Text

NYS Contention 40
	ML16054A672
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/22/2016
From:	Desai M, Sipos J; State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
	SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML16054A669	List: ML16054A670; ML16054A671; ML16054A672;
References
	50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS 50939
	Download: ML16054A672 (20)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

x In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. February 22, 2016

x STATE OF NEW YORK CONTENTION NYS-40 Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York 12224

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR CONTENTION NYS-40 THE DECEMBER 2015 NRC STAFF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING SITE-SPECIFIC SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ("SAMA") DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) (SECTIONS 102(2)(C)(iii) AND (2)(E)), THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'S REGULATIONS (40 C.F.R. SECTION 1502.14), THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS (10 C.F.R. SECTIONS 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(L), 51.101. AND 51.103), THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (5 U.S.C. SECTIONS 553(c), 554(d), 557(c), AND 706),

OR CONTROLLING FEDERAL COURT PRECEDENT (Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989)) BECAUSE THE SAMA ANALYSIS, EVEN WITH ENTERGY AND NRC STAFFS REVISED FINANCIAL INPUTS, IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF SITE-SPECIFIC MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES AND MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE GREATER BENEFITS IN EXCESS OF THEIR COSTS BUT WHICH ARE NOT BEING INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED NEW OPERATING LICENSES FOR THE INDIAN POINT FACILITIES IN THIS PROCEEDING BASES

1. Overview. The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions decision to issue a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant constitutes a major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act. Such an application provides NRC with the opportunity to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action and adopt alternatives to mitigate environmental impacts. The State of New York submits this contention to protect the States interest in ensuring that the NRC includes, as part of this licensing proceeding, a complete, 1

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR thorough, and meaningful review of site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives to avoid or minimize the environmental impacts to the State and the New York metropolitan area resulting from a severe accident at Indian Point. The State also seeks to ensure that NRC includes cost effective site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives as conditions to any operating license and decision issued in this proceeding. In December 2015, NRC Staff issued a draft supplement to the site-specific environmental impact statement for the proposed operating licenses in which it again declined to implement cost effective site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives as part of this licensing proceeding. That same month, Indian Point Unit 3 entered its forty-first year of operation - or period of extended operation. As the Board and the parties are aware, the NRC Commissioners currently are considering appeals by Entergy and NRC Staff from previous Board rulings concerning similar issues.1 Accordingly, the State presents this contention to preserve and protect the States interests in this proceeding.

2. Background. In the fall of 2009 in the course of responding to a summary disposition motion filed by the State of New York in this proceeding, staff at Sandia National Laboratories identified a mistake in the site-specific severe accident mitigation alternative (or SAMA) analysis presented by Entergy. That mistake resulted in Entergy performing a new SAMA analysis.

1 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), CLI-15-3, 81 N.R.C. 217 (Feb. 18, 2015); LBP-11-17, 74 N.R.C. 11 (July 14, 2011);

LBP-10-13, 71 N.R.C. 673 (June 30, 2010).

2

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

3. On December 14, 2009, Entergy submitted a new analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives in connection with the continued operation of the Indian Point power reactors (December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis). The December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis replaced the prior SAMA analysis, substantially altered the benefit calculation for all of the SAMAs for both Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and did additional cost analyses for some of the SAMAs.

4. The December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis identified 22 separate potentially cost beneficial SAMAs - i.e., modifications whose benefits exceeded their costs.

5. As to all of the 22 SAMAs, the December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis stated that Entergy would conduct additional engineering analyses. See December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis, at 32 (consistent with those SAMAs identified previously as cost beneficial, the above potentially cost beneficial SAMAs have been submitted for engineering project cost benefit analysis.).

6. The State of New York presented two contentions challenging the position that it was not necessary to finalize project costs or implement potentially cost effective site-specific severe accident mitigation alternative modifications. Contentions NYS 25 & 36 (March 2010).

The Board admitted the contentions and later granted the States motion for summary disposition.2 The Commission is considering the parties appellate briefs on those rulings.

7. In May 2013, Entergy submitted to NRC Staff additional information about the 2

LBP-11-17; LBP-10-13.

3

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR costs of the 22 potentially cost beneficial SAMA modifications. Entergy Letter NL-13-075 & (May 6, 2013) (ML13127A459). In that letter, Entergy asserted that it was providing completed engineering cost estimates for the SAMAs that were previously identified as potentially cost beneficial. In addition, Entergy agreed to implement four of the cost beneficial cost beneficial SAMA modifications. Id. Thereafter, Entergy and NRC Staff engaged in a dialogue about the engineering cost estimates.

8. In late December 2015, NRC Staff issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 5, Draft Report for Comment (or DSEIS) (Dec. 22, 2015) (ML15351A422). That DSEIS made adjustments to Entergys NL-13-075 engineering cost estimates and concluded that: four SAMA modifications were not cost beneficial; two SAMAs were marginally not cost beneficial but should be retained for future consideration at an unspecified date; and twelve SAMAs were cost beneficial. Id. at § 3.1.5 (p. 21).

9. NRC Staff stated that because the twelve cost beneficial SAMAs and the two marginally non-cost-beneficial SAMAs did not relate to managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation they did not need to be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Id.

10. Staff also accepted Entergys request to defer further SAMA analysis until an unspecified time given the dynamic nature of a SAMA analysis and ongoing analysis related to the multi-unit Fukushima Da-chi accident. Id.

4

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

11. Legal Framework. An alternatives analysis conducted pursuant to sections 102(2)(C)(iii) and (2)(E) of NEPA (as implemented by NRCs NEPA regulations (10 C.F.R. § 54.23 and 10 C.F.R. Part 51)) must reflect the study, develop[ment], and descr[iption of]

appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(E)).

12. NEPAs obligation to thoroughly explore alternatives was applied specifically to severe accident alternatives and license renewal by the Court in Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., v.

NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989), which held that NRC had a duty under NEPA to take a hard look at alternatives to the proposed action, including alternatives that would mitigate the impacts of severe accidents.

13. NRC has embodied this obligation in Part 51, which provides in relevant part that:

[i]f the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for the applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be provided. 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). See also 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,480-81 (June 5, 1996) (acknowledging Limerick ruling).

14. NRC regulations require that when it takes an action, such as issuing an operating license as requested in this proceeding, the Commission state whether it has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected, and if not, to explain why those measures were not adopted. 10 C.F.R. § 51.103(a)(4).

5

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

15. The Atomic Energy Act established a 40-year term for initial operating licenses.

42 U.S.C. § 2133(c). As recognized in the 2015 DSEIS (§ 2, p. 3), both IP2 and IP3 are now operating beyond that initial 40-year term. Although they have allowed this extension of operations, the Staff and the Commission have not determined whether all practicable measures have been taken to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the authorized action. The State submits that this is contrary to 10 C.F.R. Part 51.

16. In 2001 the Commission rejected a petition from NEI to eliminate the SAMA analysis from license renewal proceedings. NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Rulemaking, PRM 51-7, 66 Fed. Reg. 10,834 (Feb. 20, 2001). Instead, the Commission reinforced the importance of the SAMA analysis in denying that petition:

In the case of license renewal, it is the Commissions responsibility under NEPA to consider all environmental impacts stemming from its decision to allow the continued operation of the entire plant for an additional 20 years. The fact that the NRC has determined that it is not necessary to consider a specific matter in conducting its safety review under Part 54 does not excuse it from considering the impact in meeting its NEPA obligations.

66 Fed. Reg. at 10,836. In the words of Commissioner McGaffigan, Perhaps one day we will have nuclear reactor designs so safe that severe accidents will be remote and speculative and their consequences nihil, but that is not the case we have today in renewing the licenses of the current generation of reactors.3

17. Additional Bases. In addition, both NRC Staff and the Nuclear Energy Institute 3

VR-SECY-00-0210, Commission Voting Record, Notation Vote Response Sheet (Commissioner McGaffigans Comments on SECY-00-0210 (Oct. 31, 2000) (ML010520240).

6

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR (NEI) have provided guidance to applicants on how to perform the SAMA analysis with an emphasis on clearly delineating those alternatives that are cost-effective. See Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Guidance Document (NEI 05-01(Rev. A)) at 28; NRC Reg.

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1 (September 2000) at 4.2-S-50; NRC Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants - Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (Oct. 1999) (Standard Review Plan) at 5.1.1-8 to 5.1.1-9; and NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4 (September 2004) at 4.

18. NRC Staff has previously asserted that cost-effective SAMAS need not be implemented as a condition of license renewal.

Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the staff considers that further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted. However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

NUREG 1437, Supp. 38, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at 5-10 (Dec.

2008) (ML083650594); see also NUREG 1437, Supp. 38, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement at 5-11 (Dec. 2010) (ML103350405).4 In the December 2015 Draft EIS NRC Staff again has taken this position. December 2015 DSEIS at § 3.1.5 (p. 21) (ML15351A422).

19. However, the process of determining which, if any, alternatives to the proposed action should be adopted is subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and 4

Accord Entergy December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis at 32.

7

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR particularly the provisions of 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(c), 554(d), 557(c), and 706. Those provisions impose on a federal agency the obligation to provide a rational basis for actions taken by it either in rulemaking or adjudicatory type proceedings. That obligation has been strictly enforced by the federal courts. The United States Supreme Court has held that the agency must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Bowman Transp., Inc. v.

Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. 419 U.S. 281, 285-286 (1974), quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962).

20. The position taken in the December 2015 DSEIS is without legal basis. Part 54 provides no support for the proposition that an applicant may ignore a mitigation measure that is clearly cost-effective - i.e., where the benefit to the public outweighs the cost to the applicant.

21. Part 54 specifically requires full compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (see 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(b)) and the SAMA analysis is conducted pursuant to Part 51, particularly 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

22. The operating licenses requested by Entergy in this proceeding will, if granted, authorize Entergy to operate two entire nuclear power facilities. Those operating licenses are not limited to only authorizing Entergy to operate non-moving, passive components within the scope of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(i). Until this licensing proceeding, the Indian Point plants have not performed a site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis. In the December 2015 DSEIS, NRC Staff now agrees that the engineering cost estimates are complete and that there are twelve cost-effective SAMAs. A requirement to conduct a site-specific SAMA analysis as part 8

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR of an operating licensing proceeding that does not result in the implementation of cost-effective SAMAs as part of that proceeding would seem to be a meaningless exercise. Yet, the December 2015 DSEIS fails to commit to implementing any cost-effective SAMAs at any point as part of this licensing proceeding. This failure impedes the rights of the State as a party in this proceeding and as the host state for the Indian Point facilities.

23. Not only does the 2015 DSEIS confirm that there are twelve cost-effective site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives, there are additional compelling reasons why these cost-effective modifications should be implemented as part of this licensing proceeding.

24. According to AEC and NRC documents, the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEd) received the following construction permits and operation licenses for the Indian Point facilities on the following dates:

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ISSUED OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED IP Unit 1 May 4, 1956 March 26, 1962 IP Unit 2 October 14, 1966 September 28, 1973 IP Unit 3 August 13, 1969 December 12, 1975 See 21 Fed. Reg. 3,085 (May 9, 1956) (IP1 CP); 31 Fed. Reg. 13,616-17 (Oct. 21, 1966) (IP2 CP); 34 Fed. Reg. 13,437 (Aug. 20, 1969) (IP3 CP); 27 Fed. Reg. 4,844 (May 23, 1962) (IP1 9

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Provisional OL DPR-005)5; 38 Fed. Reg. 27,636 (October 5, 1973) (IP2 OL DPR-026); 40 Fed.

Reg. 50,263 (Dec. 22, 1975) (IP3 OL DPR-064); see also NUREG-1350, Volume 20, 2008 -

2009 Information Digest, at 103, 113 (Aug. 2008).

25. The AEA authorizes initial operating licenses to be issued for a maximum term of 40 years. 42 U.S.C. § 2133(c). The 40-year term provided in IP2s DPR-26 operating license and IP3s DPR-64 operating license expired in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Both IP2 and IP3 have entered, and are operating in, the period of extended operations (or PEO) - the period of time beyond the initial 40-year operating term.

26. Of all the power reactors in the United States, the Indian Point reactors have the highest surrounding population both within a 50-mile radius and a 10-mile radius. See, e.g.,

AEC, Population Distribution Around Nuclear Power Plant Sites, Figure 2: Typical Site Population Distribution (5-50 Miles) (April 17, 1973); FEMA, Nuclear Facilities & Population Density Within 10 Miles (June 2005). With more than 17 million people live within 50 miles of the Indian Point facilities,6 no other operating reactor site in the country comes close to Indian Point in terms of surrounding population - and attendant potential risk.

The Indian Point reactors and spent fuel pools are approximately 24 miles north of the 5

In 1980 NRC withdrew authorization to operate the IP1 reactor. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Unit 1), Order Revoking Authority to Operate Facility (June 19, 1980) (not published in the NRC Reporter and not available via NRCs public ADAMS).

6 Entergy projects that the population living within 50 miles of the plant will grow to 19.2 million people by 2035. See Environmental Report for License Renewal of Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 (2007) at 235 (The total population (including transient populations) within a 50mile radius of the site is projected to be 19,228,712 in 2035.).

10

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR New York City line, 35 miles from Times Square, and approximately 38 miles north of Wall Street, in lower Manhattan. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that New York City had a population of 8,214,426 in 2006. The Indian Point nuclear facilities are approximately 3 miles southwest of Peekskill, with a population of 22,441; 5 miles northeast of Haverstraw, with a population of 33,811, 16 miles southeast of Newburgh, with a population of 31,400, and 17 miles northwest of White Plains, with a population of 52,802. Indian Point is also 23 miles northwest of Greenwich, Connecticut, 37 miles west of Bridgeport, Connecticut and 37-39 miles north northeast of Jersey City and Newark, New Jersey. Portions of four New York counties - Westchester, Rockland, Orange, and Putnam - fall within the inner 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone.

Additional population centers in New York, such as New York City's five boroughs and Nassau County, lie within the 50-mile Emergency Planning Zone, as do significant population centers in Connecticut and New Jersey.

Furthermore, the Indian Point facilities are also 6 miles northwest of the New Croton Reservoir in Westchester County, which is part of the New York City reservoir system and provides drinking water to New York City residents. They are also in close proximity to other reservoirs in the New York metropolitan area.

The communities within the 50-mile radius around Indian Point also contain some of the most densely-developed and expensive real estate in the country, critical natural resources, centers of national and international commerce, transportation arteries and 11

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR hubs, and historic sites. Certain of these unique sites are identified on the accompanying list. See List of Various Site-Specific Improvements, Including Landmarks, Parks, Arenas, Universities, and Transportation Facilities Within 50 Miles of Indian Point Power Reactors and Spent Fuel Pool Facilities. Many of the historic sites are on the national historic preservation list and are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act. For example, Indian Point is approximately 3 miles to the north of the Revolutionary Wars Stony Point Battlefield.7 By way of further example, Wall Street, the Nations financial center, is approximately 38 miles away, and many corporations have their headquarters or offices within 50 miles of the Indian Point site.

Under NRC's current siting regulations, which were not in place when AEC approved the Indian Point site in 1956, it is highly unlikely that the Indian Point reactors could be located today in this hyper-developed, densely populated area that serves as the one of the Nations economic and transportation centers. See 10 C.F.R. § 100.21(h).

27. Moreover, the Indian Point site was selected by the Consolidated Edison Company in 1955 and approved by AEC in 1956, before the AEC had implemented siting design criteria that would likely have made this heavily populated and earthquake active site 7

See, e.g., Letter from Thomas Lyons, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, to David Wrona, NRC (Oct. 26, 2010) (ML103060210) (as part of NEPA and SAMA review, discussing the Revolutionary War Stony Point Battlefield site, which has been designated a National Historical Landmark by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and stating that the Stony Point Battlefield is an irreplaceable asset to the people of New York State and the Nation.).

12

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR unacceptable for a nuclear facility. It was approved before the Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979), and Chernobyl (1986) events. In addition, AEC approved the construction of the first Indian Point facility before Congress enacted in the Price Anderson Act (1957). The 1955 selection of Indian Point also came before the enactment of NEPA (1970), the promulgation of CEQ regulations (1978), the Third Circuit's Limerick decision (1989), and NRC promulgation of the 10 C.F.R. § 51.53 regulation (1996) that requires an analysis of ways to mitigate the impacts of severe accidents during license renewal proceedings. The fact that a commitment was made to the Indian Point site before these statutes and regulations were enacted does not excuse Entergy or NRC from the fullest possible compliance with the statutes and regulations when seeking permission to undertake or authorizing a major federal action related to Indian Point.

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm. v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109, 1128-29 (D.C. Cir.1971).

28. By way of further example, the Indian Point facilities continue to rely on the 1950's era systems, structures, and components within the Indian Point Unit 1 facility. AEC approved the construction of IPl before the promulgation of seismic regulations. As the Atomic Licensing Appeal Board ruled in 1977: "This plant [Unit 1] was built prior to any specific requirement for earthquake protection and is not designed to withstand a 0. 15g acceleration." In re Consolidated Edison Co., (Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3), 6 N.R.C. 547, 585 (ALAB 1977).

In a submission to NRC about a spent fuel crane, Entergy stated: "No response spectra were specifically generated for the Unit 1 site during original design." Entergy Reply to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Indian Point 1 License Amendment Request for Fuel 13

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Handling Building Crane, p. 12 of 24 (Oct. 3, 2007), Indian Point, Unit No.1, Docket No.50-003, ML073050247.

29. As a result of all these factors and events, identified in Paragraphs 24 to 28, Indian Point has a higher risk of a severe accident than plants whose siting, construction, or operation were approved after the promulgation and revision of siting and design criteria, or whose design was more compatible with various backfit requirements implemented as a result of those events. In addition, because of the greater population concentration in the vicinity of the plant, a percentage reduction in the population dose risk or the offsite economic cost risk at Indian Point has a profoundly larger impact than the same percentage reduction at other facilities. In the case of Indian Point, such reductions literally impact millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic investment. Thus, there is even less of a rational basis to refuse to implement a mitigation measure, such as installing a flood alarm in the 480V switchgear room (SAMA 054 for IP 2), which was estimated to reduce population dose risk by almost 40% and off-site economic cost risk by almost 29% (December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis at 17) than if that same mitigation measure were available at any other plant even with the same risk reduction.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

30. The December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 5, Draft Report for Comment (or DSEIS) ML15351A422 concludes that Entergy has completed its engineering 14

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR cost estimates fort SAMAs previously identified as potentially cost-beneficial.

31. The December 2015 DSEIS concludes that the following site-specific SAMA modifications are cost beneficial:

COST BENEFICIAL SAMA IP2 AND IP3 SAMA MODIFICATIONS (BASED ON TABLE 3-1, DECEMBER 2015 NRC DSEIS, AT P. 10-11)

SAMAs Previously Benefit with Estimated Corrected Determined To Uncertainty Cost (2009) Estimated Be Cost Beneficial Cost (2014)

IP2-009 - Create a reactor $13,363,217 $4,1000,000 $1,741,724 cavity flooding system -

Deferred IP2-028 - Provide a portable $2,856,939 $938,000 $2,154,767 diesel-driven battery charger IP2-044 - Use fire water $4,948,485 $1,656,000 $3,073,130 system as backup for steam generator inventory IP2-054 - Install flood alarm $11,772,170 $200,000 $458,843 in the 480 V switchgear room IP2-060 - Provide added $2,684,920 $216,000 $721,303 protection against flood propagation from stairwell 4 into the 480 V switchgear room IP2-061 - Provide added $5,799,982 $192,000 $943,792 protection against flood propagation from the deluge room into the 480 V switchgear room 15

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR SAMAs Previously Benefit with Estimated Corrected Determined To Uncertainty Cost (2009) Estimated Be Cost Beneficial Cost (2014)

IP2-062 - Provide a hard- $1,789,822 $1,500,000 $1,662,692 wired connection to a safety injection (SI) pump form alternate safe shutdown system (ASSS) power supply IP2-065 - Upgrade the ASSS $11,772,170 $560,000 $1,859,587 to allow timely restoration of seal injection and cooling IP3-007 - Create a reactor $7,301,000 $4,100,000 $1,874,933 cavity flooding system IP3-055 - Provide hard-wired $5,903,118 $1,288,000 $1,601,888 connection to an SI or RHR pump from the Appendix R bus (MCC 312A)

IP3-061 - Upgrade the ASSS $6,317,929 $560,000 $2,282,668 to allow timely restoration of seal injection and cooling IP3-062 - Install flood alarm $6,317,929 $196,800 $496,071 in the 480 V switchgear room 16

State of New York Supplemental Contention Concerning December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Position Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives NRC Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR CONCLUSION The December 2015 NRC Staff Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, is deficient because it fails to include a commitment to implement the cost-beneficial site-specific severe accident mitigation alternative modifications as part of this proceeding. For all the reasons stated, the State of New York requests that this supplemental contention be admitted.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by John J. Sipos Mihir Desai Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 776-2380 John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov Mihir.Desai@ag.ny.gov February 22, 2016 17

List of Various Site Specific Improvements, Including Landmarks, Parks, Arenas, Universities, and Transportation Facilities Within 50 Miles of Indian Point Power Reactors and Spent Fuel Facilities National Historic Landmarks: Other Transportation Brooklyn Bridge One World Trade Center South Ferry Terminal Carnegie Hall (under construction) Howland Hook Marine Central Synagogue Brooklyn Navy Yard Terminal Central Park Jacob K Javits Red Hook Container Cooper Union Convention Center Terminal New York Stock Exchange Flushing Meadows- Brooklyn Marine Grand Central Terminal Corona Park Terminal Guggenheim Museum Lincoln Center for the New York Passenger Metropolitan Museum of Art Performing Arts Ship Terminal New York Public Library Manhattan Municipal Brooklyn Cruise New York Botanical Garden Building Terminal Governors Island Outdoor Sports Venues Newburgh-Beacon New York City Hall Yankee Stadium Bridge Union Square Citi Field Bear Mountain Bridge St Patrick's Cathedral USTA Billie Jean King Mid Hudson Bridge Trinity Church National Tennis Center Verrazanno Narrows Stony Point Battlefield Icahn Stadium Bridge National Parks: Aviator Arena George Washington Statue of Liberty National Barclay's Center (under Bridge Monument construction) Brooklyn Bridge Saint Paul's Church National Hamilton-Metz Field Manhattan Bridge Historic Site MCU Park Williamsburg Bridge Appalachian National Scenic Arnold and Marie Throgs Neck Bridge Trail Schwartz Athletic Robert F. Kennedy General Ulysses S. Grant Center Bridge National Memorial Aqueduct Racetrack Queensboro Bridge Home of Franklin D. Metropolitan Oval Bronx-Whitestone Roosevelt National Historic Universities Bridge Site United States Military Dutchess County Airport Vanderbilt Mansion National Academy (West Point) Stewart Airport Historic Site US Merchant Marine Teterboro Airport African Burial Ground Academy Laguardia Airport National Monument Columbia University JFK Airport Castle Clinton National New York University Westchester County Monument Fordham University Airport Governors Island National The Juliard School Pennsylvania Station Monument Culinary Institute of World Trade Center Federal Hall National America PATH Station Memorial St. John's University Interstate I-95, I-287, Hamilton Grange National Yeshiva University I-87 (NYS Thruway),

Memorial Brooklyn Law School I-84, NYS Route 9, Gateway National Recreation Brooklyn College Taconic Parkway Area CUNY (all campuses) New York City Parks:

Sagamore Hill National Vassar College Randalls Island Park Historic Site Pace University Battery Park Pratt Institute Washington Square Park Yeshiva University Madison Park Fort Tyron Park The High Line

List of Various Site Specific Improvements, Including Landmarks, Parks, Arenas, Universities, and Transportation Facilities Within 50 Miles of Indian Point Power Reactors and Spent Fuel Facilities Highbridge Park Silver Mine The Cloisters Sterling Forest Bronx Zoo Storm King Van Cortlandt Park Tallman Mountain Prospect Park Fort Montgomery Bryant Park Knox's Headquarters Jacob Purdy House National Purple Heart Fort Wadsworth Hall of Honor Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge New Windsor State Parks: Cantonment Bayswater Point Stony Point Battlefield Clay Pit Ponds Washington's East River Headquarters Empire-Fulton Ferry Bethpage Golf Course Gantry Plaza Caumsett Riverbank Planting Fields Roberto Clemente Arboretum Clarence Fahnestock Walt Whitman Fahnestock Winter Park Birthplace Franklin D. Roosevelt Hudson Highlands James Baird Mills Norrie (Margaret Lewis Norrie)

Ogden Mills & Ruth Livingston Mills Old Croton Aqueduct Rockefeller Walkway Over the Hudson (Poughkeepsie)

Clinton House John Jay Homestead Philipse Manor Hall Staatsburgh State Historic Site Anthony Wayne Recreation Area Bear Mountain Beaver Pond Campgrounds Blauvelt Goosepond Mountain Harriman High Tor Highland Lakes Lake Sebago Beach Lake Tiorati Beach Lake Welch Beach Prepared by Adam Solomon Minnewaska Preserve Nyack Beach Rockland Lake Schunnemunk