ML15049A112

Memorandum and Order CLI-15-3

ML15049A112
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/18/2015
From:	Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, CLI-15-3, RAS 27252
Download: ML15049A112 (8)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:

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

_________________________________________

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

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

)

_________________________________________ )

CLI-15-3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This proceeding concerns the application of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to renew the operating licenses of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 for an additional twenty years. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board recently issued Partial Initial Decision LBP-13-13.1 We have before us several petitions for review of LBP-13-13 and associated Board decisions. Our decision today addresses only the NRC Staffs and Entergys requests for review of decisions regarding contention NYS-35/36, an environmental contention challenging 1

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

the Indian Point severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis.2 Specifically, Entergy and the Staff seek review of LBP-11-17, the Boards decision dismissing NYS-35/36, and LBP-10-13, the Boards decision admitting the contention.3 NYS-35/36 raised legal and policy questions going to the completeness of the SAMA analysis cost-benefit results and the adequacy of the SAMA analysis conclusions. In LBP-11-17, the Board granted New Yorks motion for summary disposition of NYS-35/36, agreeing with New York that the SAMA analysis in the Indian Point Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) is deficient as a matter of law.4 Entergy and the Staff now seek review of the Boards decisions on NYS-35/36. New York opposes these requests.5 We find that the Staff and Entergy petitions each raise at least one substantial question warranting further consideration of the Boards decisions on NYS-35/36. We therefore grant the Entergy and Staff petitions insofar as they challenge the Boards decisions in LBP-11-17 and LBP-10-13.6 2

See Applicants Petition for Review of Board Decisions Regarding NYS-8 (Electrical Transformers), CW-EC-3A (Environmental Justice), and NYS-35/36 (SAMA Cost Estimates)

(Feb. 14, 2014), at 3, 43-60 (Entergy Petition); NRC Staffs Petition for Review of LBP-13-13 in Part (Contentions NYS-8 and CW-EC-3A), and LBP-11-17 (Contention NYS 35/36) (Feb. 14, 2014), at 41-59 (Staff Petition). We also issue today a companion order granting review of the State of New Yorks petitions associated with NYS-12C, another SAMA analysis contention.

See CLI-15-2, 80 NRC __ (Feb. 18, 2015) (slip op.).

3 See LBP-11-17, 74 NRC 11 (2011); LBP-10-13, 71 NRC 673 (2010).

4 See LBP-11-17, 74 NRC at 25-27.

5 See State of New Yorks Answer to Entergy and Staff Petitions for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Decisions LBP-08-13 and LBP-13-13 with Respect to Contention NYS-8 and for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 and LBP-11-17 with Respect to Contention NYS-35/36 (Mar. 25, 2014), at 37-64.

6 See Entergy Petition at 43-60; Staff Petition at 41-59. Of note, the Staff recentlyafter filing its petitionconcluded that it will supplement the FSEIS SAMA analysis. See, e.g., NRC Staffs 36th Status Report in Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Order of February 16, 2012 (Feb. 2, 2015), at 2-3. The Staff stated that the supplement will address Entergys May 2013 submission of engineering project cost estimates for the mitigation alternatives (continued . . .)

To aid our review, we request briefing on the following questions. Because the Board in LBP-11-17 found the FSEIS deficient and the Staff is responsible for the FSEIS analysis, we direct our questions below to the NRC Staff.

1) The Indian Point SAMA analysis concludes that risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, cost-beneficial SAMAs, and that [g]iven the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction . . . further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted.7 Does the Staff have a process in place to follow up with the licensee to determine which potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternatives ultimately were found by the licensee to be cost-beneficial, if any, and which alternatives, if any, the licensee implemented? If not, explain why follow-up by the Staff is unwarranted.

2) The SAMA analysis concludes that any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not relate to 10 C.F.R. Part 54 requirements would be considered, to the extent necessary or appropriate, under the agencys oversight of a facilitys current operating license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements.8 Under what circumstances, if any, would the Staff judge a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative to warrant further NRC consideration outside of the license renewal review, either via a backfit analysis under 10 C.F.R. § 50.109 or as part of another process? For example, is there any level of reduction in risk metric valuese.g., core damage frequency or large early release frequency that is or ought to be considered to determine whether a potentially cost-beneficial mitigation alternative warrants additional NRC consideration under Part 50?

identified in the FSEIS as potentially cost-beneficial. See Dacimo, Fred F., Entergy, letter to NRC Document Control Desk, NL-13-075, License Renewal ApplicationCompleted Engineering Project Cost Estimates for SAMAs Previously Identified as Potentially Cost-Beneficial (May 6, 2013) (ML13127A459). The core legal and policy questions raised by NYS-35/36 can, however, be addressed now. Our decision on review will elaborate further on our grounds for granting the petitions. The Staff and Entergy petitions for review before us also contest the Boards resolution of contentions CW-EC-3A (environmental justice) and NYS-8 (transformers). We will address these claims in a future decision, based upon the briefs and the existing adjudicatory record.

7 See Ex. NYS00133I, Final Report, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 3, regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Dec. 2010), App. G at G-49 (FSEIS). The FSEIS is divided into multiple exhibits: NYS00133A-NYS00133J.

8 See Ex. NYS00133C, FSEIS, Vol. 1, Main Report at 5-11.

3) The Staff states that it does not require license renewal applicants to finalize their SAMA calculations by including engineering project costs in their analyses.9 What level of uncertainty does the Staff consider acceptable for the implementation cost portion of the cost-benefit analysis, and why?

4) The Staff states that even if the NRC had authority to require implementation of mitigation alternatives for license renewal, there is no reason to require such SAMAs for environmental protection purposes because the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for reactor license renewal has already found the probability-weighted consequences of . . . severe accidents to be SMALL for all plants, and Indian Point Units 2 and 3 fall within these generic determinations.10 Given that the SMALL probability-weighted impacts finding applies generically to all plants, why does the Staff expect a SAMA analysis to be a comprehensive, systematic effort to identify and evaluate [] potential plant enhancements to mitigate severe accidents?11 The Staffs initial brief shall not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents or table of authorities, and shall be filed within 40 calendar days of the date of this order. Entergy and New York may file reply briefs, not to exceed 20 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents, or table of authorities. Reply briefs are due within 40 calendar days of the initial briefs filing.

9 See Ex. NYS00133I, FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at 47-48.

10 See Staff Petition at 51 n.187.

11 See Ex. NYS000220, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supp. 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, Supp. 1 (Oct. 1999), at 5.1.1-7 to 5.1.1-8.

The parties must not introduce any new documents or exhibits; all references shall be limited to submissions already in the record. References to affidavits and exhibits should include page citations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.12 For the Commission NRC SEAL /RA/

_____________________________

Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of February, 2015 12 Chairman Burns did not participate in this matter.

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

)

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

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

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-3) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

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

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

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

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

ocaamail@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.

Mary B. Spencer, Esq.

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

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

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

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Joseph Lindell, Esq.

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

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

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

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-3)

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

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

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

Emre Ilter, Esq.

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

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

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

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

Deborah Brancato, Esq. 724 Wolcott Ave.

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

Organization: Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Springer & Steinberg, P.C.

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

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ]

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