ML14097A325
| ML14097A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/2014 |
| From: | Healy M Goodwin Procter, LLP |
| To: | Baldwin L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of NY, Dept of State |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14097A324 | List: |
| References | |
| F-2012-1028 | |
| Download: ML14097A325 (19) | |
Text
GOODWIN I PROCTER Martin R.Healy Goodwin Procter LLP 617.570.1371 Counselors at Law mhealy@goodwinprocter.com Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: 617.570.1000 F: 617.523.1231 March 31, 2014 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND E-MAIL Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel New York State Department of State Counsel's Office One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Street Albany, NY 1223 1-0001 Re: New York State Department of State File #F-2012-1028 Consistency Certification for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 License Renewal Application
Dear Ms. Baldwin:
This letter provides supplemental information requested by the New York State Department of State (the "Department") in connection with the consistency certification (the "Consistency Certification")
submitted on December 17, 2012, by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy") for Entergy's Indian Point 2 and 3 ("Indian Point") License Renewal Application pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). During its consultation session with Entergy on December 3, 2013, the Department requested Entergy to provide information regarding past unplanned releases of radiological materials at Indian Point and the potential effects of those releases on groundwater quality. In particular, the Department inquired whether the Unit 2 spent fuel pool leak discovered in August of 2005 has been adequately addressed, and whether Entergy can provide more up-to-date information on the results of groundwater monitoring at Indian Point.
In response to the Department's requests, Entergy is providing information regarding groundwater quality issues at Indian Point previously filed by Entergy with NRC in connection with current plant operations and the ongoing NRC license renewal proceeding for Indian Point,' and with the New York
' NRC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate radiological releases at Indian Point. See, e.g., Train v. Colorado Public Inlerest Research Group, Inc., 426 U.S. 1, 16 n. 12 (1976)("States are precluded from playing any role in several significant areas of regulation, including the setting of limitations on radioactive discharges from nuclear power plants."); N. States Power Co. v.
Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143, 1151 ( 8 1hCir. 1971) (stating "Congress intended to pre-empt the field of the licensing and
GOODWIN PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 2 State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") in connection with its pending adjudicatory proceeding concerning Indian Point's Water Quality Certification. 2 In addition, to assist the Department with its review of this technical infornation, Entergy is also providing a "white paper" that sets forth the relevant facts about groundwater at Indian Point.
Entergy reiterates that it is proceeding with federal consistency review by the Department under a full reservation of its rights under state and federal law, including, by way of example and without limitation, its right to argue that: (i) Indian Point is within a "grandfathering" exemption from federal consistency review under the New York Coastal Management Plan (the "CMP"); (ii) Indian Point has been previously reviewed for consistency with the CMP; and (iii) the Department's purported federal consistency review under the CMP intrudes upon exclusive areas of federal regulatory authority and is preempted. Entergy additionally notes that the information being requested by the Department in this case was not requested by the Department in connection with its previous federal consistency reviews of nuclear power plants. Further, Entergy does not concede the relevance of the requested information to the Department's review of Indian Point for consistency with the CMP.
Nonetheless, detailed information has already been prepared for both NRC and NYSDEC which demonstrates, as a factual matter, that: (i) the sources of past unplanned releases of radiological materials to groundwater at Indian Point have been eliminated or the causes have been addressed; (ii) the past unplanned releases of radiological materials to groundwater at Indian Point have not caused, and are not causing, threats to the public health or the environment; and (iii) the past unplanned releases of radiological materials to groundwater at Indian Point have not caused, and are not causing,.a violation of state water quality standards. That supplemental information is being submitted in support of the Consistency Certification.
Due to the voluminous records associated with the aforementioned NRC and NYSDEC proceedings, Entergy has sought to identify and provide to the Department the subset of documents from those regulation of nuclear reactors to the exclusion of the states and that it did not intend to provide for dual regulation of radiation hazards") affd 405 U.S. 1035 (1972); LUniiedS'ates v. Kentuck., 252 F.3d 816, 823 (6t Cir. 2001 ) (stating that "The [Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 19541 preempts any state attempt to regulate materials covered by the Act for safety purposes"): United States v. Manning, 527 F.3d 828, 838 ( 9 " Cir. 2008) (finding that a state law that seeks to regulate "AEA materials out of concern for the health and environmental risks that increased contamination will cause... falls squarely within the field preempted by the AEA"); Missouri v. Westinghouse Elec., LLC, 487 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1087-88 (E.D. Mo. 2007) (refusing to ratify a proposed consent decree because it attempted "to regulate the safety of a site that contains nuclear contamination -- a field completely pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act," and stating that "[tjhe presence of radiation hazards is sufficient to give rise to the NRC's exclusive jurisdiction").
2 This information is being submitted to the Department in fulfillment of the undertaking by Entergy, as set forth in its letter to the Department dated December 20, 2013, to provide to the Department by March 3 1, 2014, 'information developed by Entergy before [NYSDEC] about groundwater quality issues at Indian Point."
GOO D W I NI PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 3 proceedings that most directly address groundwater quality issues. Those documents (hard copies of which are enclosed) are listed on the charts below:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR, ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO I Evidentiary Hearing Selected Hearing Exhibits Mandatory Log Number ontentions xhibit Identification for NRC xibit # Addressed by xhibit Name ubmission Agency-wide Documents Exhibit #ate Access and Management System ("ADAMS")
Database RIV000066 RK-EC-3/ GZA, GeoEnvironmental, 12/22/2011 ML12335A626 CW-EC-1 Inc., Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report, Indian Point Energy Center, January 7, 2008, IPEC00195418 RIV000067 RK-EC-3/ Letter from Marsha K. 12/22/2011 ML12335A624 CW-EC-1 amberoni, NRC, to Joseph Pollock, Entergy, "Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1 & 2- NRC Inspection Report Nos.
05000003/2007010 and 05000247/2007010 (dated May 13, 2008)3 RIV000068 RK-TC-2 Entergy, Groundwater 12/22/2011 ML12335A623 Investigation Executive Summary, Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, NRC periodically prepares inspection reports of its inspections pertaining to Indian Point. NRC inspection reports are available to the public at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR!OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/listofrpts body.html#inp. NRC inspection reports through 2009 are available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-rinder/reactor/ip/correspondence.htnil. In addition, NRC inspection reports are available at the NRC "ADAMS" database lhnp:i/www.nrc.L ov/reading-rm/adains.hltml using the following ADAMS Accession Numbers, among others: ML12335A624, ML12338A648, ML12089A601, ML I 1356A520.
GOODWIN SPROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 4 Mandatory Log Number ontentions xhibit Identification for NRC Exhibit # Addressed by Exhibit Name Submission Agency-wide Documents Exhibit Date Access and Management System ("ADAMS")
Database NY (January 2008)
RIVR00091 RK-EC-3/ Liquid Radioactive Release 12/22/2011 ML12335A608 CW-EC-1 Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report, U.S. NRC (September 1, 2006)
NRCOOO095 RK-EC-3/ Ltr. ToNRC from Entergy 3/30/2012 ML12339A651 CW-EC-1 re: Remediation and Long Term Monitoring of Site Groundwater ENT000300 RK-EC-3/ Entergy's Statement of 3/29/2012 ML12089A574 CW-EC-1 Position on Consolidated Contention RK-TC-3/CW-EC-I (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks)
ENT000301 K-EC-3/ Testimony of Entergy 3/29/2012 ML 2338A621 CW-EC-1 Witness Donald M. Mayer, Alan B. Cox, Thomas C.
Esselman, Matthew J.
Barvenik, Carl J. Paperiello, and F. Owen Hoffman Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-I (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks)
ENT000302 RK-EC-3/ Curriculum Vitae of Donald 3/29/2012 L12338A700 CW-EC-I M. Mayer ENT000303 RK-EC-3/ Curriculum Vitae of Thomas 3/29/2012 MLI2338A667 CW-EC-1 . Esselman ENT000304 RK-EC-3/ Curriculum Vitae of Matthew 3/29/2012 ML12338A679 CW-EC-1 J. Barvenik ENT000305 RK-EC-3i Curriculum Vitae of Carl 1.3/29/2012 ML I 2089A659
GOODWIN I PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 5 Mandatory Log Number Contentions xhibit Identification for NRC Exhibit # Addressed by Exhibit Name Submission Agency-wide Documents Exhibit Date Access and Management System ("ADAMS")
Database CW-EC-I Paperiello ENT000306 RK-EC-3/ Curriculum Vitae of F. Owen 3/29/2012 ML12089A637 CW-EC-1 Hoffman ENT000313 RK-EC-3/ 2010 Annual Radiological 3/29/2012 ML12339A710 CW-EC-l Environmental Operating Report (NL- 11-038) (May 16, 201 1)4 ENT000319 RK-EC-3/ 2010 Annual Radioactive 3/29/2012 IL12089A670 CW-EC-I Effluent Release Report, Rev.
I (NL-11-068) (June 10, 2011)'
ENT000321 RK-EC-3/ Lawrence C. Skinner and 3/29/2012 ML 2338A680 W-EC-I Timothy J. Sinnot, Measurement of Strontium (90Sr) and Other adionuclides in Edible Tissues and Bone/Carapace f Fish and Blue Crabs from the Lower Hudson River Nov. 2009)
ENT000332 RK-EC-3/ PZA GeoEnvironmental, 3/29/2012 ML12089A649 Entergy annually provides reports to NRC regarding radiological environmental monitoring. The reports are available to the public at the NRC "ADAMS" database http://www.nrc._ov/readiny-rm/adams.htnil using the following ADAMS Accession Numbers, among others: ML061290085, ML071420088, ML081420476, ML091410203, ML101390564, MLII 143A052, ML12144A412, ML13144AI33.
5 Entergy annually provides reports to NRC regarding radiological effluent releases. Those reports are available to the public at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/ip/ip-groundwaer-Pleakage/on-poin -act ivities/on-ggoing-act ivities I0.html, and at the NRC "ADAMS" database http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adanis.html using the following ADAMS Accession Numbers, among others: ML061240373, ML071230305, ML081280744, ML091260208, ML101240989, MLI 1 172A042, MLI2132A122, MLI31570158.
GOODWIN I PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 6 Mandatory Log Number Contentions xhibit Identification for NRC Exhibit A ddressed by xhibit Name Submission Agency-wide Documents Exhibit Date Access and Management System ("ADAMS")
Database CW-EC-1 Inc., Changes in Computed Tritium Plume Total Activity Over Time - Exponential Decay Curve Trending of Quarterly Data through Q3 2011 ENT000333 RK-EC-3/ GZA GeoEnvironmental, 3/29/2012 ML12089A663 CW-EC-I hanges in Computed Strontium Plume Total Activity Over Time -
Exponential Decay Curve Trending of Quarterly Data through Q3 2011 ENT000343 RK-EC-3/ Letter from Darrel J. Roberts, 3/29/2012 ML12338A648 CW-EC-I NRC, to Joseph Pollock, Entergy, "[IPI, IP2 & IP 3]
NRC Inspection Report Nos.
05000003/2009008; 05000247/2009008; and 05000286/2009008" (Oct. 19, 2009)6 ENT000344 RK-EC-3/ Letter from D. C. Lew, NRC. 3/29/2012 ML12089A601 CW-EC-1 to J. E. Pollock, Entergy, "Annual Assessment Letter -
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (Reports 05000247/2010001 6 See footnote 3, supra.
GOODWIN I PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 7 Mandatory Log Number ontentions xhibit Identification for NRC Exhibit # Addressed by Exhibit Name Submission Agency-wide Documents Exhibit Date Access and Management System ("ADAMS")
Database
& 05000286/20100001)"
(Mar. 3, 2010)7 ENT000345 RK-EC-3/ NYSDEC Community Fact 3/29/2012 ML12089A608 CW-EC-1 Sheet (May 2008)
ENT000360 RK-EC-3/ EPA, Basic Information 3/29/2012 ML12089A666 CW-EC-1 about Radionuclides in Drinking Water, web page ENT000371 RK-EC-3/CW- LetterNL-08-023, from J. 3/29/2012 ML12089A679 EC-1 Pollock, Entergy, to NRC, Results of Ground Water Contamination Investigation (Jan. 11, 2008)
NRCR00088 RK-EC-3/ NRC Staff Testimony of 9/21/2012 ML12340A747 CW-EC- I Stephen P. Klementowicz and James D. Noggle Concerning Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-I (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks)
NRC00089 RK-EC-3/ Professional Qualifications, 9/21/2012 ML12339A646 CW-EC-1 Stephen P. Klementowicz NRCR00090 RK-EC-3/ James D. Noggle, Statement 9/21/2012 ML12265A720 CW-EC- l of Professional Qualifications 7 See footnote 3, supra.
GOODWIN . PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 8 Mandatory Log Number Contentions Exhibit dentification for NRC Exhibit # Addressed by Exhibit Name Submission Agency-wide Documents Exhibit Date Access and Management System ("ADAMS")
Database ENT00575 A RK-EC-3/ GZA GeoEnvironmental, 10/2/2012 ML12276A480 CW-EC-1 Inc., Final IPEC Quarterly Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Report, Quarters One Through Four 2011 (Sept. 26, 2012)8 8 Entergy is providing to NRC quarterly updates of its groundwater monitoring reports. Those updated groundwater reports are available to the public at http:/!www/safesecurevital.co-n. Groundwater reports from 2008 through 201 I are available at the NRC "ADAMS" database http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html using the following ADAMS Accession Numbers, among others: ML080320540, MLI2338A639, ML12089A597, MLI2089A615, ML12089A614, ML12089A616, ML12338A637, ML12089A591, ML]2089A596, ML12089A598, ML12094A117, ML12276A480, MLI2276A486, ML12277A057, ML12276A493, ML12276A492.
GOODWIN ? PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 9 In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. 's Joint Applicationfor CWA § 401 Water Quality Certification DEC App. Nos. 3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2)
Selected Testimony, Exhibits and Briefing Entergy Date Submitted To Exhibit # ssue Addressed ocument Description ribunal N/A Issue #3: Pre-filed Testimony of Matthew J. Barvenik in 7/22/2011 Radiological 9 Support of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (adopted under oath on January 23, 2012)
/A ssue #3: Pre-filed Testimony of F. Owen Hoffman in 7/22/2011 Radiological Support of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (adopted under oath on January 11,2012)
/A Issue #3: Combined Pre-filed Rebuttal Testimony of 10/4/2011 Radiological Thomas C. Esselman, Ph.D., Matthew J. Barvenik, and F. Owen Hoffman, Ph.D. (adopted under oath on January 11 & 23, 2012) 80 Issue #3: NYSDEC Community Fact Sheet (Sept. 2007) 10/04/2011 Radiological 121 Issue #3: IPEC's Yearly Discharges vs Commonly 1/1 1/2012 Radiological Occurring Doses N/A Issue #3: Proposed Findings of Fact ("PFF") of Entergy 4/27/2012 Radiological Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Radiological Issues N/A Issue #3: Post Hearing Memorandum of Entergy Nuclear /27/2012 Radiological Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point _
9 In the Maiter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Enterg3, Nuclear Operations Inc. 's Joint Application for CW4 § 401 Water Quality Certification(" WQC '), DEC App. Nos. 3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2), Issues List, p. I (Dec. 13, 20 10) (defining issue U3 as "[wihether Department Staff properly denied the WQC application based upon radiological considerations").
GOODWIN I PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 10 Entergy Date Submitted To Exhibit # ssue Addressed ocument Description Tribunal 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Radiological Issues N/A Issue #3: Post Hearing Reply Memorandum of Entergy 10/5/2012 Radiological Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Radiological Issues, dated October 5, 2012 Several categories of documents listed above (e.g., quarterly groundwater monitoring reports, annual radioactive effluent release reports) are updated and filed, or are otherwise made available to NRC, on a quarterly or annual basis. For such categories of documents, Entergy is providing to the Department written copies of documents that are most directly responsive to its specific information requests. For the Department's convenience, Entergy is also providing references to where related documents (e.g.,
earlier or later versions of certain enclosed reports, as applicable) are publically available for the Department's examination. In addition, several documents being provided to the Department contain citations to supporting testimony and exhibits that are not specifically identified above or enclosed. If the Department would like copies of any such supporting testimony or exhibits, or other additional information with respect to unplanned radiological releases to groundwater, please let me know.
We look forward to discussing this supplemental information with you at your convenience.
Sincerely, Martin R. Healy MRH cc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk (w/encl. except for ADAMS documents)
Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager, NRC NRR DORL (w/encl. except for ADAMS documents)
William M. Dean, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I (w/encl. except for ADAMS documents)
GOODWIN I PROCTER Linda M. Baldwin General Counsel March 31, 2014 Page 1 NRC Resident Inspectors Office (w/encl. except for ADAMS documents)
William Sharp, Principal Attorney (w/encl,)
Kari Gathen, Associate Attorney (w/encl.)
Jeffrey Herter, Assistant Bureau Chief, Division of Development (w/encl.)
Gregory Capobianco, Director, Division of Development (w/encl.)
Jeffrey Zappieri, Supervisor, Consistency Review Unit (w/encl.)
Matt Maraglio, Consistency Reviewer (w/encl.)
Fred Dacimo, Vice President License Renewal, Indian Point Energy Center (w/encl.)
William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc. (w/encl.)
Kelli Dowell, Assistant General Counsel, Environmental, Entergy Services, Inc. (w/encl.)
Dara Gray, Chemistry/Environmental, Indian Point Energy Center (w/encl.)
March 31, 2014 Response to New York State Department of State Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Groundwater Quality Issues at Indian Point I. Request for Supplemental Information.
On December 3, 2013, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy") and the New York State Department of State (the "Department") engaged in a consultation session at which the Department requested supplemental information regarding past unplanned releases of radiological material to groundwater at Indian Point and the potential effects of those releases on groundwater quality. In Entergy's letter to the Department dated December 20, 2013, Entergy undertook to provide to the Department supplemental information on that topic on or before March 31, 2014.
II. The Source of Information Regarding Radiological Releases.
Indian Point, like all operating nuclear power plants, is designed and operated in accordance with strict Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") criteria that require, among other things, that any radiological releases, including unplanned releases, must comply with applicable NRC safety and health standards and, as appropriate, must be closely monitored. See, e.g., Reference 1 (establishing annual dose limits to individual members of the public from the licensed activity),
and Reference 2 (establishing standards to maintain releases of radiological materials to the
environment as low as reasonably achievable ("ALARA")). In furtherance of its statutory responsibilities, NRC has conducted periodic inspections of Indian Point, and has required Energy to file periodic reports concerning any radiological releases to the environment. See, e.g., Reference 3 (providing guidance to operators on the regulatory requirement to measure, evaluate and report radiological releases). In response to the discovery of unplanned releases of radiological material at Indian Point, and in order to minimize the possibility of a future unplanned or unmonitored release, NRC is overseeing Entergy's implementation of a rigorous groundwater monitoring program. See, e.g., Reference 4. Moreover, in connection with License Renewal at Indian Point (the "NRC Proceeding"), Entergy has submitted, and NRC has closely evaluated, detailed information regarding the potential effects on public health or the environment of unplanned radiological releases to groundwater. See, e.g., Reference 5. Finally, in connection with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") adjudicatory hearing for Indian Point (the "NYSDEC Proceeding"), Entergy has submitted evidence demonstrating that the unplanned releases of radiological materials to groundwater have not violated state water quality standards.
IlI. Summary of Facts Regarding Unplanned Radiological Releases to Groundwater at Indian Point.
A. The Sources of Past Unplanned Releases of Radiological Materials to Groundwater Have Been Eliminated or Their Causes Have Been Addressed.
The removal of all fuel from and the draining and de-sludging of the Unit 1 spent fuel pools was completed in late 2008. As a result, Unit 1 no longer is an active source of radionuclides to the subsurface. See Reference 6 at 43. In addition, the prior identified unplanned releases associated with Unit 2 have been repaired, and a robust monitoring system is in place to promptly identify and respond to any future releases. Reference 6 at 50; Reference 7 at pp. 15-19. There has been no identified unplanned spent fuel pool release to the environment from Unit 3.
Based upon an independent review, NYSDEC concluded that, with the removal of the active contamination source at Indian Point, planned use of monitored natural attenuation is an acceptable approach to managing the remaining radionuclide plumes. See Reference 8.
B. The Past Unplanned Releases of Radiological Materials to Groundwater Have Not Caused, and Are Not Causing, Threats to Public Health or the Environment.
- i. There is no credible scientific basis to conclude that Indian Point's unplanned releases have impaired,or will impair, the public health or environment.
One of Entergy's groundwater experts, Dr. Hoffman, a pre-eminent scientist in the field of radiological health and safety: (i) identified the sources and amounts of radiological materials released into the environment from Indian Point; (ii) determined whether there were any exposure pathways for humans or aquatic biota to those radionuclides; (iii) calculated the radiation dose to humans or aquatic biota resulting from those exposure pathways; and (iv) translated that dose to risk to human health or impact on aquatic biota. See Reference 9 at 6-9, 11, 14.
To put things in perspective, Dr. Hoffman concluded that the annual dose in 2010 from Indian Point's unplanned releases (the year for which the most recent data was then available) to the hypothetical maximally-exposed individual was 0.0002 mrem, a small fraction of the dose that an individual would get from eating a single banana. See Reference 7 at ¶7 119, 127, 143; Reference 10.
- I Di v o Dose WO 4W 3"
Dr. Hoffman then applied the linear no-threshold model to convert these doses into a risk to people of developing cancer in later life, finding that in order for such releases to cause a single incidence of cancer-related illness in later life, five billion people would have to be maximally exposed to Entergy's unplanned releases. Reference 7 at T 136. After noting that an exposure to such a large population was impossible, Dr. Hoffman's conclusion was clear and uncontested:
his expert opinion is that the unplanned releases from Indian Point are expected to have zero impact on the health of the public. Reference 7 at ¶ 138.
For purposes of evaluating impacts to the environment, Dr. Hoffman applied the two commonly accepted scientific methods for analyzing the potential dose to aquatic biota from radiological releases (the RESRAD-BIOTA dose model and the UNSCEAR model) to Indian Point's unplanned releases in 2010. Reference 7 at TT 139-141. His analysis confirmed that the dose rate (dose-per-day) to aquatic biota resulting from Indian Point's unplanned releases was "orders of magnitude" lower than the scientifically accepted threshold for protection of aquatic biota.
Reference 7 at ¶ 142.
3
ii. There has been no discernible impact on the level of radionuclidesin the Hudson River due to unplanned releases.
Based on extensive, ongoing sampling and testing of Hudson River water in the vicinity of Indian Point and at control locations away from Indian Point, the migration of low levels of radionuclides to the Hudson River has no discernible effect on the levels of radionuclides contained in Hudson River water. Reference 6 at 99. NYSDEC sampling showed no significant difference between Strontium-90 in the flesh of fish caught near the site and fish caught as far as 70 miles upstream. See Reference 8. The radionuclide plumes in groundwater have not affected properties surrounding Indian Point. See Reference 11 at p. 30 n. 21 and Reference 12. Over time, the radionuclide plumes are diminishing in size. Reference 7 at ¶66.
Between November 2005 (when the Unit 2 unplanned release was first addressed) and November 2011, estimated radionuclide concentrations in the plume associated with the Unit 2 unplanned release had diminished by approximately 89%. Reference 7 at ¶67.
&6h~ MAO 29.2012 0.156 ESTIMATED TRITIUM PLUME ACTIVITY OVER TIME O.U 0.06 0S1 0-8 0 N8 No45 No0 No0 No.0 No Nov.40 Nov.11 4
Between October 2008 (when the Unit 1 spent fuel pools were drained) and October 2011, estimated radionuclide concentrations associated with the Unit 1 unplanned release had diminished by approximately 71%. Reference 7 at ¶68.
81-A~ Md.h2t.2012 0.00014 & ESTIMATED STRONTIUM PLUME ACTIVITY OVER TIME 71% Reduction 0.00012 aup ae owe"e 0.000A S0.00006 0.00=02 Ot9Apr49t Oct490 ftr.10 Ocet40 Apr-U Oc041 C. The Past Unplanned Releases of Radiological Materials to Groundwater Have Not Caused a Violation of State Water Quality Standards.
The Hudson River near Indian Point is classified as "SB" saline surface waters. See Reference 13 at Table 1, Item 2. "The best usages of Class SB waters are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish and wildlife propagation and survival." Reference 14. Primary contact recreation consists of recreational activities where the human body may come in direct contact with raw water to the point of complete body submergence. Primary contact recreation includes, but is not limited to, swimming, diving, water skiing, skin diving and surfing. See Reference 15. Secondary contact recreation consists of recreational activities where contact with the water is minimal and where ingestion of the water is not probable. Secondary contact recreation includes, but is not limited to, fishing and boating. See Reference 16.
Dr. Hoffman's analyses, described above, establish that Indian Point's unplanned releases do not violate state water quality standards. First, Dr. Hoffman demonstrates that members of the public engaging in recreational activities on the Hudson River are unaffected by Indian Point's unplanned releases. See Section III.B.ii. Accordingly, there is no credible scientific basis to conclude that Indian Point's unplanned releases have impaired or will impair the use of the Hudson River for primary or secondary contact recreation, such as swimming, fishing, and boating. Second, Dr. Hoffman establishes that Indian Point's unplanned releases were "orders of magnitude" lower than the scientifically accepted threshold for protection of aquatic biota. See Section III.B.ii. Accordingly, there is no credible scientific basis to conclude that releases of 5
radionuclides to groundwater that has migrated to the Hudson River have impaired or will impair the suitability of the Hudson River for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival.
IV. Conclusions The sources of past unplanned releases of radionuclides at Indian Point have been eliminated or their causes have been addressed. Those releases have not caused, and are not causing, threats to the public health or the environment. Nor have those releases caused a violation of state water quality standards.
6
REFERENCES
- 1. Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public, 10 C.F.R. Part 20, Subpart D.
- 2. Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As Low as is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, Section II.
- 3. NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.21, Measuring, Evaluating, And Reporting Radioactive Material In Liquid And Gaseous Effluents And Solid Waste, Rev. 2 ( June 2009).
- 4. Letter dated October 19, 2009, from Darrel J. Roberts, NRC, to Joseph Pollock, Entergy,
Subject:
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2 &3-NRC Inspection Report Nos.
05000003/2009008; 05000247/2009008; and 0400286/2009008 (ML12338A648).
- 5. Contentions RK-EC-3 and CW-EC-l, presented to and dismissed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in connection with NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR, ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 (Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.-Indian Point Units 2 and 3).
- 6. NRC Proceeding, Entergy Exhibit ENT00030 1, Testimony of Entergy Witness Donald M. Mayer, Alan B. Cox, Thomas C. Esselman, Matthew J. Barvenik, Carl J. Paperiello, and F. Owen Hoffman Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks) (March 29, 2012) (ML12338A621).
- 7. NYSDEC Proceeding, Proposed Findings of Fact of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Radiological Issues Entergy Proposed Findings of Fact (Apr. 29, 2012).
- 8. NRC Proceeding, Entergy Exhibit ENT000345, NYSDEC Community Fact Sheet (May 2008) (ML12089A608).
- 9. NYSDEC Proceeding, Prefiled Testimony of F. Owen Hoffman in Support of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (July 22, 2011).
- 11. NYSDEC Proceeding, Post Hearing Reply Memorandum of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Radiological Issues (October 5, 2012).
7
2007).
- 13. 6 NYCRR § 864.8.
- 14. 6 NYCRR § 701.11.
15.6 NYCRR § 700.1(49).
- 16. 6 NYCRR § 700.1(56).
8