|
---|
Category:Legal-Exhibit
MONTHYEARML15337A3522015-11-17017 November 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000582-00-BD01 - Diagram of Strength Vs Amplitude by Dr. Richard T. Lahey ML15337A3372015-11-11011 November 2015 Official Exhibit - ENTR00726-00-BD01 - Track 2 Hearing Exhibit List ML15337A3322015-11-0505 November 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000726-00-BD01 - Entergy Track 2 Hearing Exhibit List ML15337A3352015-11-0505 November 2015 Official Exhibit - RIVR14001-00-BD01 - Riverkeeper Tailored Track 2 Exhibit List ML15337A3362015-11-0505 November 2015 Official Exhibit - NRCR10001-00-BD01 - NRC Staff Track 2 Exhibit List ML15337A3332015-11-0404 November 2015 Official Exhibit - NYSR25001-00-BD01 - NYS Revised Tailored Exhibits List Relevant to Track 2 Contentions ML15337A3312015-11-0303 November 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000230-00-BD01 - Corrections to Prefiled Testimony NRC000168 and NRC000197 ML15337A3262015-10-29029 October 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000722-00-BD01 - Supplemental Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Nelson Azevedo, Timothy Griesbach & Randy Lott ML15337A3292015-10-29029 October 2015 Official Exhibit - ENTR16001-00-BD01 - Entergy Revised Exhibit List ML15337A3242015-09-23023 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000576-00-BD01 - Pre-Filed Supplemental Testimony of Richard T. Lahey Re Contentions NYS-25, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B & NYS-38/RK-TC-5 ML15337A3072015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000573-PUB-00-BD01 - Supplemental Reply Statement of Position of the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A2962015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000570-PUB-00-BD01 - Supplemental Reply Statement of Position of the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A2832015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000563-00-BD01 - Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Systems, USNRC Technical Training Center, Reactor Concepts Manual, Pages 4-1 to 4-28 ML15337A2952015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000569-PUB-00-BD01 - Pre-filed Supplemental Reply Testimony of Richard T. Lahey, Jr. in Support of Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A2942015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000568-PUB-00-BD01 - Supplemental Reply Statement of Position of the State of New York in Support of Contention NYS-25 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A2932015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000567-PUB-00-BD01 - Pre-filed Supplemental Reply Testimony of Richard T. Lahey, Jr. in Support of Contention NYS-25 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A3042015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000571-PUB-00-BD01 - Pre-filed Supplemental Reply Testimony of David J. Duquette in Support of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A2972015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - RIV000164-00-BD01 - NUREG-1740, ACRS, Voltage-Based Alternative Repair Criteria: a Report to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a Differing Professional Opinion (2001) ML15337A3062015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000572-PUB-00-BD01 - Pre-filed Supplemental Reply Testimony of Richard T. Lahey, Jr. in Support of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15337A2822015-09-0909 September 2015 Official Exhibit - NYS000566-00-BD01 - Figure 1 for Supplemental Reply Testimony of Dr. Richard T. Lahey ML15337A3142015-09-0404 September 2015 Official Exhibit - ENTR00615-PUB-00-BD01 - Entergy'S Statement of Position Re Contention NYS-25 (Embrittlement) - Redacted ML15334A2842015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000687-00-BD01 - NRC, Safety Evaluation Report, Topical Report on ASME Section III Piping and Component Fatigue Analysis Utilizing the Westems Computer Code (WCAP-17577, Revision 2) (Undated) ML15335A2932015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRCR00104-00-BD01 - on Yee Statement of Professional Qualifications (Revised) ML15337A2642015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000196-PUB-00-BD01 - NRC Staff'S Initial Statement of Position on Contention NYS-25 (Reactor Vessel Internals) ML15337A3192015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000698-PUB-00-BD01 - Entergy'S Revised Statement of Position Regarding Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5(Safety Commitments) (Aug. 10, 2015)Redacted ML15337A3202015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000699-PUB-00-BD01 - Redacted Revised Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Nelson Azevedo, Robert Dolansky, Alan Cox, Jack Strosnider, Timothy Griesbach, Barry Gordon, Randy Lott, and Mark Gray Regarding Contention NYS-38/RK ML15337A3172015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000678-PUB-00-BD01 - NL-07-140, Letter from F. Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, ?Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application? (Nov. 28, 2007)Redacted ML15337A2652015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000197-PUB-00-BD01 - NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Allen Hiser, Jeffrey Poehler, and Gary Stevens on NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 ML15337A2412015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRCR00147-00-BD01 - NRC Staff'S Revised Statement of Position on State of New York and Riverkeeper'S Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC5 (Revised) ML15335A2902015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000222-00-BD01 - IP3 FSAR Rev. 04 Chapter 3 (2011) (Excerpt) ML15334A2632015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000648-00-BD01 - M. Mitchell, Chief, Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch, Response to Non-Concurrence Regarding Safety Evaluation for Topical Report MRP-227 Pressurized Water Reactor Internals Inspection and Evaluat ML15337A2622015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000228-00-BD01 - Indian Point Unit 2 Technical Specifications 3.1.4 ML15337A2452015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000227-00-BD01 - Gary Stevens Statement of Professional Qualifications ML15337A2632015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000229-00-BD01 - Indian Point, Unit 3 Technical Specifications 3.1.4 ML15335A2192015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENTR00031-00-BD01 - Curriculum Vitae of Alan B. Cox ML15335A2112015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENTR20186-00-BD01 - Curriculum Vitae of Mark A. Gray ML15337A3162015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000616-PUB-00-BD01 - Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Nelson F. Azevedo, Robert J. Dolansky, Alan B. Cox, Jack R. Strosnider, Timothy J. Griesbach, Randy G. Lott, and Mark A. Gray Regarding Contention NYS-25 (Embrittleme ML15337A2782015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000168-PUB-00-BD01 - NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Allen Hiser, Dr. Ching Ng, Mr. Gary Stevens, P.E., and Mr. on Yee, Concerning Contentions NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 ML15337A2712015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000223-00-BD01 - IP3 FSAR Rev. 04 Chapter 14 (2011) ML15337A2592015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000224-00-BD01 - IP3 FSAR Rev. 04 Chapter 16 ML15337A2442015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRCR00161-00-BD01 - NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Allen L. Hiser and Mr. Kenneth J. Karwoski Concerning Portions of State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC5 (Revised) ML15334A2822015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000680-00-BD01 - Curriculum Vitae of Barry M. Gordon ML15335A2912015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRCR00118-00-BD01 - Indian Point Unit 3 Technical Specifications (Excerpt) (Revised) ML15334A2282015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENT000634-00-BD01 - Entergy, IP2, FSAR Update, Revision 25 (2014) (Excerpts) ML15335A2822015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000220-00-BD01 - Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group (PWROG) Presentation Slides, Industry and NRC Coordination Meeting Materials Programs Technical Exchange: Clevis Insert Bolt Update, (June 2014) ML15337A2692015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000169-00-BD01 - NRC000169 - Indian Point, Unit 2 Technical Specifications (Excerpt) ML15337A2602015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000226-00-BD01 - Jeffrey C. Poehler Statement of Professional Qualifications ML15335A2732015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000183-00-BD01 - NRC Inspection Manual, Inspection Procedure 71013, Site Inspection for Plants with a Timely Renewal Application (Sept. 25, 2013) ML15335A2202015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - ENTR00184-00-BD01 - Curriculum Vitae of Jack R. Strosnider ML15335A3012015-08-10010 August 2015 Official Exhibit - NRC000206-00-BD01 - Indian Point, Unit 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Ufsar), Rev. 25, Chapter 14 - Safety Analysis (2014) 2015-09-09
[Table view] |
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 #: CLE000059-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 CLE000059 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn:
Rejected: Stricken: Submitted 6/28/12 Other:
Appendix 1. To Rebuttal Report of Michael Edelstein Excerpt from Contaminated Communities: Coping with Residential Toxic Exposure, 2nd Edition. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004.
The most significant early test of the need to consider psychological impacts under NEPA occurred with the restart the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor I, on routine shut down at the time of the 1979 accident at its sister plant, TMI II. A lengthy legal battle ensued after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denied a request by a Harrisburg grassroots group called People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) that they consider stress due to the restart.
In 1982, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia found for PANE, the majority concluding that NEPA requires an examination of psychological health and that a regulatory decision such as that before the NRC constitutes an action under NEPA.{EN112} In his dissent, Judge Wilkey lamented that the decision would let any special interest group effectively repeal an act of Congress if it could whip up sufficient hysteria.{EN113}
The court majority limited the scope of its decision, concluding that NEPA does not encompass mere dissatisfactions arising from social opinions, economic concerns, or political disagreements with agency policies. As such, the court distinguished between true psychological stress caused by an action, such as posttraumatic anxiety and physical effects due to fears of recurring catastrophe, and more routine socioeconomic anxieties, such as middle-class homeowners feelings about a proposed land use they found to be undesirable. The majority also found relevant the severity of the psychological effect, as well as its cognizability under NEPA. Finally, the court concluded that it need not draw a bright line distinguishing TMI from other instances because the TMI is, at least so far, the only event of its kind in the American experience.{EN114}
A more troublesome qualification occurred when the NRC and Metropolitan Edison, owner of the TMI plants, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appeals asserted that there
{EN112} Jordan 1984; People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC 1982, 1352; see also Marshall 1982.
{EN113} People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC 1982; see also Marshall 1982.
{EN114} People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC 1982, 1352; see also Jordan 1984; Marshall 1982.
1
CLE000059 Submitted 6/28/12 had been no physical effect at the TMI I plant necessary to trigger NEPA review and that, even if there had been, psychological harm can not be validly measured so as to be considered by a permitting agency. These arguments were rebutted by the American Psychological and Sociological Associations, who argued that Congress intended NEPA to review psychological impacts, citing numerous studies of stress due to the accident at TMI II as evidence of proximate psychological damage from restarting TMI I. APA also supported use of measurements of perception to assess psychological impact.{EN115}
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected PANEs arguments. Justice Rehnquists decision concluded that the causal chain between risk perception and the restart of the TMI I reactor was too long. Specifically, Rehnquist wrote, But a risk of an accident is not an effect on the physical environment. A risk is, by definition, unrealized in the physical world.{EN116} The accident at TMI II was further deemed irrelevant because it was a past action and occurred at a different plant than the one under review by the NRC.
The Supreme Courts ruling in the PANE case was not intended to exclude psychological impacts altogether from NEPA review. Rather, as Justice Brennan clarified in his concurring opinion, such impacts must be assessed in response to direct sensory impact of a change on the physical environment, but not due merely to the perception of risk. A clear causal link between an event and its psychological impact is established when psychological effects are seen as secondary or indirect consequences of an action, not merely as risks of a possible
{EN115} See my review of these issues in Edelstein 1989a.
{EN116} U.S. Supreme Court 1983. See also Edelstein 1989; Sorensen et al. 1987; Llewllyn and Freudenburg 1989; Hartsough 1989; Hartsough and Savitsky 1984; and Jordan 1984. Note the influence of PANE v. NRC on the Department of Energys siting guidelines for the environmental review of the high-level nuclear waste repository printed in the Federal Register on December 6, 1984. The DOE wrote, in part, The DOE recognizes that the risk of new technologies involving hazardous materials may be perceived to be greater by the general public than it is by technical experts (). Perceived risk, however, is not an appropriate topic for general repository-siting guidelines; it is a subjective condition that cannot be fairly compared among sites (). Past experience with other new technologies suggests that the anxieties of the public may be alleviated as the technology is seen to be effective and its benefits become more apparent (). Overall, the DOE views fear as mitigable, to be alleviated, in part, by an open review process.
2
CLE000059 Submitted 6/28/12 accident.{EN118} Of course, as we have seen throughout this volume, contamination events, even of an anticipatory nature, are more than ephemeral perceptions of risk. Rather, they involve the direct sensory impacts about which Brennan wrote.
Nevertheless, the PANE decision had a chilling effect on subsequent opportunities to consider psycho-social impacts in NEPA review. Freudenberg and Jones have challenged the wisdom of the higher courts reasoning, testing the Supreme Court hypothesis that stress measurements would be unable to distinguish those suffering from genuine psychological stress due to the restart of TMI I from those merely opposed to the facility. The Court presumed that facility opponents would also test with significant psychological stress, confounding the issue of who is psychologically damaged and who merely politically opposed. Freudenberg and Jones find no social science literature supporting the Courts view; whats more, their analysis of data on the siting of a Washington nuclear plant suggests no correlation between opposition and perceived stress. In refuting the Courts concern that social scientists cannot distinguish impact from concern, the authors suggest that the justices asked the wrong question. The relevant question, in fact, may have to do not with the capabilities of social sciences, but with the capabilities of courts, particularly for dealing with the range of problems that appear to have accompanied many of the technological developments of recent decades.{EN117}
Executed in accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
/s/
Michael Edelstein, Ph.D.
Ramapo College of New Jersey 505 Ramapo Valley Road Mahwah, NJ 07430 201-684-7500 Date: June 28, 2012
{EN118} U.S. Supreme Court 1983. See also Edelstein 1989; Jordan 1984; Sorensen et al. 1987; Llewllyn and Freudenburg 1989; Hartsough 1989; and Hartsough and Savitsky 1984.
{EN117} Freudenberg and Jones 1991, 1162-1163.
3