on ADAMS using terms relevant to the various 2

admitted contentions and other issues of interest. I submit that to my knowledge neither I nor my colleagues have previously located and reviewed the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan through ADAMS searches.

8. Upon reviewing the document properties in ADAMS for ML12024A077, the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan, I learned that the document date is January 19, 2011, the date to be released is January 6, 2012, and the date added is January 26, 2012. Thus, the document properties information indicate that the document was placed on the public ADAMS library in late January 2012. The keywords listed are DPCautoadd, SUNSI Review Complete, exb3, stt, and utsPARS and the case/reference listed is FOIA/PA-2011-0083.
9. After discovering the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan, I searched the parties disclosure logs and could not find that the document was disclosed by any party in this proceeding.
10. On September 14, 2012, the State disclosed the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan and initiated consultation with the parties on the States motion seeking leave to file the FY13 Long-Term Research Plan as an additional exhibit concerning NYS-12C.
11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 18, 2012 in New York, New York Signed (electronically) by Kathryn M. Liberatore Assistant Attorney General State of New York (212) 416-8482 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12262A547&oldid=2460763"