ML13081A717

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Staff'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Part 6: Contention NYS-16B (SAMA Analysis Population Estimate)
ML13081A717
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/22/2013
From: Harris B
NRC/OGC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 24268, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML13081A717 (31)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/ 50-286-LR

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) )

NRC STAFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART 6: CONTENTION NYS-16B (SAMA ANALYSIS POPULATION ESTIMATE)

Brian G. Harris Counsel for NRC Staff March 22, 2013

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ III. FINDINGS OF FACT ..................................................................................................... A.

Background:

The Issues Raised in NYS-16B .............................................................. B. Applicable Legal Standards .......................................................................................... C. Evidence Adduced at Hearing ....................................................................................... 1. Witnesses Presented ................................................................................................. a. Staffs Witnesses ................................................................................................... b. Entergys Witnesses ............................................................................................ c. New Yorks Witness ............................................................................................. 2. The Adequacy of Indian Points SAMA Analysis ..................................................... a. The Methodology for Performing an Adequate SAMA Analysis........................... b. Entergys SAMA Analysis .................................................................................... c. The Staffs Review of Entergys Population Estimate .......................................... d. Dr. Sheppards Assertion Regarding the Census Undercount Impact on Entergys SAMA Analysis Is Unsupported by the Evidence................................. e. Entergy Appropriately Accounted for the Commuters Within 50-Mile Modeled Zone ......................................................................................... f. The Staff Responded to Each of New Yorks Timely Comments on the DSEIS ..................................................................................... D. Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...........................................................................................

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) )

NRC STAFF=S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART 6: CONTENTION NYS-16B (SAMA ANALYSIS POPULATION ESTIMATE)

I. INTRODUCTION 6.1 In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1209(a) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Orders,1 the NRC Staff (Staff) hereby submits its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Proposed Findings or PFF) regarding the nine contested Track I contentions in this proceeding. The Staffs Proposed Findings are set forth in ten separate filings, as follows:

Part 1: Overview and Regulatory Standards; Part 2: Contention NYS-5 (Buried Piping and Tanks);

Part 3: Contention NYS-6/7 (Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium and Low Voltage Cables);

Part 4: Contention NYS-8 (Transformers);

Part 5: Contention NYS-12C (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Decontamination and Cleanup Costs);

Part 6: Contention NYS-16B (SAMA Analysis Population Estimates);

Part 7: Contention NYS-17B (Real Estate Values);

Part 8: Contention NYS-37 (No-Action Alternative);

Part 9: Contention RK-TC-2 (Flow Accelerated Corrosion); and Part 10: Contention CW-EC-3A (Environmental Justice).2 1

See (1) Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010), at 19; and (2) Order (Scheduling Post-Hearing Matters and Ruling on Motions to File Additional Exhibits) (Jan. 15, 2013) at 1.

2 The Staff utilized a unique number designator for each separate Part of the Proposed Findings, whereby all paragraphs in Part 1 are consecutively numbered 1.__; all paragraphs in Part 2 are consecutively numbered 2.__, etc. Accordingly, all paragraph numbers in this Part commence with the number 6.__.

6.2 In Part 6 of the Staffs Proposed Findings, set forth below, the Staff addresses the issues raised in Contention NYS-16B (SAMA Analysis Population Estimates). For the reasons set forth herein, the Staff submits that Contention NYS-16B should be resolved in favor of license renewal for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3.

II. BACKGROUND 6.3 These findings and rulings address all outstanding issues with respect to the contention filed by the State of New York (New York), Contention NYS-16B, concerning population estimate used in the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or Applicant) as part of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point or IP2 and IP3) license renewal application (LRA). An overview of this proceeding and the regulatory standards that govern consideration of the IP2 and IP3 LRA are set forth in Part 1 of the Staffs Proposed Findings, submitted simultaneously herewith. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the Staff hereby incorporates Part 1 of its Proposed Findings by reference herein.

6.4 NYS Contention 16 stated that:

Entergy's Assertion, in its SAMA Analysis for [Indian Point], that it "Conservatively" Estimated the Population Dose of Radiation in a Severe Accident, is Unsupported Because Entergy's Air Dispersion Model Will Not Accurately Predict the Geographic Dispersion of Radionuclides Released in a Severe Accident and Entergy's SAMA Will Not Present an Accurate Estimate of the Costs of Human Exposure.3 6.5 The Board limited NYS Contention 16 to three discrete issues: (1) whether the population projections used by Entergy are underestimated,4 (2) whether the ATMOS module in MACCS2 is being used beyond its range of validity, and (3) whether use of MACCS2 with 3

New York State Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene (NYS Petition), at 163 (Nov. 30, 2007).

4 NYS challenge to the population estimates was contained in a single footnote. Id. at 164 n.37.

the ATMOS module leads to non-conservative geographical distribution of radioactive dose within a fifty-mile radius of [Indian Point].5 6.6 In December 2008, the Staff issued the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS or DSEIS) for review and comment as a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),

NUREG-1437 (May 1996).6 Pertinent to this contention, the Staff evaluated the environmental impacts of postulated accidents at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 including environmental impacts from design-based accidents, severe accidents, and severe accident mitigation alternatives.

The staff observed that the Commission generically determined in the GEIS that the environmental impacts of postulated accidents is small for all nuclear power plants. The Staff found that there are no site-specific impacts related to design-based accidents or severe accidents for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 beyond those already considered in the GEIS. Further, the Staff summarized its review of Entergys SAMA analyses, and concluded that the methods and data used were reasonable and sound, the evaluations present reasonable estimates of the potential costs and benefits, and that none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs need to be implemented as part of license renewal.

6.7 On February 27, 2009, NYS filed three supplemental and two new contentions addressing the Draft SEIS, including Contention 16A. NYS Contention 16A stated:

The DSEIS Improperly Accepted Entergy's Population Dose Estimates Of Radiation Released In A Severe Accident Despite The Licensing Board's Admission Of the State Of New York's Contention That The Air Dispersion Model Used By Entergy in its SAMA Analysis Will Not Accurately Predict the Geographic 5

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 112 (2008).

6 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 (Dec. 2008) (Exhibit (Ex.)

NRC000003).

Dispersion of Released Radionuclides and Will Result in an Inaccurate Estimate of the Costs of Human Exposure.7 6.8 The Board admitted and consolidated NYS Contention 16A with NYS Contention

16. In doing so, the Board stated that [NYS] will not be allowed to address arguments from the original NYS-16 that went beyond the limiting language of the admitted contention.8 6.9 In November 2009, the Staff held two telephone conference calls with the applicant to discuss a discrepancy that Staff and its experts identified in its review of the meteorological data inputs utilized by Entergy in its MACCS2 code. In a November 16, 2009 letter, Entergy committed to correcting the meteorological data inputs to the MACCS2 code, re-run the SAMA analysis, and provide the new results to the NRC. On December 11, 2009, the applicant submitted the SAMA reanalysis using the revised meteorological data.

6.10 The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) was published in December 2010. As it had done with the DSEIS, the Staff evaluated the environmental impacts from postulated accidents at Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The Staff also evaluated the basis for determining that the SAMA analyses were reasonable in light of the issues raised in New Yorks contentions NYS-12 and NYS-16. At issue here, the Staff independently evaluated Entergys population estimates and found them to be reasonable.

6.11 On March 11, 2011, NYS asserted an amended contention 16B. The Board admitted and consolidated contention 16B with contention 16A and the original contention 16 (collectively, NYS-16B). NYS filed its Initial Statement of Position, pre-filed testimony from its expert Dr. Stephen C. Sheppard, and exhibits on December 16, 2011.9 Finally, NYS, Entergy, 7

See State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NYS Supplemental Petition) at 9 (Feb. 27, 2009).

8 Order (Ruling on New York States New and Amended Contentions), (June 16, 2009)

(unpublished).

9 The Staff and Entergy filed motions in limine seeking to exclude portions of the pre-filed testimony and exhibits. The Board denied those motions with respect to NYS-16B. Licensing Board Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Applicants Motion in Limine) (Mar. 6, 2012) (unpublished).

and the Staff filed a Joint Stipulation memorializing NYS decision to drop its primary challenge in NYS-16B to the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) air dispersion model.10 6.12 On March 28, 2012, Entergy filed its Initial Statement of Position; pre-filed testimony from its experts, Mr. Grant Teagarden, Dr. Kevin OKula, Ms. Lori Ann Potts, and Mr.

Jerry L. Riggs; and supporting exhibits.

6.13 The Staff filed its Initial Statement of Position; pre-filed testimony from its experts, Dr. Tina Ghosh, Dr. Nathan Bixler, Mr. Joseph Jones, and Mr. Donald Harrison; and supporting exhibits on March 30, 2012.

6.14 On June 29, 2012, New York filed its revised statement of position, Dr.

Sheppards Rebuttal testimony, and additional supporting exhibits. The Board questioned the witnesses during a hearing on October 22, 2012, and admitted into evidence additional sensitivity analysis performed by Entergy with respect to Dr. Sheppards assertions regarding population estimates.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT A.

Background:

The Issues Raised in NYS-16B 6.15 The regulatory standards governing license renewal are set forth in Part 1 of the Staffs Proposed Findings, filed simultaneously herewith, and are incorporated by reference herein. As part of its license renewal application, Entergy performed a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). New 10 Joint Stipulation at 2. On August 28, 2009, New York moved for partial summary disposition on NYS-16A. See State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NYS Supplemental Petition) at 9 (Feb. 27, 2009). In its motion, New York asked the Board to find that use of the Gaussian model for air-dispersion in the MACCS2 code was unreliable. See State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at 9 (Feb. 27, 2009). Entergy and the Staff filed responses opposing New Yorks motion on October 13, 2009. On November 3, 2009, the Board denied New Yorks motion.

Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition), November 3, 2009 (unpublished).

York raised two contentions challenging the adequacy of the SAMA analysis.11 Dr. Sheppard, New Yorks expert, asserted that Entergys population estimate failed to account for (1) census undercount and (2) the commuter population within the 50-mile modeled zone.12 B. Applicable Legal Standards 6.16 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.,

requires federal agencies, including the NRC, to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of their actions. NEPA, however, does not mandate a specific outcome or a course of action including a decision to mitigate any potential impacts.13 The NRC fulfills its requirements under NEPA, for renewal of operating licenses, through the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Exs.

NYS000131A-I and NYS000133A-J.14 The Commission stated that there is no NEPA requirement to use the best scientific methodology, and NEPA should be construed in light of reason if it is not to demand virtually infinite study and resources.15 The Commission has cautioned that [o]ur boards do not sit to flyspeck environmental documents or to add details or 11 At issue here is the New Yorks challenge to the Entergys population estimate utilized in the SAMA analysis. The other contention (NYS-12C) raised challenges to the estimated costs to clean-up a severe accident.

12 Pre-filed Written Testimony of Dr. Stephen C. Sheppard, PH.D. Regarding Contention NYS-16/16a/16B (NYS-16B) (New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B), Ex. NYS000207, at 3; Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen C. Sheppard, PH.D. Regarding NYS-16/16A/16B (NYS-16B) (New Yorks Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-16B), Ex. NYS000404, at 2; Transcript at 2406, 2470-71.

13 See, e.g., Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 426 U.S. 87, 97 (1983)

(quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21 (1976))(stating that NEPA requires only that the agency take a hard look at the environmental consequences before taking a major action); Sierra Club v.

Army Corp of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (2006)(same); Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (Clairborne Enrichment Center), CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77, 87-88 (1998)(same); Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 777, Crownpoint, New Mexico 87313), LBP-06-19, 64 NRC 53, 63-64 (2006)(same); see also Winter v. Nat.

Res. Def. Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008)(stating that NEPA imposes only procedural requirements and does not mandate any particular result).

14 10 C.F.R. § 51.2.

15 Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 315 (2010).

nuances. If the [EIS] on its face comes to grips with all important considerations nothing more need be done.16 In Pilgrim, the Commission stated:

Ultimately, we hold adjudicatory proceedings on issues that are material to licensing decisions. With respect to a SAMA analysis in particular, unless a contention, submitted with adequate factual, documentary, or expert support, raises a potentially significant deficiency in the SAMA analysisthat is, a deficiency that could credibly render the SAMA analysis altogether unreasonable under NEPA standardsa SAMA-related dispute will not be material to the licensing decision, and is not appropriate for litigation in an NRC proceeding.17 6.17 The Commission warned that in a highly predictive analysis such as a SAMA analysis, there are bound to be significant uncertainties, and therefore an uncertainty analysis is performed.18 The Commission, anticipating the wide ranging disputes over individual aspects of the SAMA analysis, has said:

It always will be possible to conceive of yet another input or methodology that could have been used in the SAMA computer modeling, and many different inputs and approaches may all be reasonable choices. The SAMA analysis is not a safety review performed under the Atomic Energy Act. The mitigation measures examined are supplemental to those we already require under our safety regulations for reasonable assurance of safe operation.19 6.18 In other words, it is simply not enough to take issue with a particular aspect of the SAMA analysis, an intervenor challenging the SAMA analysis must show that it was unreasonable on the whole.20 The Commission recently stressed that the proper question is not whether there are plausible alternative choices for use in the analysis, but whether the 16 Exelon Generation Co, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), CLI-05-29, 62 NRC 801, 811 (2005)(citing Systems Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP Site), CLI-05-4, 61 NRC 10, 13 (2005)(footnote omitted)).

17 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-01, 75 NRC 39, 57 (2012) (emphasis added).

18 Id. at 58.

19 Id. at 57.

20 Id. at 57-58.

analysis that was done is reasonable under NEPA.21 A petitioner may not simply assert a deficiency. Rather to challenge an applicants SAMA analysis a petitioner must point with support to an asserted deficiency that renders the SAMA analysis unreasonable under NEPA.22 Specifically, [a] contention proposing alternative inputs or methodologies must present some factual or expert basis for why the proposed changes in the analysis are warranted.23 Even more, intervenors must show why the inputs or methodology used is unreasonable, and the proposed changes or methodology would be more appropriate.24 Recently, the First Circuit in resolving a challenge to the SAMA analysis at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station using the MACCS2 code remarked that [t]he NRC uses a site-specific and plant specific PRA methodology, which answers three questions: (1) what can go wrong; (2) how likely is it; and (3) what are the consequences.25 The court emphasized the need to allow agencies to select their own methodology as long as that methodology is reasonable .26 6.19 Finally, the Commission has concluded that [u]ltimately, NEPA requires the NRC to provide a reasonable mitigation alternatives analysis, containing reasonable estimates .27 The Commission explained that Staffs FSEIS need only explain any known shortcomings in available methodology, incomplete or unavailable information and significant uncertainties, and reasoned evaluation of whether and to what extent these or other 21 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit1), CLI-12-08, 75 NRC ___, (slip op. at 17-18) (Mar. 27, 2012)(reversing the admission of contention challenging the costs to clean-up a severe accident) (internal citations omitted).

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Massachusetts v. NRC, Nos. 12-1404 and 12-1772 at 25 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2013) (affirming the NRCs decision to renew the license for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station).

26 Id. (citing Town of Winthrop v. FAA, 535 F.3d 1, 13 (1981)).

27 Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-22, 72 NRC 202, 208-09 (2010).

considerations credibly could or would alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions .28 6.20 Thus, the Staffs FSEIS and the SAMA analysis satisfy the requirements of NEPA and the Board should resolve this contention in favor of the Staff.

C. Evidence Adduced at Hearing

1. Witnesses Presented 6.21 Evidentiary hearings on this contention were held on October 22, 2012. A total of nine witnesses were found to be qualified to present testimony on the matters they addressed.

Prefiled testimony was submitted by each witness; in addition, the witness for New York was allowed to provide prefiled rebuttal testimony in accordance with the Boards scheduling order.

With the exception of Mr. Donald Harrison, all of the witnesses provided oral testimony in response to questioning by the Board and parties.

a. Staffs Witnesses 6.22 The Staff presented a panel of four witnesses in support of the SAMA analysis contained in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). They were Dr. Nathan E. Bixler, Dr. S.

Tina Ghosh, Joseph A. Jones, and Donald G. Harrison.29 6.23 Dr. Bixler, a chemical engineer, with a Doctorate in chemical engineering, is the Principal Investigator for Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) on the code development for accident consequences including RADTRAD, MACCS2, WinMACCS, SECPOP2000, and MELMACCS, for the NRC. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-3; Ex.

NRC000042.) Dr. Bixler has over twenty years of experience with the codes developed to model accident consequences. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-3; Ex.

NRC000042.)

28 Id.

29 NRC Staff Testimony of Nathan E. Bixler, S. Tina Ghosh, Joseph A. Jones, and Donald G.

Harrison Concerning NYS Contentions NYS 12/16 (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16), Ex. NRC000041, at 1-2.

6.24 Dr. Tina Ghosh, a nuclear engineer, with a Doctorate in nuclear engineering, is the Senior Reactor Systems Engineer responsible for leading the NRCs research on state of the art reactor consequence analysis uncertainty analysis. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex.

NRC000041, at 1-3; Ex. NRC000043.) Previously, she was a Reactor Engineer for the Division of Risk Analysis and primarily responsible for the review of SAMA analyses submitted as part of a plants application for license renewal. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-3; Ex. NRC000043.) Prior to serving in the Division of Risk Assessment, she was primarily responsible for risk assessments in review of the high-level waste application submitted by the Department of Energy. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-3; Ex.

NRC000043.)

6.25 Joeseph Jones, a professional engineer, with a Bachelors of Science degree in civil engineering, is a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff employed by Sandia, which is operated by Lockheed-Martin for the US Department of Energy. He has over 28 years experience in engineering and analysis, 23 years of which has been at Sandia. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-4; Ex. NRC000044.) He has been primarily involved in radiological emergency preparedness, consequence management, and radioactive materials cleanup activities both nationally and internationally. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-4; Ex. NRC000044.) He also performs emergency plan reviews and evacuation time estimate reviews for the NRC Staff in support of new reactor license applications. Id. He has managed project teams in the decontamination and decommissioning of radioactively contaminated facilities at Sandia and the development of advanced decontamination techniques for radioactive materials. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex.

NRC000041, at 1-4; Ex. NRC000044.) He is a named inventor on US Patent 7,514,493 B1, Strippable Containment and Decontamination Coating Composition and Method of Use, April 7, 2009. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-4; Ex. NRC000044.)

6.26 Donald Harrison, a nuclear engineer, with a Bachelors of Science degree in nuclear engineering, is the Branch Chief for Probabilistic Risk Assessment Licensing Branch (APLA) of the Division of Risk Assessment (DRA) within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). APLA had the responsibility for the license renewal severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) reviews and associated development of this aspect of the environmental impact statement (EIS) at the time of the Indian Point license renewal application was submitted, as well as most risk-informed rulemaking and license application reviews that involved the use of probabilistic risk assessments (PRA). (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16, Ex. NRC000041, at 1-4; Ex. NRC000045.)

b. Entergys Witnesses 6.27 Entergy presented a panel of four witnesses concerning this contention. They were Lori Ann Potts, Dr. Kevin R. OKula, Grant A. Teagarden, and Jerry L. Riggs.

6.28 Ms. Potts is a senior consulting engineer to Entergy in the areas of SAMA analysis and fire probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). She has over 30 years of experience as a technical professional in the nuclear industry in the areas of safety analysis, PRA, deterministic and probabilistic accident and consequence analysis, materials aging management, reactor engineering, and systems engineering. She participated directly in eight SAMA analyses, including IP2 and IP3 and peer reviewed three other SAMA analyses. Ms.

Potts is one of the authors of NEI 05-01, Rev. A, the industry guidance document for performing SAMA analyses. Ms. Potts has a Bachelors of Science (B.S.) degree in Nuclear Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University. (See generally, Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Lori Potts, Kevin OKula, Grant Teagarden, and Jerry Riggs on Consolidated Contention NYS-16B (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis) (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B), Ex.

ENT000003, at 1-3; Entergys Statement of Position Regarding Contention NYS-16B (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis) (Entergys Statement of Position on NYS-16B), Ex.

ENT000002, at 16, Ex. ENT000004.)

6.29 Dr. OKula is an Advisory Engineer with URS Safety Management Solutions LLC in Aiken, South Carolina. He has 29 years of experience in safety analysis methods and guidance development, computer code validation and verification, PRA, deterministic and probabilistic accident and consequence analysis applications for reactor and non-reactor nuclear facilities, source term evaluation, risk management, software quality assurance, and shielding. He has 20 years of experience using, applying, and providing training on the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS) and the MACCS2 (a later version of MACCS) computer codes, which are used to evaluate the potential impacts of severe accidents at nuclear power plants on the surrounding public. Dr. OKula obtained his B.S. in Applied and Engineering Physics from Cornell University in 1975, and his Masters of Science (M.S.)

degree and Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1977 and 1984, respectively. (See generally, Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 3-6; Entergys Statement of Position on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000002, at 16-17; Ex. ENT000005.)

6.30 Mr. Teagarden is the Manager for Consequence Analysis for ERIN Engineering

& Research, Inc. in Campbell, California. As indicated in his testimony, Mr. Teagarden has 14 years of experience in the nuclear field, including 10 years as a manager and technical professional in the areas of PRA, source term analysis, consequence analysis, and nuclear power plant security risk assessment. His is also a member of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and Vice Chair of the writing committee for ANSI/ANS-58.25, Standard for Radiological Accident Offsite Consequence Analysis (Level 3 PRA) to Support Nuclear Installation Applications. Mr. Teagarden has substantial experience using MACCS2 and developing MACCS2 models for commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. He has developed or managed the development of MACCS2 models in support of SAMA analyses for ten nuclear power plant sites. Mr. Teagarden obtained his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of Miami in 1990 and completed the Bettis Reactor Engineering School at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory as part of his training in the U.S. Navy nuclear program. (See

generally, Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 6-8; Entergys Statement of Position on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000002, at 17-18; Ex. ENT000007.)

6.31 Mr. Riggs is a Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist for Enercon Services, Inc. Mr. Riggs has six years of experience as a GIS Specialist at Enercon. In that capacity, he has assisted in the development of combined license applications, license renewal applications, research and development of GIS operating procedures, demographic analysis, environmental justice analysis, socioeconomic impact analysis, mapping and spatial analysis, GPS data mapping, and project coordination. As part of those efforts, Mr. Riggs has conducted extensive literature reviews on various socioeconomic subjects, including environmental justice, and has performed demographic analyses for NRC license applications. (See generally, Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 8-9; Entergys Statement of Position on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000002, at 18; Ex. ENT000008.)

c. New Yorks Witness 6.32 New York presented one witness, Dr. Stephen C. Sheppard, in support of its contention. Dr. Sheppard holds a Ph.D. and a Masters Degree in economics from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and a Bachelors of Science Degree in economics from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. He has conducted research, written, lectured, and taught on topics such as microeconomic theory, urban economics, land use regulation, housing markets, and environmental economics for over 36 years. (See generally New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000207, at 2; Ex. NYS000208.) Dr. Sheppard does not have any expertise nor has he conducted any PRA analyses. (Transcript at 2406.)
2. The Reasonableness of Indian Points SAMA Analysis 6.33 As more fully set forth below, having considered the testimony and other evidence presented by the parties, we find that the evidence supports a conclusion that SAMA analysis reflected in the Staffs final supplemental EIS (FSEIS), Ex. NYS000133A-J, satisfies the requirements under NEPA and the NRCs regulations at 10 C.F.R. 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). The

population estimate provided by Entergy was reasonable in light of all the information available and conservatively biased in that it utilized the population estimate for 2035 for each year analyzed. Entergys sensitivity studies showed that even when population estimates were increased to account for Dr. Sheppards assertions there was no change to the SAMA analyses conclusion regarding potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. As the issues raised by New York and Dr. Sheppard would not have had any material impact on Entergys SAMA analysis or its conclusions, we find in favor of the license renewal for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

a. The Methodology for Performing an Reasonable SAMA Analysis 6.34 A SAMA analysis is a systemic search for potentially cost-beneficial enhancements that would further reduce nuclear power plant accident risk. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 19; Transcript at 1899-1900; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 20-21; Pre-filed Written Testimony of Dr. François J. Lemay Regarding Consolidated NYS-12-C (NYS-12/12-A/12-B/12-C) (New Yorks Testimony on NYS-12C), Ex.

NYS0000241, at 10-11.) The SAMA analysis allows for the comparison of benefits derived from particular mitigating strategies with their cost to implement. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

NRC000041, at 19-22; Transcript at 1900-02; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

ENT000003, at 22-23; New Yorks Testimony on NYS-12C, Ex. NYS000241, at 10-11.) SAMA analyses are generally conducted through a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 19-21; Transcript at 1900-01; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 22-23; New Yorks Testimony on NYS-12C, Ex. NYS000241, at 10-11.)

6.35 The first step in SAMA analysis is to identify and characterize the contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and offsite risk based on plant-specific information. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 19; Transcript at 1908; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 23.) Analysts identify potential mitigating strategies to each identified risk. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 20; Transcript at 1900-02,

1909-10; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 22-23.) The mitigating strategies could potentially take the form of prevention (i.e., eliminate the accident from causing core damage or reduce the CDF) or mitigation (i.e., reduce the consequences from a particular accident scenario). (Transcript at 1933-34.) After identifying potential mitigating strategies, the analysts will screen the ideas for whether they could ever be cost-beneficial by comparing the projected cost of implementation with the reduction in all risk to the plant. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 19; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 23.)

Once these SAMAs that could never be cost-beneficial are eliminated, the remaining strategies are evaluated for the potential benefit that might be achieved from its impact on risk metrics (CDF, population dose risk, and offsite economic cost risk) and a more detailed cost projection.

(Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 21-23; Transcript at 1911-15; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 23.)

6.36 The impact on risk metrics is performed by comparing the baseline PRA30 with a new PRA for a plant implementing one mitigation alternative.31 (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 20-23; Transcript at 1911-15; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

ENT000003, at 23.) The process is repeated for each of the migrating strategies that survived the first screening process. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 21-23.) Those mitigating strategies that result in a net reduction in risk after accounting for the economic costs of implementation are identified as potentially cost-beneficial. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 23; Transcript at 1910-11; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

ENT000003, at 22-23.) These potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are identified in Entergys 30 The baseline PRA is a plant analysis without any of the potential mitigating strategies imposed.

Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 21-22.

31 Each mitigation measure is evaluated independently from all the other mitigation measures.

Transcript at p. 2235-36.) As a result, multiple potentially cost-beneficial mitigation measures may address substantially the same risk through different means. Id. Thus, the selection of one mitigation measure fundamentally changes the benefit for all the remaining mitigation measures because the overall plant risk is reduced and the specific risk that the unselected mitigation measures addressed is substantially smaller. Id.

environmental report, the DSEIS, and the FSEIS. (See, e.g., NUREG-1437, Vols. 1-3:

Supplement 38: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 - Final Report (December 2010) (FSEIS), Ex. NYS000133B at 5 5-9, Ex. NYS000133C, at 5-10, Ex. NYS000133, at G G-36, G G-44, G G-49.) These potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are then reviewed by the Staff to determine if they are related to the scope of review for license renewal, in other words do they mitigate against the aging effects for passive long-lived components with safety or safety-related functions. (FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, G G-49.) Those SAMAs that are not related to the scope of license renewal are then dispositioned as not required for license renewal. (Id.) They are not imposed as part of the license renewal process, although they might be pursued as a cost-justified back-fit or implemented as part of the licensees on-going improvement process. (Id.)

6.37 The PRA, which forms the basis of the SAMA analysis, is divided into three discrete elements. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 21.) The first portion of a PRA analysis is commonly referred to as Level 1. (Id.) The Level 1 portion of the analysis concentrates on the plants responses to internal event initiators to identify what combinations of plant failures can lead to core damage and the frequency of each of these accident sequences.

(Id.) Level 2 of the analysis concentrates on how each of these accident sequences may progress and lead to containment failure with a potential release into the environment, called the source term. (Id.) Level 2 has been primarily analyzed using one of two computer codes in the United States - Methods for Estimation of Leakages and Consequences of Releases (MELCOR) and Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP). (Id. at 24) Level 3 of the analysis32 utilizes the source terms determined from the Level 2 analyses along with site-32 Both of New Yorks SAMA contentions, NYS-12C and NYS-16B, challenge particular discrete inputs into the MACCS2 code. See generally, State of New York Initial Statement of Position Contention NYS-16/16A/16B (NYS-16b) at 1; State of New York Initial Statement of Position Consolidated

specific information, which includes the surrounding population, meteorological data, land use and valuation, to estimate the present value of the off-site consequences of a particular accident scenario or scenarios. (Id. at 21, 25.) The Level 3 analysis is performed with the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) in the U.S. (Id. at 25; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 5.) MACCS2 models the dispersion of radionuclides throughout the 50-mile radius modeled area centered on the Indian Point site. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. 000041, at 25-26, 26 n.8; Transcript at 1935; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 12.) It determines the dose incurred by the population and clean-up workers during the emergency and long-term phases of the accident, the contamination deposited, and the clean-up efforts and costs. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. 000041, at 37-38; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 27; Transcript at 1900-02.) It is important to note that MACCS2 only calculates a portion of the costs associated with an accident.33 6.38 Typically, the external events (e.g. plant fires and seismic events) impact on the SAMA analysis is accounted for by a separate multiplier of the plants current internal events CDF that is typically determined from the ratio between CDF including both internal and external events and a CDF including only internal events from previous risk studies that examined both internal and external events. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 22; FSEIS, Ex. NYS00133I, at G-17.) Further, uncertainties are accounted for by a separate multiplier developed from the ratio between the 95th percentile CDF and the mean CDF. (Staffs Contention NYS-12-C at 1. Dr. Lemay, New Yorks expert for NYS-12C, praises the MACCS2 code and essentially endorses it for use in these types of analysis. (Transcript at p. 2136.)

33 The SAMA analysis accounts for five types of costs (1) the monetary value of occupational doses to decontamination workers; (2) onsite decontamination costs; (3) the cost to replace lost power; (4) offsite economic costs associated with evacuation and relocation of the population, decontamination of property, loss of use of property, and condemnation of property and (5) a monetary value associated with doses to members of the public. Staff Testimony, Ex. NRC000041 at 35. The first three items are normally referred to as on-site costs and are not part of the MACCS2 code analysis. Id. Items 4 and 5 are offsite economic costs and are either directly calculated by the MACCS2 code or are translated into costs by a conversion factor. Id.; Transcript at 2056-57, 2197.

Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 22; FSEIS, Ex. NYS00133I, at G-45; Transcript at 2219-20, 2230-33; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 48.) Sensitivity studies are also typically developed for factors that may alter the SAMA analysis conclusions given small changes in the input. (FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G-1; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 36, Transcript at 2076-79, 2308-09, 2311, 2165, 2516-18.) The Staff considers any SAMAs that are identified under analysis including external events, uncertainty, and sensitivity studies to be potentially cost-beneficial and therefore subject to the additional evaluation to determine whether the strategy falls within the scope of license renewal and should be imposed as part of license renewal, evaluated through other regulatory means including Backfit, or included in licensee programs similar to Entergys continuous improvement process and corrective action programs. (See, e.g., Transcript at 1923-25.) In Entergys SAMA analysis, the external events multiplier combined with the uncertainty multiplier was 8 for both plants, and the uncertainty multiplier alone was 2.1 and 1.4 for IP2 and IP3, respectively.

(Entergys Testimony on NYS-12C, ENT000041, at 47-48.) Combined, the multiplier added an additional order of magnitude to the potential benefit from any SAMA. (Id.)

b. Entergys SAMA Analysis 6.39 Entergys SAMA analysis for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 was unremarkable, followed the establish guidance, and was generally consistent with the SAMA analyses conducted in other license renewal applications. Pertinent to New Yorks contention here, Entergy projected the population surrounding Indian Point out to year 2035, which is the last year of operation under a renewed license for Indian Point Unit 3 and two years after the cessation of operations for Unit 2. (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, ENT000003, at 31; Transcript at 2454.) Entergy projected the population starting with the most recently available census data at that time, the 2000 census at the block level. (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 31; Transcript at 2447-48, 2455-56, 2407-08.) The estimate began by determining the land that fell within the modeled area, a 50-mile radius centered on Indian Point.

(Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 36; Transcript at 2425, 2427-29.)

Utilizing information from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and other impacted counties, Entergy extrapolated the population based on the growth rates identified by the states and counties out to 2035. (Entergys Testimony at NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 33; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B; Ex. NRC000041, at 94-95; Transcript at 2430-35, 2455-56.) For all but three counties, Entergy utilized linear regression.34 (Transcript at 2431; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 33-34; FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25.) For Westchester, Rockland, and Manhattan, New Yorks data identified a peak in the population prior to 2035. (Transcript at 2431; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

ENT000003, at 33-34; FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25.) For these three counties, Entergy applied a polynomial regression35 to estimate the population. (Transcript at 2431; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

ENT000003, at 33-34; FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25.)

6.40 Entergy also projected the transient population for the affected area. (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 33-34; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

NRC000041, at 95, Transcript at 2464-65.) Entergy added the projected transient population to the projected permanent population. (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 33-34; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95, Transcript at 2464-65; FSEIS, Ex.

NYS000133I, at G G-25.) Similar to projections for the permanent population, the transient population was scaled-up to 2035 in order to reflect the expected population growth within the counties. (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 33-34; Staffs Testimony on 34 Linear regression essentially assumes that the rate of change for the population is constant through the modeled end date.

35 Polynomial regression assumes that the rate of change for the population growth is variable through the modeled end date and provides a more accurate fit to the population data that contains a peak population prior to end of the modeled period.

NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95, Transcript at 2464-65; FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25.) Both the permanent and transient population estimates used by Entergy were also the subject of two additional sensitivity studies. (Transcript at 2516-18.) The first sensitivity study added in the entire population Dr. Sheppard asserted may be missing because of the alleged census undercount. (Id.) With respect to the transient population, the first sensitivity study added in 50% of transient population identified by Dr. Sheppard. (Id.) Even using Dr.

Sheppards suggested additions to the permanent and transient populations, no additional SAMAs were identified as being potentially cost-beneficial. (Id.) In its second sensitivity study, Entergy again included the entire census undercount estimated by Dr. Sheppard and all additional transients that Dr. Sheppard identified. (Id.) Again, no new SAMAs were identified as being potentially cost beneficial, even when Dr. Sheppards assertions are applied without correcting for any errors identified by Entergys expert or the Staffs experts to the population estimates. (Id.)

c. The Staffs Review of Entergys Population Estimate 6.41 The Staff reviewed Entergys population estimate utilized for the SAMA analysis, the assertions made by Dr. Sheppard and New York in NYS-16B, and performed an independent verification of Entergys population estimate using a slightly different techniques than used by Entergy in its projections. (FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 94-97.) In whole, the Staff concluded that Entergys estimates of the population were reasonable, that they were in good agreement with the Staffs independent verification of the estimated population, and that Dr. Sheppards assertions regarding the census undercount and transient population were without merit with respect to the SAMA analysis. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 16-18, 94-95.)

6.42 After reviewing Entergys population estimate for reasonableness, the Staff performed two independent projections of the population in the modeled area and as described

in the FSEIS. (FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

NRC000041, at 95-96; Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 36-37.) The first approach used the SECPOP2000 information, which is based on the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) data. (FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95-96; Transcript at 2438.) Using the Census Bureaus projected annualized growth rate for the Northeast region of the United States for 2000-2008 to project the growth out to 2035 results in slightly lower growth than that utilized by Entergy, 10.67% versus 12.43%. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 95-97.) As an alternative method, the Staff also took the 2000 Census Bureau data for population and utilized the final year of population projected by each of the modeled counties to develop a projected annualized growth rate. (Id.) Under this simplified analysis, the projected growth in population was slightly higher that Entergys estimate, 15.98% versus 12.43%. (Id.)

6.43 Finally, the Staff examined the population estimates for just New York City using the same two techniques. Using these techniques, Entergy projected slightly higher populations in Bronx and King Counties and the Staff projected slightly higher populations in New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties. (Id.) Overall, the difference was inconsequential, only 0.39%. (Id.)

6.44 The Staff also compared Entergys population estimates for 2010 with the 2010 Census Bureau data. (Id. at 97.) In 2010, Entergys projection of population exceeded the 2010 Census data by 326,878 people in the modeled area.

Table 4: 2010 Census Comparison County in Entergy 2010 2010 census**  % Difference SAMA Projection Fairfield 857,870 916,829 6%

Litchfield 192,290 189,927 -1%

New Haven 838,340 862,477 3%

Bergen 949,100 905,116 -5%

Essex 816,400 783,969 -4%

Hudson 635,100 634,266 0%

Middlesex 858,600 809,858 -6%

Morris 532,700 492,276 -8%

Passaic 515,500 501,226 -3%

Somerset 357,800 323,444 -11%

Sussex 167,500 149,265 -12%

Union 545,400 536,499 -2%

Warren 121,400 108,692 -12%

Bronx 1,425,170 1385108 -3%

Dutchess 293,520 297,488 1%

Kings 2,531,424 2504700 -1%

Nassau 1,312,166 1,339,532 2%

New York 1,587,098 1,585,873 0%

Orange 370,521 372,813 1%

Putnam 103,786 99,710 -4%

Queens 2,452,109 2,230,722 -10%

Richmond 505,844 468,730 -8%

Rockland 291,706 311,687 6%

Suffolk 1,456,195 1,493,350 2%

Sullivan 79,522 77,547 -3%

Ulster 190,389 182,493 -4%

Westchester 926,798 949,113 2%

Pike 60,059 57,369 -5%

Total 20,974,307 20,570,079 -2%

Accessed Feb. 6, 2012. (Id.)

6.45 In light of the Entergys rigorous population estimate and the Staffs independent verification of Entergys projections using multiple independent techniques, the Staff determined that Entergys estimate was reasonable and satisfies NEPAs requirements. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 16-18, 94-95; FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25.)

d. Dr. Sheppards Assertion Regarding the Census Undercounts Impact on Entergys SAMA Analysis Is Unsupported by the Evidence 6.46 Dr. Sheppards first assertion regarding Entergys population estimate is that the Census Bureau data systematically undercounts minority populations. (New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000207, at 5-6; New Yorks Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

NYS000404, at 1-2, 5.) New Yorks concentration on minority populations instead of total population demonstrates Dr. Sheppards misunderstanding of Entergys SAMA analysis and PRAs in general. (Transcript at 2406.) Dr. Sheppard freely admitted, during the Boards questioning, that he had not performed any SAMA analyses and had no real expertise in accident consequence analysis. (Id.) Dr. Sheppard had not evaluated whether any of the changes to population would materially alter the SAMA analysis. (Transcript at 2438.) He admitted that he had not carefully examined the Staffs analysis in the FSEIS. (Id.) Entergys sensitivity analysis definitively showed that Dr. Sheppards asserted minority undercount would not alter the SAMA analysis appreciably. (Id. at 2516-18; Ex. ENT000589) The SAMA analysis applies its calculations to each person regardless of any classification made by the census.

(Transcript at 2535.)

6.47 Dr. Sheppards analysis of the census undercount is unsupported by the Census Bureaus most recent analysis of the 2000 census data and represents an improper focus on a subset of the population that for the purposes of a SAMA analysis is indistinguishable.

(Transcript at 2419-22, 2533-34.) The MACCS2 code treats every person the same. (Id. at 2535.) As such, any overcount in a portion of the population off-sets any potential undercount in the population. (Entergys Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. ENT000003, at 18-19, 39; Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 98-99; Transcript at 2533-34.) Dr. Sheppards analysis dismisses the Census Bureaus final conclusions that the 2000 census resulted in net overcount of the population. (Transcript at 2422-33, 2531-32.) Dr. Sheppards only reason for dismissing the conclusions of the Census Bureau on the overcount is that he is not able to

understand why someone would want to be counted more than once or in multiple locations.

(Id. at 2423.) However, this ignores the mathematics. In other words, Dr. Sheppard implicitly agrees with the Census Bureaus analysis of the undercount issue and the mathematics supporting that analysis, yet rejects the same analysis and mathematics when it results in an overcount because it does not mesh with his hypothesis. (Id.) The touchstone of NEPA is reasonableness. The use of preferential data selection as suggested by New York here and in its other SAMA contention, however, is unreasonable. For the NRC to adopt such an approach would be contrary to NEPAs rule of reason. Dr. Sheppards assertions regarding the census undercount alone or in combination with his assertions regarding commuters are not material to SAMA analysis conclusions. As such, we find that the Staff has adequately and reasonably accounted for the permanent population located with 50-miles of Indian Point.

e. Entergy Appropriately Accounted for the Commuters Within 50-Mile Modeled Zone 6.48 Dr. Sheppards second assertion regarding Entergys population estimates is that it did not adequately account for the commuters transiting into the modeled region. (New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000207, at 5-6, 13-16; New Yorks Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000404, at 5.) Dr. Sheppard believes that utilizing the census data for the population estimate leaves out an important portion of the potentially affected population. (New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000207, at 5-6, 13-16; New Yorks Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000404, at 5.) Specifically, Dr. Sheppard is concerned that persons living outside of the 50-mile radius who commute into the modeled area are not accurately reflected in the population. (See Transcript at 2470-71; New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex.

NYS000207, at 5-6, 13-16; New Yorks Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000404, at 6-7.) Here, again, Entergy conducted a sensitivity analysis which included all of the commuters identified by Dr. Sheppard and again it had no impact on the SAMA analysis conclusions.

(Transcript at 2516-18; Ex. ENT000589.) Even when Dr. Sheppards entire missing population

is included in the SAMA analysis, it does alter or change which SAMAs are identified as being potentially cost-beneficial. (Transcript at 2516-18; Ex. ENT000589.)

6.49 Dr. Sheppards assertions regarding the commuter population lends a false sense precision to the data and analysis. (Transcript at 2417-18.) Mr. Jones explained that issues being raised by Dr. Sheppard are on the same order of magnitude that one would expect from the day-to-day fluctuations in the population. (Id.) Entergy has conservatively estimated the population to 2035. (Id. at 2454.) It included business travelers and tourists for the entire 50-mile radius. (Id. at 2464-66.) However, projections 30-years in the future are necessarily imprecise and arguments over the small percentages are unreasonable in light of the entirety of the circumstances. Dr. Sheppards analysis never considers the uncertainty applied to the SAMA analysis or how the uncertainty impacts his own analysis. Entergy applied a multiplication factor to the overall results, which is significantly larger than any uncertainty with the population estimate. (Staffs Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NRC000041, at 22; FSEIS, Ex.

NYS000133I, at G G-45.) For example, Dr. Sheppards maximum underestimate of population is 6.38% (New Yorks Testimony on NYS-16B, Ex. NYS000207, at 16) but the Entergys uncertainty factors are 210% and 140%, respectively for IP2 and IP3.36 (FSEIS, Ex.

NYS000133I, at G-45.) As such, Dr. Sheppards concerns are inconsequential.

f. The Staff Responded to Each of New Yorks Timely Comments on the DSEIS 6.50 New York argues that the Staff failed to address [New Yorks] concerns

[regarding population estimates], thereby violating NEPA, NRC regulations, and [Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ)] regulations that obligate the Staff to respond to comments on the DSEIS.37 New York alleges that the Staff did not respond to the population estimate 36 The overall external event multiplier and uncertainty factor used for IP2 and IP3 is 8 (800%),

which is the product of the external event multiplier (3.8-IP2; 5.5-IP3) and the uncertainty factor (2.1-IP2; 1.4-IP3) rounded up to 8 for some additional conservatism. FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G-45.

37 NYS Statement of Position for NYS-16B at 18.

concerns raised by the State in its comments on the DSEIS .38 Importantly, the Staffs DSEIS was published for comment on December 31, 2008.39 The Federal Register Notice provided for comments to be submitted no later than March 18, 2009.40 As such, the Staff was only responsible for responding to comments on the DSEIS submitted prior to March 18, 2009, which excludes New Yorks supplemental comments submitted late by one year and one day.41 With respect to New Yorks comments that were submitted prior to end of the comment period, New York only provided a summary of its initial contention. New Yorks comments made no reference to either tourists or commuters. New Yorks timely comments stated:

In addition, Entergy's projections of the 2035 population likely to be living within 50 miles of Indian Point appear to underestimate the potential exposed population. And the NRC accepted these projections without any further examination, despite the (fact that the Licensing Board agreed that New York's Contention 16 raised a valid issue about the accuracy of Entergy's future population estimates.

For example, Table 2-5 State and County Population, 50*Mile Radius of IP2 and IP3 on page 2-36 of the ER contains a projection that in 2035 the population of New York County (Manhattan) will be 1,570,657. Entergy does not provide any explanation of the basis for this projection and it appears to contradict data from the U.S. Census. For example, the United State Census estimates that in 2007 Manhattan's population was 1,620,867, over 50,000 more than Entergy asserts would be at risk 29 years later. See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, New York County, New York, available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36061.html. Entergy provides no explanation for its projection that the population of Manhattan will actually shrink from 2000 to 2035.

Moreover, based on trends in population growth in New York City, there is every reason to believe that the population of New York in 2035 will be substantially more that the U.S.

38 Id. at 20 (internal citations omitted).

39 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, 73 Fed. Reg. 80440 (Dec. 31, 2008).

40 Id.

41 See NYS Statement of Position for NYS-16B at 20 n. 19 (stating that the supplemental comments were submitted on March 19, 2010).

Census's estimate of the 2007 population. For example, comparisons of U.S. Census data for Manhattan in 2000 with the census estimates of the 2007 Manhattan population concludes that the population of Manhattan grew by 83,672 in 7 years, a growth of 0.7 percent per year. See http://www.nyc.gov/

html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtm1. Entergy's future population estimates are inexplicably low when compared to the U.S. Census estimates of future population in the New York metropolitan area.

In sum, Entergy's SAMA analysis almost certainly understated the cost of a severe accident by reducing the number of people who might be exposed. The DSEIS should not have accepted these population estimates as an appropriate input into the ATMOS air dispersion model.42 New Yorks original version of its contention failed to identify any issue related to either commuters or tourists. For example, the single footnote discussing the population estimates in New Yorks original contention stated:

In addition, Entergy's projections of the 2035 population likely to be living within 50 miles of Indian Point are suspect and underestimate the potential exposed population. For example, Table 2-5 State and County Population, 50-Mile Radius of IP2 and IP3 on page 2-36 of the ER contains a projection that in 2035 the population of New York County (Manhattan) will be 1,570,657.

The United State Census estimates that in 2006 Manhattan's population was 1,611,581, over 40,000 more than Entergy asserts would be at risk 29 years later. See, e.g.,U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, New York County, New York, available at http://quickfacts.census.goiv/qfd/ states/36/3606 l.html. In its recent submission to the ASLB, New York City contends that as of July 1, 2006 populations of Manhattan and the other four New York City Boroughs were even larger than the Census' estimates for 2006 and that the Census adopted the City's figures in September. See, e.g., New York. City Department of City Planning, Population Division, Population Update: the "Current",

Population of NYC (2006), available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/htiml/census/popcur.shtm.43 As can be seen, New York made no comments regarding either commuters or the transient population. Finally looking at the actual comments New York submitted prior to the close of the comment period, New York remained completely silent on the commuter population and the 42 See FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133G, at A-1027 - A-1028.

43 NYS Petition at p 164 n.37.

census undercount.44 Thus, the Staff was under no obligation or requirement to address these issues in its FSEIS. The Staff did respond to the timely comments submitted by New York.45 The Staff addressed New Yorks timely comments regarding the population concentrating on the boroughs around New York City and found that Entergys methods were reasonable and accurate.46 6.51 New Yorks assertions that Staff should have responded to late filed comments on the Staffs DSEIS and amended contentions filed long after the comment period and after the FSEIS issued is unfounded. Moreover, Entergys SAMA analysis considered commuters and other transient populations, performing sensitivity analyses that demonstrate that variation in these populations does not change which SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial.

D. Summary of Findings 6.52 In its testimony filed in this proceeding, the Staff concluded that Entergy made a reasonable and conservative population estimate for use in its SAMA analysis. The Staff independently verified Entergys population estimate using two alternative methodologies that confirmed that the population estimates used in the SAMA analysis were reasonable. Entergys two sensitivity analyses showed that even assuming Dr. Sheppards claims regarding the population estimate were applicable, they do not alter the SAMA analyses conclusions.

6.53 We agree, in general, with the Staffs conclusions. We find that Entergys population estimate to be reasonable and satisfies the Staffs hard look requirement under NEPA. We find that issues raised by New York in its contention are not material to the Staffs findings in its FSEIS. Accordingly, we conclude that the Staffs FSEIS adequately describes SAMA analysis and utilized reasonable population inputs.

44 See FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133G, at A-1027 - A-1028.

45 See id.; compare FSEIS, Ex. NYS000133I, at G G-25.

46 Id.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 6.54 The Licensing Board has considered all of the evidence presented by the parties on NYS-16B. Based upon a review of the entire record in this proceeding and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties, and based upon the findings of fact set forth above, which are supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record, the Board has decided all matters in controversy concerning this contention and reaches the following conclusions.

6.55 We find that the Staffs FSEIS and ER complies with the requirements of NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 regarding the discussion of SAMAs in license renewal proceedings. The FSEIS provided a reasonable estimate of the modeled population. The inclusion of additional persons to account for the census undercount and commuter population would not alter the SAMA analysis, and the Staff fulfilled its obligations to conduct a hard look at the population estimates through its independent analysis of the population. Finally, we find that New Yorks comments on the DSEIS regarding the population estimate were submitted late and the Staff was under no obligation to address them in the FSEIS.

/Signed (electronically) by/

Brian G. Harris Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-1392 E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of March 2013

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13081A717&oldid=2065996"