ML15075A048

State of Vermont'S Petition for Reconsideration of Commission Decision Approving Entergy'S Exemption Requests

ML15075A048
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	03/12/2015
From:	Kisicki A State of VT, Dept of Public Service
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY/RAS
References
50-271-LA-2, YYY-1
Download: ML15075A048 (84)

Text

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

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT ) Docket No. 50-271 YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY )

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) March 12, 2015

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

STATE OF VERMONTS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING ENTERGYS EXEMPTION REQUESTS INTRODUCTION NOW COMES the State of Vermont (State), through the Vermont Department of Public Service, with the following petition for reconsideration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) March 2, 2015 divided decision to approve a request by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) for exemptions from certain emergency planning requirements at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY), pursuant to 10 CFR §§ 2.341(d) and 2.345.

The NRCs March 2, 2015 decision interferes with the States rights under the directly related License Amendment Request (LAR) and was made without any apparent consideration of the States interests in the matter. The March 2, 2015 decision violates NRC precedent requiring a hearing for exemption requests that are directly related to a LAR. The decision also violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and federal court decisions applying NEPA.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 14, 2014, Entergy filed requests for exemptions from portions of 10 CFR

§ 50.47 and Part 50, Appendix E at VY (Exemption Request).1 Entergy sought the requested exemptions to allow VY to reduce emergency planning requirements and subsequently revise 1

See Letter from Christopher Wamser, Entergy Site Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk (March 14, 2014)(BVY 14-009)(NRC ADAMS Accession No. ML14080A141).

the VY Emergency Plan consistent with the anticipated permanently defueled condition of the station.2 To date, the Exemption Request has not been noticed in the Federal Register. On June 12, 2014, Entergy filed its LAR seeking to revise the VY site emergency plan (SEP) and Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme to reflect a permanently defueled condition. 3 Entergy explicitly conceded the LAR was predicated on approval of requests for exemptions that were filed three months earlier, but had not been approved or granted by the NRC at the time of filing.4 On November 14, 2014, NRC Staff issued a recommendation to the NRC to approve Entergys Exemption Request.5 The LAR was noticed in the Federal Register on December 9, 2014.6 The Federal Register notice made neither reference to the Exemption Request, nor provided an opportunity for public comment regarding the same. On February 9, 2015, the State filed its LAR Petition and supporting comments in response to the LARall of which are attached here as Exhibit 1.7 The LAR Petition contained two contentions: one, the LAR was not ready for review as the predicate exemptions had not been ruled upon by NRC at the time of filing; and two, the LAR fails to adequately account for all credible emergency scenarios and increases the risk to public health and safety.

On March 2, 2015, the NRC approved the Staffs recommendation to grant the Exemption Request, on a 3-1 vote - 21 days after the State submitted its LAR Petition and 2

Id. at 1.

3 See Letter from Christopher Wamser, Entergy Site Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk, (June 12, 2014)(BVY 14-033)(NRC Agencywide Document Access Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML14168A302).

4 Id at 2.

5 See Memorandum from Mark A. Satorius, Executive Director for Operations, to NRC Commissioners (November 14, 2014)(SECY 14-0125)(ML14227A711).

6 See Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, (79 FR 73109)(December 9, 2014).

7 See State of Vermonts Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Hearing Request (Feb. 9, 2015)(ML15040A726). The December 9, 2104 LAR Federal Register notice requested public comments on or before January 8, 2015. On January 8, 2015, NRC issued a 30 day extension of the public comment period to February 9, 2015. See Notice from James Kim, Plant Licensing IV-2 and Decommissioning Transition Branch (Jan. 8, 2015)(ML15008A098).

2

supporting comments speaking directly to concerns and objections it had over the exemption request, but four days before the deadline for Entergy and NRC Staff to file answers to the LAR Petition.8 The NRC had previously indicated, and the State understood, that this decision would occur by July 20159after the requested LAR hearing. The NRCs voting record and supporting comments provided no analysis in response to the States comments submitted on February 9, much less gave any indication that the Commissioners reviewed the comments, or were aware of the directly related LAR before the ASLB.

On March 6, 2015, Entergy and NRC Staff separately filed answers in opposition to the States Petition.10 Both Entergy and NRC Staff argued that NRCs approval of the Staffs exemption request recommendation made the LAR Petitions first contention moot.11 However, Entergy asserted the State had the opportunity to comment on the Exemption Request prior to the State filing the LAR Petition.12 In stark contrast to Entergy, the NRC Staff argued flatly that Vermont is [n]ot [e]ntitled to [c]omment on the [e]xemption.13 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION The NRC has, by all indications, failed to consider the States comments regarding the adverse impacts of granting Entergys Exemption Request on the State. As discussed above, the Exemption Request was not noticed in the Federal Register. Likewise, NRCs voting record on the Exemption Request does not reflect consideration of the States comments addressing the Exemption Request and filed in conjunction with the LAR Petition. As NRC Staff recognized in 8

See Commission Voting Record re Request by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for Exemptions From Certain Emergency Planning Requirements (3/2/15)(ML15062A135); Memorandum from Annette L. Vietti-Cook to Mark A. Satorius re Staff Requirements - SECY 14-0125 (Mar. 2, 2015)( ML15061A516).

9 See Platts, Inside NRC vol. 36 at 9 (Aug. 25, 2014) (citing an email from NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan).

10 See Entergys Answer Opposing Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request (Mar. 6, 2015)(ML15065A300); NRC Staffs Answer to State of Vermonts Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request (Mar. 6, 2015) (ML15065A364).

11 See Entergys Answer at 16-17; NRC Staffs Answer at 21-22.

12 See Entergy Answer at 12-13.

13 NRC Staff Answer at 27.

3

opposing Vermonts LAR Petition, it was fully aware of Vermonts position on the Exemption Request.14 In addition, the LAR was explicitly predicated on granting the exemptions. The NRC violated its own precedent and relevant federal law when it approved the Exemption Request, rather than allowing the exemption request to be considered as part of the LAR hearing, and did so without an opportunity for public comment or participation and without considering comments filed by the State. The NRC should have granted a hearing on an exemption request when, as here, the exemption is necessary for a licensee to amend its license. Lastly, the NRC should reconsider the Exemption Request because, even if it is granted, Entergy may not implement many of the changes it seeks to make to its SEP and EAL. Entergy is subject to long-standing commitments it made to the State related to emergency response and preparedness.

A. NRC Action on the Exemption Request Contravenes Federal Law and NRC Precedent The NRCs action to approve NRC Staffs recommendation to approve the Exemption Request in isolation from the related LAR and without providing an opportunity for public comment and participation creates two clear violations of federal law, either of which justifies reconsideration and reversal of the March 2, 2015 NRC decision.

1. The exemption request is necessary for Entergy to amend its license, triggering a right to a hearing and review of the exemptions and license amendment requests together.

Although the NRC has held that, in general, an intervenor has no right to a hearing to challenge an exemption request,15 it has created a clear exception to this rule. The NRC has held that when an exemption request is directly related to a licensing amendment action, and an intervenor raises an admissible contention related to the exemption, that contention should be 14 Id.

15 See 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1) and In the Matter of Commonwealth of Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station),

CLI-00-05, 51 NRC 90, 98.

4

subject to a hearing.16 In PFS, the NRC granted a hearing on an exemption request that was made during the pendency of a licensing proceeding for a proposed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The key to the decision was whether the exemption request was a direct part of an initial license or licensing amendment request:

[I]t is not true that the Commission only grants a hearing on exemption requests that are directly related to an already-admitted contention. The proper focus is on whether the exemption is necessary for the applicant to obtain an initial license or amend its license. Where the exemption is thus a direct part of an initial licensing or licensing amendment action, there is a potential that an interested party could raise an admissible contention on the exemption, triggering the right to a hearing under that AEA.17 A hearing right clearly exists where a licensing action is predicated on an exemption request:

[b]ecause resolution of the exemption request directly affects the licensability of the proposed ISFSI, the exemption raises material questions directly connected to an agency licensing action, and thus comes within the hearing rights of interested parties.18 Here, Entergy conceded in its LAR that the request is dependent on granting of the Exemption Request. A proper examination of the LARs potential impact on public health and safety cannot be made independent of the Exemption Request - a point repeatedly stressed in the States LAR petition. The two must be reviewed together. The use of an exemption cannot remove a matter germane to a licensing proceeding from consideration in a hearing, assuming an interested party raises an admissible contention thereon. To hold otherwise would exclude critical safety questions from licensing hearings merely on the basis of an exemption label.19 16 In the Matter of Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS), CLI-01-12, 53 NRC 459, 476; see also, e.g., In the Matter of Honeywell International, Inc., CLI-13-1, 77 NRC 1, 7 (But when a licensee requests an exemption in a related license amendment application, we consider the hearing rights of the amendment application to encompass the exemption request as well.).

17 PFS at 470 (emphasis added).

18 PFS at 467.

19 Id.

5

The Commission, by acting on the exemption request when a Petition to Intervene that challenges both the exemption and the LAR is pending, was a violation of Commission precedent and the rights established by 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a).

2. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the NRC must analyze the environmental impacts of Entergys proposed exemption request and related license amendment request NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement . . . on the environmental impact of any proposed major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.20 At a minimum, if an agency is going to allow a licensee to engage in activities with environmental impacts without the agency first issuing a detailed environmental impact statement, the agency must first do an environmental analysis and issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).21 The NRCs March 2, 2015 decision was not NEPA-compliant.

The required NEPA analysis must be comprehensive and address all potential environmental effects unless those effects are so unlikely as to be remote and highly speculative.22 Potential environmental impacts from the storage of spent nuclear fuel include impacts resulting from the possibility of terrorist attack.23 Unless the probability of a given risk [is] effectively zero, NEPA requires that the NRCs analysis account for the consequences of each risk.24 The major federal action that the NRC took on March 2, 2015granting Entergys Exemption Requesthas significant potential environmental impacts compared to the baseline no-action alternative of keeping the current regulatory requirements in place.25 Yet there is no 20 42 U.S.C. § 4332(1)(C)(i); see generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.

21 40 C. F. R. § 1501.4; id. § 1508.14.

22 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, 449 F.3d 1016, 1030 (9th Cir. 2006).

23 Id. at 1031.

24 New York v. NRC I, 681 F.3d 471, 483 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

25 See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d) (environmental analysis must include the alternative of no action).

6

indication in the NRCs March 2, 2015 decision that it performed any environmental analysis, let alone a NEPA-compliant analysis that looks at other reasonable courses of action, including the no-action alternative and potential mitigation measures. This does not comply with NEPA, particularly in light of the significant potential environmental impacts detailed by the State in its February 9, 2015 comments and LAR Petition.26 First and foremost, the potential environmental impacts associated with Entergys specific Exemption Request include the elimination of the federal regulatory and licensing requirement to maintain a 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), and the consequent increased risk to Vermont citizens and the citizens of neighboring states in the event of a zirconium fire from, for instance, a terrorist attack on VY that results in loss of cooling in the spent fuel pool.

Also, VY exhibits unique site-specific factors that canand doaffect the potential environmental impacts of an emergency in the spent fuel pool while spent fuel is present. These include factors that have never before been analyzed for their environmental impacts. In fact, there has been no previous environmental analysis of potential impacts from VY being exempted from the usual emergency preparedness requirements such as a 10-mile EPZ, since the 10-mile EPZ and other requirements were assumed to remain in place during all previous licensing and relicensing proceedings. For instance, Vermont Yankee has an operating elementary school located just 1500 feet from the reactor building. The 2002 Decommissioning GEIS (NUREG-1437) never took that site-specific factor into account, nor did the 2007 Supplemental GEIS.27 Likewise, differences in the structural design of facilities that have been granted similar exemptions and VY justify comprehensive NEPA review. The facilities cited by the NRC Staff and the Commissioners themselves in approving the Exemption RequestKewaunee, Zion, 26 See Exhibit 1.

27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 30, at 7-2.

7

etc.were Pressure Water Reactors (PWR), versus VYs Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) design. PWR spent fuel pools are completely enclosed within a reinforced concrete containment building, whereas the VY spent fuel pool is not protected by concrete above the fuel. This lack of protection makes the VY pool more susceptible to an emergency situation, particularly in the event of a terrorist attack, and increases the risk and scope of environmental impacts for a BWR.

At a minimum, NRC must evaluate the Exemption Request and LAR for compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 51.92, which requires a supplemental environmental impact statement in situations such as this where new information has not previously been analyzed.28 A comprehensive analysis is also required here in part to avoid segmenting environmental analyses into discrete parts without ever looking at their full combined effects an approach that NEPA does not allow.29 The NRC has previously underscored the value of a comprehensive NEPA analysis: While NEPA does not require agencies to select particular options, it is intended to foster both informed decision-making and informed public participation, and thus to ensure that the agency does not act upon incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.30 The lack of public participation leading up to the March 2, 2015 decision is, by itself, a violation of NEPA. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in a 28 See also, e.g., Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989) (noting that when an agency receives new and significant information casting doubt on a previously issued environmental analysis, the agency must reevaluate the earlier analysis).

29 See e.g. Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304, 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (The justification for the rule against segmentation is obvious: it prevents agencies from dividing one project into multiple individual actions each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact.

(quotation and alteration marks omitted)); see also, e.g., NRDC v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 1975) (NEPA is meant to provide a more comprehensive approach so that long term and cumulative effects of small and unrelated decisions could be recognized, evaluated and either avoided, mitigated, or accepted as the price to be paid for the major federal action under consideration (emphasis added)).

30 In Re Duke Energy Corporation (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units and 2), CLI-02-17, 56 N.R.C. 1, 10 (2002).

8

directly analogous case, public scrutiny [is] an essential part of the NEPA process.31 In Brodsky, the Second Circuit vacated the NRCs granting of an exemption without the NEPA-required public comment or participation. The NRC has made the same error here. To date, the NRC has not solicited public comment, held a hearing, or made any other effort at public participation, even though the NRC must know the public is greatly concerned with this matter.

Nor is this something that can be fixed as the process moves forward. While Entergy has stated in a recent filing that it expects that the NRC will publish an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact in the Federal Register in the near future,32 NRC Staff has made clear that the March 2, 2015 Commission decision is complete and binding, and that the NRC Staff is already preparing the exemption for issuance.33 The future publication of an environmental analysisafter the relevant decision has already been madedoes not comply with NEPA, which requires the analysis before a decision is made on the major federal action:

NEPA should not become an after-the-fact process that justifies decisions that have already been made.

[A]n agency shall prepare an EIS so that it can inform the decisionmaking process in a timely manner and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.34 As the D.C. Circuit has held, Congress did not intend [NEPA] to be such a paper tiger.35 B. The Commission Should Review Existing Obligations Entergy Has to the State When Reconsidering Its Approval of the Exemption Request The Commission should review all information relevant to a decision on an exemption request. Here, Entergy has agreed to a number of safety planning and response obligations to the State beyond those required by NRC regulation. Entergy and the State have agreed, through a 31 Brodsky v. NRC, 704 F.3d 113, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)).

32 Entergys Answer at 13.

33 NRC Staffs Answer at 15 (emphasis added).

34 Commission on Environmental Quality Guidance, 77 Fed. Reg. at 14476-77 (footnotes and citations omitted).

35 Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Cmtee.. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

9

number of memoranda of understanding and letters of agreement to provide for a 10-mile emergency planning zone and a 15 minute notification protocol to the State in the event of an emergency - precisely the kinds of obligations Entergy seeks to avoid as a result of the requested exemptions. Examples of these agreements are attached here as Exhibit 2. Any NRC action on the exemptions and directly related LAR do not relieve Entergy of these obligations. The Commission has inherent supervisory authority over adjudications and rulemakings.36 That authority certainly confers the ability review these agreements while reconsidering its actions.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing the State of Vermont, through the Vermont Department of Public Service, respectfully requests the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission grant this petition for reconsideration, and withdraw the March 2, 2015 decision to grant Entergys Exemptions Request. The Commission should exercise its inherent supervisory authority here and grant the relief the State seeks.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 12th of March, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

Aaron Kisicki Counsel for the State of Vermont Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 (802) 828-3785 aaron.kisicki@state.vt.us 36 Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-11, 55 N.R.C. 260 (2002).

10

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

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT )

YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY )

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the forgoing State of Vermonts Petition for Reconsideration of Commission Decision Approving Entergys Exemption Requests, dated March 12, 2015, have been served upon the following via electronic mail, in the above-captioned proceeding, this 12th day of March, 2015.

NRCExecSec@nrc.gov Susan Raimo, Esq., Entergy Services Inc.

sraimo@entergy.com hearingdocket@nrc.gov Paul Bessette, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Emile Julian, Esq., NRC SECY pbessette@morganlewis.com emile.julian@nrc.gov Raphael Kuyler, Esq.,

Beth Mizuno, Esq., NRC Staff Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP beth.mizzuno@nrc.gov rkuyler@morganlewis.com Mitzi Young, Esq., NRC Staff mitzi.young@nrc.gov Jeremy Wachutka, Esq., NRC Staff Jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov

/Signed (electronically) by/

Aaron Kisicki Counsel for the State of Vermont Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 (802) 828-3785 aaron.kisicki@state.vt.us Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 12th day of March, 2015 11

EXHIBIT 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT ) Docket No. 50-271-LA-2 YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY )

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) February 9,2015

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

STATE OF VERMONT'S PETITION FOR LEAVP TO INTERVENE. AND HEARING REQUEST I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.309, the State of Vermont ("State"), through the Vermont Department of Public Service, submits the following Petition for Leave to Intervene, and Hearing Request in response to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s (together, "Entergy") license amendment request ("LAR") related to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station ("VY") Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme. The State opposes Nuclear Regulatory Commission ('NRC")

issuance of the LAR. The State seeks to participate as a party in this proceeding, and it requests that the NRC and/or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") hold an evidentiary hearing in order to develop a full evidentiary record for the NRC and/or ASLB to consider when reviewing the LAR.

On June 12,2014, Entergy filed its LAR seeking to revise the VY site emergency plan

("SEP") and Emergency Action Level ("EAL") scheme to reflect a perlnanently defueled

condition.r The LAR is based on exemptions from certain portions of 10 CFR $$ 50.47(b),

O.a7G)Q), and Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV requested by Entergy, but not yet granted by the NRC.2 The State filed comments in response to the LAR, outlining its concerns and objections to the proposed license amendments on February 9,2015.3 II. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE The State meets all standing requirements outlined in 10 CFR $ 2.309(d). The State, as represented by the Vermont Department of Public Service, 112 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05620, has a significant interest in the proposed license amendments contained in the LAR presently at issue. The VY station is located within the state of Vermont. As explained in the State's February g,2015 Comments and Declarations, and in the contentions below, the LAR, if granted, would significantly hinder the State's ability to coordinate and execute an effective response to an emergency situation at the station. This hindrance poses a safety risk to Vermont 1

See Letter from Christopher'Wamser, Entergy Site Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk, June 12,2014 (BVY 14-033XNRC Agencywide Document Access Management System IADAMS] Accession No. MLl4l68A302).

2 SeeLetter from Christopher'Wamser, Entergy Site Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk, March 14, 2014 (BVy 14-009XNRC ADAMS AccessionNo. ML140804141); Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, (79 FR ZátOe;lOicember 9,2014). The December 9,2014 Federal Register notice notes that "[t]he Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration." Such issuance of the amendment prior to the expiration ofthe 60-day period to file a hearing request does not, however, preclude commissioneview of this request for hearing. The Federal Register makes clear that any hearing will take place after issuance of an amendment should the NRC make a No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination prior to review ofthis request.

' The LAR was noticed in the December 9,2014 edition of the Federal Register (79 FR 73109). The notice requested the submission of public comments on or before January 8, 2015. On January 8,2015, the NRC issued a 30 day extension of the public comment period to February 9,2015. See Notice fiom James Kim, Plant Licensing IV-2 ánd Decommissioning Transition Branch, January 8, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. MLI50084098).

2

residents. The State therefore petitions the NRC for leave to intervene as a full party in this proceeding.a ilI. REQUEST FOR HEARING The State requests that a hearing be held to develop a full evidentiary record related to the contentions stated below and any later amendments to the contentions pursuant to 10 CFR $

2)09. It also requests that the State be granted the opportunity to engage in limited discovery to aid in the development of the evidentiary record, either as a matter of right in the event that the ASLB andlor NRC grants a hearing pursuant to 10 CFR Part2, Subpart G, or, altematively, at the discretion of the ASLB and/or NRC under Subpart L.

CONTENTION ONE Entergy's license amendment request is not ready for review, as the amendment request is predicated upon and assumes approval of an exemption request that has not been ruled upon by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

BASES Entergy's instant LAR is not ready for review by the NRC and/or the ASLB. Entergy readily concedes in the LAR that "[t]he proposed PDEP and Permanently Defueled EAL scheme are predicated on approval of requests for exemption from portions of 10 CFR 50.470), 10 CFR 50.a7@)(2) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section fV, previously submitted."5 The requested exemptions would remove the planning, notice and protective action requirements in the event of See In lhe Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations,l¿c. Docket No. 50-a 271-L^,Memorandum and Order(Ruling on Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene)(January 28,2015) at7

('Vermont has standing because Vermont Yankee is "located within the boundaries of the State" and, accordingly,

'no further demonstration of standing is required."').

t gvyt4-033 at z.

J

an emergency,6 reduce the emergency plannin g zone to the footprint of the plant,T eliminate hostile action scenario planning,s and eliminate State participation in emergency response exercises.e The LAR seeks approval of a Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and Permanently Defueled Emergency Action Level scheme that would reduce the scope of emergency planning at the VY site, and increase notification time of an emergency declaration to the State from l5 minutes to 60.10 The LAR, as presented, assumes actions by the NRC that have not yet occurred, and, more importantly, may never occur in the future. Approval of the LAR without NRC review of the predicate exemptions request - which would allow the State to comment on that request and request a hearing - is inappropriate, both as a matter of law and public policy. The exemptions request and the LAR effectively constitute a complete request by Entergy for changes to its approach to emergency planning and response. The two filings cannot be reviewed separately as they are dependent on one another. However, the State has not been afforded an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way to the exemptions request.

In addition, the NRC has options at its disposal beyond simple approval or denial the requested exemptions. It could, for example, impose conditions for approval. Neither the State nor the NRC is able to evaluate the full extent to which the proposed license amendment will or will not meet NRC safety and environmental requirements until the final decision on the u

BVy l4-00g,Attach. I at 4-7, addressing changes to 10 CFR $ 50.a7@); 1 l, addressing changes to Part 50, App E.IV; 16, addressing changes to Part 50 App. E.IV.A; 19-22, addressing changes to E.IV.D; 25-28, addressing changes to Part 50, App. E.IV.E.

' Id. alS,addressing changes to 10 CFR $ 50.a7(cX2)'

t Id. at 10, addressing changes to 10 CFR 50, App. E IV.1; 15, addressing changes to Part 50, App. E.IV.A; 17' addressing changes to Part 50 App. E.IV.B; 26, addressing changes to Part 50, App. E. IV.E.

n td. at3Z-36, addressing changes to Part 50, App. E'IV.F.

to BVY 14-033 at2 App.l at 4; App 2 al.35.

4

exemption requests is made. The State is materially and unfairly disadvantaged when it is forced, as it is here, to challenge the LAR when the exact terms of the request are not known.

This issue is within the scope of the proceeding. NRC approval of exemptions request serves as the foundation on which the LAR is built. In this instance, Entergy seeks approval of the LAR prior to the necessary foundation being laid. Unless and untíl the State is given an opportunity to at least comment on the exemptions request and the NRC makes a ruling on the same, the issue of whether the NRC and/or ASLB is in an appropriate position to even review the LAR is within the scope of this proceeding. Likewise, this issue is material to core hndings that the NRC must make - namely that the predicate exemptions are approved - to support the changes Entergy seeks in the LAR. The ASLB and/or NRC should, ata minimum, hold this proceeding and the deadline for fling contentions and a hearing request in abeyance until at least 30 days after NRC has taken frnal action on Entergy's exemptions request. The NRC should likewise provide a meaningful opportunity for the State to provide comments and request a hearing with respect to the exemptions request.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE This issue poses a genuine dispute between Entergy and the State with respect to the appropriateness of LAR review now. A significant porlion of the State's February 9, 2015 LAR Comments and Declarations speak to significant concerns it has with the LAR that flow from the underlying exemptions request, and are incorporated into this Petition by reference.tt The Comments and Declarations detail the deficiencies and problems of the requested exemptions, 1r See Vermont Department of Public Service LAR Comments and Declarations (February 9,2015), attached as Attachment A; Vermont Division of Emergency Management LAR Comments and Declarations (February 9,2015),

attached as Attachment B; and Vermont Department of Health LAR Comments and Declarations (February 9, 2015), attached as Attachment C.

5

and illustrate the interaction between the LAR and the exemptions request. This interaction, as detailed by the Declarations, cuts to the core of the findings the ASLB andlot NRC must make in reviewing the LAR here. As discussed below, the State disputes Entergy's claim that the proposed PDEP and Permanently Defueled EAL scheme continues to "preserve the effectiveness of the emergency plan," particularly when evaluated in conjunction with the l2 requested exemptions.

CONTENTION T\ilO Entergy's license amendment request, if approved along with the predicate requested exemptions, fails to account for all credible emergency scenarios, undermines the effectiveness of the site emergency plan and off-site emergency planning, and poses an increased risk to the heatth and safety of Vermont citizens in violation of NRC regulatory requirements 10 CFR $ 50.5a($(4) and Appendix E to Part 50.

BASES The LAR, if approved in conjunction with Entergy's requested exemptions, would increase the threat to public health and safety in the event of a credible accident scenario at the VY plant. First, the requested exemptions outlined above would eliminate Entergy's obligations to keep the State emergency response organizations and the general public informed in the event of an emergency.t3 The exemptions would fi,rther reduce the State's abilityto adequately and effectively respond to an emergency by discontinuing the federal requirement for suppott to State planning and monitoring activities, placing the health and safety of Vermont citizens in jeopardy in the event of aplant emergency. The exemptions would hamper the State's ability to

BVY-033 at 2.

tt BVY 14-009, Attach. I at 79-22, addressing changes to Part 50, App. E'IV.D.

6

implement the Vermont Radiological Emergency Response Program, and any additional off-site response to an emergency.la The exemptions request effectively treats the VY plant, with radioactive material stored in a spent fuel pool, as if it were a dry cask independent spent fuel storage installation ("ISFSI")

and/or monitored retrievable storage ("MRS") facility, which is clearly not the case now or for the next several years. Entergy's exemptions request does not even contain implementing procedures, preventing. the State from understanding what changes it would need to make to its emergency response protocols if the exemptions and LAR are approved. The State would be unable to effectively execute its own Radiological Emergency Response Plan in harmony with the VY Emergency Plan without such implementing procedures in the event of an emergency at the plant. In sum, the requested exemptions would eliminate substantial emergency plan requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, which in turn would necessarily reduce the effectiveness of any VY emergency plan going forward, including the PDEP and EAL schemes proposed in the instant LAR. The requested exemptions would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, notification procedures currently required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E' For instance, the exemptions request proposes that the procedures requiring notification and interaction with State and local agencies be eliminated almost in their entirety, based on the erroneous assumption that the VY station (in its present state with spent fuel in the cooling pool) be viewed as an ISFSI and/or MRS facility. This would result in no effective means for Entergy to communicate critical information to the State in the event of an emergency, as required by Part 50, Appendix E.ls See DEMHS LAR Comments and Declarations at 1-3, 5-9; and VDH LAR Comments and Declarations at 5-7 ra 15 See BVY l4-009, Attach. I at 79-22, addressing changes to Part 50, App. E.IV'D' 7

Second, the LAR fails to adequately analyze a number of credible scenarios whereby public health and safety may be put at risk. The LAR does not provide analysis of multiple credible Beyond Design Basis scenarios that coitinue to pose a health risk while fuel rods remain in the VY spent fuel cooling pool. The exemptions request, if granted, would eliminate the federal requirement that Entergy take responsibility for planning a response to a spent fuel pool emergency that may last more than 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.16 This problem would be compounded by the lack of clear notification procedures to the State otherwise required by Part 50, Appendix E.

Likewise, Entergy has relied upon stale NRC guidance issued prior to the September l1 , 2001 attacks in developing the PDEP I EAL scheme that does not consider post-9/11 security concerns. The PDEP /EAL scheme should address all safety concerns present in today's threat environment. The LAR fails to do so. The LAR also fails to address heightened safety concerns at Vermont Yankee due to the existence of high-burnup fuel at the site, even though the NRC has recognized that the use of high-burnup fuel causes special problems, including a greater chance of accidents and an increased chance of structural failure of the fuel rods suchthattransferto dry casks is more difficult, more dangerous, and more expensive.lT When viewed together, the exemptions request and LAR create a circular logic that results in a clear reduction in emergency plan effectiveness that cannot meet the requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.5a(q)(4) and companion Part 50, Appendix E emergency plan requirements.

Entergy has filed the LAR pursuant to $ 50.54(q)(4), which requires a request to change an emergency plan that would reduce the effectiveness of the plan to include "the basis for concluding that the licensee's emergency plan, as revised, will continue to meet the requirements 16 See, for instance, DPS LAR Comments and Declarations at l-2, addressing the possibility of fuel pool accident scenarios involving accelerants.

r7 See DPS LAR Comments and Declarations at 3.

8

in appendix E to this part." The exemptions request seeks to strike significant portions of 50 App. E.IV.B and D related to actions outside the plant boundary and emergency notihcation to state and local response organizations. The LAR meets the requirements of $ 50.54(fl(a) only in the event Entergy is exempted from material requirements of Part 50, Appendix E. Section 50.5a(fl(a), however, rhandates that all Appendix E requirements are met. The l.AR therefore fails to satisfy $'50.5a((a).

The contention is within the scope of this proceeding. The LAR must show that it conforms to the requirements of Part 50, Appendix E given that Entergy'readily admits its request would reduce the effectiveness of the VY emergency plan. On its face, the LAR does not meet all the Appendix E requirements as mandated by $ 50.54(qX4). Furthermore, the contention is material to the finding the NRC must make that the LAR satisfies all requirements of g 50.54(fl(a) and Appendix E of Part 50. The State has submitted comments from experts in its Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, the Department of Health, and the Department of Public Service, all of which raise concerns about the LAR and companion exemptions request's adverse impact on the State's ability to execute monitoring and emergency response programs in the event of an emergency. The exemptions and LAR fail to adequately analyze credible Beyond Design Basis scenarios while spent fuel is present in the VY cooling pool, eliminate critical State notification, monitoring and planning activities, and fail to adopt dose radiation monitoring standards that would best protect public health and safety, as spelled out in the State's Comments and Declarations.ls See DPS LAR Comments and Delarations at l-2; DEMHS Comments and Declarations at 1-2, 5,7-9;YDH 18 Comments and Declarations at3-91 9

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE A genuine dispute exists between the State and Entergy with respect to whethr the LAR meets all Part 50, Appendix E requirements aimed at ensuring protection of the public health and safety of Vermont citizens. The State has submitted extensive evidence in the form of Declarations sponsored by experts in their respective felds. The details spelled out in the Declarations strongly support the bases by which this contention is set forth, and are incorporated into this Petition by reference. The LAR provides insufficient analysis of credible Beyond Design Basis emergency scenarios and is based on inadequate NRC guidance. The requested exemptions fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.5a(fl(a) and companion Appendix E to Part 50 by eliminating the federal requirement for notification protocols, and planning and monitoring resources to the State required to ensure public health and safety.

l0

TV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing the State of Vermont, through the Vermont Department of Public Service, respectfully requests the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to grant its request for intervention, admit the State's two contentions offered above, and hold a hearing on Entergy's LAR related to the VY Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme with the opportunity for the State to engage in discovery to develop a full evidentiary record for review when considering the LAR and associated exemptions request.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 9th of February,2015 Respectfully submitted,

/sl Christopher Recchia Commissioner Vermont Department of Public Service 1 12 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620 (802) 828-281 l 11

COMMENTS AND DECLARATIONS OF THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGARDING VERMONT YANKEE PERMANENTLY DEFUELED EMERGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SCHEME LICENSE AMENDMENT REOUEST BVY 14-033 FebruarY 9,2015 The Vermont Department of Public Service (Department or DPS), by and through Anthony Leshinskie, Vermont State Nuclear Engineer and Decommissioning Coordinator, (curriculum vitae attached) submits the following comments and declarations with respect to the license amendment request filed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) regarding the Vermont Yankee Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme on June 12,2014. See Letterfrom Chris Wamser, Entergy Site Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk, June 12, 2014 (BVY 14-033) (NRC Agencyvide Document Access Management System IADAMS] Accession No. MLl41684302).

The License Amendment Request (LAR) generally raises significant concerns to the Department, both because of the flawed assumptions used by Entergy in assessing threat scenarios, and because of Entergy's reliance on outdated NRC guidance as support for the LAR.

The representations made by Entergy in the LAR do not contemplate the full scope of possible threat scenarios impacted by the proposed license amendments. Analysis of certain (and credible Beyond Design Basis events is not properly presented, preventing the Department the NRC) from adequately evaluating the impact of the proposed license amendments.

For example, the LAR fails to analyze Potential Hostile Actions such as aircraft assault.

Entergy states throughout the Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) / Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme filing that the remaining Design Basis Accidents and credible Beyond Design Basis events will progress slowly. This assertion is used to justiff extending the required emergency level notification time from 15 to 60 minutes, and inpart to justiflr the

elimination of Site Area Emergency and General Emergency EALs currently used in Vermont Yankee Emergency Planning. The PDEP and its EALs rely on a definition of Hostile Action described in NEI-99, Rev. 6 Sections 3.1.3 8¿ 3.1.4. Potential Hostile Actions include aircraft assault, which-based on the discussion in the PDEP-can occur with little or no advanced warning. The lack of advanced warning for this type of Hostile Action contradicts the slow progression assumption.

Additionally, the Fuel Assembly Heat Up I Zirconium Fire probability event discussed in the PDEP IEAL scheme (but submitted as part of a separate License Exemption Request, see Entergy Requestr Exemptionsfrom Portions of I0 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, March 14,2Ol4 (BVY 14-009) (ADAMS Accession No. MLl40804141)) lacks adequate analysis. It ignores the conclusion of the U.S. GeneralAccounting Office in August 2012that"it is difficult to quantiff the probability" of a spent fuel pool fire. ,See GAO 12-797 at27 ' Whtle it attempts to work around the conclusion by assuming that a fire will occur once a 900 'C fuel temperature is reached, there is no NRC dehned criteria to determine whether this is an acceptable evaluation method. It also does not discuss the possibility of chemical accelerants being used to reduce the time to reach the 900'C fuel temperature defined as the onset of a Zirconium Fire, even though such an accelerant was considered in a recent Vermont Yankee Hostile Action Emergency Drill. One potential accelerant would be jet fuel from an aircraft intention.ally crashed into the spent fuel pool (which could conceivably fuel a fre regardless of the water level in the Spent Fuel Pool) causing a fuel assembly fire well before the l0 hour "heat-up time" determined by the Zirconium Fire analysis. The possibility of a much more rapid heat-up time contradicts the slow progression assumption of the PDEP IEAL scheme, and could require an EAL beyond Alert to properly address.

2

The Department also has significant concems about the quality of the NRC guidance Entergy used in developing the PDEP IEAL scheme. A significant portion of the guidance used to develop the PDEP I EAL scheme is derived from plant decommissioning information that the NRC has compiled in SECY-OO-145, well before the September I l, 2001 attacks. By the NRC's own admission, the SECY-OO-145 guidance has not been updated since then because plant security concerns raised by the September ll,2O0l attacks were given higher priority. As such, the SECY-gg-145 guidance has not been reevaluated while considering post-9/l1 plant security concerns. The Department believes that, once the SECY-OO-145 guidance has been considered, ideas such as reducing the Emergency PlanningZone (EPZ) to the Vermont Yankee fence line and relying on "ad hoc" offsite emergency planning (rather than continued offsite radiological emergency planning support) will be found to be imprudent and unwarranted.

The LAR is also deficient because it fails to properly analyze the risks of an accident while transferring fuel from the spent fuel pool to dry casks. This risk is heightened at Vermont yankee because of the existence of high-burnup fuel at the site. The NRC has recognizedthat the use of high-burnup fuel causes special problems, including a greater chance of accidents and an increased chance of structural failure of the fuel rods such that transfer to dry casks is more difficult, more dangerous, and more expensive. See NUREG-I738 at ix, 3-l; see also, e.g',

National Research Council, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Committee on the Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, National Academies Press (2006) at l0T,availabteathttp:llwww.nap.edu/openbook.php?record-id:11263&page:101 (notingthat high-burnup fuel "results in an increase in the decay-heat power of the spent fuel'assembly by the time it is put into the spent fuel pool"); R. Alvarez, The Storage and Disposal Challenges of High Burnup Spent Power Reactor Fuel (Jan.3,2Ol4) at9-17 (noting that new evidence shows J

that when high-burnup fuels are placed in the spent fuel pools at certain reactors, it can create special problems that interfere with Spent Fuel Pool systems integrity); NRC Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Interim Staff Guidance-2{, Revision 0 (Issue: The Use of a Demonstration Program as Confirmation of Integrity for Continued Storage of High Burnup Fuel Beyond 20 Years) (ADAMS Accession No. ML130564516) (recognizing that further studies are needed on the long-term structural integrity and safety of storing and transferring high-burnup fuel).

In addition 5.1.2: The Fuel Assem bly Heat IJp I Zirconium Fire event discussed as part of the PDEP IEAL scheme has been submitted as part of a separate License Exemption Request (BVY l4-009), but that exemption has not been granted or even noticed for public comment yet.

Further, Entergy's zirconium fire analysis ignores the NRC's conclusion in NUREG-1738 that "fuel assembly geometry and rack configuration . . . are subject to unpredictable changes after an earthquake or cask drop that drains the pool." NUREG-1738 at x, 5-2 (emphasis added).

Section 5. 1 .3 . I : Additional information supporting the discussion of the Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling event is required, but the submittal does not provide a reference supporting the stated results. Please indicate where the analysis supporting the stated results can be found.

Section 5.5.3: While it is stated that Entergy will discuss the implementation of the pDEP IEAL scheme with Vermont State and Local offrcials subsequent to NRC approval, such discussions should occur prior to NRC approval to allow for modification of Entergy's action prior to regulatory approval.

Section 6.2: The cited examples of decommissioning plants extending their required emergency level notification time from 15 to 60 minutes \/ere all granted prior to the September 4

11,2001 attacks. Once post-9/l 1 plant security concerns are considered, the Department believes that permitting this increase in emergency level notification time will be found to be imprudent and unwarranted.

Section 6.3: The Department disagrees with the conclusion that no reduction in safety margin would occur with the implementation of the proposed PDEP I EAL scheme. Elimination of the Site Area Emergency and General Emergency EALs indicates that significant changes in plant operations during emergency conditions will occur, which bears on safety.

Attachment 1. Sections 3.3 & 7.7: These sections discuss notiffing the NRC of Emergency Conditions via a system called the Emergency Notification System (ENS). Under the terms of the Site Access MOU between Entergy and DPS, Entergy is required to send the Department Designee all notifications made to the NRC. The LAR should reflect this arrangement.

Attachment l. Section 6.1 : This section notes that the safety of on-site Vermont Yankee staff during an on-going security event or Hostile Action could result in the suspension of Emergency Response Organization activation. The Emergency Operation Facility (EOF) in the proposed PDEP IEAL scheme is the on-site Vermont Yankee Control Room. In the current emergency plan, the EOF is located off-site. The LAR contains no assurances that EOF activation will be restored in sufficient time for the Emergency Response Organization to respond within the emergency response times discussed throughout the proposed PDEP I EAL scheme. The Department believes that Entergy should include an alternate, off-site EOF, such as the current Vermont Yankee EOF, in the proposed PDEP IEAL scheme.

Attachment 1. Section 7.0: The proposed PDEP IEAL scheme makes no mention of the Entergy / State of Vermont communication channel via the DPS Designee (typically the State 5

Nuclear Engineer) that exists during emergency conditions. This communication means should be described as part of the proposed PDEP IEAL scheme.

Attachment l. Section 9.9.2: The noted evacuation of on-site plant contractors during an Alert condition could impede the DPS Designee (typically the State Nuclear Engineer) from reaching the EOF (the Vermont Yankee Control Room) in the proposed PDEP IEAL scheme.

Measures to mitigate this potential impediment should be made either in the PDEP IEAL scheme or in a related implementation procedure.

Conclusion Based on these and other reasons, the LAR lacks the requisite analysis and supporting evidence and should be denied. The Department respectfully recommends that the NRC conduct a thorough examination of the LAR's impacts on a full range of Beyond Design Basis events, as well as the PDEP IEAL scheme assumptions in the post-9/11 world.

6

COMMENTS AND DECLARATIONS OF THE VERMONT DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY ON BVY 14-033 VERMONT YANKEE PERMANENTLY DEFUELED EMERGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL SCHEME February 9,2015 INTRODUCTION The Vermont Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, by and through Erica Bornemann, Chief of Staff, (curriculum vitae attached) submits the following comments and declarations with respect to the license amendment request filed by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) regarding the Vermont Yankee Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme on June 12,2014. See Letter from Chris Wamser, Entergt Site Vice President, to NRC Document Control Desk, June 12,2014 (BVY 14-033) OfRC Agencywide Document Access Management System IADAMS] Accession No. ML141684302).

The Vermont Yankee Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (VY PDEP) and Emergency Action Level Scheme (EAL) proposed in Entergy's license amendment request presents a number of concerns for the State of Vermont (the State) regarding the status of off-site emergency preparedness if the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) receives exemption from portions of 10 CFR $ 50.47(b), 10 CFR $ 50.a7(c)(2) and 10 CFR $ 50' Appendix E.

Through the requested exemptions, VY seeks to alter the emergency planning requirements imposed by its license and subsequently revise the current VY Emergency Plan after the plant enters an anticipated permanently defueled condition. If those license exemptions are granted, Entergy intends to essentially cease its off-site emergency preparedness and response functions beyond the statutorily mandated all-hazards approach required of each Vermont town today. If

the requested exemptions are granted, the license would no longer require the licensee to suppott activities such as planning, exercises, and traini4g even though the proposed plan continues to rely upon supplemental emergency response organizations and agencies for incidents on-site.

Under the proposed exemptions, Entergy also intends to signifrcantly reduce the number of personnel in the Emergency Response Organization which has historically been tasked with managing a declared incident on-site. Entergy intends to make these reductions even while nuclear fuel remains in the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) before being moved to Dry Cask Storage. The licensee has proposed to be given a series of exemptions to a relatively robust set of safety measures for which there is not a comparable substitute commensurate with the hazards presented until the fuel is housed in dry casks.

The State continues to bear alarge responsibility for response to a Vermont Yankee incident (industrial or radiological). Although the spectrum of possible incidents is reduced, there are still significant risks posed by the plant that require planning and preparedness. Off-site response organizations (ORO) and government entities cannot just dismiss hazards such as those posed by Vermont Yankee in its permanently defueled status.

Vermont law identifies the Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) as the delegated lead entity to coordinate all emergency management functions *itiin the State. As such, DEMHS is responsible for maintaining a robust set of preparedness standards for local jurisdictions, public and private sector partners, and governmental partners to uphold.

DEMHS is also the steward of the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) which coordinates all state level response to incidents such as those which could potentially occur at Vermont Yankee at any time. The Radiological Emergency Response Program (RERP) is housed in DEMHS and includes the state- and local-level plans to respond to an incident at VY.

2

Licensee funding for the RERP program supports Emergency Management Directors (EMD) and their staff in the six Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) towns to train and exercise on a regular basis in order to sustain their level of readiness. It supports agencies such as the Depaltment of Health (VDH) and the Division of Fire Safety (DFS) to train Radiological Plume Tracking and Radiological Sampling Teams. The funding also supports the equipment and training needs of frre, rescue, and law enforcement organizations in theEPZ specific to the hazatds presented at Vermont Yankee. Regular training and exercises, as well as the periodic planning meetings, enSures that local and state personnel have solid relationships ahead ofcatastrophic events that stress systems beyond their capabilities. The State has historically followed the robust set of standards in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Manual to ensure the public safety of the citizens who live outside of plant boundaries through the evaluation of exercises and the maintenance of plans, facilities and equipment.

THE VY PDEP PROPOSES INSUFF'ICIENT STANDARDS FOR THE FACILITY WHILE SPENT FUEL REMAINS IN THE FUEL POOL Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) outlines the regulations nuclear power plants are required to follow to ensure "there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." 10 CFR. $$

50.a7(a)(1)(i) in 10 CFR $ 50.47 and 10 CFR $ 50 Appendix E. If a licensee is exempted from the applicable portions of these regulations, its license no longer imposes needed standards until the license is amended once more and the site is classihed as an Independent Spent Fuel Installation (ISFSD and required to adhere to 10 CFR ç 72.32. The set of regulations in 10 CFR $

72.32 specihcally pertain to ISFSIs or Monitored Retrieval Storage (MRS) and as such are not J

written to support the inherently different hazards presented while fuel is stored in a spent fuel pool and not in dry cask storage. While the spent fuel remains in pool storage, the facility poses a higher. risk than an ISFSI. The standards applied at VY should reflect and respond to the circumstances at the site.

VY VDEP SUBMISSION IS INCOMPLETE 10 CFR ç 72.32 requires licensee emergency plans to "promptly notify offsite response organizations and request offsite assistance, including medical assistance for the treatment of contaminated injured onsite workers when appropriate." l0 C.F.R. $ 72.32(a)(8). The proposed VY PDEP refers to the need for supplemental assistance in several places including the following:

Arrangements have been made for the extension of the ERO's capability to address emergencies. The following arrangements are in place through letters of agreement for ambulance services, treatment of contaminated and injured patients, fire support services, and law enforcement response as requested by the station; 1 . Transportation of injured personnel using an ambulance service;

2. Treatment of radioactively contaminated and injured personnel at a local support hospital (Brattleboro Memorial) as specified in the local support hospital plans; and

3. Fire support services by the Vernon and Brattleboro Fire Departments and the Tri-State and Southwestern Fire Mutual Aid Networks.

4.Law enforcement support services provided by local, county, state, and federal law enforcement authorities as appropriate and response capabilities are documented in the letters of agreement maintained by Security.

4

Evidence of agreements with participating local services is addressed in Appendix E;the Vermont Yankee Fire Protection Program; and the Annual Law Enforcement Letters of Agreement (Safeguards Information) maintained by Security.

LAR, Attachment 2, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan,Rev.0, af 2l The agreements referred to in this section of the plan were not included in the submission. Rather the reader is directed to the Vermont Yankee Emergency Preparedness Department where the documents are said to be on file. LAR, Attachment 2 at 50. Among those agreements said to be on file is one with the State of Vermont. The current agreement Vermont Yankee maintains with the State pertains to Emergency Plan activation under the current regulatory guidelines and outlines response based on the current Emergency Response Organization structure. Before the State could adequately prepare for the implementation of the proposed VY PDEP, the agreement would need to be updated and reflect the conditions as they will exist if the VY PDEP is applicable. Without this piece of documentation in place, the VY PDEP does not comply with 10 cFR ç72.32.

Appendix E of the VY PDEP submission references an Index of Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures and Support Plans, yet none of these pieces of documentation is available for review. Implementing Procedures are meant to provide depth and detail not contained in the main plan. Without the Implementing Procedures and Support Plans, the proposed VY PDEP does not adequately describe how the Emergency Response Organization will respond to an emergency. Without this level of depth it is impossible for those agencies and governmental entities identified to provide supplemental support to the licensee to understand how and when that support will be needed. In these circumstances, the NRC should not approve the exemptions since it cannot f,rnd that no signif,rcanthazards consideration is needed.

5

THE VY PDEP FAILS TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE AND SUPPORT OFF-SITE RESPONSE RT,SOURCES Exercises are a cofferstone of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) evaluation that OROs can provide reasonable assurance they can respond to an incident at a nuclear power plant. "FEMA bases its reasonable assurance determination that OROs can protect the health and safety of the public in the event of an incident at an NPP on both adequate plans/procedures and the demonstrated ability to implement them. OROs use exercises, drills, seminars, training, SAVs, and actual events to practice and fine-tune plan implementation."

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Program Manual Radiological Emergency preparedne.ss, June 2013 at III-1. The VY PDEP describes the exercise activities the licensee will maintain:

Biennial exercises shall be conducted to test the timing and content of implementing procedures and methods; to test emergency equipment and communication networks; and to ensure that emergency personnel are familiar with their duties. VY offers the following otganizations the opportunity to participate to the extent assistance would be expected during an emergency declaration; however, participation is not required:

I State of Vermont

2. Brattleboro Memorial HosPital J. Brattleboro Fire Department

4. Law Enforcement

5. Rescue, Inc. Ambulance Service At least one drill involving a combination of some of the principal functional areas of emergency response shall be conducted in the interval between biennial exercises.

6

Vermont Yankee will continue to be evaluated by the NRC to assess their on-site response capabilities yet several areas of the plan reference the assistance provided by OROs to supplement their own capabilities. Without the requirement to evaluate OROs, the assessment of the licensee's ability to address significant issues is inherently incomplete. The NRC should, at a minimum, require the evaluation of OROs by FEMA to respond as outlined in the PDEP and subsequent Letters of Agreement. Instituting this requirement would lead to a more holistic approach to evaluation instead of the compartmentalized framework that currently exists in regulation. Without this requirement, the NRC and the licensee have no basis in which to enforce improvement actions for those areas that rely on ORO assistance. Furtherrnore, without a specifrc requirement to train and evaluate OROs in exercise there is potential risk agencies will not have the knowledge needed to ensure proficiency in responding to a very specialized type of response such as a nuclear power plant incident. The institution of regimented planning, training and exercise requirements for OROs consequently requires the licensee to support them through financial means in order to facilitate the compliance with said measures. The licensee should be required, rather than encouraged, to continue coordination efforts in order to ensure planning standards continue to be upheld.

THE NRC STAFF HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ABILITY OF'OFF-SITE R.ESOURCES TO PROVIDE NECESSARY ASSISTANCE TO VERMONT YANKEE On Novemb er 74,201{ the NRC Executive Director for Operations issued a memorandum to NRC Commissioners outlining NRC Staff analysis and recommendations related to Entergy's pending request for exemption from certain emergency planning requirements. In that memorandum, the Staff analysis and recommendations speak, in part, directly to the substance of the LAR. The State therefore includes comments on the 7

memorandum on the basis and to the extent that the memorandum encompasses issues that are intimately tied to the LAR under review.

The NRC Staff s recommendations included in the November 14 memorandum assert that the analysis conducted by ENO "provides reasonable assurance that in granting the requested exemptions to ENO: (1) an offsite radiological release will not exceed the EPA PAGs at the site boundary for a DBA; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions and, if a release is projected to occur, there is sufficiçnt time for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the health and safety of the public." Memorandum from Mark Satorius, NRC Executive Director of Operations to NRC Commissioners, November 14,2014 (SECY-l4-0125) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14227A711). These assertions assume that Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (Emergency Operations Plans or EOPs) at the State and local level specifically account for an incident involving a radiological release from a fixed facility such as Vermont Yankee. While the all hazards emergency management concept is widely adopted and implemented in Vermont as outlined in the National Response Framework, incidents such as a radiological release are extremely specialized in nature. Even if a release did not exceed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) off-site, the burden remains with local and State government to validate what has or has not occurred. The health and economic viability of the areas surrounding Vermont Yankee depend on the assurances provided by governmental entities that impacted areas are safe as is the case in any other disaster. Those assurances can only be provided by training, exercising and equipping personnel to assess the impacts to health and the environment outside of site boundaries. Without the ongoing license requirement to maintain accident assessment capabilities off-site and the 8

subsequent provision of support, as is now the case, the State might have to rely on resources of surrounding states and the federal government. Unfortunately that reliance could delay response times as resources are mobilized and assigned. This is time that cannot be wasted once a release has occurred even if it below EPA PAGs.

The NRC Staff appears to have come to a number of conclusions regarding the status of off-sitp EOPs without conducting any sort of formal review of those documents to assure their readiness to address the changing circumstances at the plant. Coupled with the fact that significant portions of the proposed VY PDEP are not available for review by State and local entities, it is impossible for the EOPs of OROs to be revised to reflect the specific response and recovery actions at the plant. Again, the State contends that the NRC Staff should not make a no significant hazards consideration determination as long as plans on-site call for the supplemental assistance of OROs without reviewing the associated plans for such instances and providing the opportunity for revision as applicable.

9

COMMENTS AND DECLARATIONS OF THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ONENTERGY VERMONT YANKEE'S LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE IN LETTER February 9,2015 Introduction to Comments from the Vermont Department of Health The Vermont Department of Health (VDH or Department), by and'through Dr. William Irwin, Sc.D, CHP, Vermont Radiological and Toxicology Sciences Program Chief (curriculum vitae attached), focuses its comments and declarations on the NRC staff analysis and recommendations contained in a November 14,2014 Policy Issue memorandum addressing certain exemption requests made by Energy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) . See Memorandum from Mark Satorius, NRC Executive Director of Operations to NR'C Commissioners,November 14,2074 (Satorius Memorandum)(SECY-14-0125)O{RC Agencywide Document Access Management System IADAMS] Accession No. MLl4227A7l1). Specif,rcally, the Satorius Memorandum seeks "Commission approval for the staff to grant [ENO's] request for exemptions from certain emergency planning (EP) requirements of Part 50 . . . of Title l0 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations.- Id., af 1. ENO's request for the referenced exemptions was filed on March 14,2014, prior to this License Amendment Request (LAR). See Entergy Request for Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E,March 14,2014 (BVY l4-OO9XADAMS Accession No. MLl40804141 ).

While the SECY-I 4-0125 Satorius Memorandum is not necessarily under review by the commission here, the memorandum's contents are highly relevant to any Commission consideration of the instant LAR. The BVY 14-009 exemption request acts foundational requirement for the operation of this LAR. As a result, the Commission's review of the LAR is

necessarily predicated upon consideration of SECY-14-0125, and comment on the memorandum is appropriate and within the scope of relevant commentary.

VDH strongly disagrees with the recommendation of the NRC staff in SECY-14-0125 to grant Entergy Nuclear Operptions' (ENO) requested emergency plan (EP) exemptions from certain requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.47 (b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. The primary reasons for this are:

1. The exemption approval recommendation of the NRC staff is inappropriately based solely upon dose of radioactive contamination and does not include the health impacts of radioactive contamination from releases that result in doses below the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs);

2. The exemption approval recommendation of the NRC staff incorrectly assumes a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) appropriate for response and recovery from radioactive contamination releases can exist and be maintained by offsite response organizations without licensee frnancial support; and

3. There has been no rulemaking and public comment appropriate to the proposed exemptions to the EP requirements of 10 CFR 50 .47 (b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

2

The Recommendation for Exemption Approval Is Based Only on Doses In Excess Of EPA PAGs Which Ignores Other Possible Public Health Consequences Entergy and the NRC staff has determined that accidents at Entergy Vermont Yankee power Station after April 2016 are unlikely to result in whole body doses in excess of one rem or thyroid doses in excess of five rem beyond the site boundary. The Department has not had th opportunity to assess the evidence to support that conclusion. Beyond that, those dosage levels are not the only thresholds for potential detriment to public health. Should a fire, a leaking container, or a transportation or industrial accident result in the release of radioactive materials that contaminate the environment around Vermont Yankee, numerous other consequences that are a detriment to public health will occur.

Radioactive contamination in solid, liquid or gaseous form that leaks from structures, systems or components or is released due to deliberate or accidental container damage or destruction may contaminate the water, land or air beyond the Vermont Yankee site boundary.

While, according to the NRC staff and ENO, the contamination may not lead to doses that exceed the EPA PAGs, there still could be adverse health consequences. Some members of the public may inhale or ingest radioactive materials and receive low doses. Nonetheless, these doses will solely be due to the release from Vermont Yankee, and even though they may be less than the EPA PAGs, they still pose a risk of later health effects in those exposed. While evacuation and medical counter measures like potassium iodide may not be ordered in such circumstances, many of those exposed will self-evacuate and expect medical care' In the case of a release related to Vermont Yankee, the public will look to the Department to explain what occurred, how the exposure affects health and well-being and what should be done in response to the exposures. Environmental samples would be collected by Vermont's J

radiological first responders and samples would be analyzed in the VDH radiochemical laboratory. The analytical results would then be published to provide facts to allow people to trust that the land and water are, or will be at some future time, free of contamination. These capabilities have been developed over 42 years of Vermont Yankee operation, and should be sustained until the large volumes of radioactive materials stored at Vermont Yankee are removed from Vermont and properly disposed of at licensed radioactive waste facilities.

The NRC staff is using the EPA PAGs improperly. They are designed to provide guidance, not regulation, as to when and how protective actions like evacuation, potassium iodide administration, relocation, reentry and return may be appropriate, not when emergency plans are to be written, replaced or exempted. Emergency Plan requirements for nuclear power reactors in SAFSTOR must address all sources of radioactive contamination of the environment and not just those that result in doses greater than the EPA PAGs. This inctrudes planning for and funding of dedicated state radiological health resources to survey the environment outside the site boundary for contamination of any media, analysis of those media for contamination, even at low levels, and reporting of the results to the public.

The Vermont Department of Health also lacks confidence that Entergy has provided sufficient evidence that all accident scenarios have been considered for its permanently defueled emergency plan. In particular, the accident and dose assessment software used by Entergy, Unihed RASCAL Interface 2.0.1.0 of October 2014 (URI) does not recognize the widely accepted possibilities of hostile action-based scenarios that could severely damage spent nuclear fuel in its spent fuel pool. Such scenarios are described by the NRC in NUREG-1738 and the National Academies of Science. Safety And Security Of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage (Pubtic Report), Committee on the Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel 4

Storage Board on Radioactive Waste Management Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council Of The National Academies (2006). Lacking consideration of these and other scenarios in this important Entergy Vermont Yankee emergency preparedness software is evidence that the PDEP does not adequately consider these scenarios as pointed out by the Vermont Public Service Department in its comments on the license amendment request.

Recent use of the software by the Vermont Department of Health's US Department of Energy-trained Assessment Scientists revealed that URI would be useless for spent fuel accidents caused by aircraft crashes, whether accidental or hostile action-based or by large explosions caused by missiles or by armed intruders. Other scenarios that could result in the loss of the sheet metal structure that is the only secondary containment for the spent fuel pool, such as those identified with the accident at Fukushima, also do not appear to have been provided for in URI and the PDEP. The Health Department recognizes it would require the use of other software to model the consequences of these scenarios. The Department is well-trained in this other software, and in the interpretation of its output for the public and decision-makers. The elements of a law enforcement, fire department and emergency medical services based Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan are not.

The Assumption That a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) Adequate to Respond to Radiological Releases from a Decommissioning Nuclear Facility Can Exist and Be Maintained without Licensee Support is Erroneous SECY-14-0125 states that "elements of the revised emergency plan would facilitate the ability of offsite authorities to take protective actions under a CEMP." Satorius Memorandum at

5. There are numerous industrial accident scenarios, especially involving the movement or transportation of radioactive materials, hostile action based scenarios, and natural disasters that 5

could lead to the release of radioactive materials being stored in the structures, systems and components used for SAFSTOR for what ENO projects in its PSDAR to be a period of fifty years. Assaying these kinds of offsite consequences re{uires much more than law enforcement, fire department and emergency medical service personnel. It requires personnel trained to survey people and the environment for radioactive contamination, personnel trained to interpret radioactive material contamination for dose consequences and decisions about decontamination and disposal as radioactive waste, and personnel to inform decision-makers and the public of the situation to put risks in perspective and to plan other response actions. These kinds of people make up the existing offsite response organizations that the ENO exemptions would eliminate.

SECY-14-0125 also notes that precedent for approval of the EP exemption request has been set at Kewaunee Power Station and the Z\on facility. Id. at 2. This is not evidence, let alone adequate evidence, for the NRC staff to recommend approval of the EP exemptions requested by ENO in its March l4,2}l4letter. See BW l4-)}9.Emergency Planning has always been, is now, and always will be a local matter, and what other states or localities may have approved-in processes that Vermont was not a party to----cannot be imposed on Vermont. There are signihcant differences between Vermont and other states where decommissioning has occurred that show the exemption should not be approved here. Most importantly, unlike all other states with nuclear reactors in SAFSTOR, Vermont does not have other operating nuclear facilities within its borders and therefore, absent continued support from Vermont Yankee, would lack the infrastructure required to respond to a radiological release, including those resulting in doses less than the EPA PAGs.

SECY-14-0125 describes how the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concurs with the NRC staff position recommending approval of the ENO EP exemptions. Should 6

there no longer be EP requirements to financially or otherwise support Vermont Yankee offsite response organizations, there is no way these organizations can meet FEMA or any other authority's guidance. It is also likely that, absent the emergency planning requirements for which ENO seeks exemption, any of the FEMA resources described in SECY-I4-0125 (the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, FEMA Headquarters and FEMA Regional Staff) would actually support Vermont's EP efforts at a level required for the people and environment of Vermont.

Not only should the decornmissioning EP require plans that include offsite response organizations including the Vermont Radiological Tracking Team, the Radiological Sampling Team, and the Vermont Department of Health and its radiochemistry laboratory, but ENO should be required to financially support them.

There Has Been No Rulemaking and Public Comment on Exemptions from EP

' Requirements for I)ecommissioning Facilities In its summary, the SECY- I 4-0 125 lettc.r includes the statement that "there are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that has been shut down from those for an operating power reactor." Satorius Memorandum at 7. The document notes that rulemaking for nuclear power plant decommissioning was planned, but put off with the "higher priority work after the terrorist attacks of September 1 1, 2001 ." Id., at3.

With a growing number of nuclear power reactors presently undergoing decommissioning and expected to begin decommissioning in the next twenty years, this lack of clear regulation and absence of rulemaking makes circumstances unpredictable for many states who have lacked the oppoftunity to have their concerns for emergency planning addressed properly.

7

The NRC staff inappropriately based its recommendation to approve emergency plan exemptions for Vermont Yankee on analyses applicable to an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or monitored retrieval Site (MRS). This methodology is inappropriate because former nuclear power reactors in SAFSTOR contain very large radioactive materials storage areas, not discrete spent fuel canisters tested and licensed specihcally for the storage of high level waste. The structures, systems and components of a nuclear po\ /er reactor in SAFSTOR present a multitude of pathways for releases of radioactive materials into the environment. While the consequences may not result in doses in excess of EPA PAGs, environmental and public health consequences are possible. The probability of such releases is clearly greater thanzero as has been documented in the Vermont Yankee PSDAR, including the extensive leak of reactor coolant/condensate from the augmented off gas system discovered in 2009.

Had there been required rulemaking for decommissioned nuclear power reactors, many states, including Vermont likely would request that NRC staff require licensees, including ENO, to financially support offsite radiological emergency response. Funding levels would be commensurate with the appropriate level of offsite response, and not simply eliminate essentially all offsite radiologically appropriate emergency response. One level might be set for the period through the removal ofall spent fuel from the spent fuel pool (SFP), and another, reduced level might be set for the remaining time until decontamination, dismantling, and license termination.

Absent rulemaking with public comment, the opportunity for states to weigh in is lost or significantly dim ini shed.

It is unfortunate that the NRC staff has reinforced the misleading implication put forth by ENO in its Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) that elements of the EP "have been 8

established with the review and agreement of responsible State authorities." BVY l4-033, , Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan, Rev. 0, at 35, $ 1 l.l . It is the understanding of the Department that the only review of the decommissioning EP with State authorities has occurred in briefings by ENO EP personnel in routine meetings of what is called the Tri-State Directors. A brief slide presentation before this audience is certainly not adequate State review and it should not be construed as State agreement.

Absent appropriate regulations for emergency planning during the decades-long phases of decommissioning, ENO should be allowed by the NRC staff to work extensively with the State of Vermont to identify mutually agreeable conditions for ofite radiological emergency response rather than have that possibility hampered by exemption of offsite responsibilities.

Conclusions of the Vermont Department of Health According to SECY-14-0125, "FEMA acknowledges that individual states and local governments have the primary authority and responsibility to protect their citizens and respond to disasters and emergencies." Id., at 6. This certainly includes radiological emergencies, and it includes those that contaminate the environment with radioactive materials and lead to doses to members of the public both less than and greater than the EPA PAGs. These radiological emergencies require significantly more resources than what the NRC staff describes as a comprehensive emergency management plan using law enforcement, fire departments and emergency medical services. This includes the capability to survey for contamination, to properly collect samples with chain of custody, to effciently analyze a wide variety of environmental media for radioactive material concentrations, to precisely interpret field 9

measurements and laboratory results, and to effectively report the situation to the public to allay concerns and to decision-makers so agencies can take appropriate public health and environmental protection response actions.

The recommendations of SECY-14-0125 undermine the ability to provide necessary emergency services for a plant in SAFSTOR by unilaterally exempting NRC licensees from most offsite emergency planning regulation based on inappropriate analysis applicable to ISFSIs and MRSs and a lack of consideration of hostile action-based scenarios. The Commission should reject the staff recommendations of SECY-14-0125.

Respectfully,

/s/ William Irwin William Irwin, Sc.D., CHP Radiological and Toxicology Sciences Program Chief Vermont Department of Health 108 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05401 l0

E,XHIBIT 2 Entergy Nuclear Northéast Vemont Yankee teryyr P.O. Box250 185 Old Fây Rd Brattlboro, W 05301 March 10,2014 Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (VT) 103 South Main St.

Waterbury VT 05671

Dear Mr,

Flynn, Letters of Agreement are an integral part of the Vermont Yankee Emergency Plan.

These Letters are reviewed annually to ensure continued compliance. I have enclosed the current Letter of Agreement between Entergy Nucloar Vermont Yankee and your organization.

Please review the enclosed Letter of Agreement between Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and your organization, After reviewlng the Lefter, please complete the enolosed verification form(s).

hank you for your continued support of the Vermont Yankee Emergency Plan, lf you have any questions concerning this please contact me.

MichaelP. McKenney Emergency Planning Manager Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee 802-258-4183

Letter of Agreement Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (VT)

Verificatlon Form Check one:

The Letter of Agreement between Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and my organization is still valid to provide aid in the event of an emergency situation, including those resulting from hostile actions. No changes are necessary.

The Letter ol Agreement between Entergy Nuclear Vermon Yankee and my organization requires reVision. The necessary changes have been marked on the Letter and provided to Entergy.

o5 Date r

lease this form and any requested changes to iatwood@enteroy.çom or fax to 8A2-258-2101 no later than 04//3012014.

LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND THE STATES OF VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW HAMPSHlRE

l. PURPOEF The purpose of thls Letter of Agreernent ls to establish conditions regarding emergency planning notlflcatlon and emergency response activilies houl{an event at the planl requlre Emergency plan activatlon.

il.. DEFtÑtioNq

- The EOF is a licensee controlled and ernrsency response, coodrnarion"r iJxj:i"i,T:i:i'.';Jili'l,ll"rll?l"rr.r"nr, development of recommendations for publíc irotectlve acttons ánd coordination oi emergency response activltíes wlth Federal, state, and local agerrcies.

EoF Meryqgr- The oF Manager ls a stan member of the Llcensea who rs responslble forthose elements conducted wlthin the Emergency operatfons Faclllty (EOF).

Joint lnfomatlgrr center (Jlc) - A center dedicated to the newe media for rhe purpose of conductlng Joint state, Federal, and Licensee news bdefinfs conceming smergency conditions.

Emerqençv Dlrq:tpJ- A membar of rhe Vermont yankee Emergency Responsa organlzation (ERo) who is responsible for planning recovery âtion*.

state - The states of vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

l=içensee - Vermont Yankee Nuclear powgr station ocaled ln vemon, vermont.

!,'qlea! Alert Svste - A communication system for lnitial notiflcation to ths State of an lncident at the Licensee and the means of communication between the State and Licensee for exchange of information during tn. p.ri of the ncident.

The three states (Mssachusetts, New Hampshire an vermonttabo use the NAS to coordinate protective actions and other issues dudng drllls, eíercises, and actuel incidents.

III. AGREEf\4ENT The State and Licensee agree to the following:

lnitial Notification:

A. lt is lha Licensee's duty and obllgation to notiff the three State Wamlng Points immediately or no later than 15 mlnute afterthe event has bee classifed as elther an unusual Event, Alert, site Area Emergen"lr i-

\ste-t^

.J he

/ü^rsn<fov'^^\3te\' secunty events).

B, The Licensee will notifo the three State Waming Points no later than l5 minutes after an Unusual Event emergency conditlon has been oUrer"A but immedlately terminated. Notlficaton sfrl be made, as specifled in the Llcensee and state lans, using the system ldantlfied in ltem A abova -

G. when both the EpF. a$ any state Emergency operations center (Eoc) have been activated, the Licensee agree to rioilfy the state Eocs immedlate after a decision has been reached búme ticensee on E$94nr,tSN a nd/or REQoMMEN p E o. pnorebrl ve nóilon GUIDELINES.

D. De-escalation fmm an rnergency classificallon level to lhe recovery phase or terminatlon of the emergency will not be made without the concurrencá-

of responsible officials at each State EOC.

E. The State agrees to inform the Licensee of any protective acons tâken.

F. The three statos âgree to have the Licensee terminate an',uNUSUAL EVENT'emergency without obtaining State concunence, However, lt is the Licensee's.ob[qg!!g! t.o norrfythe_thre state wamins poi"i, *r,,rn'tv"'-

termlnatethe'tUNUSUALEVENT, G. The Licensee and state agree to exchangd and coordinale in the rnaintenancs, updating, and exerclse or b-oth Licensee and state Emergency plan and elements of interface State willdiscuss and not lo render either Emergency plan ineffec

H. The Licensee shall provide space for at.least throe representatives from the State at the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and the Jolnt lnformation cenler (Jlc). Locafion of the EoF and Jlcwiil ei responsibility of the Lícensee,

l. The Llcensee and lhe State agree to exc available for emeçency decision making t radlological releases, off-slte radloiogica data, J. The Licensee shall provlde and malntain communlcations for the state ln each of the centers listed in ltem H above, Either the State or Llcensee cân actlvate the NAS sysJem for any use as necessary. (Excepilon; The contnol Room should be contacted only in unusual circurnstncas orduring com rnu n lcatlons tesín g).

K. The vermont Yankee Lead offslte Llaison wlll be the polnt of contact for state representatives aniving at the Emergency opertions Facility, Responslblltfles of the state and Licr nsee personnel will be as ou$tned in thelr respective Emergency plans.

L. To malntain public confidence and to avoid pubric apprehensron, informalion shall be released to the public a's soon áé pos.lon án¿ n u coordfnated manner through the Joint Information Center.

M. The Llcensee and State agree to work together for the production of the Fm_ergency Publrc rnformation dlseemrnated to the pubiic nnuailv (calendars, posters, and motel brochures).

N, The state Health Departments agree to the dose assessment methodology establíshed by the Licensee.

O. ln the evenl of a lcnsee agrees to an Environmental L the Stateor radiochemical processing of all sampled.

P. An íncldent shall be deemed to have terminated when, in the agreement ol both the state and Lcensee, there ls no ronger need fr either' consideration of further protectlve actlon or slrveitlance related lo off-site protective action, close out of the emergency classlfication shall be as outlined in respective Emergency plans.

O. [r the State of New york (ingestion to radiological consequences wilh tho that should occur at Vermont yankee.

R. The State of Vermont agraes to notify the Nalional Weather Service onice in Albany, New York and have them activate tone alert radios in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and vermont from the transmitter in Malboro, Vermont in the evenl of a real or slmulated emergency upon egreemnt of the three states, Tha state of vermont tests that cpuitity at least once per monlh.

T. This agreement may be amended by subsequent agreement between the State(s) and the Licensee,

u. This agreement shall be effecllve as of lhe latest date as slgned below.

LETTER OF AGREEI'IENT.

BETWEEN VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND TH STATES OF VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND NeW HAMFSHTR i

C--r.- (.J DATE VERMONT J e.,-^ *lo,qJot¿ r

- lz- tt ER STATION

Letter of Agreement Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (VT)

(NOAA Weather Radio)

Verification Form Check one:

The Letterof Agreement between Entergy NuclearVermontYankee and my organization is stillvalid. No changes are necessary.

v( The Letter of.Agreement betwen Entergy Nucledr Vermont Yankee and my organization requires revision. The necessary changes have been marked on the Letter.

(

Please return this form and any requested changes to iatwood.@e.ntergv.com or fax to 802-258-2101 no later than 0413012014.

AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF A NOAA IVEATHER RAIO TRANSMITTER BY VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, VERNON VT This agreement is entered into between the United States of America, Deputment of Comrnerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminishation, National Weather Service, hereinaftq referred to as "NWS';, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear power Station, hereinafter referred to as ,.Cooperator",

WITNESSETH WHEREAS' Cooperator operates a rruclea power plant, known as Vermont yankee, and under regulations contained in Title l0 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.47(bX5) and Appendix E, secrion rv.D.3 to par 50, is directe to prouid"

â sysrem forprompt emergency notification to the public and WHEREAS, NYq operates a continuous meteorological and hydrological information and waming radio sysrem, known as NOAA WeathJr Radio (IrIlMi),

i,icn can provide a means for cooperator to satisfy said emergency notification to the public; and WHEREAS, Coopemtor and NIVS desire to provide for the installation and operation of a NWR transmitter on Ames Hill, Marlboro, Vermont, and to provide for said eme;t"""y notification means.

No14r, THEREFORE, n consideration of the benefits of this Agreemenr to each party, the parties agree a$ followsl 1' Cooperalor shall provide atl information required for the radio frequency license application and operate the kansmtter.suicty in accordance with the license.

2' cost associated with the NWR transmirter will he bome by cooperator.

his includes, but is nol limited to, co.sts for:

â. Purchase of equipmerrt,

b. Installarion,

c. Operation, including power, d, Maintenance

e. communications links from the NWS office to the transmitter, and f, Removal orreplacement of the equipment

l. ('ooperattr trill rovidu dunl translnjtting r.'cuipttrunt trs spucilcd b lhc \\\ S' Coopcrator is solcll rcspontib)c lirr nll usrccts of uquintunt insnllatior.

including n,\'l1ucuss.4 rermits. l'foucvcr. crultccti(rn to thc \\lS tritltsmitlur it

,\lbuny'shrll bc under thu dircction of' \\\ S clcctrrnic tuchnician. und ilt acOordurcc rriilr thc br.'st tnodenl pr.sticu. l'lrc,lurign olun dcricc ttscrl b'

('oope rator ur hrs agcnt to uûnnu{.:t ltr drrl \\A-R trmsnlitlsr nlust bc oplrocd b

\\l 5 belirc thr: ctursutitrn is mudc.

-+. Coirpcrator s'ill u.çc qualitcd and liur.'nsccl r.dio tcclurciuns lr'ull t'nstllittsr nninlenlrcc. ('orrpr:rutor nll usr.' its heut clTons ill rraintaining thu titnstniller ltr c5utr thrt (rutgcs irc hcpt tcr a lninitnuni. thtt ht'cirkdo\rtl:* aild niilfunclitns ure quickl' acter.l upon. irnrl tha¿ irquiprnunt pertbrms roulrtt:l-r' rr ithin th,"' 'l'cchnicul Spr:c i l uat irrns o l' sirid cqttiptnc nt {u)d trm:i o l' th,.' l icultsc.

5 Cuopr:rulur rrrrlu.rigrtcc sill nttnilor lhu hrrridcast lncl rrilin()tili thc Ålban.

\c$ \'orlr,Nt\$jrlltccrrlcncrcrthÉlrlnsnrittrjrgucsol'l'thuuir¿ntlrlsurvhunlt irglin ber:omçs opcrül i\rnul.

ó. Caopcralor rtill pr:rl'orm on imrncrliatrJ lechrlicirl chcckout rl'tlc trntsrnitt+r rtltctt such chcckout is rsquesld b \\\'S ts u ruTtllt olun. rlttiu li{:(ltlcnc}'

ntqrl'rrrcno{: prrrhh:ms, 7, \\l S nill bc rllorrcd ltr chccL purtrtlicrrtl,r thu' ctlcct tlCrropcratttr cquipmtrnl nn

\\[S cquiprucnt,

8. Ii\\'S uill muinluin control ur er rll hroadqsl c()nlL'ttt with tlrr: r'tut'ptitrn ol' tcssâgûs issucrl in conncction rrith un mcrlrthcJ'rl lhc Vcmtont Yunkcc l'acilir.

9, All mussages broarlcgst in conjunr;tion rt'ith i \nnunl Yankce cmcrgtns) r+rll htl ruccilcd tlrrtrugh thr: imcrgu.nc' .Vlilurgcnrt1l i\cncius as dusqribcd irr '\ppundir

,\ r"rl'tfiis urcemnt. untitled ",\grccnrcnt for .lctir ation lnd t tr{' N().L\

\\'eirther R¿tlo in Rc'sprrnsu lo itn ['nturgcncy ('ondititrtt ¿t \rerntont "sc l'rtkcc

.\ucleur f)otr cr Slution".

0. Coupcralor u'ill hold ),f\f S l-rcc ul'.ur líabílit1 lrr loss (r d¿rmdgc to ('oopcrittr.rr Frepr.rt.\ ínstalled lo cûrr]'trut tlris \grr.:cnrrrtti. othqr llarl lo$s tlr domagc catLsud h'\\f S's lhilure lo usLr tcsr)luhlc r.'rrc.

'f II. \\\ S rr ill çhtcin tlrc rcliu'i'reruu,rrt.1ccrrs'.' Irr tlte trirtslrit(cr. itu [.icclsc rr ill ttlnirin thc proPcrt trl'\\\'S l 1, \\\'\ rril!, i!'rrjcc:\lr] . ilir.rN ('r,ut[rur.tltrr hr il,rt.11. ,( (l'ilpcr.rttrr'.5 ('rpn.Y!:

s.:cilrI vruipttu:tt, j \\\S f{t'sr)r!el ',rill un{ruisii iu.t!rtrn.,l)l( Lrc'l pr(rt('\:t llrtlltll\ ul'("rrltrrltttrt'.

.1, \\\ $ rrll ctirlr. Tlv llrtrriuatirr sr.ricln ',tith ihu.t;ur siun,t[ ;trl,,i lrtrrldcurl llu\lilgds ruiiltilrr t(l 't \tsttlrttt't \'¿lnltuc 'jl'clllcllÚ1 \\'cn rtlLlcstr"J lr.r rrulhtrrizvrl rlli:íuls in irccordttce rr ith'\pr'ttJi't,\.

i5. tn thr.l ctünr ths \\lrS \clrçolk:i1 stcr:t bc(trucl .\lt'an'Jlld.'\nlc\ llí[l ir lllrt' rrpcrahl,... thc \$'S .rliicc rr ill inlirrnl l,nturgcncy \f.uritruttrr.'nl .\gencics lrt

.tcl\'ttc thu rcdund.rrt r'ulcm ltlcrl,crl at \\'l-S,'\ Ruditr Sution, Ilr¿ttlcbrro.

\ srmont.

16. \$S rtill nrt ids .standrrd progr.urrnring rr\ r: th: t'rnrrrittijrs (includíng thc u:r.

of'thc rvarnirrg signalr as rcquircd br \\\',S dirccir cs.

I 7. \ II'S w ill punie ipatr: irr a corl drill ro rest thc rrsr: of thc \WS cquitntcnr s it puhlic rrotif cation s'stum.

18. N\tl-S and Cunpr-'rator rrill crurdinutc rrnd juíntll issuc a ruhlic unnounccnln tlcsurihing lhr rr:n icc to bc protirlu'd m rusull ol'lhis ,.\gre.cnrc.rrt, lf thc s'"'rrics i.s termínatcd firr iut rl'lso1. thc pirrtes u ill lso coordinal* u ptrblic slitlsntunt expl uirring lh r: rctrsrrn( s l for iel'mi nnt ioll.

I 0. I hc rrur isiun ul'thi.s ,\grccmcnl .sh¿[ hc.. carricd rrut lr,r thc pirr!íu.s n ith nrr conrpcnsrtion duc t{ cithcr itrt,r',

10, Iltis e\grccn:unt nr,t hc utnrndrrd. nlrrdi tud. or turmtnir('cl ',rl un tinre h rnutust ct'nslnt of thc pnrtirls herett. lt lttay hc tcnnitud hv crthúr l1iüI! ur(), gir ing rrl lr-ttsl six lrlonths prior rr.rittun llolicc, t thu $rrcnt rrlssible. rccrrgrrizirrg

'\llhough lhc impurtancc ol'lhis prqicct, f lrc prrrrir:s hcl'ctu trill strivu h gilu orrc lears nDticri (ll' intúnl l(ln to tcrminatc, l\ U l'-\b'SS \l I lliRtOf. thra parrics lroreto har'. rstculçcl lhc .,\grccrrrunt ull'cctive ;rs ol thc lalcst dutu rrriltr:n hrlou'.

,/, 5/t lt¿ Dirrlulur. llarrenr \\\'s l)utc tlu Vennolrr I \ucltr Pl)\rcú Sr t'ut

APPENDD( A AGREEMENT FOR ACTTVATTON AND USE OF NOAA WEATHER RADIO IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION Drv. cr$- e\{J/olft lt.^a,ag¿.¿-+ r THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Vermont New +l"t-lo-J etts Emergency eCrnHl ffi:iiTies'and cue,tns)

Administration, National Weather Service, herein after refened to as the "NWS".

THIS AGRBEENT is fully a part of the "Agrement for the Operation of a NOAA Weather Radio Transmitter by a Cooperatof', herein after referred to as the Basic Agreement, and is referenced.in the Basic Agreement as Appendir,A.

TIIIS AGREEMENT covers the responsibilities and opcrational considerations between Emergency Management Agencies and the N'WS relative to the use of NOAA lVeather Alert Radio to alert prsons living in the proximity of the Vermont Yankeo Nuclea Power Station in the evertt of an emergency condition. Thís Agreement fulfills, ir part, the requirements set fonh by Nt RG"0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision l, Çdedg-ûq in S..upport of Nuclea P_ower Plurts: and Appendix 3 thereto.

RESPONSIBTLITrcS (c) THENWS AGREES-

a. To activate warning alarm and to broadcast over the NWR transmirter, located on Amss Hill, Marlboro, Vermont, prescribed emergency public information messags pertaining to nuclesr power station emergencies when so requested to do so by VermontMnt"tftI\S and.

severe weaer alerts as dete;mined by rhe fÑS, b, That all prescribed emergency/public.information messages held in possession of National Weather Service be given reasonable protection ftom misuse or accidental broadcast.

c. After being notified by the NWS, Albaay, New York that the phone line to Ames Hill is non-operational, Vermont Emergsncy Management will notify radio station IV"ISA, Brattleboro, Vermont, to activate the NWR uansmitter at Malboro, Vermont, This procedure is necessary to avert potential damage to the NIVR equipment should it be operational already and WTSA attempts to also activate the system, The Statc of Vermont will also be responsible for notifying \ryTSA what the boadcast message should be. This proccdurc will only be accompliehed in the event of an emergency at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Powr Station requiring activation of the Public Notification System.

(B) VE te*S>

nniogth"Ht by tittc and rame, procedrçs rbr r*ffiiHr'.ir'Iiiff.H" qnergcncy nsage3 approved by tha Emergmcy Muragemeat Agencies for boadcast ove the National W atber Sevice raio, -

b. To coordinte wlth rhe Directors of New Hrmpshire and Massoshuscns erggnev Managemeot Agencies, or their designecs, befort requestiog the Nws to broadcart sri emergericy messsg, exlept in a fast breaking:

ernergcncy.

c. To makc requesrs over Nr{wAs, vLTs (vermont Lsw Enforcement Teloconimuûicalions Systern), nd/or cormercirl telephone to broadcast preccribed eergency mestsge$,

d. To noti$ the NTttS upon rermirâtion of thc emergency.

y Management Agencies srd tbe NWS esentatiols, or other public n rcgard to promoting the serviccs providcd for in the Baric Agre*rnent, This Agreemnrnsy bc amendd at any tme ent Agenoy(ies) and reNWS, Thi the provision ofand nt such timc ss the Basic Agreemont s termíDtcd.

IN lilITNEss wHaREoF Emergency Murageruenr Agencies and the NWS hve exccutcd ths Agreemeul efectve as of thE l¿test date writrcn below For Emergency Managcment Agency 3-1-tL Dstç Forthe Unitd Sttes ofAmerics Doparrnent of Commerce Natiorral Oceanic and Atr4ospheríc Admnstation National irVether Sefl iCc' Eagtem Region

(

DIc

A.REEMENT FoR o"r*o",iltlHi N'AA i'EATHER RADro IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Vermont@ew

'\>,

Hampshire Office of Emergency Management, and Massachusetts Emergency Managoment Agency, herein after referred to Emergency Management Agencies, and the United States Departrnent of Commerce, National Oceanic end Atmospheric Administration, National lileather Service, hereiq after refened to as the "lVlilS".

THIS AGREEINT is fuily a part of the "Agreernent for the Operaton of a NOAA

\4reather Radio Transmitter by a Cooperator", herein after refened to as tte Basic Agreement, and is referenced in the Basic Agreement as Appendir A, THIS AGRffiMENT covers the responsibilities and operational considerations between Emergency Management Agencies and the NWS relative to the use of NOAA Weether AlertRadio to alert persoru living in the proximity of the Vermont Yankee Nucleff Power Station in the event of an emergency condition, This Agreement ftlfills, in part, the reguiremen set forth by NUREG. 0654IFEMA-REP-1, Revision l, Çriteria fo in Support of Nuclear Power PISrtqi and Appendix 3 thereto.

RESPONSIBILITIS (E) TrD{WS AGREES-a, To activate wariing alarm and to broadcast over the NWR tansmitter, located on Ames Hill, Marlboro, VerrnonÇ prescribed emergency public irformation messages pertaining to nuclear power station emergencies when so requested to do so by Vermont Emergency Mairagement and severe weather alerts as determined by the l.I\tVS.

b. That all prescribed emergency/public information messages held in possession of National Weather Service bs given reasonable protection from misuse or accidental broadcast.

c. After being notified by the IWS, Albany, New York that the phone line to Ames Hill is non-operational, Vermont Ernergency Management will notify radio station WTSA, Brattleboro, Vermont, to activâte the N1VR transmittq at Marlboro, Vermont. This procedure is necessafy to avert potential damage to the NWR equipment should it be operational already and WTSA attmpts to also activate the system. The State of Vermont will also be responsible for notifying WTSA what the broadcast messagc should be. This procedure will only be accomplished in the event of an emergency at the Vermont Yarkee Nuclear Powet Station requiring activation of the Public Notificarion System.

,$S (A) VERMONT AGREES

s. To provide the National igeather Service a "standing Operating hocedue" defining the VEM personnel by title and name authorized to request broadcast of an emergency alert messagel procedures for message verifcation; and prescribed emergency messages approved by the Emergency Managenent Agencies for broadcast over the Nationl Weather Service radio.

b. To coordinate with the Dectors of New Hampshire and Massachusetts Bmergency Managemenl Agencies, or their designees, before requesting the NIVS to broadcast an emergency, message, except in a fast-breaking emergency.

c. To makp requ$ts overNAWAS, VLETS (Vermontlaw Enforcement Teleconmu[ications System) and/or commercial telephone to broadcast pres cribed emergency mess age.s.

d. To notify National we¿ther service upon termination of the emergency.

PUBLIÇITY-- The mual role of the Emergency Management Agencies and the NOAA National Weather Ssrvice will be recognized in all press releases, public presentations, or other plblic informatiodeducation activities caried out in regard to promoring the services provided for in the asic Agreement.

AMENDMENTS AD TERMINATION - This Agreernent may be amended at âny time by mutual consent of Emergency Management Agency(ies) and the National Weather Service. Ttris agleement is termnated in accordarlce with the provision of and at such time as the Basic Agreement is terminated IN \4[TNESS WHEREOFEmergency Management Agencies and the NWS have executed this Agreement effetive as of the latest date witten below.

For the New Hampshire Division of Horneland Security and Emergency Management Dircctor

.!l*"2.fu,t Dolo for the United S!tes of Âmerics Department of Comerce Nationl Oceanrc and Atmospheric Admínistraion National Weether Service Frstem Region 4)

./¿ \-.--¿ (***\ S.

Director DUIC

APPEND( A AGREEMEN FOR ACTIVATION AND USE OF NOAA \ryEATHER RADIO IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERCENCY AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POVVER STATION C¿ltt>

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Vermout @ New Hanrpsbire Office of Emergency Management, and Msachusetts Emergency Management Agency, herein after refened to as Ernergency Management Agencies, and the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisfiation, National 'lVeather Service, herein after refened to as the "NWS'.

THIS AGREEMENT is fully a part of the "Agreement for the Operation of a NOAA

\tt/eather Radio Transmitter by a Cooperator", herein after refened to as the Bic Agreemenl, and is referenced in the Bic Agreement as Appendix A, THIS AGREEMENT covers the responsibitities and operational cosideations between Emergency Management Agencies and the NWS relative to the use of NOAA lVeather Alert Radio to alert persons living in the proximity of the Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in the event of an emergency condition. Tiris Agreement fulfills, in pârt, the requirements set forth by NIJREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Criteria for in Suoport of Nuplea Powçt Plants: and Appendix 3 thereto, RESPONSIEILITIES (A) Tr{E N}VS AGRBES-a, To activate waming alarm and to broadcast over the NWR transmitter, located on Ames Hill, Malboro, Vermont, prescribed emergency public information messages perlaining to nucleat power $tatoû emergencies when so requested to do so by Vermont Emergency Management and severe weather alerts as determined by the NWS.

b. That all prescribed emergency/public information messages held in possession of National lrVeather Service be given reasonable prtection from misuse or accidental broadcast.

c, After being notified by the NWS, Albany, New York that the phone line to Ames Hill is non-operational, Vermont Emergency Muagernent will notify radio station IV'TSA, Brattleboro, Vermont, to activate the NWR transmitter at Marlboro, Vermont. This procedure is necessary to avert potential damage to the NWR equipment should it be operational already and WTSA attmpts to also activate the system. The State of Vermont will also be responsible for notifying WTSA what the boadcast message should be, This procedure will only be accomplished in the event of an emergency at tle Verrnont Yarkee Nuclesr Power Station requiring activation of the Public Notification System.

çen\>

(B) VERMONTE AOREES

a. To pmvido the N\ilS a "Sbnding Opcnting Proçedre" denning rhe VEM puronnel authoized lo request bmadcast of an emergency alert message by title and mme, pmcedures for messege vorification, and prarcribed emergncy messsgss approved by lhe Emergency Manrgcment Agoncier for brodcast over the Natlonal Weslher Serricc radio.

b, To coodin¿tc wíth the Direclon ofNçw Hampslrire nd Mssachueetu Emcrçncy Manrgemeut Agenciee, or lheir designees, before requerllng the NIJVS to broadc$l sn emergensy rnssge excep in a fast-breaking emergency.

G. To mlce fsqtests ovcr NAUIAS, VLETS (Vermont Lsw Enforçement Tsl ecommuications systm), qndor commercial te lephone to brodcgst presui bed cmetgcnsy messsg$.

d. To notí$ thc NWS upon rerminstlon of üe emergency.

PuBUcIlv - The mutul role ofrhc Emøgency Manngement Agcncies and rhe N\us wiJl bc rycognized in all prcss roleases, public presentatine, or othø publia information/education ctivities caried out in gard to promoting thi sstvics provided for iri the Basic Agreerncnt, 4MENDYENTQ Al TERIvUNATON - Thls Agreemenr may bc amcnded at any time by mutul consont of Emergenoy Managencnt Agency(ies) and the NWS. Ilri rgemenl s ttmlngtsd in Eccodanco with the provision of and u guch tirne as the Basic A grecment is lerminated, rN wtrNEss ltrHER-EoF Emcrgenoy lllanagernenr Agencies and rhe Nlvs heve executed rhis Agrecment efffective a of the latest dte wittcn bclou rr>ron ot W +4tuU'd S'ec"rvt\

For Vermonl

,;i:"/{

For the United States of Aherica Department of Cornmerce National Oeeanic and Aûrospheric Admiuisration Nalionl TVelher Service Eastem Region 4

Dlrcçlot

,u (-

'h, Dlc

Letter of Agreement Division of Emergency Management and Homeland security (vr) (ANs)

Verificatlon Form heck one:

The Letter of Agreement between Entergy Nuclear vermont yankee and my organization is still valid. No changes are necessary.

The Letter of Agreement between Entergy Nuclear vermont yankee and my organization requires revision. The necessary changes have been marked on the Letter.

,{

Date return this form and any requested changes to iatwood@entergy.eom or fax to 802-258-2101 no later than O4A12O14.

MEMORANDUm OF UNDERSTANDTNG (MOU)

BETWEEN VERMONTYANKEE NUCLAR powER STATTON'{VyNps} AND THE STATES oF VERMoNT, MAssAcxuserrb, AND NEw HAMpsHtRE REGARDING TH ATERT AND NOTIFICATION SVSfCN (ÂrIS}

A multi-layered, erergan the Vermonl Yankee Nuc system consists'of: 1) a n emergency at VYNFS, or any other type of emergency that might occur within the VyNpS EPZ.

t. Tone-Alert Radios (TARS)

1. A database of TARs cunenlly distibuted and refused.

2. A program to provide replacement rARs to recipients when requested.

3' Ensudng sufficient supplies of replacemanl TARs are available for distribution.

4. An annual survey ol TAR radlo holders to verlfu operabilfg of their Tone-Alert Radlo.

5. An annual distribution of repracement battenes for the TARs.

6. Operatlng instruction on the use of the Tone-Alert Radlos to be ava[able with lniilal dislribution of the TARs or upon request

7. Assisting wth the dlstribution of Tone-Alert Radlos when requested by the States or the local Emergency Management Director.

6' Maintenance of required radio infrastructure of the TAR radio signal within the EpZ.

ll. Slrens I ' The installation and all preventive and corrective mainlenance of the Siren System.

2. Notification of the appropriate State and municipal agencies of routine siren maintenance and testing. These lnclude:

. A. WTSA - Bratileboro B. WKNE - Keene C. Vernon Elernentary School principal, John Reed (f Vernon sirens will be tested)

D. Shelburne Control for Mass. slren lesting E, Southwest Mutual Aid for Vernon and NH siren tesling F. Brattleboro police dispatch, if worklng in gratileboro l[. Rapid Emergoncy Notificafion Telophone System (RENTS) 1, A commercial notification service th of the entire alea known as the 10 orntgency usíng a rapid comrnerclal servlce will b facilíties from which noüfi 2' RENTS willlnclude the capabllity of notification of the enilrâ Vermont EpZ, orof notificaflon of just individual town epZ populations, used,

4. Additional EpZ pho.ne numbers (i.e. cell etc.), end email addresses wlll be solicited starilng ans and added as addltional notification avenues for RE individuals to remove their names from a notífrcation e a meâns for caü rist, 5, RENTS will have a caller capacl eb required lo dial the ilrst cail for a 15 second numbers jrouloeo in rhe cómmrciar_

mentioned above w,t_tin approximately ls.minutes of the n"tjí5JJ"""

full systemiuut6, and the remarnder of rhe EpZ within âppróxmirv

âs-mnutes.

6' RENTS will attempt up to 3 nolification calls to each number sequenced to obtain lhe best notilication resufts.

7' RENTS willbe established to provlde notifcation of the o to 5 míle Epz poputation frst, followed by the s to town Epz bounáry ppulafion next.

8' The commerciat operator will monitor operation o1

ányactivation of the systern to lnsure lhat local telephone.exchange are not rendered neffectiv bviii¿ii, of the calling system and change tne :alltng pattern issue, ioi"JJ"* o,- eltminate the

9. The RENTS database willbe updated annually by the commerctalservice.

1o' The system will be tested..periodlcally h whola or in parl as agreed upon between Entergy and the states with approprite prior notrcJton population of such testing.

the resident EpZ

11 OP erator lo the States for onalprocedures wlll when changes occur.

12, RENTS aclivatlon reports will be generated by the commerclal operator and pmvided as soon as possible to lhe States detailing callresponse as delermlned by the commercial operator,s equipment.

l. General Requirements

1. coordlnatlng tralnlng for the states and/or rnunicipal Emergency Management personnelconceming the Aleft and Notiflcation system (TÂRs, sirens, nenrs).

2. Coordinating the activation of the Alert and Notilication System when reguired.

3. Ensuring the rnunicipalEmeçency Managemnt personnelare aware of thelr responsibifitles as stated in thelr respective Emergency Operations Plan and of thelr State's acceplance of thisagreement conceming the nteri and Notifcation System.

4. Providing.a copyof thisdocumentand brieflng new Emergency Management personnel that will have responsibility for lmplementing it.

ll. Tone Alert Radlos (TARS)

I ' Ensuring Equipment Loan Agreemant forms are completed by rsidenl, including complete name and physicaladdress, and retuming io VAp-S for incorporation-into lheir database.

2' ldantifuing areas in indivldualJurisdiction that may require supplemental alerting,

3. Assisting with obtaining records of special facilities and new residents in individual jurisdlction that may require Tone-Alert Radios.

4' Assisting VYNPS in the validation of the Tone-Alert Radio holder database provided to them by VYNPS on an annual basis.

lll. Slrens 1' Establish and monitor operatlonal procedures for the activation of the sfren system tn the event of an emergency.

2' cooidinate the initiar and ongorng trarning of approprrate personner at the state, regionaland municipal levelin thé procero"?r iuln'no testins rhe siren system.

3. PaÉlcipate with vyNps in the dissemrnailon of emergency preparedness informarlon as it pertains to srrens and other;ilrgd"y

'r,r'rt no notificatjon methods and procedures.

4. fl":ilry and. update, annuaily, the siren operation and tesring vYNPs and approprrate regionar antmuniciparoffrciars.

'- procedures with IV. RENTS 1- Flnalized operationar merhods for use of RENTS by he states waming point for initiailon of the nottfication method rn conJuncton

øtn lr," rrting systems, 2' coordinating the trainlng for localemergency managemeni ofliclals who may have responsibili for REN S system activat-lon.

3' P^articip{1on in a pmgram with wNPS of pubtic awareness and education for the 10 mite EpZ poputation of rhe RENTS and tts .i;; il.-

4' Develop ffreen (15)second messages appropriate fol 1) actual notificaon and, 2) for testing of the system

5. Provide for and participate in an annuar review and update of the methodorogy employed.

IENTS wlllb,e_ipcornorated into a fuil norificailon system design that inctudes sirens and TARS to provide a total notifícation system,

2. RENTS may provide the initial notification for some resldents.

oF vE HlRE REGARDNG THE ALERTANO NOTIFICATION SYSTEM {Ñ_S tutes the entre agrment relating to the Alert and Notiflcation revised without ail parues consent, The agreemenl remains in uspended by all parties.

E NUCLEAR POWER STATION 8y:

Date: T-t¿-rl Mike Colomb Site Vice President V- \,v o[ + .llon r-(a...d *"b By:

Date: / 2//

Director

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (VYNPS) AND THE STATES OF VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE REGARDING THE ALERT AND NOTIFCATION SYSTEM (ANS)

A multi-layered, emergency alert and notification system has been established for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The system consists of: 1) a network of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tone-Aert Radio (TAR) receivers; 2) emergency notification sirens; and, 3) a Rapid Emergency Notification Telephone System (RENTS). These three, independent systems work in concert to assure there is prompt notification of the general public in the event of an emergency at VYNPS, or any other type of emergency that might occur within the WNPS EPZ.

VYNPS has established and will mai ntain the fol no items:

Tone-Alert Radios (TARS)

1. A database of TARs currently distributed and refused.

2. A program to provide replacement TARs to recipients when requested.

3. Ensuring sufficient supplies of replacement TARs are available for distribution.

4. An annual survey of TAR radio holders to verify operability of their Tone-Alert Radio

5. An annual distribution of replacement batteries for the TARs.

O. Operating instruction on the use of the Tone-Alert Radios to be available with initial distribution of the TARs or upon request.

7. Assisting with the distribution of Tone-Alert Radios when requested by the States or the local Emergency Management Director.

8. Maintenance of required radio infrastructure of the TAR radio signal within the EPZ' Sirens

1. The installation and all preventive and corrective maintenance of the Siren System

2. Notification of the appropriate State and municipal agencies of routine siren maintenance and testing. These include:

A. WTSA - Brattleboro B. WKNE - Keene C. Vernon Elementary School principal (if Vernon sirens will be tested)

D. Shelburne Controlfor Mass. siren testing E. Southwest Mutual Aid for Vernon and NH siren testing F. Brattleboro police dispatch (if working in Brattleboro)

Rapid Emergency Notification Telephone System (RENTS)

1. A commercial notification service that is capable of notification of the population of the entire area known as the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of an emergency using a rapid emergency notification telephone system (RENTS). The commercial service will be fully redundant, providing 2 separate and distinct facilities from which notifications can be made.

2. RENTS will include the capability of notification of the entire Vermont EPZ, or of notification of just individual town EPZ populations.

3. The.service will use a commercially available database of listed and unpublished residential and commercial telephone numbers. lf agreed to by any respective state, a substituted list of EPZtelephone numbers provided by the respective States, not to include unpublished numbers, as well as any additional lists of telephone numbers located in the EPZ and provided by the States, could be used.

4. Additional EPZ phone numbers (i.e. cell phone, unlisted numbers, etc.), and email addresses will be solicited starting in 2006 using various means and added as additional notification avenues for RENTS. This will also include a means for individuals to remove their names from a notification call list.

S. RENTS will have a caller capacity greater than the number of lines required to dial the first call for a 15 second notification message to each of the telephone numbers provided in the commercially available 0 to 5 mile EPZ database mentioned above within approximately 15 minutes of the full system activation, and the remainder of the EPZ within approximately 45 minutes.

6. RENTS will attempt up to 3 notification calls to each number sequenced to obtain the best notification results.

7. RENTS will be established to provide notification of the 0 to 5 mile EPZ population first, followed by the 5 to town EPZ boundary population next.

8. The commercial operator will monitor operation of any activation of the system to insure that local telephone exchanges are not rendered ineffective by the rapidity of the calling system and change the calling pattern to reduce or eliminate the issue.

g. The RENTS database will be updated annually by the commercial service.

10. The system will be tested periodically in whole or in part as agreed upon between Entergy and the States with appropriate prior notification of the resident EPZ population of such testing.

11. Operational procedures will be provided by the commercial operator to the States for their use. Commercial operato'r initiated changes to operational procedures will also be provided to the States for their use and adaptation when changes occur.

12. RENTS activation reports will be generated by the commercial operator and provided as soon as possible to the States detailing call response as determined by the commercial operator's equipment.

l. General Requirements The States have established and will maintain the following items and /or procedures:

1. Coordinating training for the States and/or municipal Emergency Management personnel cóncerning the Alert and Notification System (TARs, sirens, RENTS).

2. Coordinating the activation of the Alert and Notification System when required.

3. Ensuring the municipal Emergency Management personnel are aware of their responsibilities as stated in their respective Emergency Operations Plan and of their Staie's acceptance of this agreement concerning the Alert and Notification System.

4. Providing a copy of this document and briefing new Emergency Management personnel that will have responsibility for implementing it' ll. Tone Alert Radios (TARS) ram for on of th Radios Eme Manaqement personnel that includes the followinq:

1. Ensuring Equipment Loan Agreement forms are completed by resident, including complete name and physical address, and returning to VYNPS for incorporation into their database.

2. ldentifying areas in individualjurisdiction that may require supplemental alerting.

3. Assisting with obtaining records of special facilities and new residents in individual jurisdiction that may require Tone-Alert Radios.

4. Assisting VYNPS in the validation of the Tone-Alert Radio holder database provided to them by WNPS on an annual basis.

lll. Sirens The States. in cooperation with VYNPS and with the contexts of the State and municipal emerqencv plans will do the followino items:

1. Establish and monitor operational procedures for the activation of the siren system in the event of an emergency

2. Coordinate the initial and ongoing training of appropriate personnel at the State, regional and municipal level in the procedures for activating and testing the siren system.

3. Participate with WNPS in the dissemination of emergency preparedness information as it pertains to sirens and other emergency alert and notification methods and procedures.

4. Review and update, annually, the siren operation and testing procedures with VYNPS and appropriate regional and municipal officials.

IV. RENTS The States. in coooeration with VYNPS and with the contexts of the State and municipal emerqencv plans. will do the following items:

1. Finalized operational methods for use of RENTS by the States Warning point for initiation of the notification method in conjunction with the existing systems.

2. Coordinating the training for local emergency management officials who may have responsibility for RENTS system activation.

3. Participation in a program with WNPS of public awareness and education for the 10 mile EPZ population of the RENTS and its testing or use.

4. Develop fifteen (15) second messages appropriate for: 1) actual notification and, 2) for testing of the system.

5. Provide for and participate in an annual review and update of the methodology employed.

VYPNS and the States ioi v eoree to followino items:

1 RENTS will be incorporated into a full notification system design that includes sirens and TARS to provide a total notification system.

2 RENTS may provide the initial notification for some residents.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (VYNPS) AND THE STATES OF VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE REGARDING THE ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM (ANS)

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement relating to the Alert and Notification System and cannot be revised without all parties consent. The agreement remains in effect until revised or suspended by all parties.

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION By Date Site Vice President Vermont Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security By Date Director

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (VYNPS) AND THE STATES OF VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE REGARDTNG THE ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM (ANS)

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement relating to the Alert and Notification System and cannot be revised without all parties consent. The agreement remains in effect until revised or suspended by all parties.

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION By: Date:

Site Vice President New Hampshire Department of Safety Homeland Security and Emergency Management By Date Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (VYNPS) AND THE STATES OF VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE REGARDTNG THE ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM (ANS)

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement relating to the Alert and Notification System and cannot be revised without all parties consent. The agreement remains in effect until revised or suspended by all parties.

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION By Date Site Vice President MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY By: Date Director

VERNNOFIT YANIKEE EVIRGNCY CONTACT PFOCET}URS Jt lLV, 2eû4 En tsgy THI FOWEft F PEOPIf '"

Keiiy SleePer Commissioner. Department of Public Safety CPT William Sheets Director, Vermonl Homeland Security Albie Lewis Director, Vermont Ernergency N/lanagemenl Jay Thayer Entergy Corporation

iIF.RWiO\IT YANKE Eil/l RGENCV TONTAT FHOCEDI.JRS reference the Due to the ever increasing intelligence information that has been obtained attaclis within the United States some time this summer, it is terrorists intent to conduci to i*pártánt that we all continue to enhance emefgency response protocols in.our,effot'ts it is prótect the óitizens of this State and our criticalnfratructure. ln keeping with this, potental threats clear that we must operate with a new sense of urgency to ensure that evaluated by the appropriate stake holders duríng any ncy. The Oépartment of Homeland Security has.formally anis as primary critical infrastructures' As stated ín Homeland Security Presidential Directive #7:

"The nation possesses 'ttrnertls i<ey resources, wrose exploitation or destruction try terrorists could cause catastrophie heath effects or rrtass casualties comparanle to those f'om the use of a weapon of mass destruction, or coulci profoundly aifect our national prestige and morale" ln addilion" there is critical infrastructure so vitat hat ils incapacita"tion, exploitation, or destruction, through terrorist attack, coulci have debilitating effect on security and economic wel! being.

potential ln our attempts to stay ahead of the ever-increasing change_s of our adversaries, we must think beyond the mere existe-nce of "traditional" emergency' We times te resPonse from h the Pon the arrivalof causi also know tha'r v!

^+

r'r t/r v otocos bY only t observe Pecific mont Yankee re radiologicai s, Contains little I acts' at Thus, an immediate law enforcement assessment of any emergency situation Vermont. Yankee ís required.

The foilorring is a set of guiclelin+-s that should be followed for imrnediate at Vermont Yankee:

notificationsqf any potential'or actual enerEercy

, For ali ennerlencies reqliiring Law Enforca$rent, EMS cr Fire ep=rtrnent resources; vermont Yankee Frer.qlnel"l-h!s shal+ld continue to utillze currnt procedures inciuding the 91i syslenr- procedure is not itended to supercede or repÉac the exisiing r-roiifications lrtaçie uncer existing emerçen*v Plan Pr++eclures.

to be dispatched upon the receipt of any request for emergency response resources to Vermont yankee, gíl Oliput.hing staff-recélving this request'ill cantacl Vermont Slate police rieáquarters t intorm-them of the si[uation. Headquarters'dispatching vermont staff will ensure-that both the on-call Homeland security unit and of the developing siiuaiion'

• • .g"n"y tUangment staff are informed security officialfrom After the initiat callfor emergency response resources, a senior olice Headquafiers at 802-244'8727 anø Vermont Yankee shall contact State

speâk wiih the Homeland Security Unit Duty Otfcer to discuss the developing to ensure situation. This will altow for tfre quct and effective exchange of inforriration the appropriaie threai assssrneri is conrpleted' c For all emergencies no ne supporl, Verrnont Yankee personnel are asked to lee Heacquarlers ai 8tl2'244-8727 and speati r,vith the É'lom+ie í *i'i' Cfficer tc inf+rm them of the deu+lonino -situation. -

to:

n Types of lncicients requiring nq:ificiiur itt-iurje ilit are not iitiited Serious employee disruptions/disturbances Smaltfiresj--.-_not requiring formalfire department response

_.-F+

tlallgg OüOfl5 ¿ii iilv F,il(

¿1! , - _1â:__

Smok-e observed al or in the vicinity of the plant Explosions at or in ihe vicinity of the plant Suspicious packages Susicicus cti,rit5i at all gates,/entry p+ints and perimeter fencing personnel Any incident requiring th proactivé resconse of VY security ma'kers in sumnrary,'rhese procdu"es ai'e designed to bring all appiopriâte dscisíon toge.t,'1r to nsure il't"t appropfiate 'threal is conducted on anylall "n Yankee. "sseslmenf ln addition, these procedures will ensure ptientiat or realthreats to Virnont rnanreí'

if,ut appropfate parties are nformeci oi evoiving siiuaiÜÚs in a iimei'y "tt Reviewed and approved bV:

Kerry Sleeper l--*lgioiner a{ rl.rlin uvl I ll I ogvl lv t n-^-:l^-¿ r vurvv,r Corporation

From: Kisicki, Aaron To: NRCExexSec@nrc.gov; Docket, Hearing; Julian, Emile; Mizuno, Beth; Young, Mitzi; Wachutka, Jeremy; sraimo@entergy.com; pbessette@morganlewis.com; rkuyler@morganlewis.com Cc: Landis-Marinello, Kyle; Anthony Z. Roisman (aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com)

Subject:

NRC Docket No. 50-271 - Vermont"s Petition for Reconsideration Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:51:53 PM Attachments: NRC 50-271 - 2015.03.12 - VT Reconsider Petition.pdf NRC 50-271 - 2015.03.12 - VT Reconsider Pet - Exh 1.pdf NRC 50-271 - 2015.03.12 - VT Reconsider Pet - Exh 2.pdf

All, Please find the attached State of Vermonts Petition for Reconsideration of Commission Decision Approving Entergys Exemption Request and companion Exhibits 1 and 2, in regard to NRC Docket No. 50-271.

Thank you, Aaron Kisicki Special Counsel Vermont Public Service Department 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 802.828.3785 Aaron.Kisicki@state.vt.us