ML15049A109

Memorandum and Order CLI-15-2

ML15049A109
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/18/2015
From:	Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, CLI-15-2, RAS 27251
Download: ML15049A109 (7)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki William C. Ostendorff Jeff Baran

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

)

_________________________________________ )

CLI-15-2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This proceeding concerns the application of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to renew the operating licenses of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 for an additional twenty years. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued Partial Initial Decision LBP-13-13, resolving nine contentions.1 While we have before us a number of petitions for review of LBP-13-13, our decision today addresses only the State of New Yorks two petitions for review.2 New York challenges LBP-13-13 to the extent it resolves 1

LBP-13-13, 78 NRC 246 (2013). The Boards decision addresses only contentions that the Board earlier designated as Track 1 contentions, on which a hearing was held in October 2012. See id. at 275-76, 278-79. Several Track 2 contentions remain pending before the Board and will be the subject of a later evidentiary hearing. See id.

2 We also issue today an order granting review of the NRC Staffs and Entergys appeals of Board decisions addressing contention NYS-35/36. See CLI-15-3, 80 NRC ___ (Feb. 18, 2015)

(slip op.).

(continued . . .)

NYS-12C, an environmental contention.3 New York also challenges a subsequent Board order declining to reconsider LBP-13-13 or to reopen the hearing record on NYS-12C.4 NYS-12C challenged the Indian Point severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis, contesting particular decontamination times and decontamination cost assumptions.5 In LBP-13-13, the Board resolved NYS-12C in favor of the Staff.6 New York seeks review of the Boards findings. Entergy and the Staff oppose New Yorks petitions. The State of Connecticut has filed a brief amicus curiae supporting New Yorks petition for review.7 We may, as a matter of discretion, grant review of a full or partial initial decision, giving due weight to the existence of a substantial question with respect to any of the considerations outlined in 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(4). We find that the New York petitions raise at least one substantial question warranting further consideration of the decisions on NYS-12C. We therefore grant the New York petitions.8 3

State of New York Petition for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Decision LBP 13 with Respect to Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (Feb. 14, 2014) (New York Petition).

4 See State of New York Petition for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards April 1, 2014 Decision Denying the States Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of the Boards November 27, 2013 Partial Initial Decision Concerning Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (Apr. 28, 2014) (New York Petition with Respect to Reopening); see also Order (Denying New Yorks Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention)

(Apr. 1, 2014) (unpublished).

5 No party seeks review of the Boards resolution of NYS-16B, another SAMA analysis contention resolved in LBP-13-13. Contention 16B challenged population estimates; the Board resolved the contention in favor of the Staff. LBP-13-13, 78 NRC at 475-89.

6 LBP-13-13, 78 NRC at 450-74, 544.

7 See State of Connecticuts Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of the State of New Yorks Petition for Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Partial Initial Decision LBP-13-13 (Feb. 14, 2014); Amicus Brief of the Attorney General of Connecticut (Feb.

14, 2014). We will address in a future decision the question of Connecticuts participation as an amicus curiae under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d).

8 Our decision on review will outline further our grounds for granting the petitions.

New York, Entergy, and the Staff raise a number of complex technical and legal arguments regarding NYS-12C. To aid our review, we direct the parties to provide further briefing on the following questions. In answering the questions, the parties must not introduce any new documents or exhibits; all references shall be limited to submissions already in the record. References to affidavits and exhibits should include page citations.

1) The Board in LBP-13-13 stated that the genesis of the decontamination time values used in the Indian Point SAMA analysis can be traced to a 1984 report (NUREG/CR-3673) that concluded that a 90-day decontamination time period represents an average time to complete decontamination efforts following the most severe reactor accident.9 Address the underlying support and reasoning (if available) behind the reports conclusion that a 90-day time period is an average period of time for completing decontamination for the most severe type of reactor accident.

2) Identify from the record any peer review or similar vetting of the NUREG-1150 values for the decontamination cost inputs for nonfarm land and property (CDNFRM) and the decontamination time inputs (TIMDEC) used in the MACCS2 computer code.

3) Providing references to the record, discuss the underlying reasons behind the Staff and Entergy experts opinion that the NUREG-1150 CDNFRM and TIMDEC values continue to reflect reasonable estimates for severe accident decontamination times and costs today, including for the heavier (DF of 15) decontamination effort.

4) Discuss the appropriateness of performing sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainties in the estimated decontamination times and non-farm decontamination costs, including what might be reasonable CDNFRM and TIMDEC inputs to use in sensitivity analyses for the Indian Point SAMA analysis.

5) Would it be appropriate to treat decontamination times and decontamination costs (and related decontamination factors) from an uncertainty analysis standpoint, using a range of valuese.g., smaller values for smaller release accident categories and larger values for the larger release categories? Why or why not?

6) Discuss whether, and, if so, how, the SAMA analysis should account for the possibility of potential decontamination times longer than one year.

7) Discuss whether the Indian Point analysis contains conservatisms that bound or otherwise compensate for the uncertainty in the decontamination times and non-farm decontamination costs inputs used in the analysis.

9 See LBP-13-13, 78 NRC at 469 (referencing Ex. NRC000058, Economic Risks of Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents, NUREG/CR-3673 (May 1984)).

8) The Indian Point SAMA analysis states that the methodology for cleaning up a nuclear weapons accident that was described in a 1996 Sandia National Laboratory study is not relevant to clean-up following a nuclear reactor accident.10 Nonetheless, the SAMA analysis goes on to describe a comparison of decontamination cost values derived from the study with the decontamination cost values used in the Indian Point analysis.

Address to what extent (if any) the comparison to the weapons accident study explains or otherwise substantiates the decontamination cost parameters used in the Indian Point analysis.

Initial briefs shall not exceed 40 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents or table of authorities, and shall be filed within 40 calendar days of the date of this order. Reply briefs shall not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents, or table of authorities, and may be filed within 30 calendar days of the initial briefs filing. In accordance with 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.315(d), the State of Connecticut may file an amicus brief, not to exceed 20 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents, or table of authorities. Connecticut may file its brief within the time allowed to the party whose position the brief will support.

IT IS SO ORDERED.11 For the Commission NRC SEAL /RA/

Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of February, 2015.

10 See Ex. NYS00133I, Final Report, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 3, regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Dec. 2010), App. G at G-23 (referencing Ex.

NYS000249, Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable Costs from Plutonium-Dispersal Accidents, SAND96-0957 (May 1996)).

11 Chairman Burns did not participate in this matter.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

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

) and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating, )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-2) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Mail Stop O-7H4M David E. Roth, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

ocaamail@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.

Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Anita Ghosh, Esq.

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Christina England, Esq.

Mail Stop O-16C1 Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Joseph Lindell, Esq.

hearingdocket@nrc.gov John Tibbetts, Paralegal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop O-15D21 Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; edward.williamson@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov Administrative Judge david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; christina.england@nrc.gov; Richard E. Wardwell catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; Administrative Judge joseph.lindell@nrc.gov; richard.wardwell@nrc.gov john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Michael F. Kennedy OGC Mail Center Administrative Judge OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov michael.kennedy@nrc.gov William B. Glew, Jr.

Alana Wase, Law Clerk Organization: Entergy alana.wase@nrc.gov 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 wglew@entergy.com Kathleen E. Schroeder, Law Clerk Kathleen.Schroeder@nrc.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Exchange Place, 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 ezoli@goodwinprocter.com

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-2)

Daniel Riesel, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Adam Stolorow, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Natoya Duncan, Paralegal Westchester County Attorney Counsel for Town of Cortlandt 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. White Plains, NY 10601 460 Park Avenue mjr1@westchestergov.com New York, NY 10022 driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com Bobby Burchfield, Esq.

astolorow@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com Matthew Leland, Esq.

Emre Ilter, Esq.

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emery LLP Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 500 North Capitol Street NW Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Washington, DC 20001 Raphael Kuyler, Esq. bburchfield@mwe.com Brooke McGlinn, Esq. mleland@mwe.com Grant Eskelsen, Esq. eilter@mwe.com Ryan Lighty, Esq.

Lesa G. Williams-Richardson, Legal Secretary Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq.

Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary Covington & Burling LLP Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Washington, DC 20004 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW mswinehart@cov.com Washington, DC 20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.

martin.oneill@morganlewis.com New York State Department rkuyler@morganlewis.com; of Environmental Conservation lescher@morganlewis.com Office of General Counsel bmcglinn@morganlewis.com 625 Broadway sraimo@morganlewis.com 14th Floor geskelsen@morganlewis.com Albany, NY 12233-1500 rlighty@morganlewis.com efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us lrichardson@morganlewis.com dcalhoun@morganlewis.com Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director mfreeze@morganlewis.com Steven C. Filler Peter A. Gross Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Deborah Brancato, Esq. 724 Wolcott Ave.

Ramona Cearley, Secretary Beacon, NY 12508 Riverkeeper, Inc. mannajo@clearwater.org; 20 Secor Road stephenfiller@gmail.com; Ossining, NY 10562 peter@clearwater.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org rcearley@riverkeeper.org Andrew Reid, Esq.

Organization: Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Springer & Steinberg, P.C.

1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 lawyerreid@gmail.com 2

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-2)

Richard Webster, Esq. John J. Sipos, Esq.

Public Justice, P.C. Lisa S. Kwong, Esq.

For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Brian Lusignan, Esq.

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 Assistant Attorneys General Washington, D.C. 20006 Teresa Manzi, Legal Assistant rwebster@publicjustice.net Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol, State Street Michael J. Delaney, Esq. Albany, New York 12224 Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs john.sipos@ag.ny.gov NYC Department of Environmental Protection lisa.kwong@ag.ny.gov 59-17 Junction Boulevard brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov Flushing, NY 11373 teresa.manzi@ag.ny.gov mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Kathryn M. DeLuca, Esq.

Robert D. Snook, Esq. Laura Heslin, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut of the State of New York 55 Elm Street 120 Broadway, 26th Floor P.O. Box 120 New York, New York 10271 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 kathryn.deluca@ag.ny.gov robert.snook@po.state.ct.us laura.heslin@ag.ny.gov Sean Murray, Mayor Kevin Hay, Village Administrator Village of Buchanan Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 smurray@villageofbuchanan.com administrator@villageofbuchanan.com

[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of February, 2015 3