ML12334A525
| ML12334A525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2011 |
| From: | Bradford P Bradford Brook Associates |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21536, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NYS-9-33-37 | |
| Download: ML12334A525 (37) | |
Text
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
In the Matter of:
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000048-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 NYS000048 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: Submitted: December 14, 2011 Rejected: Stricken:
Other:
1 UNITED STATES 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 -----------------------------------x 5 In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR 6 License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 7 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 8 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and 9 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. December 13, 2011 10 -----------------------------------x 11 PRE-FILED WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 12 PETER A. BRADFORD 13 REGARDING CONTENTION NYS-9-33-37 (NYS-37) 14 On behalf of the State of New York (NYS or the State),
15 the Office of the Attorney General hereby submits the following 16 testimony by Peter A. Bradford regarding Contention NYS 9-33-37 17 (consolidated as NYS-37.)
18 Q. Please state your full name.
19 A. Peter Amory Bradford 20 Q. By whom are you employed and what is your position?
21 A. I am an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School and 22 CEO of Bradford Brook Associates, a firm advising on utility Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 1
1 regulation, power supply planning and procurement, and energy 2 policy.
3 Q. Please summarize your educational and professional 4 qualifications.
5 A. I am a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law 6 School. My resume is attached as Exhibit NYS000104 to this 7 testimony.
8 I have been involved in the regulation of utilities and of 9 power supply procurement since 1971 and in energy policy making 10 since 1968. I was a member and chair of the Maine Public 11 Utilities Commission twice, between 1971 and 1977 and between 12 1982 and 1987. I chaired the New York Public Service Commission 13 between 1987 and 1995. I was a member of the U.S. Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission between 1977 and 1982.
15 While in New York, I served also on the New York State 16 Energy Planning Board, the Board of the New York State Energy 17 Research and Development Administration, the New York 18 Environmental Board and as chair of the New York State Energy 19 Facilities Siting Board. These bodies had extensive 20 responsibility for the reliability and affordability of New 21 Yorks power supply, which was at all times adequate during my 22 term.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 2
1 I teach a course entitled Nuclear Power and Public Policy 2 at Vermont Law School and have taught Energy Policy and 3 Environmental Protection at the Yale School of Forestry and 4 Environmental Studies. I have been a member of the Keystone 5 Center Nuclear Power Joint Fact Finding (June, 2007) and the 6 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 7 Committee on Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for 8 Meeting New York Electric Power Needs (June, 2006). I was also 9 a member of the International Expert Panel advising the European 10 Bank for Reconstruction and Development as to the economic case 11 for (and the alternatives to) completing Khmelnitsky 2 and Rovno 12 4 (K2/R4) - two partly built, Soviet designed 1,000 MW VVER 13 nuclear units in Ukraine - to replace the two operational 1,000 14 MW units at Chernobyl (February, 1997).
15 Q. I show you what has been marked as Exh. NYS000105 16 Declaration of Peter A. Bradford, dated November 28, 2007 17 (ML073400205) (hereinafter 2007 Bradford Decl.). Do you 18 recognize that document?
19 A. Yes. It is a copy of my statement submitted in 20 support of New York States Contention NYS-9 indicating 21 shortcomings in the licensees Environmental Report as well as 22 in the NRCs historically cursory analysis of non-nuclear energy Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 3
1 sources. The statement accurately reflects my analysis and 2 opinions.
3 Q. I show you what has been marked as Exh.
4 NYS000106: 2011 Bradford Declaration, dated February 2, 2011, 5 (ML110680290) (hereinafter 2011 Bradford Decl.). Do you 6 recognize that document?
7 A. Yes. It is a copy of my statement submitted in 8 support of New York States Contention on the final impact 9 analysis of no-action energy alternative, NYS-37. My statement 10 set forth my analysis of the deficiencies in the Final 11 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the 12 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3. It identified 13 significant developments in New York States energy markets that 14 contradicted the FSEISs limited view of replacement capacity in 15 the event that Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are not relicensed.
16 The statement accurately reflects my analysis and opinions.
17 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
18 A. My testimony shows that the Final Supplemental 19 Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Point does not 20 constitute a detailed statement on the no-action alternative in 21 the event the Indian Point units are denied license renewal. In 22 particular, the FSEIS relies on outdated and demonstrably 23 inaccurate analyses, conclusions, and forecasts to assess these Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 4
1 alternatives. The FSEIS also ignores more current and accurate 2 information presented by the state of New York and does not take 3 a hard look at the no-action alternative to license renewal.
4 The FSEIS looks at the consequences of the no-action 5 alternative to relicensing by relying in part on the findings 6 and conclusions in the discussion of specified alternatives in 7 the FSEIS at FSEIS § 8.3. See FSEIS § 8.2, p. 8-22. I have 8 also reviewed and analyzed that section of the FSEIS and 9 identified the deficiencies in the consideration of 10 conservation, renewable energy, purchased electrical power, 11 transmission constraints, and the need for power as these relate 12 to the no-action alternative.
13 Q. Have you reviewed materials in preparation for your 14 testimony?
15 A. Yes. I have reviewed the FSEIS, the GEIS, my previous 16 declarations in this proceeding and the materials referenced 17 therein. I have also reviewed the January 31, 2011 declaration 18 of David Schlissel and the February 1, 2011 declaration of Peter 19 Lanzalotta, as well as the 2011 Gold Book of the New York 20 Independent System Operator (NYISO), originally released in 21 April 2011. In addition, I have reviewed the New York State 22 Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) 2010 Annual 23 Report entitled New Yorks Clean Energy Economy and NYSERDAs Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 5
1 The 2010 New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard 2 Performance Review. Finally, I have reviewed a June 27, 2011 3 article from The Capitol entitled Nuclear Options by Jon Lentz 4 describing New York States newly enacted power plant siting 5 law.
6 Q. Are many of these documents prepared by government 7 agencies or documents prepared by Entergy or the utility 8 industry?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Bradford, I show you Exhibits NYS000055 through 11 NYS00058, NYS000065 through NYS000069, NYS000103, NYS000107 12 through NYS000124. Do you recognize these documents?
13 A. Yes. These are true and correct copies of the 14 documents that I referred to, used, and/or relied upon in 15 preparing my prior declarations and this testimony. In some 16 cases where the document was extremely long and only a small 17 portion is relevant to my testimony, an excerpt of the document 18 is provided. If it is only an excerpt, that is noted on the 19 first page of the Exhibit.
20 Q. How do these documents relate to the work that you do 21 as an expert in forming opinions such as those contained in this 22 testimony?
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 6
1 A. These documents contain the type of information that 2 persons within my fields of expertise rely upon in forming 3 opinions of the type offered in this testimony.
4 Q. Please summarize your testimony.
5 A. The FSEIS does not give decisionmakers a clear and 6 reasonably up-to-date picture of New Yorks power supply without 7 one or both of the Indian Pont units. Such a description, based 8 on the analysis of a few scenarios assuming combinations of 9 demand growth, gas prices, and carbon constraints, would not 10 have been difficult to provide. In its absence, the FSEIS plays 11 a game of pin-the-tail on the donkey, with options stuck 12 randomly on the wall around the Indian Point units.
13 For its assessment of New York specific electricity 14 circumstances, the FSEIS relies heavily on the 2006 National 15 Research Council Report prepared by a panel of which I was a 16 member. However, that Reports analyses have been superseded by 17 a number of events - some of them highly significant -
18 indicating that retiring the Indian Point units on a reasonable 19 schedule can be achieved at lower environmental impacts than the 20 FSEIS foresees. Demand for electricity is significantly lower 21 than we foresaw. New York has succeeded in expanding available 22 generation in the downstate region and has put in place policies 23 that have increased the supply of renewable energy.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 7
1 Transmission into the downstate area has also expanded. Natural 2 gas is cheaper and more plentiful than the National Research 3 Council Panel foresaw.
4 Each of these developments - but especially the lower 5 demand for electricity - indicates that retiring the Indian 6 Point units will result in fewer environmental impacts than the 7 FSEIS suggests. Many of these developments were called to the 8 NRCs attention by witnesses for the state of New York well in 9 advance of the publication of the FSEIS. While the FSEIS is an 10 improvement on the original Environmental Report in some areas, 11 it ignores much of the information that New York has provided 12 and sometimes uses instead projects and approaches that do not 13 apply to New York at all.
14 Developments since the preparation of the FSEIS reinforce 15 all of these points.
16 Taken altogether, the shortcomings of the FSEIS are 17 consistent with fundamental flaws in the NRCs approach to 18 analyzing alternatives, including the no-action alternative, to 19 nuclear construction and operation over many years, flaws that 20 have produced what should be an embarrassing record of dramatic 21 overestimation of demand for nuclear units whose subsequent 22 cancellation or early closure has had no adverse effect on the 23 nations electric reliability.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 8
1 In short, the FSEIS does not adequately evaluate the costs 2 and benefits of the no-action alternative, thus preventing the 3 decision maker from having an adequate record on which to make a 4 decision on the no-action alternative. Only an analysis fully 5 consistent with power supply procurement realities - including 6 the abundance of available energy efficiency, renewable 7 generation, transmission enhancements, and purchased power -
8 will enable the NRC, and state energy decisionmakers, to assess 9 the comparative environmental impacts of the relicensing 10 decision.
11 Q. Please explain why you contend that the FSEIS relies 12 on outdated information.
13 A. The FSEIS relies heavily on documents completed in 14 2006 or earlier for an assessment of events commencing in 2011.
15 This is a peculiar methodology even in ordinary times. Given 16 the unique events of the last five years, it is simply not 17 acceptable and cannot yield a reasonable description of the no-18 action alternative to continued operation of Indian Point.
19 Among the significant pre-2011 developments that the FSEIS 20 either ignores or pays inadequate attention to are:
21 a) the extraordinary decline in demand for electric 22 power, which is attributable only in part to the recession; Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 9
1 b) the unforeseen and astonishing price decline and 2 availability increase of natural gas to meet New York and 3 Northeastern energy needs; 4 c) New Yorks progress in implementing its Renewable 5 Portfolio Standard, especially wind power; 6 d) New Yorks progress in implementing demand side 7 management (DSM) pursuant to New York States 15 X 15 program 8 and 45 x 15 Clean Energy Program, as well as the impact of 9 federal stimulus revenues and state incentives; 10 e) The implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas 11 Initiative (RGGI);
12 f) The addition of significant additional transmission 13 resources in New York State.
14 The potential institutional constraints which the 2006 15 National Research Council Report emphasized (and which the FSEIS 16 referenced) have not proven to be a barrier to New Yorks 17 ability to acquire new electric resources at an adequate pace.
18 Indeed, the New York ISO now sees no likelihood of generation 19 constraints well into the future.
20 Furthermore, in 2011, after completion of the FSEIS, the 21 New York legislature enacted state-level one stop power plant 22 siting legislation, alleviating a primary concern of the 23 National Research Council. This legislation also expanded the Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 10
1 availability of energy efficiency financing for New Yorkers.
2 Exh. NYS000107: 2011 NY Power Act.
3 Since 2000, New York has added over 7,800 MW of new 4 generation, nearly 1,300 MW of new transmission, and nearly 5 2,400 MW of demand response, 80% of which has been added where 6 demand growth has been the greatest, in the New York City, Long 7 Island, and Hudson Valley region. Exh.NYS000057: 2010 NYISO 8 Summer Outlook, p. 10.
9 The foregoing developments make it more likely that Indian 10 Points generation can be replaced by low environmental impact 11 alternatives that are dismissed, or inadequately considered in 12 the FSEIS.
13 Q. Please identify any errors in the FSEIS analysis of 14 New Yorks energy markets and load forecasts as they relate to 15 the FSEIS consideration of replacement capacity in the event the 16 Indian Point Units are not relicensed.
17 A. Because the FSEIS does not analyze energy markets, it 18 gives no sense of the prioritization among energy sources that 19 will inevitably occur in the real world. As to load forecasts, 20 the FSEIS relies on the 2006 National Research Council study 21 citation of 2006 New York ISO forecasts for its 2010 estimate of 22 the amount of generation necessary to replace Indian Point Units 23 2 and 3 in the event the units are not relicensed for operation Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 11
1 after 2013 and 2015. Specifically, the FSEIS asserts [b]ased 2 on currently scheduled unit retirements and demand growth 3 projections, the NYISO predicted in 2006 that up to 1600 MW (e) 4 from new projects not yet under construction would be needed by 5 2010 and a total of up to 3300 MW (e) by 2015. FSEIS p. 8-39, 6 lines 3-5 (citing National Research Council study).
7 These forecasts have been overtaken by dramatically 8 different results and forecasts that are easily available. The 9 New York ISO reiterated in 2010 its 2009 conclusion that 10 Looking ahead, the NYISOs latest assessment of the electric 11 systems reliability needs concludes that New York has 12 sufficient installed generation to reliably serve load through 13 2018 . . . (W)e can also reasonably predict that no generation 14 gap will appear for years to come. Exh. NYS000108: NYISO Power 15 Trends 2010, p. 4. Of course, this dramatic revision (from a 16 3300MW deficit in 2015 to assured sufficiency through 2018) 17 invalidates FSEIS assumptions as to actions that will need to be 18 taken in particular time frames, if indeed they need to be taken 19 at all.
20 The FSEIS also ignores the fact that New York State 21 experienced a 4.1% drop in power demand in 2008-09. Exh.
22 NYS000059: NYISO 2009 Energizing Annual Report, p. 6. Increases 23 in demand side management coupled with modest economic growth Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 12
1 are projected to cause lower than historically expected energy 2 use through 2018. Exh. NYS000109: 2009 NYS Energy Forecasts, p.
3 10. During July, 2010 the NYISO met its third highest peak 4 load. Exh.NYS000110: 2010 NYISO Press Release. This load was 5 some 1000MW below the 2010 peak forecast used in the 2006 6 National Research Council Report. The resources available to 7 meet the peak were some 4000 MW higher than forecast. Exh.
8 NYS000055: 2006 National Research Council, p. 60, Table 5-1.
9 Finally, the FSEIS asserts given that the demand for 10 electricity is increasing and, in the near term, planned new 11 sources within the NYCA are just keeping pace with retirements, 12 the FSEIS does not consider additional delays in the retirements 13 of existing plants to be a feasible alternative to compensate 14 for the loss of power from IP2 and IP3. FSEIS §8.3.4.11. But 15 of course demand for electricity in New York, and in the zones 16 specifically supplied by Indian Point, has sharply decreased as 17 a result of the economic downturn, coupled with the States 18 energy efficiency programs and demand response programs. Here 19 again, the FSEISs reliance on outdated need for power 20 projections incorrectly overstating New Yorks need for power 21 has unnecessarily restricted its evaluation of the no-action 22 alternative.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 13
1 Q. What are the consequences of the FSEISs failure to 2 discuss the costs and benefits of the no-action alternative to 3 Indian Point in the event the units are denied license renewal?
4 A. By discussing need for Indian Point power in a vacuum 5 the FSEIS distorts the comparison between the Indian Point units 6 and the alternatives, including the no-action alternative. A 7 fair need for power comparison would of course consider actual 8 economic conditions.
9 The FSEIS did not account for the fact that New York 10 States demand for power dropped significantly or that this 11 trend is forecast to continue over the period of license 12 renewal. The projected decline in demand growth over the period 13 in which the Indian Point units would be either granted license 14 renewal or retired is directly relevant to the timing, cost, and 15 viability of energy sources that would be relied upon in the 16 event either or both Indian Point units dont operate beyond the 17 end of their current licensed lives. Because the FSEIS does not 18 discuss the economics of the Indian Point units in comparison to 19 the economics of alternatives, including the no-action 20 alternative, it gives decision makers no sense of which among 21 the alternatives are likely to be deployed in what quantities in 22 the event that the no-action alternative is in fact pursued.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 14
1 Q. Please identify any errors in the FSEIS analysis of 2 New Yorks ability to import additional purchased power if the 3 Indian Point Units do not operate beyond their licensed lives.
4 A. The FSEIS discussion of New York States transmission 5 grid and purchased power as a potential outcome of the no-6 alternative is flawed in ways that undermine its usefulness to 7 decisionmakers seeking to understand the environmental impacts 8 of this alternative. Much of the problem flows from the FSEISs 9 reliance on the 2006 National Research Council report as a 10 source of insight into this supply-side resource. This report 11 underestimated the resources that will (and have already) come 12 on line. In addition, as we have seen, it overestimated 13 electricity demand. Consequently, estimates of the amount of 14 new transmission and the amount of power that must flow over it 15 to replace one or both Indian Point units are too large. The 16 environmental impacts of the purchased power are therefore 17 overstated.
18 Furthermore, the FSEIS states as of November 10, 2010 the 19 New York Regional Interconnection (NYRI) is still seeking the 20 approval of the New York State Public Service Commission 21 (NYPSC) to build a major transmission project. In fact that 22 project was formally withdrawn on April 21, 2009. The NYRI 23 environmental impacts considered by the FSEIS are substantially Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 15
1 higher than those of the transmission projects actually approved 2 in New York. FSEIS p. 8-40, lines 23-26. For example, the 3 three Linden Variable Frequency Transformers began operating at 4 the Linden, New Jersey cogeneration facility on December 8, 5 2009. They can convert up to 315 MW of electricity from the New 6 Jersey power system and feed it into New York City. These 7 transformers help to stabilize NYCs power grid, increase 8 reliability, and reduce the need for new capacity inside the 9 city. Therefore, they are relevant to the consideration of the 10 no-action alternative.
11 Furthermore, the Hudson Transmission Partners line was 12 approved by the NY PSC on September 8, 2010. This 345 kV line 13 will connect PJM to midtown Manhattan, running between the 14 Bergen Substation in Ridgefield, New Jersey and Consolidated 15 Edison substations. It is expected initially to provide 320 MW 16 of firm capacity from PJM to New York City, with the potential 17 to provide 660 MW of firm capacity if investments are made to 18 upgrade PJM facilities. In the Order approving this line, the 19 NY PSC stated that the HTP facility will assist in maintaining 20 system reliability in the event that one or both of the Indian 21 Point plants close. Exh. NYS000111: Sept. 15, 2010 NYS PSC 22 Order, p. 44.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 16
1 Finally, the FSEIS discussion of purchased power declines 2 to estimate the environmental impacts from the power plants that 3 will run to provide the purchased power. FSEIS, p. 8-41, line 4 9ff. Such estimates can be made in environmental impact 5 assessments for transmission projects. Indeed, the New York 6 Public Service Commission recently did just such an assessment 7 in certifying the Hudson Transmission Partners project. Id.
8 Had the FSEIS used transmission projects that either exist or 9 are under construction, it could have provided an analysis of 10 the impacts of no-action alternative generation. The FSEIS 11 might well have found that, in the context of the no-action 12 alternative, Indian Point could have been replaced with a 13 purchased power alternative that required much less future 14 transmission construction than the two projects that were 15 considered. This in turn would have undercut the FSEIS 16 conclusion that significant resource commitments would also be 17 required for development of transmission capacity. FSEIS, 18 Section 9.1.2, p. 9-6.
19 Q. Please identify any errors in the FSEIS analysis of 20 New York Citys electricity prices affecting consideration of 21 replacement capacity in the event the Indian Point Units do not 22 operate beyond the expiration date of their current licenses.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 17
1 A. On page 8-27, lines 32-34 the FSEIS asserts that 2 [b]ecause of the areas dependence on local power generation 3 from natural gas and oil fuels, the [downstate] area has high 4 electricity rates. This selective use of cost data for the 5 consideration of generation alternatives in a no-action scenario 6 is misleading because the data is both incorrectly used and out 7 of date. Natural gas prices in New York State in 2009 were 8 slightly less than half what they had been in 2008. Exh.
9 NYS000108: 2010 NYISO Power Trends, p. 8. Furthermore, 10 downstate New Yorks high electric rates were reviewed often 11 during my term as chair of the NYPSC and a member of the New 12 York Energy Planning Board. They result in substantial part 13 from high utility taxes, labor costs, clean air requirements and 14 the costs of serving a dense urban territory. Today, when 15 natural gas prices are relatively low, New York City utility 16 bills remain high, so natural gas prices cannot explain New York 17 Citys high rates. Because changes in the amount and price of 18 natural gas used to generate electricity will not change New 19 Yorks status as a high cost region (though such changes will 20 change the level of electric bills) the FSEIS overstates the 21 socio-economic impacts of generation sources involving natural 22 gas.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 18
1 Q. Please explain why you contend that the FSEIS ignores 2 New Yorks progress in implementing demand side management 3 pursuant to the States clean energy policies and explain how it 4 affects the FSEISs analysis of the no-action alternative in the 5 case of Indian Point.
6 A. The FSEIS is more realistic than the 2007 7 Environmental Report in that it purports to consider 8 conservation as a stand-alone measure available to energy 9 planners in the event the Indian Point units are denied license 10 renewal. It also increases the amount of conservation in some 11 combinations of alternatives.
12 However, the FSEIS does not take into account New Yorks 13 progress in implementing demand side management pursuant to the 14 States clean energy policies which propose to reduce 15 electricity end-use by 15 percent below 2015 forecasted levels, 16 while simultaneously meeting 30 percent of the States 17 electricity supply needs through renewable resources. The FSEIS 18 uses the 2006 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 19 (ACEEE) state energy efficiency rankings indicating that New 20 York State ranks seventh nationwide in implementing energy 21 efficiency programs. In fact, New York ranked fourth in ACEEEs 22 2010 rankings, reflecting the States progress in implementing Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 19
1 its energy efficiency programs. Exh. NYS000112: 2010 ACEEE 2 Scorecard.
3 Demand side management encompasses energy conservation as 4 defined in the FSEIS, FSEIS, p.8-41, fn. 4, plus measures 5 designed to control peak loads without necessarily diminishing 6 energy consumption.
7 The FSEIS states the NRC staff here considers an energy 8 conservation/energy efficiency alternative, FSEIS, p. 8-42, 9 lines 18-19, and impacts from the conservation alternative are 10 generally lower than from other alternatives, including the 11 proposed plan. FSEIS, p. 8-73, lines 10-11. However, this 12 conservation alternative is never described at all. The FSEIS 13 analysis of the impact of the conservation in the event the 14 Indian Point units are denied license renewal is really just a 15 reference to analyses of conservation done for the relicensing 16 of the Three Mile Island and Shearon Harris units.
17 This sole reliance on data from two other states is 18 inconsistent with the site specific environmental impact 19 statement contemplated by the 1996 revisions to Part 51.
20 Neither Pennsylvania nor North Carolina has conservation 21 programs and goals as aggressive as those of New York.
22 Pennsylvania ranks 16th on ACEEEs 2010 ranking; North Carolina 23 ranks 24th. Exh. NYS000112: ACEEE 2010 Scorecard, p. 66.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 20
1 Furthermore, North Carolina is a fully regulated 2 jurisdiction, which creates a very different conservation 3 framework than New Yorks competitive power market. North 4 Carolina has also not adopted any program comparable to the 5 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
6 Finally, despite the use of North Carolina and Pennsylvania 7 data as a general proxy for the impacts of conservation, the 8 FSEIS makes a site specific claim that the socioeconomic impacts 9 of lost tax revenues will be SMALL TO MODERATE. FSEIS, p.8-10 43. This claim pays no attention to the well documented 11 positive economic benefits of energy efficiency in terms of jobs 12 and property values throughout New York. These benefits include 13 direct job and property value increases, lower electric bills 14 for public buildings and jobs saved through lower production 15 costs; see for example NYSERDAs 2010 Annual Report entitled 16 New Yorks Clean Energy Economy. Exh. NYS000113: NYSERDA 2010 17 Clean Energy Report.
18 Nor does the FSEISs claim of negative socio-economic 19 impacts take into account the extent to which other Northeastern 20 communities in which nuclear plants have closed (Wiscasset, 21 Maine and Haddam Neck, Connecticut) continue to receive 22 substantial property tax payments because they contain interim 23 spent fuel storage facilities. It is not at all clear that a Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 21
1 site specific evaluation of energy conservation would show the 2 net property tax impact of closing Indian Point to be 3 moderate. Indeed, it is possible that the socioeconomic 4 impact will be positive. Certainly the FSEIS conclusion that 5 the lost tax revenues will not be offset by conservation, 6 FSEIS, p. 8-43, may well be wrong and cannot in any case be 7 substantiated without a state specific review.
8 In short, the FSEIS provides no meaningful site-specific 9 assessment of the potential of conservation programs with which 10 to aid decisionmakers in assessing the role of conservation in 11 replacing one or both Indian Point units. The contrast to the 12 Staffs detailed discussion of site specific cooling tower and 13 coal plant impacts, impacts over which the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission also has no jurisdiction, is dramatic, leaving one to 15 wonder why site specific analyses of relatively high impact 16 cooling towers and coal plants are presented while feasible low 17 impact conservation measures go undescribed.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 22
1 Q. Please discuss the FSEIS treatment of combined heat 2 and power (CHP) technology.
3 A. Despite the substantial contribution that CHP is 4 making in some parts of the U.S., the FSEIS does not consider 5 CHP as a source of replacement power in a combined alternative 6 in the context of the no-action alternative. The FSEIS states:
7 the current IP2 and IP3 are only used to produce 8 electrical power, and do not supply heat to any 9 offsite users. Combined heat and power, then, 10 fulfills a need not currently met by IP2 and IP3, and 11 is not a direct alternative to IP2 and IP3 license 12 renewal.
13 FSEIS, § 8.3.4.12, p. 8-49, lines 11-13.
14 This statement is wrong in two respects. The electrical 15 portion of CHP is of course a potential replacement for IP 16 power. The heat may also substitute for any heat that is 17 produced electrically or may free up natural gas as an 18 alternative to electricity for other purposes. This erroneous 19 assessment of CHP results in an underassessment of the potential 20 impact of this source in any replacement scenario.
21 Q. How is the FSEIS deficient, if at all, in its analysis 22 of renewable energy, especially wind?
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 23
1 A. The FSEISs consideration of New York States 2 renewable sector understates New Yorks renewable energy 3 achievements and potential.
4 The FSEIS limits the total share of renewable generation to 5 600 MW in the Combination Alternatives analysis. FSEIS, p. 8-6 60. However, by the end of 2009 nearly 1300 MW of wind projects 7 had come on line in New York.
8 Section 8.3.5.1 of the FSEIS cites the New York State 9 Department of Public Service as stating that 1076 MW of new wind 10 generation is anticipated to be available in the years 2011 11 through 2015 (together with almost 700 MW of other renewables).
12 FSEIS, § 8.3.5.1., pages 8-61, lines 20-21. These numbers are 13 somewhat lower than the Renewable Energy Assessment portion of 14 the NYS 2009 Energy Plan, Exh. NYS000068: 2009 NYS REA at (p.
15 34), which asserts that 30% of New Yorks technical potential of 16 8527 MW of wind (or an additional 1258 MW after 2009) will be 17 realized by 2015.
18 Wind projects also comprise a dominant portion of the 19 capacity of proposed new generation projects in the NYISO 20 interconnection queue. Some 7,000 MW of additional wind power 21 have been proposed for interconnection with the New York 22 electric grid. Exh. NYS000108: NYISO 2010 Power Trends, pp. 16-23 17. The NYISO has expanded the eligibility of intermittent Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 24
1 resources for special market rules from 500 MW to 3,300 MW to 2 accommodate increased penetration levels of wind plants on the 3 system. Exh. NYS000069: 2008 Integration of Wind Study, p 1-1.
4 Furthermore, a recent review of the New York ISOs first 5 decade stated 6 According to the American Wind Energy Association 7 (AWEA), which tracks wind projects and changes in 8 wind capacity in states across the U.S., New York 9 ranks sixth among the 50 states in terms of the amount 10 of wind generating capacity added in the last year, 11 and eighth in terms of total installed wind capacity 12 as of the end of 2009. Furthermore, AWEA and other 13 analysts have assessed the ease of entry of wind 14 capacity into electric systems around the country and 15 have concluded that RTOs like New Yorks, with open 16 access to transmission and single clearing price 17 competitive markets, provide a relatively supportive 18 environment for renewable project investment.
19 Exh. NYS00014: Tierney Review.
20 Q. Is the FSEIS correct in asserting that wind, as an 21 intermittent resource, must be backed up by new baseload 22 resources?
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 25
1 A. Intermittent resources above a certain level may 2 require support from load management, other renewables or a load 3 following unit, most likely natural gas. However, it is 4 important also to understand a factor that the FSEIS does not 5 mention, namely that in a system with surplus capacity (like New 6 York at present) new intermittent electricity generation may 7 well not require backup. Instead, it reduces the time that the 8 most expensive (and probably gas fired) units must run.
9 Substantial wind can be added to a large system in surplus with 10 no new back up and no other effect than reducing use of the 11 highest cost units that would otherwise operate at the time the 12 wind resource is available.
13 Q. What is the impact of the FSEIS treatment of 14 renewables on the validity of its conclusions regarding the no-15 action alternative?
16 A. Taken together with the underestimation of the 17 potential of energy efficiency, the FSEIS shortcomings overstate 18 the environmental impacts of the combination of generation 19 alternatives available in a no-action scenario. In particular, 20 the FSEIS concludes that the proposed combination of generation 21 sources are likely to have smaller aquatic impacts than 22 continued operation of IP2 and IP3, while they have potentially 23 larger impacts in other areas, including air quality, Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 26
1 aesthetics, and land use. FSEIS § 8.4, p. 8-73. However, 2 these impacts are attributable largely to the installation of 3 cooling towers at one of the IP units, or to the new gas-fired 4 plant. To the extent that these can be reduced or eliminated in 5 a combination based on efficiency and renewables, the relative 6 environmental standing of that combination improves accordingly.
7 Q. Does the FSEIS discriminate against the role of 8 renewables in a no-action alternative in any other way?
9 A. Yes. The FSEIS relies on the DOE/EIA Annual Energy 10 Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035 report(DOE/EIA 2010) to 11 help select reasonable alternatives to license renewal, FSEIS 12 § 8.3. pp. 8-28, l. 37. The FSEIS adopted DOE/EIA 2010s 13 conclusion that coal generation will decline and removed coal 14 from consideration as a source of replacement capacity to Indian 15 Points generation. Yet the FSEIS does not mention the DOE/EIA 16 2010 conclusion that renewable generation is forecast to 17 increase sharply over the time period relevant to license 18 renewal, with wind generation providing the greatest share of 19 this growth. Exh. NYS000115, 2010 Energy Outlook. Thus, the 20 FSEIS concluded, with no analysis that renewable sources could 21 not provide more than 600 MW toward replacing the power supplied 22 by the IP units in the event they are denied license renewal.
23 See FSEIS § 8.3.5. 8-59 to 8-61. The FSEIS does not explain why Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 27
1 it found one DOE/EIA 2010 conclusion persuasive and the other 2 not worth mentioning.
3 Q. Please discuss the FSEIS consideration of a no-action 4 alternative combination of energy conservation and renewable 5 energy.
6 A. The FSEIS improves on earlier assessments in that it 7 at least considers combination alternatives. However, it does 8 not consider a no-action alternative scenario involving only 9 energy conservation and renewable energy, the sources having the 10 lowest environmental impacts. This omission was identified by 11 New York in comments on the DSEIS. See NYS-33 ¶ 21:
12 Combination 3. The FSEIS does acknowledge rapid growth in New 13 Yorks energy conservation programs (8-42, 43) and renewable 14 generation (8-28, 8-61) and that the choice of generation in New 15 York will be driven increasingly by carbon and other 16 environmental considerations (8-28). However, it fails to 17 consider a non-fossil fuel generation no-action alternative 18 scenario to relicensing. As a result, the FSEIS overstates the 19 environmental impacts of the non-conservation alternative 20 scenarios as well as the no-action alternative. Indeed, the 21 FSEIS even overstates the environmental impacts of renewables by 22 combining them not with conservation or DSM but with operation Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 28
1 of fossil fuels or with one Indian Point unit with a cooling 2 tower.
3 Relying in part on two outdated studies (Levitan 2005 and 4 National Research Council 2006) to evaluate the renewable sector 5 generations current and future potential, the FSEIS considers a 6 maximum of 600 MW of renewable generation in combination with 7 either new cooling towers at one IP unit or the construction of 8 a new gas plant. FSEIS § 8.3.5 pp. 8-59-70. The FSEIS then 9 aggregates the impacts of renewable generation with those of the 10 gas-fired plant or the impacts attributed to the construction of 11 cooling towers for a relicensed plant, resulting in higher 12 environmental impacts in all categories than would relicensing 13 Indian Point. But of course the impacts of the no-action 14 alternative under a combination of energy conservation with 15 renewables (and perhaps a small share of natural gas) might well 16 be smaller than the impacts of relicensing or the FSEISs 17 combination no-action alternative scenarios. The New York State 18 Renewable Portfolio Standard Performance Report for 2010 gives a 19 sense of the extent to which renewables are likely to have 20 positive socioeconomic impacts sufficient to offset any negative 21 impacts resulting from the closing of one or both Indian Point 22 units:
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 29
1 Progress in the program through December 31, 2010 has 2 yielded, and is expected to yield, significant economic 3 benefits to New York State and its associated locales.
4 Economic benefits accrue from the planning, development, 5 construction, and operation of renewable energy facilities.
6 These economic benefits come in the form of long- and 7 short-term jobs, property tax, or payment-in-lieu of tax 8 benefits to local governments and school districts, and 9 biomass fuel purchases, as well as from lease and/or 10 royalty payments to landowners. For example, long-term 11 jobs include such positions as asset and project management 12 jobs, operations and maintenance jobs, and administrative 13 staff. Payments in lieu of taxes inject money into towns, 14 counties, and school districts, without requiring 15 additional services. Similarly, host community payments 16 invest more dollars directly to a community where a new 17 renewable project is sited. Project development and 18 construction also creates localized demand for short-term 19 laborers, who in turn fill New York State hotels, motels, 20 and restaurants. These direct economic benefits have a 21 significant impact on New Yorks economy. NYSERDA 22 estimates that New York could realize up to $2.1 billion in 23 direct economic benefits over the expected 20 year life of Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 30
1 the facilities with active contracts under the first five 2 main tier solicitations. When the effects induced on the 3 broader economy are considered, the total economic benefits 4 have been estimated to more than double.
5 Exh. NYS000117: 2010 NYS RPS Report at p.3.
6 Q. Please comment on the extent to which the FSEIS 7 improves, if at all, upon the flaws that you noted in the 8 Environmental Report in your 2007 declaration.
9 A. In that declaration, I noted that the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commissions approach to assessing alternatives to 11 the construction and operation of nuclear power plants has been 12 deficient since the agency was created in 1975. In particular, 13 the NRC has been ineffective in assessing the role that energy 14 efficiency can play (and has played) in displacing nuclear power 15 plants. A study done for me when I was an NRC Commissioner in 16 1979 concluded, inter alia:
17 The Commission has consistently failed to perform full 18 cost-benefit analyses for reasonable alternatives as 19 required by NEPA. . . . NRC environmental statements 20 display a clear bias in favor of central station 21 facilities, and a mix of potentially more cost-22 effective (and environmentally benign) technologies is 23 never adequately assessed.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 31
1 Exh. NYS000116: 1979 Warburg Study.
2 I noted several instances in which operating or nearly 3 operating nuclear plants had been displaced by combinations of 4 alternatives. These instances were Shoreham, Seabrooks Maine 5 owners and Rancho Seco, where the Sacramento Municipal Utilities 6 Districts history notes:
7 To replace nuclear power, the SMUD Board moved away 8 from the concept of a large central plant toward 9 diverse power sources, such as cogeneration plants, 10 wind power, low-cost purchased power from the Pacific 11 Northwest and Canada, and research and development of 12 renewable resources and advanced technologies like 13 solar, fuel cells, gas turbines and biomass. Exh.
14 NYS000118: SMUD History.
15 The FSEIS improves on the Environmental Report in that it 16 does consider combinations of resources as potential 17 replacements to Indian Point. However, as I have shown in this 18 testimony, the combinations reflect neither power market 19 realities, current data, nor the optimal mixtures of generation 20 and conservation.
21 The recent history of the electric power industry in the 22 United States, and in New York State in particular, demonstrates 23 beyond dispute the ability of a large power system such as New Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 32
1 York to effectively create portfolios of replacement energy 2 resources comprised of energy efficiency, renewable generation, 3 and transmission enhancements once a decision has clearly been 4 made to close a particular unit or once unexpected circumstances 5 produce the same result.
6 The NRC has been presented with substantial evidence that 7 the amount of energy efficiency and other resources put into 8 place in New York State since the 2006 National Research 9 Councils study was published vastly exceeds the forecasted 10 availability of a few years earlier. It is the realization that 11 generating capacity will not be available that creates the 12 climate in which alternative resources will be developed and put 13 into place. For sound economic and political reasons, the 14 planning and investment necessary to add large blocks of 15 replacement energy efficiency, purchased power, transmission 16 enhancements, or new generation to a system will not occur 17 without a clear indication that the investments are needed and 18 have a reasonable likelihood of earning a competitive return.
19 The assertion that a decision to extend the license of the 20 two Indian Point units is merely a decision to keep the Indian 21 Point option open and need therefore not be regarded as an 22 either/or decision between the nuclear power plants and a 23 decision to replace them with other resources ignores the Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 33
1 realities of power supply planning and procurement. In order to 2 make a properly informed relicensing decision, the NRC and other 3 responsible governmental entities need an analysis that reveals 4 whether other options are environmentally preferable to 5 extending the Indian Point license or compare favorably in 6 cost/benefit terms. Only an analysis fully consistent with 7 power supply procurement realities - including the abundance of 8 available energy efficiency, renewable generation, transmission 9 enhancements, and purchased power - will enable the NRC, and 10 state energy decisionmakers, to assess the comparative 11 environmental impacts of a relicensing decision.
12 Q. In your opinion, does the FSEIS provide an unbiased 13 and meaningful analysis of the economic and environmental 14 impacts of not relicensing Indian Point?
15 A. The shortcomings and errors I have identified in the 16 FSEIS overstate the need for the relicensing. There are no 17 errors tending to minimize the need for relicensing. Taken 18 together with the admittedly unnecessary discussion of the 19 impacts of the coal-fired alternative, the combined effect has 20 produced an FSEIS likely to mislead decisionmakers as to the 21 environmental impact and feasibility of the no-action 22 alternative to relicensing one or both of the Indian Point 23 units.
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 34
1 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
2 A. Yes 3 I have reviewed all the exhibits referenced herein. True 4 and accurate copies are attached.
5 Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 35
1 UNITED STATES 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 -----------------------------------x 5 In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR 6 License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 7 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 8 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and 9 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. December 13, 2011 10 -----------------------------------x 11 12 13 DECLARATION OF PETER A. BRADFORD 14 15 16 I, Peter A. Bradford, do hereby declare under penalty of 17 perjury that my statements in the foregoing testimony and my 18 statement of professional qualifications are true and correct to 19 the best of my knowledge and belief.
20 21 Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) 22 23 24 _____________________________________
25 Peter A. Bradford 26 President of Bradford Brook Associates 27 Peru, Vermont 28 (802) 824-4296 Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 36
1 perubrad@aol.com 2 December 13, 2011 3
Pre-filed Written Testimony of Peter A. Bradford Contention NYS-37 37