ML110460187

Applicant'S Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition

ML110460187
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/03/2011
From:	Bessette P, Dennis W, O'Neill M, Sutton K Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS E-449, DESIGNATE 16 ATTACHMENTS, NOTE; RAS E-450 THROUGH RAS E-454
Download: ML110460187 (176)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOi (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)))

February 3, 2011 APPLICANT'S CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NEW YORK STATE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION NYS-35/36 AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

William C. Dennis, Esq.

COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC February 3, 2011 SC c, 3 ý S C:ý3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PRELIM INARY STATEM ENT ........................................... ........................................ 2 II. APPLICABLE NRC REQUIREMENTS ................................ 5 A. 10 C.F.R. Part 54-Aging Management Review ............................................. 5 B. 10 C.F.R. Part 51-Environmental Review and SAMA Analysis .................... 6 C. Controlling NEPA Principles Applicable to NRC SAMA Analysis ............... 10 III. STATEM EN T OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 12 A. Procedural History of Contention NYS-35/36 ................................................. 12 B. The Staff's FSE IS ........................................................................................... 16 IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ........................................ 19 V. A RG U M EN T .................................................................................................................... 20 A. Entergy Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law Because the Facts of Record Show That Its Cost Estimates Are Sufficient For Purposes of a SA M A A nalysis ............................................................................................... 20 B. Entergy Also Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law Because the FSEIS Adequately Explains Why Implementation of the Cost-Beneficial SAMAs Is Not Required in Connection With IPEC License Renewal ....... 22 C. NYS's Motion for Summary Disposition of NYS-35/36 Should Be Dismissed As Moot And Because It Lacks A Valid Factual or Legal Basis ....... 25 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................ 38 CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL UNDER 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(B) .................... 39 i

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment Description Statement of Material Facts in Support of the Applicant's Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 (Feb. 3, 2011) 2 Applicant's Response to New York State's Statement of Material Facts'Not in Dispute (Feb. 3, 2011) 3 Excerpt from NUREG-1437, Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Vol. 1 (May 1996), available at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 4 Excerpt from Final Rule: Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8, 1995) 5 Excerpt from Proposed Rule: Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 55 Fed. Reg. 29,043 (July 1.7, 1990) 6 Excerpt from Final Rule:. Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, .61 Fed. .Reg. 28,467 (June 5, 1996) 7 Excerpt from NEI 05-0 1, "Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

• (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document" (Rev. A, Nov. 2005), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML060530203 8 Final License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives.Analyses (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/license-renewal.html 9 Notice of Availability of the Final License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analyses, 72 Fed. Reg. 45,466 (Aug. 14, 2007) 1.0 NL-09-151, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "Telephone Conference Call Regarding Met Tower Data for SAMA Analysis" (Nov.

16, 2009), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML093340049 11 NL-09-165, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Data" (Dec. 11, 2009), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML093580089

- ii -

Attachment Description 12 NL- 10-013, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application -. Supplement to SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data" (Jan. 14, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML100260750 13 Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petitionfor Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg.

10,834, 10,834 (Feb. 20, 2001) 14 Excerpt from NRR Office Instruction LIC-202, "Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests" (Rev. 2, May 17, 2010), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML092010045.

15 Excerpt from NUREG- 1850, FrequentlyAsked Questions on License Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors (Mar. 2006), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc collections/nuregs/staff/srl850/

sri 850_faq_lr.pdf.

16 Excerpt from NUREG- 1800, StandardReview Planfor Review ofLicense Renewal Applicationsfor Nuclear Power Plants (Rev. 1, Sept. 2005),

available at ADAMS Accession No. ML052110007

- 111 -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

_) February 3, 2011 APPLICANT'S CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NEW YORK STATE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION NYS-35/36 AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205(b), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") hereby responds to New York State's ("NYS") motion for summary disposition of consolidated contention NYS-35/36.1 In-accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205(a), Entergy also moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") for summary disposition of the same contention.

NYS-35/36 raises issues related to Entergy's severe accident mitigation alternatives

("SAMA") analysis for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 ("IP2" and "IP3,"

collectively "Indian Point Energy Center" or "IPEC"). Specifically, it contests the adequacy of the NRC Staff s ("Staff') discussion of certain cost-beneficial SAMAs, as documented in its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS).2 Entergy submits this consolidated memorandum both (1) in support of its cross-motion for summary disposition of 3

NYS-35/36 and (2).in opposition to NYS's January 14, 2011 Motion.

State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 (Jan. 14, 2011)

("NYS Motion").

2 NUREG-1437, Supp. 38, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final Report (Dec. 2010) ("FSEIS").

This filing contains 16 supporting attachments. Attachment 1 contains the "Statement of Material Facts in Support of the Applicant's Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36." Attachment 2 contains the "Applicant's Response to New York State's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute."

For the reasons that follow, Entergy requests that the Board resolve this matter in favor of Entergy and the Staff based on the current record and dismiss NYS-35/36 as a matter of law. In the alternative, if the Board does not grant Entergy's cross-motion for summary disposition, then it should deny NYS's competing Motion and resolve NYS-35/36 after a hearing on the merits.,4 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT As required by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the NRC's generic environmental impact statement ("GEIS") for license renewal documents the NRC's thorough evaluation of the probability and consequences of severe reactor accidents.' A severe accident is defined as a beyond-design-basis accident that could result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious off-site consequences. As codifiedin 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the GEIS concludes that the probability-weighted consequences of a severe accident are small for all plants (i.e., the radiological impacts do not exceed permissible levels established in the NRC's regulations). 6 IPEC, which takes its unremitting obligation to comply with NRC safety and environmental requirements very seriously, is no exception to this NRC determination.

Nonetheless, in accordance with the procedural dictates of NEPA, an EIS must contain a reasonably complete discussion of possible measures to mitigate environmental impacts.7 The GEIS contains no generic determination with respect to severe accident mitigation alternatives, or, SAMAs. 8 Therefore, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), Entergy prepared a 4 Entergy respectfully submits that there is no triable issue of fact and that summary disposition of NYS-35/36 should be granted in its favor. In the event the Board disagrees, Entergy still maintains that NYS's Motion should be denied due to the fatal factual and legal deficiencies identified herein. In that scenario, it appears that the parties' and Board's only recourse would be to be resolve the contention after a hearing on the merits.

5 See NUREG- 1437, GenericEnvironmental Impact Statementfor License Renewal ofNuclear Plants,Vol. 1, at 5-114 to 5-115 (May 1996) ("GEIS"), available at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 [Att. 3].

.6 See id; 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-i (Postulated Accidents; Severe accidents).

7 Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351-52 (1989).

8 GEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-115 [Att. 3].

detailed site-specific evaluation of possible SAMAs for IPEC. Like prior NRC SAMA analyses, the IPEC SAMA analysis considers accident scenarios whose probability of occurrence is so low that the NRC has excluded them from the spectrum of design-basis accidents postulated for a plant. Entergy identified a number of SAMAs a's potentially cost-beneficial in its final SAMA analysis.

The NRC Staff s December 2010 FSEIS fully evaluated and disclosed possible mitigation measures based on the Staff s independent and detailed technical review of Entergy's SAMA analyses. Those analyses included the conceptual cost estimates for SAMA implementation that Entergy prepared following NRC-approved guidance. The FSEIS concluded that the IPEC SAMA analysis is reasonable and sufficient for a license renewal submittal and complies with applicable NRC requirements. It also correctly explained that the NRC lacks the regulatory authority to require, as part of a Part 54 license renewal proceeding, implementation of SAMAs (even those identified as~potentially cost-beneficial) if they are unrelated to aging management.

The Staff s conclusion is fully consistent with well-established legal principles governing a federal agency's authority and obligations under NEPA as well as the scope of NRC license renewal proceedings. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "NEPA imposes no substantive requirement that mitigation measures actually be taken." 9 While NEPA demands that a "hard look" be given to the potential measures for mitigating environmental impacts, it does not provide a legal basis for mandating the implementation of such measures. 10 Furthermore, the NRC's license renewal regulations in Part 54 are, by design, confined to aging management issues during the renewal period. As such, the Commission has made clear 9 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at353 n.16.

10 Id. at 350 ("NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process.").

that it does not intend to impose requirements on a license-renewal applicant that go beyond what is necessary to adequately manage aging effects during extended operations. Any question regarding the adequacy of a plant's current licensing basis ("CLB"), including proposed enhancements thereto, generally must be addressed under the NRC's Part 50 backfit rule and is separate from the license renewal process.

For thesereasons, Entergy and the Staff have fully met their obligations under NEPA and the NRC's NEPA-implementing regulations in Part 51. Accordingly, the Board should enter summary disposition of NYS-35/36 in favor of Entergy and the Staff. The issues or omissions alleged therein are moot in light of the Staff's issuance of the FSEIS.

Regardless, NYS's Motion is not supported by the relevant facts, law, and guidance. In particular, NYS alleges that Entergy's SAMA implementation cost estimates are "unfinished" for purposes of NEPA." But as shown below, this is not the case. And, because there is no regulatory basis for mandating implementation of the SAMAs (which would involve modifications to the IPEC CLBs) as part of this license renewal proceeding, there is no need for the additional engineering cost estimates NYS alleges are necessary. Finally, none of the cost-beneficial SAMAs cited by NYS is necessary for adequate protection of the public health and safety or, given the findings in the GEIS, necessary to ensure that the consequences of severe accidents are small. Accordingly, NYS's Motion should be denied because it lacks an adequate factual and legal basis.

" NYS Motion at 17.

II. APPLICABLE NRC REQUIREMENTS The scope of a license renewal proceeding is limited to discrete safety and environmental issues, as defined by the Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.4 and 54.21(a), and 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.75(d) and 51.95(c).12 Key relevant requirements are discussed below.

A. 10 C.F.R. Part 54-Aging Management Review Part 54, which governs license renewal, limits the scope of license renewal to aging-13 management-related matters and does not require applicants to revisit CLB issues. Part 54.

requires applicants to demonstrate how current or proposed programs will effectively manage the effects of aging during a period of extended operation, such that important systems, structures, and components ("SSCs") will continue to perform their intended function in the renewal period. 14 Part 54's regulatory history clarifies the relationship between Part 54 and the backfit rule in 10 C.F.R. § 50.109. For example, the Statement of Considerations ("SOC") for the NRC's July 1990 proposed Part 54 rulemaking states:

If the staff or the licensee seeks to make changes in a plant's licensing basis for reasons other than age-related'degradation,they should be pursued either in the existing operating license or the renewed license, once issued. 'Staff-initiated changes would be evaluated in accordance with the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109.15 12 Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-O1-20, 54 NRC 211, 212 (2001) (citing Fla.Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4),

CLI-O1-17, 54 NRC 3, 6-13 (2001)).

13 See Turkey Point., CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 7-9.

14 Final Rule: 'Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,463 (May 8, 1995) [Att.

4]. See also 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a). For example" applicants must identify any additional actions (e.g.,

inspections, testing, maintenance) needed to manage aging effects during the license renewal term.

15 Proposed Rule: Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 55 Fed. Reg. 29,043, 29,047 (July 17, 1990)'(emphasis added) [Att. 5]. Cf Duke Energy Corp., (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 388 n.77 (2002) (stating that the ultimate agency decision on whether to require facilities with ice condenser containments to implement any particular SAMA will fall under a Part 50 current licensing basis review).

In the May 1995 SOC for its final revisions to Part 54, the Commission reaffirmed that it "does not intend to impose requirements on a licensee that go beyond what is necessary to adequately manage aging effects."'16 B. 10 C.F.R. Part 51-Environmental Review and SAMA Analysis The NRC promulgated Part 51 to implement NEPA's requirements and, in 1996, specifically amended Part 51 to address the scope of its environmental review for license renewal applications.17 The NRC divided the environmental requirements for license renewal into generic and plant-specific components. It prepared the GEIS to evaluate and document those generic impacts that are well understood based on extensive current-fleet operating experience.

The NRC Staff must prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS that adopts applicable generic impact findings from the GEIS, evaluates any new and significant information, and discusses site-specific impacts. Under. Section 51.95(c)(4), the relevant decision standard is whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal (when compared with the environmental impacts of other energy generating alternatives) are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.19 As relevant here, the NRC's GEIS provides an evaluation of severe accident impacts that applies to all U.S. nuclear power plants. 2 A severe accident is defined as a beyond-design-basis accident that could result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are 16 Final Rule: Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,490 [Att. 4].

17 See Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg.

28,467 (June 5, 1996), amendedby 61 Fed. Reg. 66,537 (Dec. 18, 1996) [Att. 6].

18 See-10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c).

19 Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,485 [Att. 61. See also 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c)(4).

20 Entergy Nuclear GenerationCo. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-1 1, slip op. at 37-38 (Mar. 26, 2010).

serious off-site consequences. 211 Based on the GEIS evaluation, 10 C.F.R. Part 51 concludes that the "lt]he probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout:onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are smallfor all plants."22 The NRC has noted that the GEIS analyses represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the impacts from severe accidents that would generally over-predict, rather than under-predict, environmental consequences.23 Thus, a plant-specific analysis of severe accident impacts is not required in individual license renewal proceedings. As the Commission recently put it, "NRC SAMA analyses are not a substitute for, and do not represent, the NRC 24 NEPA analysis of potential impacts of severe accidents."

Nonetheless, Part 51 states that if the Staff has not previously considered SAMAs for a license renewal applicant's plant in an EIS or in an environmental assessment, then the applicant must complete an evaluation of alternatives that may mitigate severe accidents. 25 The need for a site-specific SAMA analysis flows from the NRC's NEPA regulations (which require consideration of mitigation alternatives in initial and supplemental EISs), and the Third Circuit's 1989 Limerick decision (which requires a NEPA review of severe accident mitigation design alternatives ("SAMDAs") at the initial operating license stage).2 6 At the time of its 1996 Part 51 rulemaking, the Commission was unable to reach a generic conclusion regarding mitigation 21 FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-3.

22 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-1 (Postulated Accidents; Severe accidents) (emphasis added).

23 Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,480 [Att. 6].

24 See Pilgrim, CLI-10-11, slip op. at.37.

25 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L); see also id. Part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-1.

26 Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,480 [Att. 6]; see also Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 736-39 (3rd Cir. 1989) (holding that the NRC could not generically dispense with the consideration of SAMDAs, under NEPA, through a policy statement issued pursuant to its Atomic Energy Act authority). SAMDAs apply to plants seeking their initial operating licenses. SAMAs, in contrast, apply to plants seeking renewal of their previously-issued operating licenses.

alternatives for purposes of license renewal, because not all licensees had completed the 27 agency's Part 50-based ongoing regulatory program related to severe accident mitigation.

By definition, a SAMA analysis considers postulated events whose probability. of occurrence is so low that they are excluded from the spectrum of design-basis accidents postulated for a plant by the Commission's regulations. 28 The purpose of a SAMA analysis is to identify potential changes to a nuclear power plant, or its operations, that (1) could further reduce the already very low risk of postulated severe reactor accident scenarios, and (2) may be cost-beneficial to implement. 29 Whether a SAMA may be cost-beneficial to implement is based upon a weighing of the cost to implement the SAMA with the reduction in (monetized) risks to public 30 health, occupational health, and offsite and onsite property.

TheNuclear Energy Institute ("NEI") has issued a guidance document, NEI 05-01, Revision A, to assist NRC license renewal applicants in preparing SAMA analyses.31 The Staff has approved and recommended the use of NEI 05-01 by license renewal applicants.3 2 SAMA analysis uses probabilistic risk assessment ("PRA") and cost-benefit analysis methods.. Broadly speaking, a SAMA analysis includes four major steps: (1) quantification of the level of risk 27 See Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg.

at 28,480-481 (discussing the SAMA analysis requirement) [Att. 6].

28 See FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-2 to 5-3, 5-11.

29 See Pilgrim, CLI 11, slip op. at 3.

30 See Duke Energy Corp.(McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I & 2), CLI-02-17, 56 NRC 1, 7-8.(2002).

31 NEI 05-01, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document, at i (Rev. A, Nov. 2005) ("NEI 05-01"), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML060530203 [Att. 7]. NEI 05-01 relies upon regulatory analysis techniques described inNUREGiBR-0 184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (Jan. 1997), is a result of experience gained through past SAMA analyses, and incorporates insights gained from review of NRC evaluations of SAMA analyses and associated requests for additional information

("RAIs").

32 See Final License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analyses (Aug. 2007) ("LR-ISG-2006-03"), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/license-renewal.html [Att. 8]. See also Notice of Availability of the Final License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analyses, 72 Fed. Reg. 45,466 (Aug. i4, 2007) [Att. 9].

associated with potential reactor accidents using plant-specific PRA and other risk models; (2) examination of the major risk contributors and identification of possible ways (i.e., SAMAs) of reducing that risk; (3) estimation of the benefits and implementation costs associated with specific SAMAs; and (4) comparison of the costs and benefits of the identified SAMAs to determine whether the SAMA is cost-beneficial.

Relevant to NYS-35/36, NEI 05-01 provides the following guidance with respect to the estimation of SAMA implementation costs*

As SAMA analysis focuses on establishing the economic viability of potential plant enhancement when compared to attainable benefit, often detailed cost estimates are not required to make informed decisions regarding the economic viability of a particular modification. SAMA implementation costs may be clearly in excess of the attainable benefit estimated from a particular analysis case.

For less clear cases, engineering judgment may be applied. to determine if a more detailed cost estimate is necessary to formulate a conclusion regarding the economic viability of a particular SAMA.

Nonetheless, the cost of each SAMA candidate should be conceptually estimated to the point where economic 33 viability of the proposed modification can be adequately gauged.

Notably, the Commission recently cited NEI 05-01 in stating that "detailed cost estimates often are not necessary to gauge the economic viability of a particular SAMA candidate."3 4 NEI 05-01 further states that the use of conservative (i.e., low) implementation cost estimates may be used 35 to offset uncertainty in the cost estimates.

33 NEI 05-01, at 28 [Att. 7].

34 Pilgrim, CLI-10-1 1, slip op. at 39 n.151.

35 NEI 05-0 1, at 30 [Att. 7].

C. Controlling NEPA Principles Applicable to NRC SAMA Analysis The NRC's consideration of mitigation alternatives-which includes SAMAs-is governed by the NEPA rule of reason. 36 Under NEPA's rule of reason, the Commission need only consider the range of alternatives reasonably related to the scope and goals of the proposed major federal action.37 Here, the proposed action is renewal of the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses. As defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 and its regulatory history, the NRC's safety review for license renewal centers on managing the effects of aging resulting from operation beyond the initial license term. 38 As defined in the GEIS and 10 C.F.R; § 51.95(c)(4), the purpose or focus of the NRC's environmental review of a license renewal application is to determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

As noted above, SAMA analyses are not a substitute for, and do not represent, the NRC NEPA analysis of potential impacts of severe accidents. 39 Rather, the NRC's GEIS for license renewal provides a generic evaluation of severe accident impacts and the technical basis for the NRC's conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are small for all plants. 40 SAMA analysis is a site-specific mitigation analysis, not a worst-case or a best-case 36 McGuire/Catawba,CLI-02-17, 56 NRC at 12 (citing Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NaturalRes. Def Council,Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978) ("NRDC"); Citizens Against Burlingtonv. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).

37 Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant), LBP-05-31, 62 NRC 735,753 (2005).

38 See 10 C.F.R. §*54.29; Final Rule: Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,463

[Att. 4].

39 Pilgrim, CLI-10-1 1, slip op. at 37.

40 Id. at 37-38 (citing GEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-12 to 5-106).

impacts analysis.41 The goal of SAMA analysis is only to determine what potential plant 42 enhancements may be cost-beneficial in mitigating the effects of a postulated severe accident.

Consistent with the U. S. Supreme Court's holding in Methow Valley, the Commission has stated that NEPA does not require actual implementation of mitigation measures-including SAMAs.' 3 In Methow Valley, the Court held that NEPA requires a "reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures," but "imposes no substantive requirement that mitigation measures actually be taken." 44 It further noted that there is a fundamental distinction between a procedural requirement that an agency discuss possible mitigation measures in sufficient detail, and a substantive requirement that the agency implement those measures.45 Thus, "because it is only procedural and not substantive in nature, NEPA does not require agencies to implement any of the mitigation measures discussed in the FEIS."46 In summary, the Commission has described its obligations with respect to consideration of mitigation alternatives as follows:

The purpose of addressing possible mitigation measures in an FEIS is to ensure that the agency has taken a hard look at the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action. An EIS therefore must address mitigation measures in sufficient detail to *ensure that 41 Id. at 38.

42 Id. at 39.

43 Id. at 38 (citing Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 353).

44 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352, 353 n.16. See also, Laguna Greenbelt,Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp.,.42 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1994) ("NEPA does not require a fully developed plan that will mitigate all environmental harm before an agency can act; NEPA requires only that mitigation be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fully evaluated." (citationsomitted)); Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass 'n v. US. Dep 't of Trans., 222 F.3d 677, 681 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Contrary to National Parks' assertion, a mitigation plan need not be legallyenforceable, funded or even in final form to comply with NEPA's procedural-requirements."); Cnty. of Rockland v. FAA, 335 Fed.Appx. 52 (DC. Cir. 2009) ("NEPA does not impose 'substantive requirement that a complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted' before agency can act") (quoting Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352).

45 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352-53 46 Citizens ConcernedAbout Jet Noise, Inc. v. Dalton, 48 F.Supp.2d 582, 603 (E.D.Va. 1999) (citing Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 353).

-I1 -

environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated. An EIS need not, however, contain a complete mitigation plan, or a detailed explanation of specific measures which, will be employed. Indeed, a mitigationplan need not be legally enforceable,funded or even in final form to comply with NEPA's proceduralrequirements. As long as the potential adverse impacts from a proposed action have been adequately disclosed, it is not improper for an EIS to describe mitigating measures in general terms and rel[y] on general processes ... 47 As the foregoing suggests, the NRC has broad discretion in determining how thoroughly to analyze a particular subject, including mitigation measures148 Where environmental impacts are minimal or speculative, an EIS may focus on broad mitigation measures. 4 9 To prevail on a NEPA claim, therefore, an intervenor must demonstrate that the Staff has "unduly ignored or minimized pertinent environmental effects."5 ° III. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Procedural History of Contention NYS-35/36 Entergy originally submitted its SAMA analysis in April 2007 as part of the Environmental Report ("ER") for the Indian Point license renewal application. 5" The NRC 47 Hydro Res., Inc. (P.O. Box 777, Crownpoint, NM 87313), CLI-06-29, 64 NRC 417, 426-27 (2006) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (finding FEIS discussion of mitigation measures to be adequate and concluding that "Intervenors .... demand a level of detail not required by NEPA").

48 S. Nuclear OperationCo. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP-09-7 69 NRC 613, 631-32 (2009)

(citing La. Energy Services, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-98-3, 47 NRC at 103 (1998); Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-919, 30 NRC 29, 44 (1989); Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., v. NRC, 869 F.2d at 739.

49 Border Power Plant Working Group v. Dep't of Energy, 467 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1070 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Nat 'l Parks & Conservation Ass 'n v. US.. Dep 't of Transp., 222 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2000)). See also Vogtle ESP Site, 69 NRC at 631-32, 692 (stating that an agency "may decline to examine issues the agency in good faith considers remote and speculative or inconsequentially small," and finding that some impact greater than SMALL to the resource at issue must be involved to trigger the requirement for a more detailed alternatives analysis than presented in the FEIS) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

50 Duke Energy.Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI 17, 58 NRC 419, 431.

51 See generally Indian Point Energy Center, Applicant's Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage § 4.21 (Apr. 2007) (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives); id., Att. E (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/

indian-point.html#application.

- 12-

52 documented its initial review of Entergy's SAMA in its December 2008 draft SEIS ("DSEIS").

Subsequently, in response to Staff RAIs, Entergy revised its original SAMA analysis.

Specifically, in a November 2009 letter to the NRC Staff, Entergy confirmed the existence of an error in the wind direction inputs to the code used for the SAMA analysis.53 Consequently, Entergy committed to correct the wind direction inputs and accordingly re-analyze the SAMAs for both units, including revising the estimates of off-site population dose and offsite economic costs. 54 Shortly thereafter, in December 2009, Entergy submitted its Revised SAMA Analysis 55 with the corrected wind direction inputs.

In March 2010, NYS submitted new contentions NYS-35 and NYS-36 as challenges to Entergy's Revised SAMA Analysis.56 Both contentions alleged that Entergy and the Staff have failed to comply with NRC regulations and guidance, ignored the "legal mandate'.' imposed by the Third Circuit's Limerick decision, 57 and violated the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"), NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").58 NYS-35 alleged, in particular, thatEntergy has not provided sufficiently complete cost-benefit analyses for nine specific SAMAs already identified in the December 2009 Revised 52 NUREG-1437, Supp. 38j GenericEnvironmentalImpact Statementfor'License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, RegardingIndian PointNuclear GeneratingUnit Nos. 2 and 3,. Draft Reportfor Comment (Dec. 2008)

("DSEIS").

53 See NL-09-151, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "Telephone Conference Call Regarding Met Tower Data for SAMA Analysis" at 1 (Nov. 16, 2009) ("NL-09-15 1"), available at ADAMS Accession No.

ML093340049 [Att. 10].

4 Id.

55 See NL-09-165, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Data" (Dec. 11, 2009) ("NL-09-165" or "Revised SAMA Analysis"), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML093580089 [Att. 11].

56 See State of New York's Motion for Leave to File New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (Mar. 11, 2010) ("Motion for Leave");* State of New York's New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Reanalysis (Mar. 11, 2010) ("March 2010 SAMA Contentions").

57 See Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., v. NRC, 869 F.2dat .719.

58 See March 2010'SAMA Contentions at 14-17 & 27-35.

-13 -

SAMA Analysis as potentially cost-beneficial. 59 NYS-3 5 centered on Entergy's intention, as stated in the ER and Revised SAMA Analysis, to perform additional, future engineering project cost-benefit analysis for those SAMAs identified as potentially cost-beneficial.60 This, NYS claimed, "indefinitely postpones" the cost-benefit analyses necessary to "finally determine" which of the nine SAMAs are cost-effective, and precludes a rational decision regarding which mitigation measures, if any, are sufficiently cost-effective to warrant implementation through license conditions in the renewed operating licenses.61 In short, NYS claims that the Staff needs "final", implementation cost estimates for theseSAMAs, but only to determine which of them require implementation as a condition to license renewal.

NYS-36 focused on nine other SAMAs, asserting thatEntergy's Revised SAMA Analysis showed these SAMAs, for the first time, to have substantially greater benefits in excess of their costs.62 More specifically, NYS claimed that these SAMAs now have a "margin of benefit over cost [that] is so high that there is little chance that even a more complete cost estimate will be able to eliminate the substantialbenefit." 63 NYS-36 further alleged that the Staff acceptance of the Revised SAMA Analysis would violate NEPA and the APA absent a rational 64 basis for any decision to not require implementation of "clearly" cost-effective SAMAs.

Both Entergy and the Staff opposed the admission of NYS-35 and NYS-36 in their entirety. Nonetheless, in LBP-10-13, the Board admitted and consolidated the two new, 59 See id at 13, 15-17, 22-35 60 See, e.g., id. at 15, 23-25.

61 Id. at 25; see also Motion for Leave at 11.

62 March 2010 SAMA Contentions at 36.

63 Id. at 46. See also id at 37.

64 Id. at 40-41.

- 14-

contentions.65 Importantly, however, the Board admitted the contentions only in part, emphasizing that the Staff need not require implementation of SAMAs as part of a license renewal proceeding. 66 Therefore, the*Board rejected as outside the scope of this proceeding any 67 portion of these contentions demanding implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs.

• TheBoard concluded, however, that the Staff has the "option" to impose, prior to license renewal, additional conditions to an applicant's CLB as a backfit underl10 C.F.R. Part 50, and that as a result of its SAMA review, the Staff could choose to impose such conditions that are necessary to protect the environment under a Part 50 backfit procedure. 68 Based on this reasoning, the Board found NYS-35 admissible insofar as it alleged that the Staff's Draft SEIS did not provide a rational basis for granting the license extension without mandating a CLB backfit of any SAMAs that in any "final analysis" are classified as cost-effective.69 In addition, in view of Entergy's stated intention to perform further engineering cost-benefit analyses, the Board admitted the portion of NYS-35 calling for completion of the cost-benefit analysis to 70 determine which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

The Board also admitted NYS-36 in part, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether the Staff has fulfilled its duty under NEPA to take a hard look at the SAMAs deemed potentially cost-beneficial in Entergy's Revised SAMA Analysis. The Board stated that the Staff must explain in its record of decision why it would authorize license renewal without requiring 65 See Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), LBP- 10-13, slip op. at 26-30, 34-36 (June 30, 2010).

66 See id at 29, 34.

.67 See id.

68 Id. at 4, 28-29.

69 Id. at 29.

70 Id. at 35.

- 15-

implementation of plainly cost-beneficial SAMAs- as a condition precedent to the granting of license renewal. 7 '

Entergy and the Staff filed petitions for interlocutory review of the Board's decision to admit NYS-35/36.72 The Commission denied the petitions on the ground that they did not meet the strict criteria for interlocutory review in Section 2.341(f)(2).7 3 However, in so ruling, the Commission clarified the scope and focus of NYS-35/36. Specifically, the Commission stated that it does not read LBP- 10-13 to require the Staff either to impose license conditions or to undertake formal Part 50 backfit analyses for the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in contention NYS-35/36. 74 The Commission further emphasized that NYS-35/36 seeks further "explanation" of the SAMA analysis conclusions, including whether the current SAMA cost-75 benefit estimates "are sufficient for the NEPA analysis."

B. The Staffs FSEIS The Staff issued its FSEIS in December 2010. Section 5.2 of the FSEIS summarized the Staff s final review of Entergy's. SAMA evaluation for IP2 and IP3, including its December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis. 76 Appendix G of the FSEIS documented the Staff sdetailed technical evaluation of Entergy's SAMA analysis. 77 The FSEIS concluded that the methods used, and the implementation of those methods, were. sound, and that "[t]he treatment of SAMA benefits and 71 Id.

72 Applicant's Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 (July 15, 2010); NRC Staff's Petition for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Decision Admitting New York State Contentions 35 and 36 on Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (LBP-10-13) (July 15, 2010).

73 Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3"), CLI-10-30, slip op. at 5-7 (Nov. 30, 2010). Although the Commission denied interlocutory review, it noted that Entergy's and the Staff's arguments "are not without force," and that portions of the Board ruling may warrant review later in the proceeding. Id. at 6.

SId. at6.

75 Id.

76 FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-4 to 5-13.

77 Id., Vol. 3, App. G.

costs support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable and sufficientfor the license renewal submittal."78 The Staff reviewed Entergy's cost estimates for implementing SAMAs. Section G.5 of the FSEIS describes this review.79 As noted therein, Entergy estimated the costs of implementing the candidate SAMAs through the application of engineering judgment and the use of other licensees' estimates for similar improvements. Table G-6 lists, among other items, the SAMA implementation cost estimates.80 The Staff reviewed the bases for these cost estimates and, for certain improvements, it compared the cost estimates to estimates developed previously for similar improvements (including estimates developed as part of other licensees' SAMA for operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors).8 '

As stated in Section G.5, as part of its Revised SAMA Analysis using corrected meteorological data, Entergy subjected a subset of the candidate SAMAs to more rigorous cost-estimating techniques; i.e., those SAMAs that appeared to be cost-beneficial based on the new benefit estimate and the original implementation cost estimate. 82 For two IP2 SAMAs (IP SAMAs 17 and 40) and four IP3 SAMAs (IP3 SAMAs 17, 20, 40, and 50), the revised cost estimate resulted in the SAMA becoming non-cost-beneficial. 8 3 For each of these SAMAs, the Staff requested that Entergy provide the basis for the revised cost estimate, including a breakdown of the major cost factors.84 Entergy provided this information by letter dated January 78 Id., Vol. 1 at 5-11 (emphasis added).

79 Id., Vol. 3 at G-34 to G-40.

80 Id. at G-36 to G-38.

81 Id. at G-34 to. G-35.

82 Id. at G-39.

83 Id.

84 Id.

14, 2010, in which Entergy explained that it developed the revised cost estimates using its standard process for preparing conceptual-level project cost estimates.85 The Staff reviewed this additional cost information to determine the degree to which the revised cost estimates and their constituent costs comport with the nature, magnitude and complexity of each change. 86 It determined that Entergy' s revised cost estimates were reasonable, and that they resulted in an appropriate determination that the subject candidate SAMAs are not cost-beneficial. 87 The Staff further concluded that all of Entergy's cost-estimates were reasonable, generally consistent with prior estimates by other licensees, and sufficient and 88 appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS also discussed the Board's admission of NYS-35/36 and directly addresses the allegations presented in the consolidated contention. It states,*in part:

[T]he NRC staff has determined that none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are related to the license renewal requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 (i.e., managing the effects of aging) (SEIS § 5.2.6).,

Under the NRC's regulatory system, any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not relate to 10 CFR Part54 requirements.would be considered, to the extent necessary or appropriate, under the agency's oversight of a facility's current operating license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, inasmuch as such matters would pertain not just to the period of extended operation but to operations under the current operating license term as well. Thus, there is no regulatory basis to suggest that potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that are unrelated to Part 54 requirements must be imposed as a backfit to the CLB, as a condition for license renewal.

85 Id. (citing NL-10-013, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application -

Supplement to SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data" (Jan. 14, 2010) ("NL- 10-0 13),

available at ADAMS Accession No. ML100260750 [Att. 12]).

86 Id. The associated modifications involved either major plant modifications or changes to safety-related SSCs.

Id. For example, the modifications for which Entergy prepared more detailed cost estimates involve erecting a barrier to protect the containment liner, installing secondary side guard pipes, increasing secondary side pressure capacity, enhancing the reactor coolant system depressurization capabilities. Id. Thus, in addition to hardware costs, the modifications would require extensive design work and safety analysis calculations, including seismic analyses, thermal analyses, and analyses for piping or penetration interferences. Id.

87 Id. at G-39 to G-40.

88 Id. at 40.

Finally, the NRC staff notes that SAMAs, by definition, pertain to severe accidents-i.e., those accidents whose consequences could be severe, but whose probability of occurrence is so low that they may be excluded from the spectrum of design basis accidents ("DBAs) that have been postulated for a plant (see GEIS §§ 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.4);

this is consistent with the conclusions reached in.§ 5.2.2 of this SEIS concerning severe accidents at IP2 and IP3. The Commission has previously concluded, as a generic matter, that the probability-weighted radiological consequences of severe accidents are SMALL.

GEIS § 5.5.2; 10 CFR Part 51, App. B,-KTable B 1. As stated in

§§ 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 above, no significant new information has been identified that .would remove IP2 and IP3 from these generic determinations. Thus, there is no regulatory basis to impose any of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs as a condition for license renewal of IP2 and 1P3--even if those potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are "finally" found to be cost-beneficial.8 9 Based on these considerations, the FSEIS concluded that the Staff "has provided a detailed discussion of SAMA costs and benefits in this SEIS, which satisfies the NRC's obligation, under 90 NEPA and related case law, to consider SAMAs in a license renewal proceeding."

IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION The NRC's standards for summary disposition are set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.710.91 Summary disposition is appropriate where relevant documents or affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 92 A party opposing a properly-supported summary disposition motion may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must state specific, significantly probative facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for hearing.9 3 It is not sufficient, however, for there 89 Id, Vol. 1 at 5-11 to 5-12 (emphasis added).

9' Id. at 5-1l.

91 Although 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205 governs the submission of motions for summary disposition in Subpart L proceedings, it directs the Board to apply the standards for summary disposition in Subpart G of Part 2.

92 Pilgrim, CLI-10-1 1, slip op. at 12 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 2.710(d)(2)).

93 Id. (citing l'0 C.F.R. § 2.710(b)).

merely to be the existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties, for "the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact."94 Therefore, only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of a proceeding would preclude summary disposition.

"Factual disputes that are ... unnecessary will not be counted.' 95 V. ARGUMENT A. Entergy Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law Because the Facts of Record Show That Its Cost Estimates Are Sufficient For Purposes of a SAMA Analysis The Board admitted that portion of NYS-35/36 calling for completion of the cost-benefit analysis to determine which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement as a contention of omission.96 Specifically, the Board stated that the applicant must supply information that is sufficiently complete for the Commission to be able to explain its decision.97 Entergy has done precisely that, as reflected in the ER, the Revised SAMA Analysis and, finally, the Staff s FSEIS review. Accordingly, the Board should dismiss this aspect ofNYS-35/36 as moot.

NRC regulations require applicants like Entergy to perform site-specific SAMA analyses.

However, they do not mandate or prescribe a specific methodology for conducting those evaluations, including the associated cost-benefit analysis of SAMA candidates. In this instance, Entergy followed the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, which the NRC Staff has endorsed.98 ER Section 4.21.5.4 and Attachment E to the ER (Sections E.2.3 and E.4.3) describe the manner in which Entergy prepared its original SAMA cost implementation cost estimates. As explained therein, and consistent with NEI 05-01, Entergy developed cost estimates for 94 Id at 12 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

95 Id. (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248).

96 Indian Point, LBP-10-13, slip op. at 29.

97 Id. at 35.

98 See Pilgrim, CLI 11, slip op. at 4 n. 11 (citing NEI 05-01 as NRC-endorsed guidance for performing SAMA analyses).

implementing each SAMA candidate to the extent necessary to allow it to make an informed judgment about the economic viability of the proposed improvement. 99 Entergy followed this same cost-estimating process in its Revised SAMA Analysis.t 00 For many SAMAs, Entergy used the same implementation cost estimates reported in Tables E.2-2 and E.4-2 of the April 2007 ER.' 0 ' In some cases, however, it was necessary to perform more detailed, plant-specific 02 cost estimates to confirm whether certain SAMAs were, in fact, potentially cost-beneficial. 1 Tables 4 through 7 of the Revised SAMA Analysis reflect the results of Entergy's updated cost-benefit analyses.' 0 3

• TheStaff reviewed Entergy's original and revised SAMA implementation cost estimates.

As discussed above, the Staff reviewed the bases for Entergy's cost estimates and also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed previously for similar mitigation measures, including estimates developed as part of other licensees' SAMA analyses. Where Entergy's original implementation cost estimates appeared high, or revised cost estimates contained its Revised SAMA analysis resulted in certain SAMAs becoming non-cost-beneficial, the Staff requested and obtained from Entergy additional information and justification for the values.' 0 4 Based on its review, the Staff found that the cost estimates provided by Entergy are reasonable and 99 See ER, Att. E at E.2-3 to E.2-4, E.4-3 to E.4-4.

100 Revised SAMA Analysis at 8-9 [Att. 11]

101 See id. at 7, 10-28 (Tables 4 and 5).

102 See id at 7-8.

103 'See id. at 10-28, 30-3 1.

104 FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at G-39. For example, the Staff questioned a seemingly high cost estimate ($800,000) for changing the pressurizer PORV block valves from normally closed to normally open in conjunction with IP2 SAMA 53. Entergy provided justification for the cost estimate in a February 2008 RAI response. As noted above, the Staff also requested that Entergy provide the bases for certain revised cost estimates (including an explicit breakdown of the cost estimate in terms of the major cost factors). Entergy provided this additional information by letter dated January 14, 2010. See NL-10-013 [Att. 12].

sufficient to support the SAMA evaluation. 10 5 *Thus Entergy has supplied "sufficient facts" to allow the Staff to explain its conclusions and to satisfy its "hard look" obligations under

• NEPA.106 Insofar as NYS argues otherwise, it misinterprets both the facts of record and controlling legal precedent.

B. Entergy Also Is Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law Because the FSEIS Adequately Explains Why Implementation of the Cost-Beneficial SAMAs Is Not Required in Connection With IPEC License Renewal The second issue raised in NYS-35/36 also warrants dismissal as a matter of law. In admitting NYS-35/36, the Board held that, to comply with NEPA, the Staff must explain any

.decision not to require implementation of any cost-beneficial SAMAs prior to license renewal. 107 The Board also described this aspect of the contention as one of omission, because it alleged that the SEIS does not provide a rational basis for granting the license extension without mandating a CLB backfit as a prerequisite for the extension. 108 But the Board also stated that "the NRC Staff does not have to require implementation, and an intervenor such as New York cannot demand 0 9 implementation from the NRC Staff as part of a license renewalproceeding."'1 The Staff has revised Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS to provide the further explanation alleged to be missing."l0 Therefore, this aspect of the cOntention is moot and should be dismissed as a matter of law. Section 5.2.6 provides a clear, cogent, and legally correct explanation-and certainly one that is adequate for purposes of NEPA-as to why the Staff has not required implementation of any of the SAMAs identified in the FSEIS as cost-beneficial.

105 FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at G-40.

106 Indian Point,LBP-1O-13, slip op. at 29.

107 Id. at 35.

108 See id. at 29-30.

"09 Id. at 29 (emphasis added).

"10 FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11 to 5-12.

The FSEIS explains that the Staff lacks a regulatory basis to require implementation of those SAMAs because they are notfrelated to the aging management requirements of Part 54. it further explains that any additional consideration of those SAMAs for possible implementation would take place under the NRC's Part 50 regulatory framework, inasmuch as the identified 12 plant modifications would affect operations under the current operating license term. 1 Contrary to NYS's claim, the Staff's explanation is fully consistent with settled legal principles governing the scope of NRC license renewal proceedings. The NRC's Part 54 regulations are confined to the small number of aging management issues determined by the Commission to be relevant to protecting the public health and safety during the renewal term. 113 The Commission chose to leave all other issues to be addressed by the agency's existing regulatory oversight processes-i.e., outside the deliberately-narrow scope of its license renewal process. 114 Furthermore, the existence or availability of the backfit rule does not alter this fact. The backfit rule is an AEA-derived requirement that, by its terms, centers on protection of the public health and safety. It creates a process, separate and distinct from license renewal, by which the NRC may require safety-based measures after initial licensing. In the absence of an "adequate protection" or "compliance" exception, 115 the NRC may order a facility backfit only if it is cost-

... Id. at,5-11.

112 Id 113 See 10 C.F.R. § 54.29; Turkey Point,CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 7-8.

114 See id.

115 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(4)(i)-(iii).

.justified and achieves "a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety. or the common defense and security."'"16 The federal courts consistently have interpreted NEPA as a procedural statute that requires disclosure and analysis of environmental impacts, not one that imposes substantive obligations for the protection of the environment. 117 With respect to mitigation analysis, "NEPA not only does not require agencies to discuss any particular mitigation plans that they might put in place, it does not require agencies--or third parties-to effect any.,,l"' Given that SAMA analysis is a form of NEPA mitigation analysis, there is no requirement that cost-beneficial SAMAs be implemented by the NRC or its licensees."19 In this case, the FSEIS fully explains the Staff's SAMA analysis conclusions, including its basis for not requiring implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs. Therefore, the Staff has met its NEPA obligations:

Here, in a generic EIS the NRC has conducted a thorough NEPA evaluation of the probability and consequences of severe reactor plant accidents, and in plant-specific EISs the NRC staff has discussed at 116 Id. § 50.109(a)(3). See also id. § 50.109(c); Union ofConcernedScientistsv. NRC, 824 F.2d 108, 118-19 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (explaining that the backfit rule derives from the NRC's authority to under AEA Section 161 to "order plants to provide 'extra-adequate' protection," but that "[u]nder the rule, the Commission may order a backfit analyzed in this manner only if the added protection to public health and safety resulting from the backfit justifies the cost of implementation"); Consol. Edison Co. of.NY (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), CLI-85-6, 21 NRC 1,043, 1068 (1985) (reversing a Board decision to impose a "safety assurance program" because backfits are permitted only when they offer "substantial, additional protection which is required for the public health and safety").

117 Detroit Edison Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), LBP-09-16, 70 NRC 227, 287 (2009) (citing Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 350 (stating that "it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process");-Strycker'sBay NeighborhoodCouncil, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S.

223, 227-228, (1980) (per curiam) ("If the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs"). See also NRDC, 435 U.S. at 558; Morris v. NRC, 598 F.3d 677, 690 (10th Cir. 2010) ("NEPA dictates the process by which federal agencies must examine environmental impacts, but does not impose substantive limits on agency conduct.").

118 Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 206 (citing Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 353 & n. 16). See also Pilgrim, CLI 11, slip op. at 38 (stating that NEPA demands no fully developed plan or detailed examination of specific measures which will be employed to mitigate adverse environmental effects).

119 See McGuire/Catawba,,CLI-03-17, 58 NRC 431 (quoting Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352) ("Under NEPA, mitigation (and the SAMA issue is one of mitigation) need only be discussed in 'sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences [of the proposed project] have been fairly evaluated."') (emphasis added).

- 24 -

I length possible mitigation measures. The mitigation analysis outlines relevant factors, discloses opposing viewpoints, and indicates particular assumptions under which the Staff ultimately concludes I that [certain SAMA candidates are] cost-beneficial. -The staff presented its analysis and conclusion based upon the available technical information. NEPA requires no more.120 In conclusion, because the FSEIS fully and adequately explains why the Staff has not I required implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs prior to license renewal, this aspect of NYS-35/36 is moot and should be dismissed as a matter of law.

C. NYS's Motion for Summary Disposition of NYS-35136 Should Be Dismissed As Moot And Because It Lacks A Valid Factual or Legal Basis The Board should dismiss NYS's Motion in any event. For the reasons stated below, I NYS's Motion is not adequately supported by the relevant facts, law, or NRC guidance.

1. NYS Misrepresentsthe Record in Arguing That Entergy Has Not Provided Complete SAMA Implementation Cost Estimatesfor Purposesof NEPA Importantly, NYS does not challenge any of Entergy's current SAMA implementation cost estimates (whether for cost-beneficial or non-cost-beneficial SAMAs) by alleging that they I are inaccurate (e.g., too large).or based on unacceptable methods or assumptions. Instead, it 3 merely alleges that "more work needs to be done" to support the implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs as part of this proceeding.' 2 ' As discussed herein, this argument does not I square with the facts of record and is not supported by the applicable law.

NYS's challenge to the completeness of Entergy's SAMA implementation cost estimates devolves into a single, erroneous factual supposition; i.e., that Entergy has "postpone[d]

completion of the cost evaluation of SAMAs until some indefinite time in the future," so as to I

.*20 Id. (emphasis added).(internal quotation marks omitted).

121 See The State of New York's and State of Connecticut's Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Decision Admitting the State of New York's Contentions 35 and 36 (LBP-10-13) at 4-5, 13 n.8 (July 26, 2010).

U I

leave the NEPA process incomplete.122 In supporting this argument, NYS repeatedly insists that Entergy's estimates for the costs of implementing the cost-beneficial SAMAs candidates are "unfinished,.... partially completed," and "incomplete."'123 However, these characterizations of Entergy's SAMA implementation cost estimates are not borne out by the facts.

Entergy has never stated that its SAMA analyses, including its present cost estimates, are incomplete for purposes of the submission required by Part 51. Consistent with NEI 05-01, Entergy developed conceptual cost estimates for SAMA implementation to the extent that 1 24 allowed it to reasonably evaluate the economic viability of the proposed modifications.

SAMAs that appeared to be cost-beneficial with the initial implementation cost estimate were subjected to successively more comprehensive and more precise cost estimating to determine if those SAMAS were, in fact, potentially cost-beneficial.125 As the Revised SAMA Analysis 26 makes clear, Entergy provided only "final" cost estimates for each SAMA to the Staff.1 For the reasons stated in Section V.A. above, the cost estimates alreadyprepared by Entergy and evaluated by the Staff in its FSEIS have allowed those parties to meet their respective obligations under NEPA, which requires only that the NRC provide a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures. 127 Aside from erroneously asserting that 122 NYS Motion at 12.

123 Id. at 6, 11-14, 17, 19. NYS's argument is as illogical as it is untrue. First, it defies reason to suggest that Entergy-which has a clear incentive to obtain renewed operating licenses and a duty to provide complete and accurate information-would submit an ER that, on its face, purports to be incomplete. It is likewise senseless to suggest that the Staff, in discharging its own independent regulatory obligations, would follow the same course in issuing its FSEIS. Insofar as the FSEIS uses the phrase "finally found to be cost-beneficial" (FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-12), it does so in the specific context of discussing NYS-35/36, which alleges that that Revised SAMA Analysis identifies SAMAs "which have not yet been finally determined to be cost-effective." Indian Point, LBP-10-13, slip op. at 16 (emphasis added). NYS's suggestion that the FSEIS concedes that Entergy's cost estimates are incomplete is unfounded and grossly misleading.

124 See Revised SAMA Analysis at 7-8 [Att. 11].

125 Id. at 8.

126 Id.

127 See Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352.

- 26 -

Entergy's cost estimates are "incomplete" and "unfinished," NYS presents no argument to the contrary. Furthermore, any refinement of the cost estimates would serve no necessary purpose under NEPA, because "regardless of how [any further] cost-benefit calculations come out[,] ...

NEPA imposes no substantive requirement that mitigation measures actually be taken.128 Any decision by Entergy to perform additional engineering project cost evaluations of the cost-beneficial SAMAs for possible future implementation in accordance with existing plant administrative or operating procedures does not negate Entergy's and the Staff's demonstrated current compliance with NEPA for purposes of license renewal. As with other proposed modifications to the IP2 and IP3 current licensing bases, any additional, engineering project cost analyses of the SAMA candidates cited by NYS appropriately would be performed in connection 129 with the plants' currentoperating licenses-not as part of license renewal.

Finally,"[t]he Commission has long stressed that NRC adjudicatory hearings are not EIS editing sessions,"'3 ° and that licensing boards "do not sit to parse and fine-tune EISs." Here, only facts affecting the outcome of the SAMA evaluation should preclude summary disposition as sought by Entergy on cross-motion. The ultimate concern here is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost-beneficial, not whether further analysis 32 may refine the details of the SAMA analysis.'

128 Catawba/McGuire,CLI-02-17, 56 NRC at 10.

129 Thus, as a matter of law, Entergy is not obligated to prepare or submit to the NRC more detailed engineering project cost analyses. However, to the extent any such analyses may be completed, they will be identified in Entergy's mandatory disclosure logs.

130 Entergy Nuclear GenerationCo. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-1l, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009).

131 McGuire/Catawba,CLI-03-17, 58 NRC at 431 132 Pilgrim, CLI-09-1I, 69 NRC at 533 (emphasis added).

- 27 -

NYS-35/36, however, does not allege that additional SAMAs should have been identified or that any of Entergy's SAMA implementation cost estimates contain errors, much less material errors (e.g., they substantially overestimate the implementation cost of any SAMA). Indeed; while further engineering project cost-benefit analyses might result in refinement of the cost-benefit ratio for the SAMAs at issue, they would not result in the identification of any additional cost-beneficial SAMAs beyond those already identified in the FSEIS. Thus, NYS does not seek the type of further analysis that the Commission has described as a valid and meaningful remedy under NEPA.133 For all of these reasons, this aspect of NYS-35/36 should be resolved as a matter of law in favor of Entergy and the Staff.

2. Part54 Does Not Compel Implementation of "Improvements JustifiedBy EnvironmentalAlternative Analyses" NYS also argues that "implementation of improvements justified by environmental alternative analyses" are authorized by 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.33(c) and 51.103(a)(4).114 But this argument is not supported by settled legal principles or the terms of the cited regulations.

In citing Section 54.33(c), NYS seeks to invoke a provision contained in the NRC's Part 54 aging management regulations to compel implementation of environmental mitigation measures identified through the Part 51 NEPA process.135 As its title indicates, 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.33 focuses on the continuation of a plant's CLB during the period of extended operation.

Section 54.33(c), in particular, requires each application for license renewal to include those conditions to protect the environment-via environmental monitoring, reporting, and N

133 Catawba/McGuire,CLI-02-17, 56 NRC at 10.

134 NYS Motion at 23. See also id at 1, 3, 14, 18-19, 20, 22-23.

'35 See id at 14 ("Part 54 authorizes implementation of modifications to the plants' current licensing basis when warranted by the Part 51 analysis,").

-28 -

recordkeeping requirements-that previously were imposed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.36(b) and that are part of the CLB for the facility at the time of issuance of the renewed license. 136 Thus, insofar as Section 54.33(c) references environmental matters, NYS stretches the language of that regulation beyond its plain meaning. Section 54.33(c) is a narrowly-tailored provision that, by its terms, seeks to ensure that each renewed license will include those conditionspreviously imposed by the NRC under Part 50 (specifically, Section 50.36b) to protect the environment. 137 Section 54.33(c) states that "these conditions"--which relate specifically to a licensee's ongoing environmental monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping obligations under Part 50-may be supplemented or amended as necessary to protect the environment during the term of the renewed license 138 NYS misinterprets the purpose of this provision in arguing that it authorizes the Staff to compel implementation of the SAMAs at issue in NYS-35/36, which Would involve significant CLB modifications at IP2 and IP3.

The Commission has carefully explained what safety and environmental issues fall inside (and outside) of its Part 54 and Part 51 license renewal rules. For example, in both the 1995 SOC and Turkey Point, it left no doubt that Part 54 is confined to aging management issues:

In sum, our license renewal safety review seeks to mitigate the "detrimental effects of aging resulting from operation beyond the

.initial license term." 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,463. To that effect, our rules 136 10 C.F.R. § 54.33(c) states in full:

Each renewed license will include those conditions to protect the environment that were imposed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36b and that are part of the CLB for the facility at the time of issuance of the renewed license. These conditions may be supplemented or amended as necessary to protect the environment during the term of the renewed license and will be derived from information contained in the supplement to the environmental report submitted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, as analyzed and evaluated in the NRC record of decision. The conditions will identify the obligations of the licensee in the environmental area, including, as appropriate, requirements for reporting and recordkeeping of environmental data and any conditions and monitoring requirements for the protection of the nonaquatic environment.

137 10 C.F.R. § 54.33(c).

138 Id.

"focus[ ] the renewal review on plant systems, structures, and components for which current [regulatory] activities , and requirements may not be sufficient to manage the effects of aging in the period of extended operation." Id. at 22,469 (emphasis added).

Adjudicatory hearings in individual license renewal proceedings will share the same scope of issues as our NRC Staff review, for our hearing process (like our Staff's review) necessarily examines only 39 the questions our safety rules make pertinent.1 In Turkey Point,the Commission further stated that, while its AEA review under Part 54 does not compromise or limit NEPA,1 4 ° its safety review under Part 54 and its environmental review under Part 51 are "analytically separate."'1 41 More directly to the point, the Commission has stated that "[t]here is no requirement in 10 CFR Part 54 for analysis of SAMAs." 142 *Thus, the NRC's Part 54 safety review plainlydoes not encompass assessment of possible CLB modifications to mitigate' the potential environmental impacts of postulated severe accidents (i.e.,

SAMAs)-an issue wholly unrelated to aging management or continuation of the CLB during the extended operating period.

For the above reasons, there is no legal basis or precedent-and NYS cites none-to support NYS's erroneous claim that a Part 54 regulation empowers the Staff to require implementation of any cost-beneficial SAMA. Indeed, the Staff itself reached the opposite conclusion in its FSEIS, in which it stated that there is no regulatory basis to. impose any of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs as a condition for license renewal of IP2 and IP3.

139 Turkey Point,CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 10 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).

140 Id. at 13 ("Our aging-based safety review does not in any sense 'restrict NEPA' or 'drastically narrow[] the scope of NEPA"').

W~' Id 142 See Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 10,834, 10,834 (Feb. 20, 2001)

("PRM 51-7") [Att. 13].

-30 -

I 3. Part51 Does Not Compel Implementation of "Improvements JustifiedBy EnvironmentalAlternative Analyses" I As noted above, NYS also cites Section 51.103(a)(4) as a potential source of Staff authority to require implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs in this license renewal proceeding. That regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the Commission shall state in its I -record of decision "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. 3 The Commission issued this regulation, among others in Part 51, Ii to assist it in implementing NEPA. Thus, any argument that it authorizes or compels 3 implementation of SAMAs runs directly counter to Methow Valley's holding that NEPA imposes no substantive requirement that mitigation measures actually be taken.144 I Indeed, in prior NRC adjudications, the Commission and other licensing boards have concluded that NEPA and Part 5.1 do not require implementation of environmental mitigation measures, including SAMAs. Notably, in the pending Pilgrimlicense renewal proceeding, the UCommission recently noted that because none of the SAMAs identified by Entergy as potentially 3 cost-effective for the Pilgrim plant "bear on adequately managing the effects of aging, none need be implemented as part of the license renewal safety review, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 54.145 I

143 10 C.F.R. § 51.103(a)(4) 144 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 353 n:16. NYS all but ignores the dispositive Supreme Court holding of Methow Valley and its progeny. NYS's Motion cites Methow Valley only in passing and only for the only undisputed proposition that NEPA requires agencies to take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of their proposed actions (NYS Motion at 5, 13), as the NRC clearly has done in the case of severe accident impacts and possible mitigation measures at IPEC.

141 See Pilgrim, CLI 11, slip op. at 7 n.26. See also id at 38 (quoting Catawba/McGuire,CLI-03-17, and Methow Valley, and stating that NEPA does not require a detailed examination of specific measures which "will" be employed to mitigate adverse environmental effects).

I . -. 31-I

The Commission has further stated that the ultimate decision on whether to require a facility to 46 modify its CLB to implement any particular SAMA will fall under a Part 50 CLB review.1 Several fairly recent cases illustrate this last point. In the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings, the Massachusetts Attorney General ("AG") filed hearing requests that each included a "Petition for Backfit Order."'147 The AG sought to initiate action in those proceedings to change the storage configuration of the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee spent fuel pools for asserted environmentaland safety reasons.' 48 The Commission denied the petitions, noting that they amounted to a-request for agency enforcement action, a request not suitable for a license renewal adjudication but perhaps suitable for consideration under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206.149 Subsequently, in the Shearon Harrislicense renewal proceeding, a licensing board similarly denied the petitioners' request for fire barrier system backfits. in light of their proffered contentions, which included SAMA issues.150 The board denied the request under the authority of CLI-06-26, noting that a petition for backfits is essentially a request for enforcement action under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 and is '"not cognizable in a license renewal adjudication."'151 Further, during the mandatory hearing on the North Anna early site permit ("ESP")

application, the Commission rejected the notion that the presiding board could impose a permit condition requiring that the design of North Anna's two existing reactors be modified to provide 146 See Catawba/McGuire,CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 388 n.77.

147 See Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-06-26, 64 NRC 225, 226 & n.3 (2006).

141 Id. at 226. Specifically, the petitions requested that the Commission require each of the spent fuel pools to return "to its original low-density storage configuration and [to] us[e] dry storage for any excess fuel.". Id.

149 Id. at 226-27.

150 CarolinaPower & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-07-11, 66 NRC 41, 96-97 (2007).

151 Id at 97.

- 32 -

for water-saving measures to offset environmental impacts of the new reactors.52 In approving the ESP, the Commission noted that its Notice of Hearing did not permit the Board to attach conditions to the operating licenses for the existing reactor units. 153 It further concluded that "such a result would run afoul of our Backfit Rule, which permits the Staff to impose new conditions on existing licenses only under very limited circumstances, none of which the dissent 54 suggests apply here."1 In short, as a NEPA-derived requirement, Section 51.103(a)(4) simply does not authorize NYS, the Staff, or the Board to require implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs as part of.

license renewal.' 5 5 Moreover, insofar as Section 51.103(a)(4) directs the Staff to explain why particular mitigation measures were not adopted, the Staff has done exactly that in Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS.

4. The FSEIS ContainsAn Adequately-Statedand Rational Basisfor Not Requiring Implementation of Cost-Beneficial SAMAs In its Motion, NYS renews its claim that the Staff has not provided a rational basis, as required by the APA, for its alleged failure to require implementation of possible cost-beneficial 56 SAMAs.' The facts of record, however, clearly show that NYS's argument lacks merit. As evidenced by the detailed technical evaluation documented in Appendix G of the FSEIS, the 152 Dominion NuclearN.Anna, LLC (Early Site Permit for N. Anna ESP Site), CLI-07-27, 66 NRC 215, 233 (2007).

'5' Id. at 233-34.

154 Id. at 234 n.103 (emphasis added).

155, Cf Fermi, LBP-09-16, 70 NRC at 288 (stating that to the extent a proposed contention asked the Board to require the Applicant to adopt mitigation measures for the protection of a threatened species, "it exceeds our authority under NEPA and Part 51").

156 The APA cases cited by the NYS simply stand for the proposition that federal agencies must make rational decisions and disclose the bases for their decisions, which the Staff clearly has done here. See Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962) (stating that an agency must articulate a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made"); Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark-Best FreightSys.,

Inc., 41.9 U.S. 281, 285-286 (1974) (stating that a court will uphold a decision "if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned"); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass "n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983) (holding that agency arbitrarily revoked a "passive restraint" motor vehicle safety standard).

Staff has taken the requisite hard look at potential SAMAs. Furthermore, the Staff has explained in Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS that it there is no regulatory basis to compel implementation of the cost-beneficial SAMAs at issue in NYS-35/36 as a condition precedent to license renewal. This explanation is rational because it comports with the governing law discussed above (see, e.g.,

Section II.C, supra) and the NRC's long-standing position on this matter, as manifested in the regulatory history of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 and all prior license renewals. No further explanation is needed to satisfy NEPA or the APA, or to support issuance of the renewed operating licenses under the relevant decision standards in 10 C.F.R. Parts 54 and 51.157 NYS also suggests that Staff has acted "irrationally" by not requiring implementation of SAMAs with allegedly "substantial benefits" and "trivial costs." 58 However, NYS overstates the level of risk reduction afforded by the SAMAs at issue given: (1) IPEC's unchallenged compliance with the NRC's broad safety requirements that are designed to preclude severe and design-basis accidents, (2) the GEIS's bounding determination that the probability-weighted consequences of a severe accident are small for all plants, and (3) the documented conservatisms inherent in both the GEIS analysis of severe impacts and site-specific SAMA analyses such as those performed for Indian Point. For example,.the GEIS analyses estimated and used 95 percent upper confidence bounding values and "represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the impacts from severe accidents that would generally over-predict, rather than under-predict, environmental consequences.59 With respect to the IPEC SAMA analyses, the FSEIS 157 See 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.29(a), 51.95(c)..

158 See NYS Motion at 2, 7, 12, 19, 24. NYS's use of the phrase "trivial costs" is as curious as it is presumptuous.

Based on the implementation cost estimates presented in Entergy's December 2009 Revised SAMA Reanalysis, the total cost of implementing all SAMAs identified therein as potentially cost-beneficial would be approximately $34 million (if not more).

'5 Pilgrim, CLI 11, slip op. at 38; Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,480 [Att. 6].

concluded that Entergy's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant improvements are generally conservative; i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher than what 60 would actually be realized. 1 In summary, the Staff has taken the requisite hard look at potential SAMA candidates and provided a rational explanation for not requiring implementation of those SAMAs found to be potentially cost-beneficial as part of IPEC license renewal. The Staff s discussion of mitigation measures was reasonable and sufficient (particularly given the GEIS's "small" impact finding for severe accidents), and thus satisfies NEPA.161 NYS's Motion should be dismissed because it lacks adequate factual and legal support for any contrary conclusion.

5. NYS Misconstruesthe Third Circuit's 1989 Limerick Decision and the Commission's 2001 Denial ofPRM 51-7, Neither of Which Supports its Motion In its Motion, NYS frequently cited the Third Circuit's Limerick decision, but NYS's characterization of that court's ruling is. again inaccurate and misleading. 162 In Limerick, the court held that the NRC could not generically dispense with the consideration of SAMAs, under NEPA, through apolicy statement issued pursuant to its AEA authority. 163 The court rejected this approach because the Commission had-through a policy statement as opposed to a formal rulemaking-categorically rejected consideration of design alternatives "without making any conclusions about the effectiveness or cost of any particular alternative." . 64 Clearly, the Staff s FSEIS for IPEC does not do the same. To the contrary, it does exactly what the Limerick court 160 FSEIS, Vol. 2, App. G at G-34.

161 See Laguna Greenbelt, 43 F.3d at 528.

162 NYS Motion at 14 n.7, 21 (citing page 737 of Limerick for thepropositions that (1) the NEPA "hard look" doctrine includes serious consideration of "adoption" of the analyzed alternatives,- and (2) the final EIS for a plant must consider and "either accept or reject" mitigation alternatives).

163 See Limerick Ecology Action, 869 F.2d at 736-39.

164 Id. at 737.

says it should do. It provides "sufficient discussion of relevant issues and opposing viewpoints to enable the decisionmaker to take a 'hard look' at the environmental factors and to make a 65 reasoned decision."

Limerick was issued approximately one week before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Methow Valley decision. Nevertheless, based upon its review of prior Supreme Court NEPA rulings, including Vermont Yankee. and Strycker's Bay,166 the Third Circuit similarly concluded that NEPA requires reasonable evaluation and disclosure but not implementation of environmental mitigation alternatives:

The clear instruction of Vermont Yankee is that NEPA's procedural requirement cannot be expanded upon by the courts either by requiring additional procedures or by requiring substantive outcomes.

The issue sub judice is whether actions under the AEA may preclude NEPA considerations, not whether 67 additional requirements may be imposed over and above NEPA. 1 NYS's heavy reliance on the Commission's 2001 denial of an NEI rulemaking petition similarly is misplaced. In the PRM 51-7 proceeding, the Commission denied an NEI petition to abolish the requirement for SAMIA reviews in Part 51 "on the belief that the requirement conflicts with the technical requirements for license renewal in 10 CFR Part 54." 168 Significantly, the Commission discussed Limerick at length and emphasized that "NRC's obligation to consider mitigation exists whether or not mitigation is ultimately found to be cost-69 beneficial and whether or not mitigation ultimately will be implemented by the licensee. 1 165 Id. (citing Kleppe v. SierraClub, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21 (1976)).

166 See id. at 725 (stating that "the Supreme court made clear that NEPA imposes duties upon agencies that are

'essentially procedural"') (quoting Vt. Yankee, 435 U.S. at 558; citing Strycker 's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. at 228).

167 Id. at 730 n.9.

168 PRM 51-7, 66 Fed. Reg. at 10,835 [Exh. 13].

169 Id at 10,836 (emphasis added). See also id. at 10,838-839 (discussing Limerick).

In short, Entergy and the Staff have never maintained that Part 54 limits the scope of a NEPA review in a license renewal proceeding, as NYS incorrectly argues.170 Instead, they have correctly stated that NEPA and Part 51 require reasonable evaluation and disclosure of possible mitigation measures, including non-aging-related SAMAs, but not the actual implementation of those measures. Again, by evaluating possible mitigation measures, Entergy and the Staff have fully complied with the requirements of NEPA and the holdings of Limerick and Methow Valley.

/

This includes taking a hard look at possible SAMAs and reaching a reasoned decision as to why their implementation is not required in connection with the license renewal process.

6. The .NRC Guidance Documents Cited by NYS Lack the Force of Law or Regulation And, In Any Event, Do Not Support NYS's Claims Lastly, NYS's Motion also cites various NRC guidance documents as putative evidence that the Staff has violated NEPA by not requiring implementation of any SAMAs. But as NYS notes in its Motion, NRC guidance documents are advisory and do not impose legal requirements on licensees (or, for that matter, on the Staff).' 7 1 Thus, the Staff s use of the term "warranted" in connection with its discussion of SAMAs in NUREG-1555 does not mean the Staff has (or even believes that it has) the authority to require implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs that-are unrelated to aging management as part of this proceeding. 172 Indeed, as NYS even recognizes in its Motion, other NRC guidance documents state that potentially cost-beneficial plant enhancements unrelated to aging management are subject to the backfit rule and addressed as 170 See NYS Motion at 14.

171 See id: at 4, 10-11 & n.4. Ironically, NYS argues, nonetheless, that certain NRC guidance documents, while not binding on other parties, should be deemed binding on NRC Staff. Id. at 4.

172 NYS's reading of NUREG-1555 is self-serving at best. The dictionary defines "warrant" to mean "[t]o provide adequate grounds; for justify'." AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1546 (4th Ed. 2002). Thus, the fact that a favorable cost-benefit analysis may "justify" implementation of a particular mitigation measure does not mean'that such implementation is mandated or required by law.

current operating issues. 173 NYS's dismissal of these statements as "post hoc rationalizations" lacks a factual basis. The relevant statements (most of which were issued before this proceeding began) are consistent with statements contained in the Part 54 regulatory history and Commission adjudicatory decisions discussed above.

VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should enter summary disposition of NYS-35/36 in favor of Entergy and the Staff and dismiss NYS's Motion as moot. In the alternative, if the Board does not grant the relief requested, then it nonetheless should deny NYS's Motion for the reasons stated above and resolve NYS-35/36 after a hearing on the merits.

113 See, e.g., NRR Office Instruction LIC-202, Proceduresfor ManagingPlant-SpecificBackfits and 50.5469 Information Requests at 1 (Rev. 2, May 17, 2010), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML092010045 [Att.

14] (stating that "if the NRC proposes to address safety issues outside the [aging management] scope of Part 54

... then any actions necessary to address such out-of-scope safety issues are subject to the Backfit Rule");

NUREG-1850, FrequentlyAsked Questions on License Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors at 4-34 (Mar.

2006), available at http://www.nrc.goý/reading-rm/doc-collections/nurregs/staff/srl 850/sri 850_faq-lr.pdf [Att.

15] (stating that plant enhancements that appear to be cost-beneficial but are unrelated to aging management during the period of extended operation "are considered as current operating issues and are further evaluated as changes that might appropriately be made under the current operating license rather than as a license renewal issue"); NUREG- 1800, StandardReview Planfor Review ofLicense Renewal Applicationsfor Nuclear Power Plants, at 4.1-1, 4.7-1 (Rev. 1, Sept. 2005), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML052110007) [Ant. 16]

("Any question regarding the adequacy of the CLB must be addressed under the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) and is separate from the license renewal process.").

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSELUNDER 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)

In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for Entergy certifies that he made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding on January 26, 2011 to explain to them the factual and legal issues raised in this Cross-Motion, and to resolve those issues, and that his efforts have been unsuccessful. Counsel for Entergy further certifies that this Cross-Motion is not interposed for delay or any other improper purpose, that counsel believes in good faith that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact relating to this Cross-Motion, and that Entergy is entitled to a decision as a matter of law, as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.1205 and2.71 0(d).

Respectfully submitted, 0 OP A AlSU 9-10Cs William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 "Hamilton Avenue Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

White Plains, NY.10601, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone: (914) 272-3202 111I Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Fax: (914) 272-3205 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 3rd day of February 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and

) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2and 3)

_____________________________) February 3,2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition," dated February 3, 201 1, including Attachments 1 through 16, were served this 3rdday of February, 2011 upon the persons listed below, by first class mail and e-mail as shown below.

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 190 Cedar Lane E.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ridgway, CO 81432 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: kdl2@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: Igml @nrc.,gov)

Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary*

Richard E. Wardwell Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: hearingdocketgnrc.gov)

Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: rew(?hnrc.gov)

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington,. DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov) Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: Josh.Kirsteingnrc.gov)

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. *Assistant County Attorney David E. Roth, Esq. Office of Robert F. Meehan, Westchester Brian G. Harris, Esq. County Attorney Andrea Z. Jones, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor Office of the General Counsel White Plains, NY 10601 Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 (E-mail: MJR1 @westchestergov.com)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: set@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: bnm1(@nrc.gov)

(E-mail: david.rothgnrc.gov)

(E-mail: brian.harrisgnrc.gov)

(E-mail: andrea.jones@~nrc.gov)

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Thomas F. Wood, Esq.

Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Daniel Riesel, Esq.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Ms. Jessica Steinberg,,J.D.

11 2 Little Market Street Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 460 Park Avenue (E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org) New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: sfillergnylawline.com) (E-mail: drieselgsprlaw.com)

(E-mail: j steinberggsprlaw.com)

Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. John Louis Parker, Esq.

Senior Attorney for Special Projects Regional Attorney Office of the General Counsel Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department of NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Environmental Conservation 21 S. Putt Comers Road 625 Broadway, 14th Floor New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 Albany, NY 12207 (E-mail: jlparkerggw.dec.state.ny.us)

(E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us)

Ross Gould, Member Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. New York City Economic Dev. Corp.

270 Route 308 110 William Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 New York, NY 10038 (E-mail: rgouldesq@gmail.com) (E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com)

Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Daniel E. O'Neill, Mayor Deborah Brancato, Esq. James Siermarco, M.S.

Riverkeeper, Inc. Liaison to Indian Point

• Riverkeeper,Inc. Village of Buchanan 20 Secor Road Municipal Building Ossining, NY 10562 236 Tate Avenue (E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org) Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 (E-mail: dbrancatogriverkeeper.org) (E-mail: vob@bestweb.net)

(E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchananmcom)

Robert D. Snook, Esq. Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Executive Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Social Justice State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street of the State of New York P.O. Box 120 120 Broadway, 25h Floor Hartford, CT 06141-0120 New York, New York 10271 (E-mail: Robert. Snook@po.state.ct.us) (E-mail: Mylan.Denersteingoag.state.ny.us)

John J. Sipos, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Charlie Donaldson Esq. Assistant Attorney General Assistants Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26th Floor The Capitol New York, New York 10271 Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: Janice.Deangoag.state.ny.us)

(E-mail: john.siposgoag.state.ny.us)

Original and 2 copies provided to the Office of the Secretary.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq. -

Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

DB 1/66440414

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

' )

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOi

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )

) February 3, 2010 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION NYS-35/36 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") submits this statement of undisputed material facts in support of its Cross-Motion for Surmmary Disposition of New York State

("NYS") Consolidated Contention 35/36 ("NYS-35/36").'

1. Severe accident mitigation alternatives ("SAMAs"), by definition, pertain to severe accidents; i.e., those accidents whose consequences could be severe, but whose probability of occurrence is so low that they may be excluded from the spectrum of design basis accidents ("DBAs) that have been postulated for a plant. See NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Vol. 1, §§ 5.3.2, 5.3.3,.

5.4 (May 1996) ("GEIS"), available at ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705.

2. Based on the GEIS evaluation of severe accident impacts, 10 C.F.R. Part 51 concludes that the "[t]he probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants." 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-1 (Postulated Accidents; Severe accidents).

3. GEIS analyses represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the impacts from severe accidents that would generally over-predict, rather than under-predict, environmental See Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (Feb. 3, 2011).

consequences. See Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,480 (Juhe 5, 1996), amended by 61 Fed. Reg.

66,537 (Dec. 18, 1996) [Att. 6].

.4. 10 C.F.R. Part 51 states that if the Staff has not previously considered SAMAs for a license renewal applicant's plant in an EIS or in an environmental assessment, then the applicant must complete an evaluation of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents. 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L); see also 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-1.

5. The purpose of a SAMA analysis is to identify potential changes to a nuclear power plant, or its operations, that (1) could further reduce the already very low risk of postulated severe reactor accident scenarios, and (2) are cost-beneficial to implement. It is not a substitute for, and does not represent, the NRC NEPA analysis of potential impacts of severe accidents. See Final Rule: Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,479-480 [Att. 6]; Entergy Nuclear Generation Co.

(Pilgrim.Nuclear Power Station), CLI 11, slip op. at 3, 37-38 (Mar. 26, 2010); See NUREG-1437, Supp. 38, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final Report, Vol. 1 at 5-2 to 5-3, 5-11 (Dec. 2010) ("FSEIS").

6. Entergy submitted its SAMA analysis for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 ("IP2" and "IP3") in April 2007 as part of the Environmental Report ("ER") for the Indian Point Energy Center("IPEC") license renewal application ("LRA").' See ER Sec. 4.21 & Att. E (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/

licensing/renewal/applications/indian-point.html#application.

.7. The NRC Staff documented its initial review of Entergy's SAMA in its December 2008 draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") for the IPEC LRA. See NUREG-1437, Supp. 38, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Draft Report for Comment (Dec. 2008) ("DSEIS").

8. On December 11, 2009, Entergy submitted a Revised SAMA Analysis that include corrected wind direction inputs. See NL-09-165, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Data"

• (Dec. 11, 2009) ("NL-09-165" or "Revised SAMA Analysis"), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML093580089 [Att. 11].

9. The Nuclear Energy Institute ("NEI") has issued a guidance document, NEI 05-01, Revision A, to assist NRC license renewal applicants in preparing SAMA analyses. See NEI 05-01, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document, at i (Rev. A, Nov. 2005), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML060530203 [Att. 7].

10. The Staff has approved and recommended the use of NET 05-01 by license.

renewal applicants. See Final License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance forPreparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analyses (Aug. 2007) ("LR-ISG-2006-03"), available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/license-renewal.html [Att. 8 & Att. 9].

11. Consistent with the NRC-approved guidance NEI 05-01, Entergy developed cost

• estimates for implementing each SAMA candidate to the extent necessary to allow it to make an informed judgment about the economic viability of the proposed improvement. See ER, Att. E at E.2-73 to E.2-4 & E.4-3 to E.4-4. Entergy followed this same cost-estimating process in its Revised SAMA Analysis. Revised SAMA Analysis at 8-9 [Att. 11].

12. The NRC Staff issued the FSEIS in December 2010. Section 5.2 of the FSEIS

.summarized the Staff's final review of Entergy's SAMA evaluation for IP2 and IP3, including its December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis. FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-4 to 5-13. Appendix G of the FSEIS further documented the Staff's technical evaluation of Entergy's SAMA analysis. Id.,

'Vol. 3, App. G. The FSEIS concluded that "[t]he treatment of SAMA benefits and costs support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by. Entergy are reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal." Id., Vol. 1 at 5-11.

13. Section G.5 of the FSEIS described the Staff's review of Entergy's cost estimates for implementing SAMAs. FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at G-34 to G-40. Section.G.5 explained that Entergy estimated the costs of implementing the candidate SAMAs through the application of engineering judgment and the use of other licensees' estimates for similar improvements. Table G-6 of the FSEIS listed, among other items, the SAMA implementation cost estimates. Id at G-36 to G-38. The Staff reviewed the bases for these cost estimates and, for certain improvements, it compared the cost estimates to estimates developed previously for similar improvements

• (including estimates developed as part of other licensees' SAMA for operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors). Id. at G-34 to G-35.

14. Section G.5 also stated that, as part of its Revised SAMA Analysis using corrected meteorological data, Entergy subjected a subset of the candidate SAMAs to more

.rigorous cost-estimating techniques; i.e., those SAMAs that appeared to be cost-beneficial based on the new benefit estimate and the original implementation cost estimate. FSEIS, Vol. 3, App.

G at G-39. At the request of the NRC Staff, Entergy provided additional information concerning the implementation cost estimates for this subset.of the candidate SAMAs by letter dated January 14, 2010. See NL-10-013, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application - Supplement to SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data" (Jan. 14, 2010) ("NL-10-013), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML100260750 [Att. 12].

15. The Staff reviewed this additional cost information to determine the degree to which the revised cost estimates and their constituent costs comport with the nature, magnitude and complexity of each change. FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at G-39. The Staff determined that..

Entergy's revised cost estimates were reasonable, and that they resulted in an appropriate

.determination that the subject candidate SAMAs are not cost-beneficial. Id. at G-39 to G-40.

16. The Staff concluded that Entergy's implementation cost estimates for all SAMA candidates are reasonable, generally consistent with prior estimates by other licensees, and sufficient and appropriate for use. in the SAMA evaluation. FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at G-40.

17. Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS summarized the Staff's conclusions with respect to.

• Entergy's SAMA analyses for IP2 and IP3, including the methods used and the implementation of those methods. FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11 to 5-12. The Staff concluded that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy for iP2 and IP3 "are reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal." FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11.-

18. The Staff also concluded that there is no regulatory basis to impose any of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs as a condition for license renewal of IP2 and IP3. Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS explains the basis for this conclusion as follows:

Moreover, the NRC staff has determined that none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are related to the license renewal requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 (i.e., managing the effects of aging) (SEIS § 5.2.6).

Under the NRC's regulatory system, any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not relate to 10 CFR Part 54 requirements would be considered, to the extent necessary or appropriate, under the agency's oversight of a facility's current operating license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, inasmuch as such matters would pertain not just to the period of extended operation but to operations under the current operating license term as well. Thus, there is no regulatory basis to suggest that potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that are unrelated to Part 54 requirements must be imposed as a backfit to the CLB, as a condition for license renewal.

FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11.

19. Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS further explained that no significant new information has been identified that would remove IP2 and IP3 from the generic determinations made in the GEIS and. 10 C.F.R. Part 51 that severe accidents are the probability of occurrence of severe accidents is so low that they may be excluded from the spectrum of DBAs that have been postulated for a plant (GEIS §§ 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.4), and that the probability-weighted radiological consequences of severe.accidents are small for all plants. FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11 to 5-12.

20. NYS-35/36 does not challenge any of Entergy's current SAMA implementation cost estimates (whether for cost-beneficial or non-cost-beneficial SAMAs) by alleging that they are inaccurate (e~g., too large) or based on unacceptable methods or assumptions.

21. NYS-35/36 does not allege that any new or additional SAMAs should have been.

identified beyond those already identified in the Revised SAMA Analysis and the FSEIS.

22. As noted in Section 5.2.6 of the FSEIS, in LBP-10-13, the Board stated that "the NRC Staff does not have to require implementation [of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs], and an intervenor such as New York cannot demand implementation from the .NRC Staff as part of a license renewal proceeding." See Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), LBP-10-13, slip op. at 29 (June 30, 2010).

Respectfully submitted, William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone: (914) 272-3202 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Fax: (914) 272-3205 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 3rd day of February 2011 DB1/66506255.1

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286 LR

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 )

.) February 3, 2011 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO NEW YORK STATE's STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE A. Preliminary Statement Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.1205(b) and 2,710(b), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

("Entergy" or "Applicant") respectfully submits this response to the State of New York's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute that it filed in support of its January 14, 2011 Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36. 1 Entergy sets forth its statement-by-statement response to New York State's ("NYS") assertions in correspondingly-numbered paragraphs.

As reflected below, Entergy disputes numerous statements presented by NYS as undisputed statements of material fact. Nonetheless, Entergy respectfully submits that there is no triable issue of fact and that summary disposition of NYS-35/36 should be granted in its favor 2

for the reasons set forth in Entergy's accompanying Consolidated Opposition and Cross-Motion.

Like the NYS Motion, NYS's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute is based on (1)

. See The State of New York's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 (Jan. 13, 2011) ("NYS Motion").

2 See Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (Feb. 3, 2011) ("Consolidated Opposition and Cross-Motion").

misrepresentations and/or misinterpretations of the facts of record and the governing law, and (2) facts that are not relevant or material to the resolution of NYS-35/36, as admitted by the Board.

B. Enterizv's Specific Responses to NYS's Purported Undisputed Material Facts

1. *The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Stations Unit 2 and Unit 3 ("FSEIS,) identifies 13 potentially cost beneficial severe accident mitigation alternatives ("SAMAs") for Indian Point Unit 2 ("IP2") and 9 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for Indian Point Unit 3 ("1P3"). FSEIS at 5-9 to 5-10. These totals include the two unnumbered SAMAs involving a safety valve gagging device for steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) events. FSEIS at 5-10, G-48 (each for IP2 and IP3).

Response: Undisputed as a description of the contents of the referenced portions of the FSEIS.

2. The FSEIS notes that the cost-benefitanalyses have not been completed for these 22 SAMAs and that further analysis is required. FSEIS at 5-11.

Response: Disputed. NYS incorrectly describes the contents of the FSEIS. The FSEIS does not state that Entergy'.s cost-benefit analyses are incomplete or that "further analysis" is "required." Rather, page 5-11 of the FSEIS states, in relevant part:

The NRC staff reviewed Entergy's analysis, as revised, and concludes that the methods used, and the implementation of those methods, were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal ....

Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, as revised, the staff concurs with Entergy's identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all *or a subset of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the staff considers that further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is appropriate. 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 IP2 and IP3 license renewal pursuant to 10. CFR Part 54.

Under the NRC's regulatory system, any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not relate to 10 CFR Part 54 requirements would be considered, to the extent necessary or appropriate, under the agency's oversight of a facility's current operating license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, inasmuch as such matters would pertain not just to the period of extended operation but to operations under the current operating license term as well. Thus, there is no regulatory basis to suggest that' potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that are unrelated to Part 54 requirements must be imposed as a backfit to the CLB, as a condition for license renewal.

FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11. As the quoted FSEIS passage indicates, neither the. NRC Staff nor Entergy has stated that Entergy's SAMA analyses, including its present cost estimates, are incomplete for purposes ofthe submission required by NEPA or 10 C.F.R. Part 51.

3. in the original NYS Contention 35, New York State identified 9 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for which final cost analyses had not been completed. These 9 SAMAS are:

IP2 009 Create a reactor cavity flooding system; IP2 021. Install additional pressure or leak monitoring instrumentation for interfacing system loss of coolant accidents (ISLOCAs);

IP2 022 Add redundant and diverse limit switches to each containment isolation valve;.

IP2 062 Provide alternateasafe hard-wired connection to a safety injection shutdown system (ASSS) power supply;(SI) pump from the IP2 053 Keep both pressurizer PORV block valves open; IP3 007 Create a reactor cavity flooding system; IP3 018 Route the discharge from the main steam safety valves through a structure where awater spray would condense the steam and remove most of the fission products (cost beneficial in TI-SGTR sensitivity in Section [8]);

IP3 019 Install additional pressure or leak monitoring instrumentation for ISLOCAs;

IP3 053 Install an excess flow valve to reduce the risk associated with hydrogen explosions.

Entergy December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis, December 11, 2009 Letter from Fred Dacimo to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Subject:

License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data, NL-09-165, Attachment 1, at 10-28 (Tables 4 & 5), ML093580089 ("December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis")

Response: Disputed to the extent that Paragraph 3 states that Entergy has not completed "final cost analyses" for any of the SAMAs identified in its Environmental Report and the NRC Staff s FSEIS, including the nine SAMAs identified in Paragraph 3. See Response to Paragraph 2 above. Undisputed to the extent that the nine potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs listed in Paragraph 3 are the. nine potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in NYS-35.

4. With regard to the 9 SAMAs identified in ¶ 3, supra, Entergy indicated that "the above potentially cost beneficial SAMAs have been submitted for engineering projectcost-benefit analysis." December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis, Attachment 1, at 31-32.

Response: Undisputed to the .extent that Paragraph 4 quotes a statement contained on page 32 of Entergy's December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis. See NL-09-165, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using, Alternate Meteorological Data" at 31-32 (Dec. 11, 2009) ("NL-09-165), available at ADAMS Accession No. ML093580089 ("Revised SAMA Analysis") [Att. 11]. Disputed insofar as the quoted statement ("the above potentially cost beneficial SAMAs have been submitted for engineering project cost-benefit analysis") actually applies to all SAMAs identified as potentially cost-beneficial in Entergy's December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis, not just to the nine SAMAs identified by NYS in Paragraph 3 above.

5. Entergy has not submitted a completed cost-benefit analysis for any of these 9 SAMAs to the NRC Staff.

Response: Disputed. See Responses to Paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

6. The FSEIS accepts the incomplete cost-benefit analyses as "sound" and concludes that the "evaluations'performed by Entergy are reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal." FSEIS at 5-11.

Response: Disputed to the extent that Paragraph 6 states or implies that the cost-benefit analyses contained in Entergy's SAMA analyses for IP2 and IP3 are "incomplete." See Response to Paragraph 2 above. Undisputed to the extent that Paragraph 6 partially quotes text from the FSEIS, the relevant portion of which states in full:

The NRC staff reviewed Entergy's analysis, as revised, and concludes that the methods used, and the implementation of those methods, were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal.

FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11.

7. In the original NYS Contention 36, New York State identified 9 additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs where the benefits were substantially greater than the cost and contended that either the SAMA should be required to be implemented or a rational basis should be given for why it should not be implemented. The following table accurately summarizes the findings in the December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis regarding these 9 substantially cost-effective SAMAs for IP2 and IP3:

Original Original Baseline New Baseline Baseline New Baseline Benefit with Ienefit with SAMA Numter andDescription Benefit Blenefit Uncertainty' Uncertainly Old Cost New Cost T2 $420,459 $1,357,046 $885,176 $2,856,939 $494,000 $938,000 SAMA 028:

Provide a portable dieel-drivcn battery charger.

WP2 $984.503 S2,350.530 12,072,638 $4,948.485 $1,656,00)0 $16,0M0 SAteIA 044:

llse.r.re water system as backup for steam generator inventory.

IP2 $1,722,733 S5,591,781 $3,626,807 $11,772,170 S200,000 1200,000 SAMA 054:

Install flood alarm in the 480VAC switchgear room.

1P2 $387,821 $1.27.5,337 $816.,181 $2684,920 $216,000 S216,000 SAMA 060:

Proyide added protection against flood propagation from stairwell 4 into the 480VAC switehgear room.

tP2 S853,187 $2,734,991 $1,796,183 $5,799,982 $192,000 $1982000 SAMA 06 1:

Provide added protection against flood propagation from the deluge room into the 480V switchgear room, 1I>2 $1.722,733 S.59t.781 $3,626,807 $11,772,170 $560,000 $560,000 SAMA 065:

Upgrade the ASSS to allow timely restoration of seal injection and cooling-IP3 $1,274,*84 $4,073,152 $1,847,657 $5,903,118 $1.288,000 $1,288,000 SAMA 055:

Provide hardwired connection wtoneSt or RHR pump Irm the Appendix R bus (MCC 312A)-

IP3 $1,365,046 54,359,371 $1,978,321 $6,317,929 $560,000 1560,000 SAMA 061 Upgrade the A3S3 to allow timely restoration of seal injection and cooling.

193 S 1,365,N46 S4,359,371 $1,978,328 $6,317,929 $196,800 1196,80K SAMA 062:

Install flood alarm in the 480VAC switchgear room.

Response: Disputed because "substantially greater than" and "substantially cost-effective" are undefined and ambiguous. Disputed to the extent that Tables 4 and 5 of Entergy's December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis dd not contain entries for "Original Baseline Benefit,"

"Original Baseline Benefit with Uncertainty," and "Old Cost." Undisputed to the extent that the numerical values reported in the third, fifth,- and seventh columns of the Table above ("New Baseline Benefit," "New Baseline Benefit with Uncertainty," and "New Cost," respectively) coincide with the values listed in Tables 4 and 5 of the Revised SAMA Analysis (in the columns titled *"Benefit," "Benefit with Uncertainty," and "Estimated Cost," respectively).

8. The Staff has not made a decision on the merits on whether any of the cost-effective SAMAs identified in ¶ 7, supra, should be added as license conditions for IP2 or IP3 and Entergy has not committed to adopting any of these SAMAs.

Response: Disputed. The FSEIS explicitly states: "[N]one 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 1P2 and IP3 license renewalpursuantto 10 CFR Part54." FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11 (emphasis added). The FSEIS further explains that the NRC lacks regulatory authority to impose any of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs as a condition for license reneWal of IP2 and IP3. See id. at 5-11 to 5-12.

Also disputed to the extent that Paragraph 8 suggests that Entergy has a,legal obligation to "commit to adopt" any SAMA as part of the license renewal process.

9. The FSEIS does not includeany additional cost-benefit analyses beyond those provided by Entergy in its December 2009 SAMA Reanalysis and early submittals.

Response: Disputed to the extent that, at the request of the NRC Staff, Entergy provided additional information concerning the implementation cost estimates forcertain SAMAs by letter dated January 14, 2010. See NL-10-013, Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC, "License Renewal Application - Supplement to SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data" (Jan. 14, 2010) ("NL-10-013), available at ADAMS Accession No.

ML100260750 [Att. 12]. This information is discussed on pages G-39 to G-40 of Appendix G to the FSEIS (Vol. 3). Also disputed to the extent Paragraph 9 implies that Entergy's SAMA analyses for IP2 and IP3 or the FSEIS contain incomplete cost-benefit analyses. See Entergy's Responses to Paragraph 2 and 3 above.

10. The FSEIS concludes that completed cost-benefit analyses for the 18 above-identified potentially cost-effective SAMAs and a decision on the merits as to whether any of these potentially cost-effective SAMAs should be included as license conditions for the proposed extended operating licenses for IP2 or IP3 need not be made prior to the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board reaching a decision on the proposed license renewal applications for IP2 and IP3. FEIS at 5-11 to 5-12.

Response: Disputed for the same reasons set forth in Entergy's Responses to Paragraph 2 and 8 above. In short, the FSEIS does not state that Entergy's cost-benefit analyses, including its associated SAMA implementation cost estimates for the 18 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in NYS-35/36, are incomplete. In addition, the FSEIS explicitly states that, because none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation, "they need not be implemented as part of IP2 and IP3 license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54." FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-11

11. The entire basis for NRC Staff s decision to not require completion of the cost analyses for all potentially cost-effective SAMAs and to not require implementation of any of the potentially cost-effective SAMAs is contained in the FSEIS ¶ 5.2.6. FSEIS at pp. 5-11 to 5-12.

Response: Disputed because the phrase "entire basis" is ambiguous. Also disputed because the basis for the Staff s conclusion in the FSEIS is supported by and consistent with long-standing judicial and/or Commission interpretations of NEPA and the NRC's license renewal regulations (i.e., 10 C.F.R. Parts 54 and 51 and their associated regulatory histories).

Also disputed to the extent that Paragraph 11 suggests that Entergy's "cost analyses for all potentially cost-effective SAMAs" are not complete for purposes of the submission required by NEPA or 10 C.F.R. Part 51. See Entergy's Responses to Paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

12. The Indian Point reactors were never subjected to a SAMA analysis as part of the NEPA review during the proceedings for their initial operating licenses during the 1970s. FSEIS at 5-4, § 5.2.

Response: Undisputed insofar as the cited page of the FSEIS states that "SAMAs have not been previously considered for IP2 and IP3." FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-4.

13. According to NRC Staff and Entergy, as of 2000 approximately 16,971,000, people live within 50 miles of IP2 and IP3. FSEIS at 2-124.

Response: Undisputed to the extent that the FSEIS states: "Approximately 16,791,654 people live within 50 mi (80 km) of IP2 and IP3." FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 2-124.

Disputed as the relevance or materiality of Paragraph 13 to the resolution of NYS-35/36, as admitted bythe Board.

14. According to NRC Staff and Entergy, as of 2000 approximately 1,113,000 people live within 20 miles of IP2 and IP3. FSEIS at 2-124.

Response: Undisputed to the extent that the FSEIS states: "According to the 2000 census, approximately 1,1 13,089 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) of IP2 and IP3...." FSEIS, Vol. 1 at 2-124. Disputed as the relevance or materiality of Paragraph 14 to the resolution of NYS-35/36, as admitted by the Board.

15. According to NRC Staff, IP2 and IP3 each are located in a high-population area.

FSEIS at 2-124.

Response: Undisputed to the extent that the FSEIS states that the population density within 20 mi (32 km) of IP2 and IP3 is 886 persons per sq mi (332 persons per 6 sq km), andthat

"[t]his density translates to the least sparse Category 4 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile Within 20 mi)." FSEIS, VoL 1 at 2-124. Disputed as the relevance or materiality of Paragraph 15 to the resolution of NYS-35/36, as admitted by the Board.

16. Entergy and NRC Staff project that by 2035 approximately 19,228,000 people will be within 50 miles of IP2 and IP3. FSEIS at G-20.

Response: Undisputed to the extent that the FSEIS states that Entergy used a 2035 projected population value.of 19,228,712 in its SAMA analysis. FSEIS, Vol. 3,_App. G at G-25, G-28, Disputed as the relevance or materiality of Paragraph 16 to the resolution of NYS-35/36, as admitted by the Board.

17. 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. NYS Contention 35, ¶¶ 10, 12; NYS Contention 36, ¶ 19; 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).

Response: Disputed as the relevance or materiality of Paragraph 17 to the resolution of admitted contention NYS-35/36. With respect to the contents of the cited documents, the documents speak for themselves.

Respectfully submitted, William C. Dennis, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

440 Hamilton Avenue Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10601 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Phone: (914) 272-3202 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Fax: (914) 272-3205 Washington, D.C. 20004 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 3rd day of February 2011

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 3

NUREG-1437 Vol. 1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report Final Report Manuscript Completed: April 1996 Date Published: May 1996 Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS site-specific consideration of severe 5.5.1 Impacts from Design-Basis Accidents accident mitigation for license renewal will only identify procedural and programmatic The envi ronmental impacts of postulated improvements (and perhaps minor accidents were evaluated for the license hardware changes) as being cost-beneficial renewal period in GEIS Chapter 5. All in reducing severe accident risk or plants have had a previous evaluation of consequence. Therefore, a site-specific the environmental impacts of design-basis consideration of alternatives to mitigate accidents. In addition, the licensee will be severe accidents shall be performed for required to maintain acceptable design and license renewal unless. such a consideration performance criteria throughout the has, already been included in a previous renewal period. Therefore, the calculated EIS or related supplement. Staff releases from design-basis accidents would evaluations of alternatives to mitigate not be expected to change. Since the severe accidents have already been consequences of these events are evaluated completed and included in an EIS or for the hypothetical maximally exposed.

supplement for Limerick, Comanche 'Peak, individual at the time of licensing, changes and Watts Bar; therefore, severe accident in the plant environment will not affect mitigation need not be reassessed for these these evaluations. Therefore, the staff plants for license renewal. concludes that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all plants. Because the 5.5

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS environmental impacts of design basis accidents are of small significance and The foregoing discussions have dealt with because additional measures to reduce, such

.the environmental impacts of accidents impacts, would be costly, the staff concludes during operation after license renewal. The that no mitigation measures beyond those primary assumption for this evaluation is implemented during the current term that the frequency (or likelihood of license would be warranted. This is a occurrence) of an accident at a given plant Category 1 issue.

would not increase during the plant lifetime (inclusive of the license renewal 5.5..2 Impacts from Severe Accidents period) because regulatory controls ensure the plant's licensing basis is maintained and 5.5.2-1 Atmospheric Releases improved, where warranted. However, it was recognized that the changing The evaluation of health and dose effects environment around the plant is not caused by atmospheric releases used a subject to regulatory controls and prediction process to identify those plant introduces the potential for changing risk. sites that are bounded by existing analyses.

Estimation of future 9evere accident Existing analyses represent only a subset of consequences and risk was based upon operating plants. A particular portion of existing risk and consequence analyses this subset, specifically those plants having found in FES for recently licensed plants severe accident analyses in their respective because these include severe accident FESs, was used in this evaluation. El analyses and constitute a representative set (which is a function of population and of plants and sites for the United States. wind direction), in conjunction with the FES severe accident analyses, was then used to develop a means to predict 5-114 Vol. 1 NUREG-1437, Vol. 1 NUREG-1437, 5-114

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS consequences for all plants. Average values six general categories as called out in the and 95 percent UCB values were NRC LPGS (NUREG-0440) and then estimated. Table 5.6 provides the results of estimating if the risk consequences this prediction process. calculated in existing analyses (including the LPGS) bounds the risks for all other Results indicate that the predicted effects plants within each category.

of a severe accident during MYR at the 74 sites of nuclear power plants in the Of the six categories, three are judged to United States are not expected to exceed a be bound by existing analyses. These small fraction of that risk to which. the categories are Great Lake sites, estuaries, population is already exposed. In addition, and dry sites.

the dose to individuals was also predicted.

Results indicate that the highest average For the other categories, estimates were individual, dose would be 3 x 10-4 rem/RY. made of the degree to which groundwater This dose compares to an average of 3 x releases could exceed existing analyses. For 10'1 rem/person/year for all other causes, all six categories, the staff concluded that including radon. Therefore, the probability- the risk to the population was either a weighted consequences from atmospheric small fraction of that for atmospheric releases associated with severe accidents is releases or, in a few cases,. comparable to judged to be of small significance for all that from atmospheric releases. Therefore, plants. the probability-weighted consequences from groundwater releases due to severe 5.5.2.2 Fallout onto Open Bodies of accidents is judged to be of small Water significance for all plants.

The results of comparative analyses for the 5.5.2.4 Societal and Economic Risks drinking-water pathway concluded .that Great Lakes sites have the same order-of- The expected costs resulting from a severe magnitude risk that was calculated in the accident at nuclear power plants during Fermi 2 FES, which is only a small fraction their renewal periods have been predicted of the risk from atmospheric pathway from evaluations presented in 27 FESs.

releases. River sites with potentially greater Estimates of the extent of land risk than in the Fermi FES are amenable contamination have also been presented. In to interdiction, which can significantly both cases, the conditional impacts are reduce risk. In the case of the aquatic food judged to be of small significance for all pathway, interdicted jopulation exposures plants.

are less than or essentially the same as atmospheric pathway releases. For both the 5.5.2.5 SAMDAs drinking water and aquatic food pathways, the probability-weighted consequences The staff concluded that the generic from fallout due to severe accidents is of analysis summarized above applies to all small significance. plants and that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, 5.5.2.3 Releases from Groundwater fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic The comparative analyses for this pathway impacts of severe accidents are of small were done by first segregating all sites into significance for all plants. However, not all 5-15N-EG147,Vol 5-115 NUREG-1437, Vol. I

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS plants have performed a site-specific Nos. 50-247-SP and 50-286-SP),

analysis of measures that could mitigate Sections III.C.A and III.C.B, n.d.

severe accidents. Consequently, severe BEIR-I, The Effects on Populations of accidents .are a Category 2 issue for plants Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing that have not performed a site-specific Radiations, National Research consideration of severe accident mitigation Council, Advisory Committee on the and submitted that analysis for Commission Biological Effects of Ionizing review. Radiation, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1972.

BEIR-III, The Effects on Populations of 5.6 ENDNOTES Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980, National Research

1. While a dose as low as 10 rem may Council, Advisory Committee on the cause such observable physiological Biological Effects of Ionizing changes as chromosomal aberrations, Radiation, National Academy of these changes are not classified as, Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1980.

clinical injury. BEIR-V, Health Effects of Exposure to Low

2. Also referred to as the Rogovin Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National report. *Research Council, Advisory

3. Grand Gulf, Sequoyah, Surry, Peach. Committee on the Biological Effects Bottom, and Zion. of Ionizing Radiation, National

4. The FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point Academy of Sciences, Washington, units are located closely enough to D.C., 1990.

assume that they are located on the Bertini, H. W., Descriptions of Selected same site. A similar observation can be Accidents That Have Occurred at made for the Hope Creek and Salem Nuclear Reactor Facilities, units. ORNL/NSIC-176, Oak Ridge National

5. Because the hypothetical sites were to Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, be modeled as either PWRs or BWRs, April 1980.

those using population data of actual Codell, R. B., "Potential Contamination of PWR sites utilized updated Surface Water Supplies by WASH-1400 source terms taken from Atmospheric Releases from Nuclear the Byron FES (NUREG-0848), while Plants," Health Physics 49(5), 713-30, those using population data for BWRs November 1985.

utilized updated WASH-1400 source ConEd (Consolidated Edison Company),

terms taken from the Clinton FES Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Unit (NUREG-0854). 2 Final Safety Analysis Report, June 1982.

Crick, M. J., and G. S. Linsley, An

5.7 REFERENCES

Assessment of the RadiologicalImpact of the Windscale Reactor Fire, National Acharya, S., and R. M. Blond, Transcript .Radiological Protection Board, of Testimony Before the Atomic Chilton, United Kingdom, 1983.

Safety and Licensing Board in the DOE/ER-0332, M. Goldman et al., Health

• Matterof Consolidated Edison of New and Environmental Consequences of York (Indian Point, Unit 2) and the Chernobyl Nuclear PowerAccident, Power Authority of the State of New. U.S. Department of Energy, York (Indian Point, Unit 3) (Docket Washington, D.C., 1987.

5-116 Vol. 1 NUREG.1437, Vol. 1 NUREG-14-37, 5-116

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 4

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations .22461 require the approval of OMB under 44 dues, and are not deducted from the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. producer's gross proceeds to determine I. Background.

net proceeds for payment purposes and II. Final Action.

Comments are deducted from gross proceeds to Ill. Principal Issues.

A general description of the statutory determine net proceeds. a. Continued validity of certain findings in basis for this final rule was set forth in ft f * *

• previous rulemaking.

the interim rule published on b. Reaffirmation of the regulatory

3. Section 1468.18 is amended by September 16, 1994, (59 FR 4753.0). The philosophy and approach and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: clarification of the two principles of interim rule provided 60 days for comments. No comments were received license renewal.

§ 1468.18 Maintenance and Inspection of c. Systems, structures, and Components during the interim rule comment period records.

within the scope of license renewal.

of September 16 through November 15, d. The regulatory process andaging 1994. This final rule provides that in (d) At all times during regular management.

determining net proceeds for shorn business hours, authorized e. Reaffirmation of conclusions concerning wool or mohair, effective for 1993 and representatives of CCC or USDA shall the current licensing basis and subsequent marketing years, marketing have access to the premises of the maintaining the function of systems, charges for commissions, coring, or structures, and components.

applicant, of the marketing agency, and f. Integrated plant assessment.

grading shall not be deducted. This rule of the person who furnished evidence to g. Time-limited aging analyses and provides atithorized representatives of an applicant for use in connection with exemptions.

USDA and CCC access to the premises the application, in order to inspect,. h. Standards for issuance of a renewed of buyers and sellers of wool and examine, and make copies of the books, licefise and the scope of hearings.

mohair in order to inspect their records records, and accounts, and other written i. Regulatory and administrative controls.

for authenticity: data as specified in paragraphs (a), (b), IV. General Comments and Responses.

This provision had been accidentally V. Public Responses to Specific Questions.

and (c) of this section. VI. Availability of Documents.

omitted when the wool regulations and Signed at Washington, DC, on May 1, 1995. VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental mohair regulations were combined in Impact: Availability.

Bruce R. Weber, 1991. This final rule also clarifies the VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

definition of nonmarketing charges to Acting Executive Vice President,Commodity IX. Regulatory Analysis.

make it consistent with the calculation Credit Corporation, X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.

of net proceeds and net proceeds for IFR Doc. 95-11180 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 aml XI, Non-Applicability of the Backfit Rule.

payment purposes. BILLINGCODE 3410-05--M I. Background Section 1468.18(d) was inadvertently omitted from the interim rule. This The previous license renewal rule (10 provision was accidently omitted when CFR Part 54) was adopted by the the mohair regulations and the wool NUCLEAR REGULATORY Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations were combined in 1991 (56 COMMISSION on December 13, 1991 (56 FR 64943).

FR 40233, August 14, 1991). This final This rule established the procedures, rule, in part, merely reinstates the 10 CFR Parts 2,51, and 54 criteria,-and standards governing the omitted provision. renewal of nuclear power plant RIN 3150-AF05 operating licenses.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1466 Since publishing the previous license Grant program-agriculture, Livestock, Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; renewal rule, the NRC staff has Mohair, Reporting and recordkeeping, Revisions conducted various activities related to Wool. implementing this rule. These activities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Accordingly, the interim rule included: developing a draft regulatory Commission.

amending 7 CFR part 1468 published on guide, developing a draft standard ACTION: Final rule. review plan for license renewal, September 16, 1994, (59 FR 47530) is adopted as final with the following interacting with lead plant licensees,

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory changes: and reviewing generic industry Commission (NRC) has amended its technical reports sponsored by the regulations to revise the requirements PART 1468-WOOL AND MOHAIR Nuclear Management and Resources that an applicant must meet for Council (now part of the Nuclear Energy

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR obtaining the renewal of a nuclear Institute (NEI)).

part 1468 continues to read as follows: power plant operating license. The rule In November 1992, the law firm of Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1781-1787; 15 U.S.C. also clarifies the required information Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge 714b and 714c. that must be submitted for review so submitted a paper to the NRC that that the agency can determine whether presented the perspective of Northern

2. In § 1468.3 the definition of those requirements have been met and "Nonmarketing charges" is revised to States Power Company on the license changes the administrative requirements renewal process. The paper included read as follows: that a holder of a renewed license must specific recommendations for making

§ 1468.3 Definitions. meet. These amendments are intended the license renewal process more to provide a more stable and predictable workable. In addition, industry regulatory process for license renewal.

Nonmarketing charges means charges representatives provided the paid by or for the account of the EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1995. Commission with views on several key producer that are not directly related to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: license renewal implementation issues.

improving the marketability of the shorn Thomas G. Hiltz, Office of Nuclear In late 1992, the NRC staff conducted a wool or mohair, such as, but not limited Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear senior management review and to, storage bags, advances, interest on Regulatory Commission, Washington, discussed key license renewal issues advances, shearing, and association DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-1105. with the Commission, industry groups, HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22461 1995

22462 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8. 1995 / Rules and Regulations and individual licensees. The NRC staff of aging on certain systems. structures, Commission received 42 separate presented its recommendations and components during the period of responses concerning the proposed regarding several of these key license extended operation. An objective for the rulemaking for license renewal. In early renewal issues in two Commission amendment is to establish a more stable. April 1995. after reviewing SECY policy papers: SECY-93-049. and.predictable license renewal process. 067, "Final Amendment to the Nuclear

""Implementation of 10 CFR Part 54, The amendment will identify certain Power Plant License Renewal Rule (10

'Requirements for Renewal of Operating systems, structures, and components' CFR Part 54)," the Nuclear Energy Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,' that require review in order to provide Institute and Yankee Atomic Electric and SECY-93-113. "Additional the necessary assurance that they will Company provided additional Implementation Information for 10 CFR continue to perform their intended comments. All comments received have Part 54, 'Requirements for Renewal of function for the period of extended been considered in developing this final Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power operation. rule.

Plants."' On May 23, 1994, the NRC staff In its staff requirements memorandum .provided the Commission with its Comments on the proposed rule came (SRM) of June 28, 1993, the Commission proposed amendment to the license from a variety of sources. These stated that it is essential to have a renewal rule in SECY-94-140,. included: a private citizen, 3 public predictable and stable regulatory "Proposed Amendment to the Nuclear interest groups (Sierra Club-Atlantic.

process Clearly and unequivocally Power Plant License Renewal Rule (10 Chapter. Public Citizen, and the Ohio defining the Commission's expectations CFR Part 54)." In the SRM of June 24, Citizens for Responsible Energy Inc.). I for license renewal. This process would 1994, the Commission approved the Federal organization (Department of permit licensees to make decisions pdblication of the proposed rule Energy (DOE)), 4 State organizations about license renewal without being amendment for a 90-day public (Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety influenced by a regulatory process that comment period. In the SRM, the (Illinois), Connecticut Department of is perceived to be uncertain, unstable, or Commission directed the staff to (1) Public Utility Control (Connecticut),

not clearly defined. The Commission ensure consistency in the use of thb New Jersey Department of directed the NRC staff to convene a terms "structures, systems, and Environmental Protection (New Jersey).

public workshop to evaluate alternative components" and "structures and and Nevada Agency for Nuclear approaches for license renewal that best components," (2) solicit comments on Projects, Nuclear Waste Project Office take advantage of existing licensee the ability of existing programs to detect (Nevada)), 2 industry organizations (NEI activities and programs as a basis for failures in redundant structures and and Nuclear Utility Group on concluding that aging will be addressed components before there is a loss of Equipment Qualification (NUGEQ)), 2 in an acceptable manner during the intended system or structure function, vendor owners groups (Babcock and period of extended operation. In (3) address the need for § 54.4(a)(3) in Wilcox (B & W) Owners Group and particular, the Commission directed the the statements of consideration for the Westinghouse Owners Group), 2 NRC staff to examine the extent to proposed rule, and (4) review the vendors/consultants (B & W Nuclear which greater-reliance can be placed on necessity of retaining § 54.4(a)(4) and Technologies and Westinghouse Electric the maintenance rule (10 CFR 50.65, include the rationale for its conclusions "Requirements for Monitoring the Corporation), and 27 separate nuclear in the proposed rule. power plant licensees. All 27 licensees Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear. On September 9, 1994, Power Plants") as a basis for concluding the'proposed revisions (59 FR 46574) endorsed the comments provided by that the effects of aging will be to the license NEI, and some utilities also provided effectively managed during the license renewal rule were published in the additional comments.

Federal Register for a 90-day public renewal term. comment period. The public comment The Commission specifically solicited On September 30, 1993, the NRC staff period ended responses to five questions in the conducted a public workshop in on December 9, 1994. The proposed rule. The questions and the Bethesda, Maryland, that was attended responses to them can be found In I Throughout the Statement Considerations, the by over 180 people. Attendees included phrases. "systems. structures, of and compon.ents" Section V of the Supplementary nuclear utilities, industry organizations, and "structures and components" are used&As a Information also known as the public interest groups, architect and matter of clarification. the Commission intends that Statement of Considerations (SOC).

engineering firms, consultants and the phrase. "systems. structures, and components" applies to the matters involving the discussions of *Many of the letters contained similar contractors, and Federal and State the overall renewal review, the specific license governments. In December 1993, the comments, which were grouped renewal scope (§ 54.4), time-limited aging analyses NRC staff forwarded SECY-93-331, (§54.21(c)). and the license renewal finding together and are addressed on an issue "License Rendwal Workshop Results (§ 54.29). The phrase. "structures and components" basis. The NRC has responded to all of and Staff Proposals for Revision to 10 applies to matters involving the Integrated plant the significant points raised by the assessment (IPA) required by § 54.21(a) because the CFR Part 54. 'Requirements for Renewal aging management review required within the IPA commenters. Those comments that are of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power should be a component and structure level review applicable to a specific issue discussed Plants,"' to the Commission. The NRC rather than a more general system level review. The in a specific section of the staff recommended that the Commission phrase systems, structures, and components applies to the evaluation of time-limited aging analyses Supplementary Information portion of amend 10 CFR Part 54. *required by § 54.21(c) because such plant-spe'cific this document are discussed within that In its SRM of February 3, 1994, the analyses may have been carried out, for the initial section. Comments received that are not Commission agreed with the NRC staff's

• operating term, for either systems, structures, or responsive to a particular issue are conceptual approach (explained in components. Reevaluation for the renewal term is addressed in Section IV. Public intended to focus on the same systems, structures.

SECY-93-331) for performing license or components subject to the initial term time- comments received on the proposed renewal reviews and directed the staff to limited aging analyses. The finding required by rule are available for inspection and proceed with rulemaking to'amend 10 § 54.29 considers both the results of the integrated copying for a fee at the Commission's CFR Part 54. The Commission believes plant assessment and the time-limited aging Public Document Room located at 2120 analyses and. therefore, the phrase system, that the license renewal process should structures, and components is applicable to this L Street NW.(Lower Level).

focus on the management of the effects section. Washington, DC HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22462 1995

Federal Regiter / Vol. 60. No. 88 1 Monday, May 8. 1995 1 Rules and Regulations 22463 I1. Final Action safety analysis report (FSAR) the proposed rule, "[u]nless otherwise The final rule revises certain supplement have been added. The clarified or reevaluated, either directly requirements contained in 10 CFR Part requirement in § 54.21(c) of the previous or indirectly, in the discussion for this 54 and establishes a regulatory process rule to review any relief from codes and proposed rule, the conclusions in the that Is simpler, more stable, and more standards has been deleted, and the SOC for the current license renewal rule predictable than the previous license requirement in § 54.21(c) of the previous remain valid * *" September 9, 1994 renewal rule. The final rule continues to rule to review exemptions from (59 FR 46576). Some of the subjects ensure that continued operation beyond regulatory requirements has been resolved in the previous Part 54 the term of the original operating license clarified and linked with the time- rulemaking that remain unaffected by will not be inimical to the public health limited aging analyses. this final rule Include the concept of the and safety. The more significant changes (5) In S 54.22, the requirement to CLB, the nature of the current regulatory made to the previous license renewal include detailed justification for certain process, the regulatory process for rule are as follows: technical specification changes in the assuring compliance with the CLB. form (I1 The intent of the license renewal FSAR supplement has been modified to of the renewed license, the term of the review has been clarified to focus on the require that the detailed justification be renewed license, antitrust adverse effects of aging rather than included in the license renewal considerations, and the applicability of identification of all aging mechanisms. application. the provisions of the Price-Anderson The final rule is intended to ensure that 16) In § 54.29, the standards for Act.

important systems, structures, and issuance of a renewed license have been Furthermore, regardless of whether components will continue to perform changed to reflect the revised focus on this final rule constitutes a recision of their intended function in the period of the detrimental effects of aging the previous rule, the Commission extended operation. Identification of concerning structures and components agrees with the commenter that the individual aging mechanisms is not requiring an aging management review Administrative Procedure Act (APA) required as part of the license renewal for license renewal and any time-limited requires the Commission to provide a issues (including exemptions) "reasoned analysis" for the changes to review. The definitions of age-related degradation, age-related degradation applicable for the renewal term. A new Part 54 that are being adopted in this unique to license renewal, aging § 54.30 has been added to distinguish final rule. The Commission takes issue mechanisms, renewal term, and between those issues identified during with the commenter with regard to effective program have been deleted. the license renewal process that require whether the SOC for the proposed and (2) The definitions of integrated plant resolution during the license renewal for the final rule adequately explain the assessment (IPA) (§ 54.3) and the IPA process and those issues that require bases for the changes. The Commission process (§ 54.21(a)) have been clarified resolution during the current license believes that this SOC provides a to be consistent with the revised focus term. detailed discussion setting forth the in item (I) on the detrimental effects of (7) In § 54.33, requirements for perceived problems with the previous aging. continuation of the current licensing license renewal rule as well as a (3) A new § 54.4 has been added to basis (CLB) and conditions of renewed discussion of the bases for this final replace the definition of systems, licenses have been changed to delete all rule. In sum, the Commission has structures, and components "important reference to age-related degradation fulfilled its obligation under the APA to to license renewal" in §54.3. Section unique to license renewal (ARDUTLRJ. provide the bases for this rule, 54.4 defines those systems, structures, Section 54.33(d) of the previous rule, regardless of whether the changes that and components within the scope of the which requires a specific change control are being adopted in this final rule license renewal rule and identifiesthe process, has been deleted. constitute a recision of the previous important functions (intended f8) In §54.37. additional records and license renewal rule.

functions) that must be maintained. The recordkeeping requirements have been changed to be less prescriptive. Section b. Reaffirmation of the Regulatory requirement to include systems, Philosophyand Approach and structures, and components that have 54:37(e* has been deleted.

Clarificatiohof the Two Principlesof limiting conditions for operation in Ill. Principal Imues License Renewal facility technical specifications within the scope of license renewal has been a. Continued Validity of Certain (i) Regulatory Philosophy deleted. Findingsin PreviousRulemaking In developing the previous license (4) In § 54.21(a). the IPA process has The principal purpose of this final renewal rule, the Commission been simplified. The wording has been rule is to simplify and clarify the concluded that issues material to the changed to resolve any ambiguity previous license renewal rule. Unless renewal of a nuclear power plant associated with the use of the terms otherwise clarified or reevaluated, either operating licEnse are to be confined to systems, structures, and components directly or indirectly, in the discussion those issues that the.Commission (SSCs) and structures and components forthis final rule, the conclusions in the determines are uniquely relevant to (SCs). A simplified methodology for SOC for the previous license renewal protecting the public health and safety determining whether a structure or rule remain valid (56 FR 64943: and preserving common defense and component requires an aging December 13, 1991). security during the period of extended management review for license renewal One commenter stated that the operation. Other issues would, by has been delineated. Only passive, long- prvious license renewal rule has been definition, have a relevance to the safety lived structures and components are substantially modified in the proposed and security of the public during subject to an aging management review rule so as to constitute a "recision'*of current plant operation. Given the for license renewal. Sections 54.21 (b) the previous rule. Commission's ongoing obligatibn to and (d) have been deleted, and a new The Commission does not believe that oversee the safety and security of

§ 54.21(c) dealing with time-limited this final rule represents a recision of operating reactors, issues that are aging analyses (TLAA) and § 54.21(d) the previous license renewal rule, 10 relevant to current plant operation will dealing with requirements for the fin&l CFR Part 54. As stated in the SOC for be addressed by the existing regulatory HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22463 1995

22490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations data needed, and completing and amendment constitutes a change to an pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109 need not be rule.

reviewing the collection of information. existing regulation, the NRC has prepared for this Send comnments regarding this burden determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR NEI commented that the NRC should estimate or any other aspect of this 50.109, does not apply because this review its determination regarding the collection of information, including amendment only affects prospective application of backfit protection. to suggestions for reducing this burden, to applicants for license renewal. The license renewal. Although not clearly the Information and Records primary impetus for the backfit rule was stated in its comments, NEI appears to Management Branch (T6 F33), U.S. "regulatory stability." Once the argue that the protection afforded by 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commission decides to issue a license, CFR 50.109 should.apply in individual Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the the terms and conditions for operating license renewal proceedings when the Desk Officer, Office of Information and under that license would not be NRC seeks to impose requirements that Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, "go beyond what is necessary for changed arbitrarily post hoc. As the (3150-0155), Office of Management and Commission expressed in the preamble adequately managing the effects of aging Budget, Washington, DC 20503. for 10 CFR 52, which prospectively on intended functions in the period of changed the requirements for receiving extended operation (i.e.,

IX. Regulatory Analysis enhancements)." NEI stated that in such

'design certifications, the backfit rule-The NRC prepared a draft regulatory cases, the NRC should perform an analysis of the values and impacts of the [Wias not intended to apply to every analysis to demonstrate that the proposed rule and of a set of significant regulatory action which changes settled expectations. Clearly, the backfit rule would proposed additional requirements will alternatives. The draft regulatory not apply to a rule which imposed more result in substantial increase in overall analysis was placed in the stringent requirements on all future safety and that direct and indirect costs Commission's public document room applicants for construction permits, even are justified relative to the safety for review by interested members of the though such a rule might arguably have an benefit. Furthermore, NEI believes that public. In addition, a summary of the adverse impact on a person who was if there are two ormore' means of findings and conclusions of the -considering applying for a permit but had not adequately managing the effects of regulatory analysis were published in done so yet. In this latter 6ase, the backfit aging, cost must be taken into, account the Federal Register (59 FR 46591, . rule protects the construction permit'holder, in selecting an alternative.

September 9, 1994) concurrent with the but not the perspective applicant, or even the The industry's desire for a special proposed rule. No comments were present applicant. (54 FR 15385-86; April 18. provision in the rule that would impose received on the regulatory analysis. The 1989). backfit-style requirements on the regulatory analysis has been finalized Regulatory stability from a backfitting Commission's review is neither and is available for inspection in the standpoint is not a relevant issue with necessary nor appropriate. The intent of NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L respect to this rule. There are no the licenserenewal rule is clear-tb Street NW (Lower Level), Washington licensees currently holding renewed ensure that the effects of aging on DC. Single copies of the analysis may be nuclear power plant operating licenses functionality of certain systems, obtained from Joseph J. Mate, Office of who would be affected by this rule. No structures, and components are Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. applications for license renewal have adequately managed in the period of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, been docketed. It is also unlikely that extended operation. The Commission Washington DC 20555, (301) 415-1109. any license renewal applications will be does not intenrd to impose requirements submitted before this rule becomes on a licensee that go beyond what is X. Regulatory Flexibility Act necessary to adequately manage aging Certification effective. Consequently, there are no valid licensee or applicant expectations effects. The focus of the industry's As required by the Regulatory that may be changed regarding the terms concern appears to be on potential Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U,S.C. 605 and conditions for obtaining a renewed disagreements between the Commission (b)), the Commission certifies that this operating license. Accordingly, this rule' and renewal applicants regarding what final rule does not have a significant is or is not considered "adequate" for economic impact upon a substantial does not constitute a "backfit" as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). managing the effects of aging. The number of small entities. The final rule *Commission understands the industry's sets forth the application procedures Furthermore, one reason the concern, but does not believe it and the technical requirements for Commission is amending 10 CFR Part. appropriate or consistent with current renewed operating licenses for nuclear 54 is because of the concerns of nuclear practice to further limit (i.e., beyond the power plants. The owners of nuclear power plant licensees who were limits established by the rule) the NRC power plants do not fall within the dissatisfied with the previous staff in its review of an application for definition of small business entities as requirements in 10 CFR Part 54 and a renewal license.

defined in Section 3 of the.Small urged the Commission to modify the. Additionally, the Commission sees no Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), the Small rule to address their concerns. Under justification for requiring a Business Size Standards of the Small this circumstance, the policy objective consideration of costs among alternative Business Administration (13 CFR Part of the ba&kfit rule would not be served aging management programs. The 121), or the Commission's Size by undertaking a backfit analysis. renewal process is designed such that a Standards (56 FR 56671; November 6, Regulatory and technical alternatives for renewal applicant proposes the 1991). addressing the concerns with the alternatives it believes manages the previous 10 CFR Part 54 were analyzed effects of aging for those structures and XI. Non-Applicability of the Backfit and considered in the regulatory components defined by the rule. The Rule analysis that has been prepared for this NRC.staff has the responsibility of

.This rule, like the previous license rule. Preparation of a separate backfit reviewing the applicant's proposals and renewal rule, addresses the procedural statement would not provide any determining whether they are adequate and technical requirements for substantial additional benefit: such that there is reasonable assurance obtaining a renewed operating license Therefore, the Commission has that activities authorized-by the for nuclear power plants. Although this determined that a backfit analysis renewed license will continue to be HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22490 1995

Federal, Register / Vol'. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 1 Rules and Regulationw 12491 conducted in accordance with the CLB. under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 DART 51-ENVIRONMENTAL The*Commission believes that this as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections CROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR license renewal review must necessarily 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. fnOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED be. performed without regard to cost. Sections 2.754, 2.760. 2.770. 2.780, also REGULATORY FUNCTIONS issued under 5 U.S.C. 557 Section 2.764 and List of Subjects Table 1A of Appendix C are also issued 3. The authority citation for Part 51 is 10 CFR Part 2 under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. revised to read as follows:

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section iuthority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as Administrative practice and 2.790 also issued under sec, 103, 68 Stat. 936, amended, Sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, procedure. Antitrust, Byproduct as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f; secs. 201, as material, Classified information, 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, Environmental protection, Nuclear under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). Subpart A also materials, Nuclear power plants and under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85- issued under National Environmental Policy reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, 256, 71 Stat. 579. as amended (42 U.S.C. Act of 1969, secs. 102,104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-Source material, Special nuclear 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332,, 4334.,

material, Waste treatment and disposal. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. 4335); and Pub. L.95-604, Title I1,92 -stat.

3033-3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 10 CFR Part51 L.97-425. 96 Stat, 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). 104 Stat. 2835, 42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.61, 51.80, and 51.97 Administrative practice and 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued procedure, Environmental impact also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-under sec. 6, Pub, L.91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241. and sec. 148. Pub.

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C.

power plants and reactors, Reporting under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 10155. 10161, 10168). 'Section 51.22 also and recordkeeping requirements. (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.]. issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. 688. as 10 CFl Part54 amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C.

2. In § 2.758, paragraphs (b) and (e) 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of Administrative practice and are revised to read as follows: 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C.

procedure, Aging, Effects of aging, 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 Time-limited aging analyses, § 2.758 Consideration of Commission also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Backfitting, Classified information, rules and regulations in adjudicatory sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 Criminal penalties, Environmental proceedings. U.S.C. 10134(0):

protection, Nuclear power plants.and 4. In § 51.22, paragraph (c)(3) is reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping revised to read as follows:

requirements. (b) A party to an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial or renewal §51.22 Criterion for categorical exclusion; For the reasons set out in the licensing subject to this subpart may preamble and under the authority of the identification of licensing and regulatory petition that the application of a actions eligible for categorical exclusion or Atomic Energy-Act of 1954, as amended, otherwise not requiring environmental the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, specified Commission rule or regulation or any provision thereof, of the type review.

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the Commission is adopting the described in paragraph (a) of this following amendments to .10 CFR Parts section, be waived or an exception made (c) for the particular proceeding; The sole, (3) Amendments to Parts 20, 30. 31, 2, 51, and 54. 32, 33, 34.35, 39, 40, 50, 51,54, 60, 61, ground for petition for waiver or 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81 and 100 of this PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR exception shall be that special.

chapter which relate to-DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS circumstances with respect to the (i) Procedures for filing and reviewing.

subject matter of the particular applications for licenses or construction

1. The authority citation for Part 2 is proceeding are such that the application revised to read as follows: permits or other forms of permission or of the rule or regulation (or provision for amendments to or renewals of Authority: Secs. 161,181,68 Stat, 948, thereof) would not serve the purposes 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. licenses or construction permits or other 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 for which the rule or regulation was forms of permission; (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec, 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as adopted. The petition shall be (ii) Recordkeeping requirements; or amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552. accompanied by an affidavit that (iii) Reporting requirements; and Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, identifies the specific aspect or aspects (iv) Actions on petitions for 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930. 932, 933, of the subject matter of the proceeding rulemaking relating to these*

935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. as to which the application of the rule amendments.

2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); or regulation (or provision thereof) sec. 114(0, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(Q); sec. 102, Pub. would not serve the purposes for which 5. Part 54 is revised to read as follows.

L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 the rule or regulation was adopted, and U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 shall set forth with particularity the PART 54-REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, special circumstances alleged to justify RENEWAL OF OPERATING LICENSES 2.105, 2.721 also issued under sacs. 102,103, the waiver or exception requested. Any FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 104. 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, other party may file a response thereto, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, General Provisions by counter affidavit cr otherwise.

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also Sac.

issued under Pub. L. 97ý-415, 96 Stat. 2073 54.1 Purpose (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also (e) Whether or not the procedure in 54.3 Definitions.

issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182,186, 234, 54.4 Scope.

68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as paragraph (b) of this section is available, 54.5 Interpretations.

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (i), (o), 2236. a party to an initial or renewal licensing 54.7, Written communications.

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. proceeding may file a petition for 54.9 Information collection requirements:

5846). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued rulemaking pursuant to § 2.802. OMB approval HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 22491 1995

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for

.Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 5

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No.-I3T:/ Tuesday,. July: 17, 1990 /.P roposed" Rules 29043

. (vi).Milk chocolate:and.the.milk

SUMMARY

.TheNuclear Regulatory. -. VI. Availability of Documents,,.

chocolate-component.of'other products; Commission is: proposing to issue a rule..: VIL Environmental Impact.

(vii) Airy other dairy product not that would establish the requirements VIII. Paperworkeductio.n Act Statement.

otherwise.specified in this section. that an applicant for renewal'of'a. IX.Regulatory Analysls,.

n j. 3 ar power plant operating. license X.Regulatory Flexibility Act CertiulcatiltL Pwposed.ibyiy*heljah Divlslon,. Xl. Non-Applicability of Backfit Rule.

Agricultural-Marketing Service must meetthkn information that must be submitted' to the NRC for review so that I. Introduction ProposalNo. &I- the.agency can,determine whether those:

requirements have in fact been met, and The-Atomic Ehergy.Act .of 1954 (AEAJ Make. such changes as may be limits. the duration ofmost operating necessary to make,alt marketing the' application' procedures. This.

proposedrule.will inform nuclear power- licenses- for nuclear 'power plants to a agreements and the orders conform with.

any amendments, thereto. that may result- plant licensees of necessary maximum of'40 years, but permits their requirements for renewing operating renewal. The Commission's regulations from this.hearing.. at 10 CFR 50.51 implement this:authority Copies of-thls- notice of'hearing and- licenses;.

the.orders:may be.procured from the DATES: The comment period expires. by permitting, renewal. However, § 50.51 Market Administrators or from the October-15 1990. Comments received provides no standards or procedures for Hearing Clerk, Rlo0m:1083; South. after this. date-willtbe considered ifit is determining renewalapplications. The Building, Uifted'States Department of: practical to do-so, but' the Commission is nuclear utility. industry has expressed Agriculturae. Wahington. DC. 20250.: or. able to assureconsideration only for. considerable-interest In operating-.

may be.inspected.there. I comments'recelved' on-or:before this. existing. nuclear pb.wer.plants.beyond Copies of the transcrilpt~otestimony date. " their.Initial. term ofloperaeion-IThe.

taken.at the-her.*ng will not be. ADDRESSES:.Coment may be sent to indistry. has.undertaken several' available, for didtribution through.the- the.Secretary of.thoe'Cmmisiion. U.S. - initiatives.In support of plant life.

Hearing.Clerks'.Office. ltyou.wish.to. Nuclear Regulatory.Commission, extension.. A Steering Committee. on purchase a.copy, arrngements.may be Washington. D. 2055..Attention: Nuclear Plant Life Extension (NLJ.LEX')

made.wittbthe repr6rter a"iihe.hearing, Docketing. and.SerVice Branch, or may has been formedlunder the direction of From the time that a. hearing notice.is. be hand-delivered to One White Flint the- Nuclear Managementand.Resources issued and until the issuance ofa final North, 11555:Rockville Pike, RockWille, Council (NUMARC). The Electric Power decision in aproceeding, Department MD 20852; between 7T3V"am and 4:15 pm Research Institute (EPRI), in cooperation employees involved in.the decisional 'Federal workdays.' Copies of'comments with the' U.S.- Department of Energy process are prohibited from discussing, received may be.examined at.the (DOE), and two utilities have sponsored the merits of the hearing issues on an ex Cbmmission's Public Document Room at research on life extension, Including.

parte basis with any person having.an 2120 L.St., NW, (Lower Level), pilot studies on two nuclear plants, interest in the proceeding, For:this Washington.DC, between the hours of Surry-1 and Monticello. This has

particular proceeding,. the-prohibition 7:45 am and.4:15 pm Federal workdays. culminated in DOE funding.of two lead zapplies.to employees. in.the f1llowing FOR FURThER. INFORMA-TIOt- CONTACT:

applications for renewal of the-operating organizationsal uits: licenses, for the-Yankee Roweand George Sege, Office.ofNuclear Office of' th6 Secretary. of'Agriculture Regulatory Research, LLS. Nuclear. Monticello. facilities; Office of the Administrator, Regulatory Commisslon.Washingtn., The: nuclearindustry haa urged- the Agricultural Marketing Service D.C.20555. Telephone; (3011 492.-3917. NRC to develop: standarda and.

Office of the General Counsel procedures. for license, renewal.sor that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONr Dairy Division. Agricultural Marketing, 1. Introduction.

the utilities would know what will be.

Service.(Waahingt.0n~office. only] I. Background.. required to obtain a renewed operating Offices of 0llth6 Market III. Proposed Action. license. The Industry states that-a Administrators- IV.Principal Issues: license renewal rule is needed now.

Procedural matters are not subject to a. Regulatory Philosophy and Approach. because of themeed for a significant

b. Current UcensingBa:ais.. number of plants to make decisionsin the.abo.ve prohibition andmay-be c. Aging Management-.

discussed at any time. the near future as.to whether to seek.

d. Naturetof License. license renewal. For the-oldest nuclear Signed at Washington; DC. om July It e. Latest Date for Filing Renewal 1890. Application, the Timely Renewal power plants the expiration of their Daniel Haley. Doctrine, and Suffilcency of'the Renewal original operating licenses is

.Application. approaching. If thelo08 nuclear power Administratorz- f: E'arliest Date for-FilIng.Applications. plants-licensed as-of the-end of 1989-

[FR Doc. 90-1062.FPiled:1-16.-MG 8:46.am) &-Renewal Term. were licensed fbr'40 years-from: the-date Oi.LaI0 COON341042". h. Effective.Date of-Renewed LIcense. of their operating license, the first eight L Content of Applicatipn--Technical plants will have-their-licenses expire-Information.

NUCLEAR REGULAtORY I. Environmental Information. during the years 2000 to 2009, with .

L.B'ackfit Cinsiderations. another 40 licenses expiring by 2014*

COMMISSION. I.Hearings. Utilities contend that they will require

m. Report-ofthe AdvisoryCommittee on. 10 to 15 years to plan-and build 10 CFRParW'*2s50,.and s5 ReactorSbfeguards.' replacement powerplants-if the" RIN4151-AD04 n. Emergency. Planning Considerations. operating licenses for existing nuclear

o. Plant.Pjhysical Security C0t*iderations. powerplants are notvrenewed, They Nuclear Powerftrnt.Llcense-Renewal p. Operator-LicensinsConsiderations.. also contend-that-the NRC's' technical

q. Financial Qualification Considerations.

r. Deconmmissioning'Conslderations. requirements for-license-renewal must' AGENCy: NuclearRegtlatory-

a. Antitrust Reviwe.... be-established' before utilities can-Commissions n.il& reasonably. determine whether'renewal ACTINo: Iproposed rule. . Cbmpllarne with 10,.CFPkrt 14(Y V. Questions: of their existing operating-licenses, Is HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 29043 1990

Federal Roegister / Vol. 55; No:- 137>/. Tuesday. July: 17, 1990 / Proposed Rules 29043

. (vi). Milk chocolate-and the.milk

SUMMARY

.The.Nuclear Regulatory. VI. Availability of Documents..

chocolate-component.of'otherproducts; Commission ia proposing to issue-a rule.. VIL Environmental Impact.

(vii) Any other dairy, product not that would establish the requirements VIII. Paperwork~eduction Act Statement otherwise-specified, in this section. that an applicant for renewal-ofa. IX.Regulatory Analysis.

njp -!-ar power plant operating. license X.Regulatory Flexibility Act Certifficafston ProposedLliy.the:JaIrý Division., XI. Non-Applicability of Backflit Rule.

Agricultural- Markeling Service must meetthe, informationr that must be submltted'to the NRC for review so that I. Introduction ProposalNo. E&- the.agency can determine whether those:

Make, such changes as may be requirements have in fact been met and The-Atomic Energy-Act of 1954 (ARAJ necessary to make. all marketing the- application procedures, This. limits- the-duration ofmost operating.

agreements and the orders conform with. proposed.rule. will inform nuclear power- licenses-for nuclear power plants to a any amendments, thereto. that may result- plant licensees of necessary maximum of 40 years, but permits their from this;hearing. requirements for renewing. operating renewal. The Commission's regulations

• Copies,oftthis-notice of[hearing and- licenses.. at 10 CFR 50.51 implement this: authority the.orders:may-be-procured from the DATES: The comment period expires. by permitting. renewal. However, § 50.51 Market Administrators or from the October-1'S 1990. Comments received provides no standards or procedures for Hearing Clerk. Rom.1083; Sbuth. after this. date-will be considered ifit is determining renewal applications. The Buildifg. Uhited'StatesDepartment of: practical to do-so, but-the Commission is nuclear utility, industry has expressed Agriculture. Wahington. DC 20Z50. or. able to assure consideration only for-. considerable-interest in operating,.

may bedinspected.there. comments, received- on-or-before this. existing nuclear pb.wer.plants.beyond Copies of the transcriipt.of.testimony date. their. Initial, term of-operation.. The.

taken-at thehehering willnot be. ADOODRESSEMS:.Comments may be sent to indiustry- has.iundertaken se.veraL available, fio diatributiori through. the the.Secretary of~te Commislon. U.S. - initiatives; in support of plant life.

Hearin'.Clerki Office. I.lyoiiwish.to. Nuclear Regulatory.Commission, extension..A Steering.Committee. on purchase.a.cop'y', arrangments.may be Washington, DC. 20555,.Attention: Nuclear Plant Life Extension (NUPLEX) made-with'the reporter. &'flie.hearing. Docketing. and.SerVice Branch, or may has been formed'.under th'e direction of From the time that a. hearing notice.is. be hand-delivered to One White Flint the-Nuclear Managementand Resources issued and until the issuance of-a final North, 11555-Rockville Pike, Rockville, Council (NUMARC). The Electric Power decision in a proceeding, Department MD 20852; between 7.30"am and 415pm Research Institute (EPRI), in cooperation employees Involved in.the decisional Federal workdays; Copies of comments with the U.S. Department of Energy process are prohibited from-discussing, received may be .examined at.the (DOE), and two utilities have-sponsored the merits of the hearing issueson an ex Cbommission's Public Document Room at research on life extension, including:

parte basis with any person havingan 2120 L.St., NW. (Lower Level), pilot studies on two nuclear plants, interest in the proceeding..F.or this Washington, DC, between the hours of Surry-1 and Mbnticello. This has particular proceeding,:the prohibition 7:45 am and.4:15 pm Federal workdays. culminated in DOE fundingof two lead applies to eripl6yeei In. the following FOR FURTHER. INEORMA-TIO* CONTACT' applications: for renewal of the-operating

-organizatidna'iinits:  ; licenses, for the-Yankee-Roweand George Sage. Office-of Nuclear

-Office of the Secretary, of Agriculture Regulatory Research. US, Nuclear. Monticello. facilities.

Office of the Administrator, Regulatory Commission.-Washington, The:nuclearindustry. haasurged_ the..

Agricultural Marketing Service D.C.20555. Telephone; (301) 492--391. NRC. to develop: standards and.

Office Of th General Counsel SUPPLEMENTARY .NFQRMATiOtC- procedures. for license, renewal.so-that Dairy Division. Agricultural Marketing. 1.Introduction. the utilities would know what will be.

Service.(Washington.office.onlyj 1. Background.. required' to obtain -arenewed operating Offices of pllthe Market I. Proposed Action. license..The Industry states that-a Administrators. IV.Principal Issues: license renewal rule is needed now.

Proceduraltmatters are not subject to a. Regulatory Philosophy end Approach. because of the-need for a-significant the, above prohibition -and may be b. Current LicensingqrBasis.. number ofplants to make. decisions;in discussed at any time. C.Aging Management. the near future as.to whether to seek

d. Nature-of License.

Signed~at Washington; DC. om July 11, a. Latest Date for Filing Renewal license renewal. For the, oldest nuclear 1990. Application, the Timely Renewal power plants the expiration of-their Daniel Haley, Doctrine, and S"uffibiency of the Renewal original operating licenses Is Admninstrotor- Application; approaching. If the;108 nuclear power L Earliest Date for-Filing:Applications, plants.licensed as-of the-end of 1989

[FR Doc. 90-10826.Fitaci7-0.-00; 8:45.am] g. Renewal Term. were licensed, fbr-40 years- from, the-date 011L11 COOS 34102-0". h. Effectlve.Date.of-Renewed License.

of their operating license, the first eight L Content of Application-Technical Information. plants will have, their-licensees expire-NUCLEAR REGULATORY' J,Environmental Information. during the years 2000 to 2009, with

k. lfackfit Cbnsiderations. another 40 licenses expiring by 2014.

COMMISSION. i. Hearings. Utilities contend that they will require 10 CFR-PartS"-2,50. a'n'd54- mnReport-ofthe Advisory-Committee on- 10 to 15 years to-plan-and build Reactor-Safeguardst replacement-powerplants-if the

• RIN4150-AD04- n. Emergency.Planning Considerations. operating licenses for existing nuclear

o. PlantP~hysical Security C6tialdarations. powerplants are.notrenewed. They Nuclear Power Piunt.icoense-Renewal p. Operator-LlcensingýConslderations.. also contend that the NR's-technical AGEN*..: Nuc] ar-Regula~tory- q. Financial Qualification

r. Deconmlissionlng Considerationna.

iConsiderations. requirements forlicense-renewal must-Commission. a.Anti&rust Review.' be- established-before utilities-can-ACTION: Proposed rul& L Cbmpla*iae with 1U.CFt Phrt 14(1 reasonably determine whether-renewal V. Questions; of their existing operating-licenses is HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 29043 1990

29044 Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 137 / Tuesda;, July 17. 1990 / Proposed Rules I

economically and techilcally justified. implemented during the'extended of the existing licensing basis with (For more information on the expiration operation, and fori a numbei of the reviews in safety significant areas, or 1c) of facility operating licenses, see measures during the existing license compliance with new plant standards at Appendix A to the Regulatory Analysis term as well. the time the application is. submitted, for License Renewal, NUREG-1362.) To Simultaneously, a request for Commenters were asked to identify ensure a reasoned process for comments on establishmentof a policy whether any other major, regulatory considering license renewal for those statement on life extension was options for license renewal should be who may pursue it, the NRC has published In the Federal Register (51 FR considered, and whether verification of determined to proceed with license 40334; November 6,1986). Comments the existing licensing basis at each plant renewal rulemaking now in order to were requested on seven major policy, should be required for license renewal.

establish the requirements for renewal technical, and procedural issues.(21 Second, two alterndtives for handling of nuclear power plant operating separate questions). The first and sixth uncertainties in age-related degradation licenses in a timely fashion. policy areas focused on the timing of were described and discussed: (a)

II. Background regulatory action on life extension, emphasize maintenance, Inspection, and including the need for a policy reliability assurance, or (b) emphasize The NRC's research program on the defense-in-depth. The relative merit of statement, and timing of resolution of degradation of nuclearpower plant ,policy, technical, and procedural issues. the two alternatives was the second systems, structures, and components subject for comment. Third, the (SSCs) due to aging began in the early The earliest and latest dates for filing a life extension application and the advisability of preparing a generic 1980s. In 1982, the NRC staff, potential term of such an extension were environmental impact statement (EIS) recognizing the potential impact of plant aging phenomena on the continued safe the subject of the second and a portion and whether part 51 should be amended operation of nuclear power plants, of the fourth policy area. The question of to permit the NRC the option of convened a "Workshop on Plant Aging" an appropriate licensing basis was the preparing an environmental assessment in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of third policy issue, including the need for (EA] instead of an EIS were discussed.

the workshop was to focus attention. on and role of a probabilistic risk Finally, 12 procedural and policy issues how to best proceed to identify and assessment (PRA). The fourth and fifth were discussed. Comments on the resolve the various technical plant aging areas focused on technical Issues environmental, procedural, and policy issues relevant to life extension. In 1985, regarding the nature of aging issues were invited, the Division of Engineering of the Office degradation, its Identification and Fifty-three written comments were of Nuclear Regulatory Research issued mitigation, and the need for research received from nuclear industry groups the first comprehensive program plan .and changes to industry codes and and individual utilities, public interest (NUREC-1144) for nuclear power plant standards. The final policy area was the groups, and Federal and State agencies aging research. By 1986, age-related

• need for procedural changes in the in response to the ANPRM and degradation became a more important Commission's regulations for handling commenting on NUREG-1317. An priority with the recogni tion that utilities life extension requests. A total of 58 overview and summary analysis of the were interested in extending the life of written comments were received from comments are contained in NUREG/CR-their existing power.plants beyond the the electric utility industry, public 5332, "Summary and Analysis of Public term of up to 40 years of their original interest groups, private citizens, Comments on NUREG-1317: Regulatory operating licenses. In response, the NRC Independent consultants; and. Options for Nuclear Plant License staff developed the "Plan to Accomplish government agencies. These comments Renewal" (March 1989).

Technical Integration for Plant Aging/ *were reviewed and a summary provided Also in 1988 the NRC, in cooperation

• Life Extension" (May 1987) and .in SECY-87-179, "Status of Staff with the American Nuclear Society' established a Technical Review Group Activities to Develop a License Renewal (ANS), the American Society of Civil for Aging and Life Extension Policy, Regulations and Licensing Engineers (ASCE), the American Society (TIRGALEX). The objectives'of Guidance and to Report on Public. of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and TIRGALEX were to clearly define the Comments'.' (July 21, 1987)i 'the Institute of Electrical and Electronics technical safety and regulatory policy

• Based on these comments, the staff Engineers (IEEE), sponsored an '

issues associated with plant aging and began to specifically identify and International Nuclear Power Plant Aging life extension and to develop a plan for resolve the wide variety of policy and Symposium. The symposium, which was resolving the issues in a timely, well- technical issues relevant to life held In Bethesda, Maryland, from integrated manner. In May 1987, the extension. In August 1988, the staff August 30 to September 1, 1988. was TIRGALEX report was issued. It published an Advance Notice of attended by more than 550 identified a broad spectrum of technical Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the internationally prominent nuclear safety and regulatory policy issues.' Federal Register (53 FR 32919; August 29, scientists and engineers from 16 These included identification of 1988) in which the Commission countries. The symposium focused on systems, structures, and components announced its intention to bypass a the potential safety issues arising from that are susceptible to aging .and could policy statement and go directly to progressive aging of nuclear power adversely affect safety; degradation preparing a proposed rule on license plants.-These Issues included aging of processes; testing, surveillance, and renewal. The ANPRM also announced structures in austenitic steel; fatigue life maintenance requirements; and criteria the availability of NUREG-1317,- of structural materials, aging of for evaluating residual life. TIRGALEX "Regulatory Options for Nuclear.Plant insulating materials, degradation of concluded that many aging phenomena License Renewal," and requested pumps and valves, reliability of safety are readily managed and do not pose. comments on' the Issues discussed' First, system components, radiation and major technical issues that would three alternative licensing bases for. thermal embrittlement of metals,-and.

preclude life extension, provided that assessing the'adequacy of'alife ' erosion-corrosion of fluid-mechanical necessary compensatory measures such- extension application were presented systems. Discussion bddreised topics in as maintenance, sdrveillance, repair, and discussed: (a') the existing-lidensing the stafts report NUREG-1317, .which, and replacement are effectively basis for a facility, (b) supplenmezitatibn. had been'published inmiedlately HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 29044 1990

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 1990 / Proposed Rules 29045 "preceding the symposium. The industry. The Nuclear Management and but not for more than 20 years beyond proceedings of the symposium were Resources Council. (NUMARC). Yankee the original license expiration.

published as NUREG/CP-0100 in March Atomic Electric Company, and Northern 1989. States Power Company presented IV. Principal Issues The NRC staff s views on specific prepared comments at each session. In a. Regulatory Philosophy and Approach license renewal issues, as evolved in addition, written comments were early 1989, were presented to the public received from 12 organizations, (i) Two Principles in an NRC panel discussion and including substantial submissions by The regulation that the Commission question and answer session at the NUMARC, Yankee Atomic, Northern proposes for license renewal is founded NRC's Regulatory Information States Power, Westinghouse, the Illinois on two key principles. The first principle Conference, held on April 18, 19, and 20, Department of Nuclear Safety, and an is that, with the exception of age-related 1989. Among the issues discussed were independent consultant. DOE was the degradation, the current licensing basis the nature of a renewed license only Federal agency submitting written for each reactor provides and maintains (renewed license versus amendment .of comments. No comments were an acceptable levelof safety for existing license), the need for submitted by any public interest group. operation during any renewal period.

probability risk assessment [PRA), i11. Proposed Action The second and equally important integration with the Individual Plant principle is that each plant's current Examination (IPE) process, and The Atomic Energy Act, which licensing basis must be maintained compliance with'the National permits renewal of licenses, and the during the renewal period,.in part Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). license renewal rule already in effect (10 through a program of age-related On October 13, 1989 (54 FR 41980), the CFR 50.51) do not contain specific degradation management for systems, Commission announced that a workshop procedures, criteria, and standards that structures, and components that are would be held on November 13 and 14, must be satisfied In order to renew a important in this connection.

1989, to focuson specific technical license, The proposed rule would.

establish the procedures, criteria, and (ii) First Principle: Licensing Basis issues, including identification of the standards governing nuclear power Retention significant technicalissues bearing on plant license renewal.

• safety, the nature and content of . The followingare the principal The current licensing basis, as used standards for issuance of a renewed elements of the proposed rule: above, means the Commission license, and the appropriate role and (1) The licensing basis for a nuclear requirements and licensee commitments scope of deterministic and probabilistic power plant.during the renewal term imposed on a nuclear power plant at the risk assessments. In addition, the will consist of the current licensing basis time of the initial license, as modified or schedule for rulemaking and for that plant together with any supplemented by themany additional alternatives for addressing compliance additional considerations related .to requirements that have been imposed on with NEPA were identified as issues for possible degradation through aging of the licensee by the Commission discussion. General questions to focus systems, structures, and components subsequent to the initial license and by workshop. discussions were provided in (SSCs) important to license renewal, the additional commitments made by the Federal Register notice and later* necessary to ensure that the facility can the licensee during the period of plant supplemented by a more detailed set of continue to be operated without undue operation up to the filing-of a renewal questions. In addition, the Federal risk to the health and safety of the application. This principle is founded on Register notice included a "Preliminary public; The "current licensing basis" the Commission's Initial finding of Regulatory Philosophy and Approach for includes all applicable NRC . adequate protection for the initial design License Renewal Regulation" and an requirements and licensee commitments, and construction of a nuclear power "Outlihe of a Conceptual Approach to a as defined in the rule. plant, as well as the Commission's License Renewal Rule." Written (2) Provisions are included requiring continuing oversight and regulatory comments on the questions posed, the renewal applicants to perform and .actions with respect to nuclear power statement of regulatory philosophy, and: submit an integrated plant assessment, plants. The Commission may issue an the conceptual rule outline were in which systems, structures, and operating license to a utility. only if it accepted by the agency up to December components important to license can make the findings required by 10 1, 1989. Transcripts were made of the renewal are identified and screened, to CFR 50.57. More specifically, the entire workshop. Two hundred and one determine and describe the required Commission must conclude that the individuals (not including NRC staff) age-related degradation management facility will operate in compliance with representing 89 organizations registered actions. the application, as amended, and the for the workshop. A partial listing by (3) An application is required to rules and regulations of the Commission.

category includes 62 individuals contain specified information for NRC Further, the Commission must conclude representing 28 electric utilities, 10 review, including a description of plans that the authorized activities can be individuals representing 2 nuclear for. aging management. conducted without endangering the industry groups, 16 individuals (4) Opportunity for public hearings is health and safety of the public and that representing 4 nuclear vendors, 5 provided. the issuance of an operating license will individuals.representing 2 architect- S{(5) Application may be made not more not be inimical to the common defense engineer firms. 36 industry consultants than 20 years before license expiration. and security or the publichealth and representing 26 firms, 5 individuals It must be made not less than 3 years. safety. Thus, when the Comminission representing 4.State agencies, 2 before license expiration for the timely issues an initial operating-license, it has journilis.t from itrade press renewal provision of 10 CFR 2.109 to , determined that the design, construction, organizations, and I individual from a apply. . .! - . . ... . and proposed operationof the facility public Interest group. Comments a. , (6) A renewal license is effective upon. satisfy the Commuission'srequirements provid.. during the workshop were; its issuance.. - and provide adequate protection of the fiom 'ndus't representatives and -. (7{)A renewal term may be granted or public health and~safety and common individuals affiliated with the nuclear approved as justified by the licensee, % defense and security. -: *.... _

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 29045 1990

29046 Federal Register / Vol. ss. No. 137 / Tuesday. IJly 17, 1990 / Proposed Rules However. the licensing basis upon unresolved GSIs generally address only analyses to define corrective actions which the Commission determined that enhancements of safety. This conclusion that would improve plant safety with an acceptable level of safety existed was determined during the initial . respect to the differences from current does not remain fixed for the term of the evaluation of the generic concernt which requirements that were Identified.

operating license. Rather, the licensing assessed whether any aspect of the The SEP effort highlighted a smaller basis continues to evolve during the generic concern might have a significant group of 27 regulatory topics for which term of operation, in part due to the impact on the protection of the public corrective action was generally found to continuing regulatory activities of the health and safety or that immediate be necessary for all of the initial SEP Commission. These Include research. remedial action would be warranted. plants end for which significant safety inspections, and the evaluation of The licensing basis of individual plants improvements for other operating plants operating experience. New requirements includes changes that have resulted of the same vintage could be expected.

and guidance are promulgated by the from resolution of generic Issues The topics on this smaller list are Commission which may require plant determined to be applicable and will referred to as the SEP "lessons learned."

modifications on a plant-specific basis; Include applicable generic-Issue-derived and the staff expects that these topics generic and unresolved safety issues are changes in the future. would be generally applicable to resolved and the resolution may require A special group of 22 generic safety operating plants that received their that licensees evaluate and modify their issues deemed to be of sufficient construction permits in the late 1960s or designs: and additional evaluations are significance to warrant both a high- early 19709.

routinely required as the Commission priority resolution effort and special As part of the current staff effort Identifies areas of plant operation that attention In tracking was designated as associated with documenting the require additional understanding. unresolved safety issues (USIs). All USIa regulatory processes that contribute to (iii) Review of Operating Events have been resolved. Most of the USI the continued adequacy of the current resolutions have been implemented: the licensing bases at operating plants, the The Commission has a program for remainder are being implemented on a the review of operating events at .staff has under way a short-term effort schedule found satisfactory by the staff. to identify how specific "lessons ,

nuclear power plants, As a requirement The USI and GSI resolution process is of the current licensing basis, and one limited to Issues that are not of such learned" from the SEP effort have been which would continue during the factored into the licensing bases of all gravity that immediate action (remedy renewal term. each licensee is required or shutdown) Is required. operating plants or into ongoing to notify the Commission promptly of Cost-benefit analyses were employed regulatory programs. The staff program any plant event that meets or exceeds as part of the basis of resolving GSIs includes identification and definition of the threshold defined in 10 CFR 50.72 involving safety enhancement above the the'lessons learned as generic safety and to file a written licensee event adequate-safety leveL In these tradeoffs issues and determination of the report for those events that meet or between net safety benefit and net cost, appropriate priority rankings for the exceed the threshold defined in10 CFR the remaining plant operating term resolution of these issues. The staff 50.73. ThIs information is reviewed daily ordinarily enters the calculations. effort will take public comments on this and followup efforts are carried out for However. such calculations do not have issue into account.

events that appear to be potentially risk a precision sufficient to make a (vi) Consistency of Regulatory significant or are Judged to be a possible significant distinction between plant Philosophy precursor to a more severe event. operating terms with and without a 20-Depending on the significance, further year renewal given the fact that these The regulatory philosophy containing action may be taken to notify all .the two fundamental principles is also decisions have been based on average licensees or to Impose additional plant ages in the first half of a 40-year consistent with the Commission polic*

requirements. Information on operating license term. Accordingly, it is not stated in the Policy Statement entitled events is disseminated by the NRC in necessary to reexamine in the license "Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding the form of information notices, renewal context such cost-benefit Future Designs and Existing Plants (50 bulletins, and other reports; by calculations underlying decisions not to. FR 23138; August 8,1985)." in this Policy individual licensees in the form of backfit. Should special circumstances In Statement, the Commission concluded licensee event reports. The total process connection with a particular issue as that existing plants pose no undue risk offers a high degree of assurance that applied to a particular plant warrant to public health and safety. Moreover, events that are potentially risk reassessment. such reassessment would the Commission stated that it has significant or precursors to potentially be undertaken on a plant-specific basis. ongoing nuclear safety programs.

significant events are being reviewed described in NUREG-1070, that include and resolved expeditiously. (v) Systematic Evaluation Program the resolution of unresolved safety and In 1977 the NRC initiated the generic safety issues, the Severe (iv) Generic Safety Issues Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) to Accident Research Program. operating As described in SECY-89-138. the review the designs of older operating experience and data evaluation Commission also maintains an active nuclear power plants and thereby concerning equipment failures and program for evaluating and resolving confirm and document their safety. The human error, and scrutiny by NRC generic. Issues that may impact public reviews were organized into inspectors to monitor the quality of health andesafety. A generic safety issue approximately 90 review topics (reduced plant construction, operation, and (GSI1 involves a safety concern that may by consolidations from 137 originally maintenance. If new safety information affect the design, construction, or Identified). The review results were were to' become available, from any operation of all, several, or a class of documented in a series of Integrated source, to question the conclusion of no reactors or facilities. Its resolution may Plant Safety Assessment Reports. As a undue risk, then the technical Issue(s) so have a potential for safety result of these reviews with respect to identified would be resolved by the NRt improvements and promulgation of new some of the Issues, the licensees .under its backfit policy and other or revised requirements or guidance. It proposed and implemented procedural existing procedures including the should be noted, however, that all or hardware modifications or additional possibility of generic rulemaking.

HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 29046 1990

Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 1990 I Proposed Rules .. 29047 (vii) Probabilistic Risk Assessment

• 54.33(d), which states the licensing directed at addressing age-related Although a plant-specific probabilistic basis for the renewed license shall degradation during the renewed license risk assessment (PRA) or plant safety include the plants' current licensing term. Sections 54.19,54.21, and 54.23, assessment (PSA) will not be a basis as defined In § 54.3(a), Including which specify the information that must requirement for the renewal of plant those provisions addressing age-related be submitted in a renewal application.

operating licenses, the Commission degradation, and (b) continuing the require only information regarding recognizes that a plant-specific NRC's regulatory oversight program administrative matters, age-related probabilistic assessment can be used as throughout the term of a plant's renewed degradation, and environmental impact.

an effective tool that can provide license. In this manner the current While the applicant must submit a list of integrated Insights into the plant design licensing basis will remain enforceable documents describing portions of the and procedures and provide an by the Commission throughout the term current licensing basis which are additional measure of overall plant of the renewed license to the same relevant to the system, structure, and safety. The Commission understands extent as during the original licensing component screening process, the rule that all plants will have completed a term. does not require submission of The Commission intends to continue information relating to the adequacy of plant-specific PRA as part of the individual Plant Examinationprogram. its regulatory oversight program a plant's-current licensing basis. Section Probabilistic assessment techniques throughout the term of renewed licenses. 54.29, which defines the~standard for This program, which is discussedbelow issuance of a renewed license, does not could also be used as a supplemental in greater detail inSectionb, "Current require a finding that theplant's current tool in the renewal applicant's integrated plant assessment that is to LicensingBasis," has been successful'in licensing basis issufficient to ensure the past iensuringlicensee compliance adequate protection.

underlie the plant's age-related with-applicable requirements and I The only situation in which a plant's degradation management program as licensee-commitments.,as-well as well as in monitoring, the safety identifying important areas of current licensing basismay be changed implications of a plant's performance noncompliance. The Commission in a license renewalproceeding is when during the renewal term. As part of the believes that this oversight, if continued the licensee, asserts that it is impossible monitoring function, time trends in the throughout the term of the renewed or extremely impractical,for it to comply frequency of events or in the rate of license and modified as necessary to with its current liceiisingbasis due to deterioration of equipment with reflect new information and experience age-related degradation. Any changes in significant safety implications could be of extendedoperation. will also provide the current 'licensing basis proposed by identified. This monitoring process helps assurancethat licensees will comply the licensee to accommodate age-related ensure that acceptable levels of safety with their plants' licensing bases during degradation must be thoroughly are maintained during the lifetime of *the term of their renewed licenses. analyzed and justified, by the licensee.

any reactor, including any renewal The justification-must show that the terms. (x) Licensing-Basis Changes licensee-proposed:changes provide (viii) Ongoing Assurance The principle of compliance with the adequate protection to -thepublic health licensingbasis does not preclude and-safety. Such licensee-initiated .

Thus, the-Commission-required changesoto the4icensingbasis; as changes in the current licensing basis changes to a plant's licensing basis discussed above, the licensing basis would be subjectto challenge in a provide ongoing assurance that the changes-throughout the term of the hearing.

original Commission conclusion of original operating license, and will also If the staff or the licensee-seeks to adequate protection of the health and change-throughout the term of the make changes.in a plant's licensing safety and common defense and renewed license. However, changes to basis for reasons other than age-related security continues to remain valid the plant's current-licensing;basis that degradatlon,-they should-be pursued throughout the remaining term of the are unrelated to age-related degradation either in the existing-operating license or facility's operating license.. will not be considered orproposed by the renewed license, once issued. Staff-(ix) Second Principle: Maintaining the the Commissionin~deterniining whether initiated, changes would-be-evaluated in Licensing, Basis During Renewal Term to grant the renewal application. Such accordance with the backfit rule, 10 CFR changes to the licensing basis are 50.109.

The second principle for license inconsistent with the first key principle renewal is that the Commission must of license renewal viz.. that the current b. CurrentLicensing Basis ensure that the plant-specific licensing liceuising basis for a plant is sufficient to basis is maintained during the renewal (i}Current Licensing Basis Explained ensure adequate protection. The term. This principle is a necessary proposed rule incorporates this principle As discussed earlier and as defined in complement to the first principle. As by making a generic finding in § 54.29 this proposed rule, the current licensing discussed above, the first principle is that the plant-specific licensing bases basis (CLB) means the Commission founded upon a generic determination for all nuclear power plants are requirements for the plant that are in that each nuclear power plant's sufficient to ensure adequate protection effect at.the time of the renewal licensing basis, if complied with, to the public health and safety. This application. Included are the provides reasonable assurance of finding will preclude reexamination of requirements at the time that the initial adequate protection throuhout the the adequacy of a plant's current license for the plant was granted renewal term. Therefore, it follows that licensing basis inindividual license together with requirements subsequently each nuclear power plant that complies renewal proceedings. imposed. It includes the licensee's with its license throughout the renewal To preclude, the renewal proceeding commitments for complyingwith those term will actually provide the adequate from developing into a general requirements at the-time the initial protection thought to be provided by the reconsideration of a plant's current license was granted, including those licensing basis. The Commission licensing basis, the proposed rule has documented in the operating license believes that adherence to the licensing been carefully structured to establish a application or Final Safety Analysis basis can and will be ensured by: (a) regulatory process that is precisely Report (FSAR). Further, the CLB HeinOnline -- 55 Fed. Reg. 29047 1990

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 6

28467 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 109 Wednesday, June 5, 1996 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER reviewing plant-specific applications 3. Need for Generating Capacity and contains regulatory documents having general and better focus of review resources on Alternative Energy Sources applicability and legal effect, most of which significant case specific concerns. The C. Technical Concerns are keyed to and codified in the Code of results should be a more focused and 1. Category and Impact Magnitude Federal Regulations, which is published under Definitions 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. therefore a more effective NEPA review 2. Surface Water Quality for each license renewal. The 3. Aquatic Ecology The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by amendment will also provide the NRC 4. Groundwater Use and Quality the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of with the flexibility to address 5. Terrestrial Ecology new books are listed in the first FEDERAL unreviewed impacts at the site~specific 6. Human Health REGISTER issue of each week. stage of review and allow full 7. Socioeconomics consideration of the environmental 8. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid NUCLEAR REGULATORY impacts of license renewal. Waste Management

9. Accidents The NRC is soliciting public comment 10. Decommissioning COMMISSION. on this rule for a period of 30 days. In 11. Need for Generating Capacity developing any comment specific 12. Alternatives to License Renewal 10 CFR Part 51 attention should be given to the 13. License Renewal Scenario RIN 3150-"AD63 treatment of low-level waste storage and 14. Environmental Justice disposal impacts, the cumulative IV. Discussion of Regulatory Requirements Environmental Review for Renewal of radiological effects from the uranium A. General Requirements Nuclear Power Plant Operating fuel cycle, and the effects from the B. The Environmental Report Licenses 1. Environmental Impacts of License disposal of high-level waste and spent Renewal AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory fuel. 2. Consideration of Alternatives Commission. DATES: Absent a determination by the C. Supplemental Environmental Impact ACTION: Final rule. NRC that the rule should be modified, Statement based on comments received, the final 1. Public Scoping and Public Comments on

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory rule shall be effective on August 5, the SEIS Commission (NRC) is amending its 2. Commission's Analysis and Preliminary 1996. The comment period expires on regulations regarding environmental Recommendation July 5, 1996. 3. Final Supplemental Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory ADDRESSES: Send comments to: The Impact Statement Secretary of the Commission, U.S. D. NEPA Review for Activities Outside functions to establish new requirements NRC License Renewal Approved Scope NuclearRegulatory Commission, for the environmental review of V. Availability of Documents applications to renew the operating Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

VI. Submittal of Comments in an Electronic Docketing and Services Branch, or hand licenses of nuclear power plants; The Format amendment defines those deliver comments to the Office of the VII. Finding of No Significant Environmental environmental impacts for which a Secretary, One White Flint North, 11555 Impact Availability Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

.generic analysis has been performed between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on IX.Regulatory Analysis that will be adopted inplant-specific Federal workdays. Copies of comments X. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification reviews for license renewal and those received and all documents cited in the XL Small Business Regulatory Enforcement environmental impacts for which plant- Fairness Act specific analyses are to be performed. supplementary information may be examined at the NRC Public Document XII. Backfit Analysis The amendment improves regulatory efficiency in environmental reviews for Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), I. Introduction license renewal by drawing on the Washington, DC between the hours of The Commission has amended its considerable experience of operating 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal environmental protection regulations in nuclear power reactors to generically workdays.

10 CFR part 51 to improve the efficiency assess many of the environmental FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the process of environmental review impacts that are likely to be associated Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear for applicants seeking to renew an with license renewal. The amendrhent Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear operating license for up to an additional also eliminates consideration of the Regulatory Commission, Washington, 20 years. The amendments are based on need for generating capacity and of DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415- the analyses conducted for and reported utility economics from the 6263; e-mail DPC@nrc.gov. in NUREG-14371 "Generic environmental reviews because these SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Environmental Impact Statement for matters are under the regulatory License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" jurisdiction of the States and are not I. Introduction (May 1996). The Commission's initial necessary for the NRC's understanding II. Rulemaking History decision to undertake a generic III. Analysis of Public Comments of the environmental consequences of a assessment of the environmental A. Commenters license renewal decision. B. Procedural Concerns impacts associated with the renewal of The increased regulatory efficiency 1. Public Participation and the Periodic a nuclear power plant operating license will result in lower costs to both the Assessment of the Rule and GEIS was motivated by its beliefs that:

applicant in preparing a renewal 2. Economic Costs and Cost-Benefit (1) License renewal will involve application and to the NRC for Balancing nuclear power plants for which the

28480 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations assessed in an EA and found to be impacts of transportation to the indicates that the source terms used in insignificant. Further, the Commission proposed repository at Yucca Mountain the past under-predict environmental has conducted EAs for seven specific becomes available. consequences. The NRC has concluded licensed ISFSIs and has reached a that analysis of the new source term

9. Accidents finding of no significant environmental information developed over the past 10 impact for each site. Each EA addressed Concern. Several commenters years indicates that the expected the impacts of construction, use, and expressed concerns regarding the frequency and amounts of radioactive decommissioning. Potential impacts appropriateness of the severe accident release under severe accident conditions that were assessed include radiological determination in the GEIS and with the are less than that predicted using 'the impacts, land use, terrestrial resources, treatment of severe accident mitigation generic source terms. A summary of the water use, aquatic resources, noise, air design alternatives (SAMDAs) for evolution of this research is provided in quality, socioeconomics, radiological license renewal. A group of commenters NUREG- 1150, "Severe Accident Risks:

impacts during construction and routine identified areas of concern that they An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear operation, and radiological impacts of believe justify severe accidents being Power Plants" (December 1990), and its off-normal events and accidents. Trends classified as a Category 3 issue. The supporting documentation. Thus, the, in onsite spent fuel storage capacity and areas included seismic risks to nuclear analyses performed for the GEIS the volume of spent fuel that will be power plants and site-specific represent adequate, plant-specific generated during an additional 20 years evacuation risks. Several commenters estimates of the impacts from severe of operation are considered in the GEIS. questioned whether the analyses of the accidents that would generally over-Spent fuel storage capacity requirements environmental impacts of accidents predict, rather than under-predict, can be adequately met by ISFSIs were adequate to make a Category I environmental consequences. Therefore, without significant environmental determination for the issue of severe the GEIS analysis of the impacts of impacts. The environmental impacts of accidents. The contention is that a severe accidents for license renewal is onsite storage of spent fuel at all plants bounding analysis would be established retained and is considered applicable to have been adequately assessed in the only if plant-specific analyses were all plants.

GETS for the purposes of an performed for every plant, which was Based on an evaluation of the environmental review and agency not the case. Instead, the GEIS analysis comments, the Commission has made use of a single generic source term' reconsidered its previous conclusion in-decision on renewal of an operating license; thus, no further review within for each of the two plant types. the draft GEIS concerning site-specific Response. The Commission believes consideration of severe accident the license renewal proceeding is that its analysis of the impacts of severe required. This provision is relative to mitigation. The Commission has accidents is appropriate. The GEIS determined that a site-specific-the license renewal decision and does provides an analysis of the consideration of alternatives to mitigate not alter existing Commission licensing consequences of severe accidents for requirements specific to on-site storage severe accidents will be required at the each site in the country. The analysis time of license renewal unless a of spent fuel. adopts standard assumptions about each previous consideration of such The environmental impacts from the site for parameters such as evacuation alternatives regarding plant operation transportation of fuel and waste speeds and distances traveled, and uses has been included in a final attributable to license renewal are found site-specific estimates for parameters environmental impact statement or a to be small when they are within the such as population distribution and related supplement. Because the third range of impacts of parameters meteorological conditions. These latter criterion required to make a Category 1 identified in Table S-4. The estimated two factors were used to evaluate the designation for an issue requires a radiological effects are within regulatory exposure indices for these analyses. The generic consideration of mitigation, the standards. The nonradiological impacts methods used result in predictions of issue of severe accidents must be are those from periodic shipments of risk that are adequate to illustrate the reclassified as a Category 2 issue that fuel and waste by individual trucks or general magnitude and types of risks requires a consideration of severe rail cars and thus would result in that may occur from reactor accidents. accident mitigation alternatives, infrequent and localized minor Regarding site-evacuation risk, the provided this consideration has not contributions to traffic density. radiological risk to persons as they already been completed. The Programs designed to further reduce evacuate is taken into account within Commission's reconsideration of the, risk, which are already in place, provide the individual plant risk assessments issue of severe accident mitigation for for adequate mitigation. Recent, ongoing thatform the basis for the GEIS. In license renewal is based on the efforts by the Department of Energy to addition, 10 CFR Part 50 requires that Commission's NEPA regulations that study the impacts of waste licensees maintain up-to-date require a consideration of mitigation transportation in the context of the emergency plans. This requirement will alternatives in its environmental impact multi-purpose canister (see, 60 FR, apply in the license renewal term as statements (EISs) and supplements to 45147, August 30, 1995) suggest that well as in the current licensing term. ElSs, as well as a previous court there may be unresolved issues As was done in the GEIS analysis, the decision that required a review of severe regarding the magnitude of cumulative use of generic source terms (one set for mitigation alternatives (referred to as impacts from the use of a single rail line PWRs and another. for BWRs) is SAMDAs) at the operating license stage.

or truck route in the vicinity of the consistent with the past practice that See, Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, repository to carryall spent fuel from all has been used and accepted by the NRC 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989).

plants. Accordingly, NRC declines to for individual plant Final Although the Commission has reach a Category 1 conclusion on this Environmental Impact Statements considered containment improvements issue at this time. Table S-4 should (FEISs). The purpose of the source term for all plants pursuant to its continue to be the basis for case-by-case discussion in the GEIS is to describe Containment Performance Improvement evaluation of transportation impacts of whether or not new information on (CPI) program, which identified fuel and waste until such time as a source terms developed after the potential containment improvements for detailed analysis of the environmental completion of the most recent FEISs site-specific consideration by licensees,

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28481 and the Commission has additional five IPEEE submittals will be received, separate rulemaking, reclassifying ongoing regulatory programs whereby covering all operating plants in the severe accidents as a Category 1 issue.

licensees search for individual plant United States. These examinations The Commission does not intend to vulnerabilities to severe accidents and consider potential improvements to prescribe by rule the scope of an consider cost-beneficial improvements, reduce the frequency or consequences of acceptable consideration of severe these programs have not yet been severe accidents on a plant-specific accident mitigation alternatives for completed. Therefore, a conclusion that basis and essentially constitute a broad license renewal nor does it intend to severe accident mitigation has been search for severe accident mitigation mandate consideration of alternatives generically considered for license alternatives. The NRC staff is identical to those evaluated previously.

renewal is premature. conducting a process review of each In general, the Commission expects that The Commission believes it unlikely plant-specific IPE submittal and IPEEE significant efficiency can be gained by that any site-specific consideration of submittal. To date, all IPE submittals using site-specific IPE and IPEEE results severe accident mitigation alternatives have received a preliminary review by in the consideration of severe accident for license renewal will identify major the NRC with 46 out of 78 completed; mitigation alternatives. The IPEs and plant design changes or modifications for the IPEEE submittals, 24 of the 75 IPEEEs are essentially site-specific PRAs that will prove to be cost-beneficial for are under review. These IPEs have that identify probabilities of core reducing severe accident frequency or resulted in a number of plant procedural damage (Level 1 PRA) and include consequences. This Commission or programmatic improvements and assessments of containment expectation regarding severe accident some plant modifications that will performance under severe accident mitigation improvements is based on further reduce the risk of severe conditions that identify probabilities of the analyses performed to date that are accidents. fission product releases (Level 2 ). As discussed below. In conclusion, the GEIS analysis of discussed in Generic Letter 88-20, The Commission's CPI program "Individual Plant Examination for severe accident consequences and risk examined each of the five U.S. Severe Accident Vulnerabilities" is adequate, and additional plant-containment types to determine (November 23, 1988), one of the potential failure modes, potential plant specific analysis of these impacts is not, required. However, because the ongoing important goals of the IPE and IPEEE improvements, and the cost- was to reduce the overall probabilities effectivenesses of such improvements. regulatory program related to severe accident mitigation (i.e., IPE and IPEEE) of core damage and fission product As a result of this program, only a few releases as necessary by modifying containment improvements were found has not been completed for all plants and consideration of severe accident hardware and procedures to help to be potentially beneficial and were prevent or mitigate severe accidents.

either identified for further NRC mitigation alternatives has not been Although Level 3 PRAs have been research or for individual licensee included in an EIS or supplemental EIS used in SAMDA analyses to.generate evaluation. related to plant operations for all plants, site-specific offsite dose estimates so In response to the Limerick decision, a site-specific consideration of severe that the cost-benefit of mitigation an NRC staff consideration of SAMDAs accident mitigation alternatives is alternatives could be determined, the was specifically included in the Final required at license renewal for those Commission does not believe that site-Environmental Impact Statement for the plants for which this consideration has specific Level 3 PRAs are required to Limerick 1 and 2 and Comanche Peak 1 not been performed. The Commission determine whether an alternative under and 2 operating license reviews, and in expects that if these reviews identify consideration will provide sufficient the Watts Bar Supplemental Final any changes as being cost beneficial, benefit to justify its cost. Licensees can Environmental Statement for an such changes generallywould be use other quantitative approaches for operating license. The alternatives procedural and programmatic fixes, assigning site-specific risk significance evaluated in these analyses included the with any hardware changes being only to IPE results and judging whether a items previously evaluated as part of the minor in nature and few in number. mitigation alternative provides a CPI Program, as well as improvements NRC staff considerations of severe sufficient reduction in core damage identified through other risk studies and accident mitigation alternatives have frequency (CDF) or release frequency to analyses. No physical plant already been completed and included in warrant implementation. For example, a modifications were found to be cost- an EIS or supplemental EIS for licensee could use information provided beneficial in any of these severe Limerick, Comanche Peak, and Watts in the GEIS analysis (exposure indices, accident mitigation considerations. Bar. Therefore, severe accident wind frequencies, and demographics) to Only plant procedural changes were mitigation alternatives need not be translate the dominant contributors to identified as being cost-beneficial. reconsidered for these plants for license CDF and the large release frequencies Furthermore, the Limerick analysis was renewal. from the IPE/IPEEE results into dose for a high-population site. Because risk Based on the fact that a generic estimates so that a cost-benefit is generally proportional to the consideration of mitigation is not determination can be performed. In population around a plant, this analysis performed in the GEIS, a Category 1 some instances, a consideration of the suggests that other sites are unlikely to designation for severe accidents cannot magnitude of reduction in the site-identify significant plant modifications be made. Therefore, the Commission has specific CDF and release frequencies that are cost-beneficial. reclassified severe accidents as a alone (i.e., no conversion to a dose Additionally, each licensee is Category 2 issue, requiring only that estimate) may be sufficient to conclude performing an individual plant alternatives to mitigate seyere accidents that no significant reduction in off-site examination (IPE) to look for plant be considered for those plants that have risk will be provided and, therefore, vulnerabilities to internally initiated not included such a consideration in a implementation of a mitigation events and a separate IPE for externally previous EIS or supplemental EIS. The alternative is not warranted. The initiated events (IPEEE). The licensees Commission notes that upon completion Commission will review each severe were requested to report their results to of its IPE/IPEEE progiam, it may review accident mitigation consideration the Commission. Seventy-eight IPE the issue of severe accident mitigation provided by a license renewal applicant submittals were received and seventy- for license renewal and consider, by on its merits and determine whether it

28482 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations constitutes a reasonable consideration of Guide 1.86, "Termination of Operating energy requirements without making severe accident mitigation alternatives. Licenses for Nuclear Reactors" (which appropriate distinctions between energy provides guidance for surface and peak capacity requirements, plant

10. Decommissioning contamination), dose rate limits from availability, and capacity factors.

Concern.Several commenters gamma-emitting radionuclides included Response. The NRC has determined requested further clarification of the in plant technical specifications, and that a detailed consideration of the need NRC's position regarding requirements for keeping residual for generating capacity is inappropriate decommissioning requirements, contamination as low as reasonably in the context of consideration of the especially whether the total impacts achievable (ALARA) as included in 10 environmental impacts of license address returning the site to green field CFR part 20. These criteria were used in renewal. Thus, the NRC will limit its conditions.

Response. The decommissioning developing NUREG-0586, the final GEIS NEPA review of license renewal on decommissioning of nuclear applications to the consideration of the chapter of the GEIS analyzes the impact facilities, which was published in environmental impacts of license that an additional 20 years of plant August of 1988. One conclusion from renewal compared with those of other operation would have on ultimate plant the analysis conducted for NUREG- available generating sources. Hence, the decommissioning; it neither serves as 0586 was that waste volumes from concerns regarding demand projections the generic analysis of the decommissioning of reactors are not used in the draft GEIS are no longer an environmental impacts associated with highly sensitive to the radiological issue and they.have been removed from decommissioning nor establishes criteria. A proposed rule dated August. the GEIS.

decommissioning requirements. An 22, 1994, would codify radiological analysis of the expected impacts from 12. Alternatives to License Renewal criteria for unrestricted release of plant decommissioning was previously reactors and other nuclear facilities and Concern. in addition to the procedural provided in NUREG-0586, "Final for termination of a facility license concern discussed earlier about the

-Generic Environmental Impact following decommissioning. NUREG- treatment of alternative energy sources Statement on Decommissioning of 1496, the draft GEIS for the proposed as a Category I issue, several Nuclear Facilities" (August 1988). The rule on radiological criteria, included commenters expressed concerns about analysis in the GEIS for license renewal analyses of a range of radiological the comparison and analysis of examines the physical requirements and release criteria and confirmed the earlier alternative energy sources, as well as the attendant effects of decommissioning conclusions that waste volumes from economic analysis approach used in the after a 20-year license renewal decommissioning of reactors are not draft GEIS. Consistent with their compared with decommissioning at the sensitive to the residual radiological arguments against the Category 1 end of 40 years of operation and finds criteria within the range likely to be designation of alternatives, the little difference in effects. selected. This range included residual commenters questioned the approach With respect to returning a site to dose levels comparable to the adopted in the GElS of comparing only green field condition, the Commission radiological criteria currently being single alternative energy sources to defines decommissioning as the safe used for reactor decommissioning. license renewal. They believe that the removal of a nuclear facility from. Based on the insensitivity of the waste NRC's failure to consider a mix of service, the reduction of residual volume from reactor decommissioning alternatives ignores the potential for contamination to a level that permits to the radiological criteria, the other alternative sources -of power that release of the property for unrestricted Commission continues to believe, as are available to different regions of the use, and termination of the license. concluded in the decommissioning nation,, such as demand-side Therefore, the question of restoring the section of the GEIS, that the management, cogeneration, purchased land to a green field condition, which contribution to environmental impacts power from Canada, biomass, natural would require additional demolition of decommissioning from license gas, solar energy, and wind power. They and site restoration beyond addressing renewal are small. The Commission also indicated that this approach residual contamination and radiological further concludes that these impacts are neglects a utility's ability to serve its effects, is outside the current scope of not expected to change significantly as customers with a portfolio of supply the decommissioning requirements. a result of the ongoing rulemaking. that is based on load characteristics, Moreover, consistent with the Therefore, the determinations in the cost, geography, and other Commission's conclusion that license GEIS remain appropriate. considerations, and fails to consider the renewal is not expected to affect future collective impact of the alternatives.

decommissioning, any requirement 11. Need for Generating Capacity Furthermore, the possible technological relative to returning a site to a green Concern. In addition to the major advances in renewable energy sources field and the attendant effects of such a procedural concern discussed earlier over the next 40 years are not addressed.

requirement would also not be affected about the treatment of need for One commenter argued that by an additional 20 years of operation. generating capacity, several commenters designating the issue of alternative Therefore, the issue of returning a site raised concerns about the power energy sources as Category 1 allows a to pre-construction conditions is beyond demand projections used in the GEIS. license renewal applicant not to the scope of license renewal review. Some commenters noted that any consider the additional requirement of

• Concern.Several commenters determination of need quickly becomes economic threshold analysis. Relative to expressed concern that, because a dated and, therefore, the demand for the economic analysis of the alternatives residual radioactivity rule is still not in and the source of electrical power at the to license renewal, another commenter place, the LLW estimates should be time of license renewal cannot be questioned the proposed requirement reexamined. accurately predicted at this time. for the license renewal applicant to Response. The NRC does have criteria Moreover, they believe that the NRC's

• demonstrate that the "replacement of in place for the release of reactor analysis is not definitive enough to equivalent generating capacity by a coal-facilities to unrestricted access remain unchallenged for 40 years. fired plant has no demonstrated cost following decommissioning. These Another commenter criticized the advantage over the individual nuclear include the guidance in Regulatory analysis because it focused only on power plant license renewal."

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5,'1996 / Rules and Regulations 28483 According to the corifmenter, this second scenario retains the original low-income populations * * *." The requirement would force the applicant ,objective of establishing an upper bound CEQ was assigned to provide this to perform an economic analysis of an of the impacts likely to be generated at guidance to enable agencies to better alternative to license renewal. The any particular plant. The typical comply with E.O. 12898. Until the CEQ commenter further argued that NEPA scenario is useful for estimating impacts guidance is received, the Commission does not require an economic at plants that have been well maintained. intends to consider environmental consideration. and have already undertaken most justice in its evaluations of individual Response. In response to these major refurbishment activities necessary license renewal applications. Greater concerns, the final rule no longer for operation beyond the current emphasis will be placed on discussing requires a cost comparison of alternative licensing term. The conservative impacts on minority and low-income energy sources relative to license scenario estimates continue to be useful populations when preparing NEPA renewal. Furthermore, the alternative for estimating the maximum impacts documents such as EISs, supplemental energy sources discussed in the final likely to result from license renewal. EISs, and, where appropriate, EAs.

GEIS include energy conservation and The revised approach of providing Commission requirements regarding energy imports as well as the other two separate license renewal scenarios environmental justice reviews will be

• sources discussed by the commenters. also alleviates the concern about the use reevaluated and may be revised after An analysis of the environmental of a bounding scenario for license receipt of the CEQ guidance.

impacts of alternative energy sources is renewal activities. The NRC included in the GEIS but is not codified acknowledges that some applicants for IV. Discussion of Regulatory in 10 CFR part 51. license renewal may not be required to Requirements The NRC believes that its perform certain major refurbishment or A. GeneralRequirements consideration of alternatives in the GEIS replacement activities and, therefore, is representative of the technologies In this final rule, the regulatory may have fewer or shorter outages.

available and the associated requirements for performing a NEPA However, the two scenarios described in environmental impacts. With regard to' the GElS are neither unrealistic nor review for a license renewal application consideration of a mix of alternative overconservative in representing the are similar to the NEPA review sources, the Commission recognizes that range of activities that could be requirements for other major plant combinations of various alternatives expected for license renewal and the licensing actions. Consistent with the may be used to replace power possible schedule for performing these current NEPA practice for major plant generation from license renewal. activities. licensing actions, this amendment to 10' CFR Part 51 requires the applicant to

13. License Renewal Scenario 14. Environmental Justice submit an environmental report that Concern. Several' commenters raised On February 11, 1994, the President analyzes the environmental impacts concerns related to the license renewal issued Executive Order (E.Q.) 12898, associated with the proposed action, scenario evaluation methodology as "Federal Actions To Address considers alternatives to the proposed implemented in the GEIS. The Environmental Justice in Minority action, and evaluates any alternatives fundamental issues were the degree of Populations and Low-Income for reducing adverse environmental

. conservatism built into the scenario and Populations" (59 FR 7629, February 16, effects. Additionally, the amendment the appropriateness of an upper bound 1994). This order requires each Federal requires the NRC staff to prepare a type approach in characterizing the , agency to make achieving supplemental environmental impact refurbishment activities (and associated environmental justice part of its mission statement for the proposed action, issue costs) in light of NEPA requirements to by identifying and addressing, as the statement in draft for public determine reasonable estimates of the appropriate, disproportionately high comment, and issue a final statement environmental impacts of Federal and adverse human health or after considering public comments on actions. environmental effects'of its programs, the draft.

Regarding the concerns that the policies, and activities on minority and The amendment deviates from NRC's refurbishment schedules and scenarios low income populations. The current NEPA review practice in some developed for the GEIS were too Commission will endeavor to carry out areas. First, 'the amendment codifies conservative, several commenters the measures set forth in the executive certain environmental impacts indicated that many of the activities order by integrating environmental associated with license renewal that slated for completion during the justice into NRC's compliance with the wereanalyzed in NUREG-1437, extended refurbishment before license National Environmental Policy of 1969 "Generic Environmental Impact renewal would actually be completed by (NEPA), as amended. E.O. 12898 was Statement for License Renewal at many facilities during the course of the issued after publication of the proposed Nuclear Plants" (xxxx 1996).

current licensing term. The effect of rule and the receipt of comments on the Accordingly, absent new and significant having only one major outage instead of' proposed rule. As a result, no comments information, the analyses for certain leveling work over three or four outages were received regarding environmental impacts codified by this rulemaking could lead to an over-estimate of the justice reviews for license renewal. need only be incorporated by reference refurbishment activities and costs that Therefore, a brief discussion of this in an applicant's environmental report any particular plant would expect to issue relative to license renewal is for license renewal and in the see. warranted: Commission's (including NRC staff, Response. In response to this concern, As called for in Section 1-102 of E.O. adjudicatory officers, and the the NRC has revised the GEIS to include 12898, the EPA established a Federal Commission itself) draft and final SEIS two license renewal program scenarios. interagency working group to, among and other environmental documents The first scenario refers to a "typical" other things, "* *

• provide guidance developed for the proceeding. Secondly, license renewal program and is to Federal agencies or criteria for the amendment reflects the intended to be representative of the type identifying disproportionately high and Commission's decision to limit its of programs that many plants seeking adverse human health or environmental NEPA review for license renewal to a license renewal might implement. The effects on minority populations and consideration of the environmehtal

28484 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Rules and Regulations effects of the proposed action and subject areas of the analysis that must be upon which the Commission will base alternatives to the proposed action. addressed for the Category 2 issues. its final decision.

Finally, the amendment contains the Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR 3. Consideration of Mitigation decision standard that the Commission 51.53 (c) (2) requires the applicant to will use in determining the acceptability Alternatives consider possible actions to mitigate the of the environmental impacts of adverse impacts associated with the Consistent with the NRC's current individual license renewals. proposed action. This consideration is NEPA practice, an applicant must The Commission and the applicant limited to designated Category 2 include a consideration of alternatives will consider severe accident mitigation matters. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45 (d), to mitigate adverse environmental alternatives to reduce or mitigate the environmental report must include impacts in its environmental report.

environmental impacts for any plant for a discussion of the status of compliance However, for license renewal, the

• whichsevere accident mitigation with applicable Federal, State, and local Commission has generically considered alternatives have not been previously environmental standards. Also, 10 CFR mitigation for environmental issues considered in an environmental impact 51.53(c) (2) specifically excludes from associated with renewal and has statement or related supplement or in an consideration in the environmental concluded that no additional site-environmental assessment. The report the issues of need for power, the specific consideration of mitigation is Commission has concluded that, for economic costs and benefits of the necessary for many issues. The license renewal, the issues of need for proposed action, economic costs and Commission's consideration of power and utility economics should be benefits of alternatives to the proposed mitigation for each issue included reserved for State and utility officials to action, or other issues not related to identification of current activities that decide. Accordingly, the NRC will not environmental effects of the proposed adequately mitigate impacts and conduct an analysis of these issues in action and associated alternatives. In evaluation of other mitigation the context of license renewal or addition, the requirements in 10 CFR techniques that might or might not be perform traditional cost-benefit 51.45 are consistent with the exclusion warranted, depending on such factors as balancing in license renewal NEPA of economic issues in 10 CFR the size of the impact and the cost of the reviews. Finally, in a departure from the technique. The Commission has 51.53(c)(2).

approach presented in the proposed considered mitigation for all impacts rule, this final rule does not codify any 2. Consideration of Alternatives designated as Category 1 in Table B-1.

conclusions regarding the subject of. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(c), 10 CFR Therefore, a license renewal applicant alternatives. Consideration of and 51.53(c) (2) requires the applicant to need not address mitigation for issues so decisions regarding alternatives will designated.

consider the environmental impacts of occur at the site-specific stage. The alternatives to license renewal in -the C. Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact discussion below addresses the specific environmental report. The treatment of Statement regulatory requirements of this alternatives in the environmental report S.amendment and any conforming This amendment also requires that the should be limited to the environmental Commission prepare a supplemental changes~to 10 CFR part 51 to implement impacts of such alternatives. environmental impact statement (SEIS),

the Commission's decision to eliminate The amended regulations do not consistent with 10 CFR 51.20(b) (2). This cost-benefit balancing from license require a discussion of the economic statement will serve as the renewal NEPA reviews. costs and benefits of these alternatives Commission's independent analysis of B. The EnvironmentalReport in the environmental report for the the environmental impacts of license operating license renewal stage except. renewal as well as a comparison of these

1. Environmental Impacts of License as necessary to determine whether an impacts to the environmental impacts of Renewal alternative should be included in the alternatives. This document willalso Through this final rule, the NRC has range of alternatives considered or present the preliminary amended 10 CFR 51.53 to require an whether certain mitigative actions are recommendation by the NRC staff

• applicant for license renewal to submit appropriate. The analysis should regarding the proposed action.

an environmental report with its demonstrate consideration of a Consistent with the revisions to 10 CFR application. This environmental report reasonable set of alternatives to license 51.45 and 51.53 discussed above in must contain an analysis of the renewal. In preparing the- alternatives regard to the applicant's environmental environmental impacts of renewing a analysis, the applicant may consider report, this rulemaking revises portions license, the environmental impacts of -information regarding alternatives in of 10 CFR 51.71 and 51.95 to reflect the alternatives, and mitigation alternatives. NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Commission's approach to addressing In preparing the analysis of Impact Statement for License Renewal the environmental impacts of license environmental impacts contained in the of Nuclear Plants" (xxxx 1996). renewal.

environmental report, the applicant The Commission has developed a new The issues of need for power, the should refer to the data provided in decision standard to be applied in economic costs and benefits of the appendix B to 10 CFR part 51, which environmental impact statements for proposed action, and economic costs has been added to NRC's regulations as license renewal as discussed in Section and benefits of alternatives to the part of this rulemaking. The applicant is IV.C.2. The amended regulations for proposed action are specifically not required to provide an analysis in license renewal do not require excluded from consideration in the the environmental report of those issues applicants to apply this decision supplemental environmental impact identified as Category 1 issues in Table standard to the information generated in statement for license renewal by 10 CFR B-1 in Appendix B. For those issues

• their environmental report (although the 51.95(c), except as these costs and identified as Category 2 in Table B-i, applicant is not prohibited from doing benefits are either essential for a the applicant must provide a specified so if it desires). However, the NRC staff determination regarding the inclusion of additional analysis beyond that *will use the information contained in an alternative in the range of contained in Table B-1. In this final the environmental report in preparing alternatives considered or relevant to rule, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) specifies the the environmental impact statement mitigation. The supplemental

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion-for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 7

NEI 05.01 [Rev A]

Nuclear Energy Institute Severe!Accident Migo Alternatives (SAMA). Analysis Guidance Document November 2005 NuclearEnergy Institute, 17761 Street N. W., Suite 400, Washington D.C. (202.739.8000)

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This document provides a template for completing the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis in support of license renewal. Its purpose is to identify the information that should be included in the SAMA portion of a license renewal application environmental report to reduce the necessity for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests for additional information (RAIs). The method described relies upon NUREG/BR-0184 regulatory analysis techniques, is a result of experience gained through past SAMA analyses, and incorporates insights gained from review of NRC evaluations of SAMA analyses and associated RAls.

i

NEI 05-01 (Rev A)

November 2005 DCPWR This analysis case was used to evaluate plant modifications that would increase the availabilityof Class JE DCpower (e.g., increasedbattery capacity or the installationof a diesel-poweredgenerator that would effectively increase battery capacity). Although the proposed SAMAs would not completely eliminate the potentialfailure, a bounding benefit was estimated by removing the battery discharge events and battery failure events. This analysis case was used to model the benefit of SAMAs'4, 5, 10, 12, and 24.

7.1.2 COST OF SEVERE ACCIDENT RISK WITH SAMA IMPLEMENTED Using the risk measures from Section 7.1.1, calculate severe accident impacts in four areas: off-site exposure cost, off-site economic cost, on-site exposure cost, and on-site economic cost using the same procedure used for the baseline ease described in Section 4.

As in Section 4.5, sum the severe accident impacts and combine with the external events multiplier (Section 3.1.2.4) to estimate the total, cost of severe accident risk with the SAMA implemented. Use of the external events multiplier is inappropriate for some SAMAs. For example, SAMAs specifically related to external events that would not impact internal events (e.g., enhanced fire detections) and SAMAs related to specific internal event initiators (e.g.,

guard pipes for main steam line break events). Provide a discussion of SAMAs on which the external events multiplier was not applied.

7.1.3 SAMA BENEFIT Subtract the total cost of severe accident risk with the SAMA implemented from the baseline cost of severe accident risk (maximum benefit from Section 4:5) to obtain the benefit.

List the estimated benefit. for each SAMA candidate.

Table 11 provides a sample portion of a Phase II SAMA candidate list with estimated benefits listed.

7.2 COST OF SAMA IMPLEMENTATION Perform a cost estimate for each of the Phase II SAMA candidates. Describe the cost estimating process and list the cost estimate for each SAMA candidate.

As SAMA analysis focuses on establishing the economic viability of potential plant enhancement. when compared to attainable benefit, often detailed cost estimates are not required to make informed decisions regarding the economic viability of a particular modification.

SAMA implementation costs may be clearly in excess of the attainable benefit estimated from a particular analysis case. For less clear cases, engineering judgment may be applied to determine if a more detailed cost estimate is necessary to formulate a conclusion regarding the economic viability of a particular SAMA. Nonetheless, the cost of each SAMA candidate should be conceptually estimated to the point where economic viability of the proposed modification can be adequately gauged.

28

NET 05-01 (Rev A)

November 2005 For hardware modifications, the cost of implementation may be established from existing estimates of similar modifications from previously performed SAMA and SAMDA analyses.

Costs associated with implementation of a SAMA including procurement, installation, long-term maintenance, surveillance, calibration, and training should be considered.

Discuss conservatisms in the cost estimates. For example, cost estimates may not include the cost of replacement power during extended outages required to implement the modifications.

They also may not include contingency costs associated with unforeseen implementation obstacles. Estimates based on modifications that were implemented or estimated in the past may be presented in terms of dollar values at the time of implementation (or estimation), and not adjusted to present-day dollars. In addition, implementation costs originally developed for SAMDA analyses (i.e., during the design phase of the plant) do not capture the additional costs associated with performing design modifications to existing plants (i.e., reduced efficiency, minimizing dose, disposal of contaminated material, etc.).

Table 11 provides a sample portion of a Phase II SAMA candidate list with cost estimates.

29

NEI 05-01 (Rev A)

November 2005 8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES Evaluate how changes in SAMA analysis assumptions would affect the cost-benefit analysis.

Perform the following sensitivity analyses, as applicable.

Table 12 contains sample sensitivity analysis results.

8.1 PLANT MODIFICATIONS Major changes to the plant, such as power uprate or. steam generator replacement, may be planned or may have occurred since the model freeze date, as described in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2. If the Level I or Level 2 PSA model used for the SAMA analysis does not address a major plant change, a sensitivity analysis may be performed to support discussion of the impact of the change on the SAMA analysis results.

In this sensitivity analysis, modify the PSA model (or its results) to simulate incorporation of the plant modification and perform the Phase II analysis with the revised severe accident risk results.

Sufficient margin exists in the maximum benefit estimation that the Phase I screening should not have to be repeated in the sensitivity analysis.

Discuss the plant modification and how its effects were simulated in the PSA model. Provide pertinent results and discuss how they affect the conclusions of the SAMA analysis. If SAMAs appear cost-beneficial .in the sensitivity results, discussion of conservatisms in the analysis, (e.g.,

conservatisms in cost estimates discussed in Section 7.2), and their impact on the results may be appropriate.

8.2 UNCERTAINTY A discussion of CDF uncertainty, and conservatisms in the SAMA analysis that off-set uncertainty, should be included. For example, use of conservative risk modeling to represent a particular plant change may be used to offset uncertainty in risk modeling; use of conservative implementation cost estimates may be used to offset uncertainty in cost estimates; and use of an uncertainty factor derived from the ratio of the 9 5 th percentile to the mean point estimate for internal events CDF may be used to account for CDF uncertainties. Estimate an uncertainty factor based on this discussion and perform a sensitivity analysis using the uncertainty factor on the results. [Based on analysis to date the ratio of the 95dh percentile to the mean point estimate for typical internal events CDF values is 2 to 5 (Reference 1).]

Provide pertinent results and discuss how they affect the conclusions of the SAMA analysis. If SAMAs appear cost-beneficial in the sensitivity results, discussion of conservatisms in the analysis, (e.g., conservatisms in cost estimates discussed in Section 7.2), and their impact on the results may be appropriate.

30

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 8

August 2, 2007 Mr. James H. Riley Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708

SUBJECT:

FINAL LICENSE RENEWAL INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE LR-ISG-2006-03: STAFF GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES

Dear Mr. Riley:

By letter dated August 10, 2006, we issued ourproposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance, LR-ISG-2006-03, for public comments. By letter dated September 15, 2006, Dr. Jill Lipoti, State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, provided comments and requested that the staff take this opportunity to include a review of the impacts of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities as part of the National Environmental Policy Act in the interim staff guidance. The staff reviewed Dr. Lipoti's comments and provided responses in a letter dated July 31, 2007, which can be found in the Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession Number ML071380307. No changes were incorporated in the Final LR-ISG-2006-03 based on these comments. is our Final LR-ISG-2006-03. A notice relating to this Final LR-ISG will be published in the FederalRegister. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Richard L. Emch, Jr., by telephone at 301-415-1590 or by e-mail at RLE(nrc.qov, An identical letter was sent to Mr. David Lochbaum at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Sincerely;'

IRA!

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Director Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 690

Enclosure:

Final LR-ISG-2006-03 cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page Adams Accession No. ML071640,133 OFFICE PM:DLR:REBB LA:DLR PM:DLR:RLRB OGC NAME REmch YEdmonds ILTran SUttal (NLO w/

comments)

DATE 06/15/07 06/26/07 107/3/07 07/13/07 OFFICE BC:DLR:REBB BC:DLR:RRLRB I D:DLR NAME I RFranovich RAuluck PTKuo DATE 07/23/07 07/27/07 08/2/07 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Letter to: James H. Riley, David Lochbaum, from: Pao-Tsin Kuo. dated: Augqust 2, 2007

SUBJECT:

FINAL LICENSE RENEWAL INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE LR-ISG-2006-03: STAFF GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES HARD COPY DLR RF REmch LTran E-MAIL:

PUBLIC MRubin RPalla RidsNrrOd RidsNrrAdro RidsNrrAdra RidsNrrAdes RidsNrrDIr RidsNrrDra RidsNrrDnrl RidsNrrDlrRebb RidsNrrDIrReba DLR Staff

FINAL LICENSE RENEWAL INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE LR-ISG-2006-03:

STAFF GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES Introduction A Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis is required as part of a license renewal application, if a SAMA analysis has not already been performed for the plant and reviewed by the NRC staff. SAMA analyses have been performed and submitted to the NRC for all applications for license renewal received by the staff thus far. Therefore, this LR-ISG is being recommended as guidance consistent with our goal to more effectively and efficiently resolve license renewal issues identified by the staff or the industry.

Back~ground and Discussion After receiving extensive requests for additional information regarding the SAMA analyses, several applicants for license renewal concluded that they did not fully understand the kind of information that the NRC staff was expecting to see in SAMA analyses.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) developed a generic guidance document to help clarify the NRC staffs expectations regarding the information that should be submitted in SAMA analyses.

On April 8, 2005, NEI submitted NEI 05-01, "Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)

Analysis - Guidance Document." The NRC staff reviewed this guidance document, and by letter, dated July 12, 2005, provided comments on NEI 05-01. The NRC staffs comments were discussed during a public meeting between NEI and NRC on July 21, 2005.

On February 17, 2006, NEI submitted its NEI 05-01, Revision A, dated November 2005. The NRC staff reviewed and concluded that this versionfully resolved the NRC staff's comments. In addition, the NRC staff concluded that NEI 05-01, Revision.A, describes existing NRC regulations and facilitates complete preparation of SAMA analysis submittals.

Some applicants for license renewal have submitted SAMA analyses using the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Revision A. The NRC staff found improved quality in the submitted SAMA.analyses and a reduction in the number of requests for additional information for those applications. that followed the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Revision A.

Recommended Action

• The staff is recommending that applicants for license renewal follow the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Revision A, when preparing their SAMA analyses. The staff finds that NEI 05-01, Revision A, describes existing NRC regulations, and facilitates complete preparation of SAMA analysis submittals.

Although this final LR-ISG does not convey a change in the NRC's regulations or how they are interpreted, it is being provided to facilitate complete preparation of future SAMA analysis submittals in support of applications for license renewal. The NRC staff plans to incorporate the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Revision A, into a future update of Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, "Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Enclosure

Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses." This LR-ISG provides a clarification of existing guidance with no additional requirements. For those that are interested in reviewing NEI 05-01, Revision A, the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

Accession Number is ML060530203.

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 9

45466 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 156/Tuesday, August 14, 2007/Notices clarified the application, did not expand contact the NRC Public Document Room submittals. The staff finds that the scope of the application as originally (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397- utilization of the guidance provided in noticed, and did not change the staff's 4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at NEI 05-01, Revision A, will result in original proposed no significant hazards pdri@nrc.gov. improved quality in SAMA analyses consideration determination as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.. and a reduction in the number of published in the Federal Register. Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior Project requests for additional information.

The Commission's related evaluation Manager, Office Of Nuclear Reactor of the amendments is contained in a Attachment 2-Final License Renewal Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2007. Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

. No significanthazards consideration 03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe 0001; telephone 301-415-1590 or by e- Accident Mitigation Alternatives comments received: No.

mail at rle@nrc.gov. Analyses

.Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

of August 2007. Attachment 1 to this Federal Register Introduction For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. notice, entitled Staff Position and A severe accident mitigation Catherine Haney, Rationalefor the FinalLicense Renewal alternatives (SAMA) analyses is Director,Division of OperatingReactor Interim Staff GuidanceLR-ISG-2006- required as part of a license renewal Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 03: Staff Guidancefor PreparingSevere application, if a SAMA analysis has not Regulation. Accident Mitigation Alternatives already been performed for the plant

[FR Doc. E7-15459 Filed 8-13-07; 8:45 am] (SAMA) Analyses contains the NRC and reviewed by the NRC staff. SAMA BILLING'CODE 7590-01-P staff's rationale for publishing the Final analyses have been performed and LR-ISG-2006-03. Attachment 2 to this submitted to the NRC for all Federal Register notice, entitled applications for license renewal NUCLEAR REGULATORY Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff received by the staff thus far. Therefore, COMMISSION Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff this LR-ISG is being recommended as Guidancefor PreparingSevere Accident guidance consistent with our goal to Notice of Availability of the Final MitigationAlternatives (SAMA) more effectively and efficiently resolve License Renewal Interim Staff Analyses, contains the guidance for license renewal issues identified by the Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff preparing SAMA analyses related to *staff or the industry.

Guidance for Preparing Severe license renewal applications. The NRC Accident Mitigation Alternatives Background and Discussion staff approves this LR-ISG for NRC and Analyses industry use. The NRC staff will also After receiving extensive requests for AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory incorporate the approved LR-ISG into additional information regarding the Commission (NRC). the next revision of Supplement 1 to SAMA analyses, several applicants for ACTION: Notice of Availability. Regulatory Guide 4.2, "Preparation of license renewal concluded that they did Supplemental Environmental Reports not fully understand the kind of

SUMMARY

NRC is issuing its Final for Applications to Renew Nuclear information that the NRC staff was License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance Power Plant Operating Licenses." expecting to see in SAMA analyses.

LR-ISG-2006-03 for preparing severe The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) of August 2007. developed a generic guidance document analyses. This LR-ISG recommends that to help clarify the NRC staff's For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

applicants for license renewal use the expectations regarding the information Pao-Tsin Kuo, Guidance Document Nuclear Energy that should be submitted in SAMA Institute 05-01, Revision A, (ADAMS Director,Division of License Renewal, Office of NuclearReactorRegulation. analyses. On April 8, 2005, NEI Accession No. ML060530203) when submitted NEI 05-01, "Severe Accident preparing their SAMA analyses. The Attachment 1-Staff Position and Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)

NRC staff issues' LR-ISGs to facilitate Rationale for the Final License Renewal Analysis-Guidance Document." The timely implementation of the license Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006- NRC staff reviewed this guidance renewal rule and to review activities 03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe document, and by letter, dated July 12, associated with a license renewal Accident Mitigation Alternatives 2005, provided comments on NEI 05-application. The NRC staff will also Analyses 01. The NRC staff's comments were incorporate the approved LR-ISG into Staff Position:The NRC staff discussed during a public meeting the next revision of Supplement I to recommends that applicants for license between NEI and NRC on July 21, 2005.

Regulatory Guide 4.2, "Preparation of renewal follow the guidance provided On February 17, 2006, NEI submitted Supplemental Environmental Reports in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 05-01, its NEI 05-01, Revision A, dated ,

for Applications to Renew Nuclear "Severe Accident Mitigation November 2005. The NRC staff reviewed Power Plant Operating Licenses." Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis- and concluded that this version fully ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an Guidance Document," Revision A, when resolved the NRC staff s comments. In Agencywide Documents Access and preparing their SAMA analyses. addition, the NRC staff concluded that Management System (ADAMS), which Rationale:The NEI developed a NEI 05-01, Revision A, describes provides text and image files of NRC's generic Guidance Document NEI 05-01, existing NRC regulations, and facilitates public documents. These documents Revision A,.to help clarify the NRC complete preparation of SAMA analysis may be accessed through the NRC's staff's expectations regarding the submittals.

Public Electronic Reading Room on the information that needs to be included in Some applicants for license renewal Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- SAMA analyses. The NRC staff have submitted SAMA analyses using rm/adams.html. Persons who do not reviewed and concluded that NEI 05- the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, have access to ADAMS or who 01, Revision A, describes existing NRC Revision A. The NRC staff found encounter problems in accessing the regulations and facilitates complete improved quality in the submitted documents located in ADAMS should preparation of SAMA analysis SAMA analyses and a reduction in the

'I

Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 156/Tuesday, August 14, 2007/Notices 45467 number of requests for additional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Request relies on record information for those applications that Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, testimony entered in the baseline followed the guidance provided in NEI 202-789-6820 and docket. This material is identified in the 05-01, Revision A. stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. Postal Service's Compliance Statement, Recommended Action SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August Request Attachment E.

3, 2007, the United States Postal Service Requests that are proffered as The staff is recommending that filed a request seeking a recommended functionally equivalent to baseline applicants for license renewal follow decision from the Postal Regulatory NSAs are handled expeditiously, until a the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Commission approving a Negotiated final determination has been made as to Revision A, when preparing their SAMA analyses. The staff finds that NEI Service Agreement (NSA) with The their proper status. The Postal Service's Bradford Group.1 The NSA is proffered Compliance Statement, Request 05-01, Revision A, describes existing as functionally equivalent to the NRC regulations, and facilitates Attachment E, is noteworthy in that it Bookspan NSA recommended by the provides valuable information to complete preparation of SAMA analysis Commission in Docket No. MC2005-3 submittals. facilitate rapid review of the Request to (baseline agreement). [70 FR 42602.] aid participants in evaluating whether Although this proposed LR-ISG does The Request, which includes six not convey a change in the NRC's or not.the procedural path suggested by attachments, was filed pursuant to the Postal Service is appropriate.

regulations or how they are interpreted, chapter 36 of title 39, United States The Postal Service submitted several it is being provided to facilitate Code.

2 complete preparation of future SAMA contemporaneous related filings with its The Postal Service has identified The analysis submittals in support of Request. The Postal Service has filed a Bradford Group, along with itself, as applications for license renewal. The parties to the NSA. This identification proposal for limitation of issues in this NRC staff plans to incorporate, the serves as notice of intervention by The docket.3 Rule 196(a)(6) [39 CFR guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Bradford Group. It also indicates that 3001.196(a)(6)]. The proposal identifies Revision A, into a future update of The Bradford Group shall be considered issues that were previously decided in Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, a co-proponent, procedurally and the baseline docket, and key issues that "Preparation of Supplemental substantially, of the Postal Service's are unique to the instant Request.

Environmental Reports for Applications Request during the Commission's Rule 196(b) 139 CFR 3001.196(b)]

to Renew Nuclear Power Plant review of the NSA. Rule 191(b) 139 CFR requires the Postal Service to provide Operating Licenses." This LR-ISG 3001.191(b).] An appropriate Notice of written notice of its Request, either by provides a clarification of existing The Bradford Group of Appearance and hand delivery or by First Class Mail, to guidance with no additional Filing of Testimony as Co-Proponent, all participants of the baseline docket.

requirements. For those that are August 3, 2007, has been filed. This requirement provides additional interested in reviewing NEI. 05-01, In support of the direct case, the time, due to an abbreviated intervention Revision A, the Agencywide Documents Postal Service has filed Direct period, for the most likely participants Access and Management System Testimony of Broderick A; Parr on to decide whether or not to intervene. A (ADAMS) Accession Number is Behalf of the United States Postal copy of the Postal Service's notice was ML060530203. Service, August 3, 2007 (USPS-T-1) filed with the Commission on August 3,

[FR Doc. E7-15926 Filed 8-13-07; 8:45 am] and library reference USPS-LR-L-1, 2007.4 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P MC2004-3 Opinion and Further The Request, accompanying Recommended Decision Analysis for testimonies of witnesses Parr (USPS-T-The Bradford Group NSA. The Bradford 1), Gustafson (BG-T-1), and Ring (BG-POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Group has separately filed direct T-2), the baseline agreement, and other testimonies of Steve Gustafson (BG-T- related material can be accessed

[Docket No. MC2007-4; Order No. 23] 1) and Wendy Ring (BG-T-2) both on electronically, via the Internet, on the behalf of The Bradford Group, August 3, Commission's Web site (http://

Negotiated Service Agreement 2007. The Postal Service has reviewed www.prc.gov).

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. The Bradford Group testimony and, in accordance with rule 192(b) [39 CFR I.

Background:

Baseline Bookspan ACTION: Notice and order.

3001.192(b)], states that such testimony Negotiated Service Agreement, Docket

SUMMARY

This document establishes a may be relied upon in presentation of No. MC2005-3 docket for consideration of the Postal the Postal Service's direct case. USPS-Service's request for approval of T-1 at 3. If a request predicated on a NSA is contract rates with The Bradford Group.

found to be functionally equivalent to a It identifies key elements of the 'Request of the United States Postal Service for previously recommended, and currently proposed agreement, which involves a Recommended Decision on Classifications and in effect, NSA, it may be afforded Standard Mail letters and flats rates, and Rates to Implement a Functionally Equivalent accelerated review. Rule 196 [39 CFR Negotiated Service Agreement with Bradford 3001.196]. The Postal Service asserts addresses preliminary procedural Group, August 3, 2007 (Request).

matters. 2 Attachments A and B to the Request contain that the NSA in the instant Request is proposed changes to the Domestic Mail functionally equivalent to the now in DATES: 1. August 24, 2007: Deadline for Classification Schedule and associated rate effect Bookspan NSA recommended by intervention and responses to limitation schedules; Attachment C is a certification required the Commission in Docket No. MC2005-,

of issues. 2. August 28, 2007: Prehearing by Commission rule 193(i) specifying that the cost statements and supporting data submitted by the conference, 11 a.m. in the Commission's Postal Service, which purport .to reflect the books 3 United States Postal Service Proposal for hearing room. of the Postal Service, accurately set forth the results Limitation of Issues, August 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments shown by such books; Attachment D is an index of 4 Notice of the United States Postal Service electronically via the Commission's testimony and exhibits; Attachment E is a Concerning the Filing of a Request for a compliance statement addressing satisfaction of Recommended Decision on a Functionally Filing Online system at http:// various filing requirements; and Attachment F is a Equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement, August www.prc.gov. copy of the Negotiated Service Agreement. 3, 2007.

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in .Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 10

Enter-qy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center vEnhtergy 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel (914) 788-2055 Fred Dacimo Vice President License Renewal NL-09-151 November 16, 2009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.

Telephone Conference Call Regarding Met Tower Data for SAMA Analysis Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

.License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64

REFERENCE:

1. Meeting Minutes, Telephone Conference, November 9, 2009, between Ms. Kimberly Green NRC and Entergy Staff Regarding Met Tower Data for SAMA Analyses Dear Sir or Madam'.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc is providing this letter to document a discrepancy found with the wind direction inputs to the MACCS2 code for the IPEC SAMA analysis. Entergy found the discrepancy, during investigations to resolve a question from the NRC staff regarding wind

.directions. The method used to obtain the five-year average hourlywind directions has been determined faulty. This issue has been entered into Entergy Corrective Action Program as CR-HQN-2009-01044. IPEC will correct the wind-direction inputs, re-analyze the SAMAs for both units and provide the results to the NRC by December 16, 2009.

As requested during the telephone conference summarized in reference 1, Entergy will provide the following information on or before December 16, 2009..

• The meteorological data and justification supporting its use in the SAMA analysis (e.g., if a single year is used or an average of several years),

• Revised estimates of the offsite population dose and offsite economic costs,

• Identification of the meteorological tower elevation from which meteorological data were obtained and the rationale for selecting the data from that tower elevation,

• Revised SAMA analysis results, specifically for the analysis case discussed in response to RAI 4e, dated February 5, 2008, and The complete MACCS2 input file used for the reanalysis (in electronic format).

A-ooi

NL-09-151 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Robert Walpole at 914-734-6710.

Sincer FRD/dmt-

Attachment:

1. Regulatory Commitment cc: Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Sherwin E. Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel, Special Counsel Ms. Kimberly Green, NRC Safety Project Manager Mr. John Boska, NRR Senior Project Manager, IPEC NRC Resident Inspector's Office Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Department of Public Service Mr. Francis J. Murray, President. and CEO, NYSERDA

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-09-151 Regulatory Commitment ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 AND 50-286 LICENSE NOS. DPR-26 AND DPR-64

NL-09-151 Attachment I Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 1 of I Regulatory Commitment The following table identifies an action committed to by Entergy in this document. Any other statements in this submittal are provided for information purposes and are not considered to be regulatory commitments.

COMMITMENT IMPLEMENTATION SOURCE RELATED SCHEDULE LRA SECTION

"_ _I AUDIT ITEM Entergy will provide the following information on or IP2: NL-09-151 Appendix E before December 16, 2009. December 16, Section 4.21 2009 The meteorological data and justification supporting its use in the SAMA analysis (e.g., IP3:

if a single year is used or an average of December 16,.

several years), 2009 Revised estimates of the offsite population dose and offsite economic costs, Identification of the meteorological tower.

elevation from which meteorological data were obtained and the rationale for selecting the

.data from that tower elevation,

• Revised SAMA analysis results, specifically for the analysis case discussed in response to RAI 4e, dated February 5, 2008, and

" The complete MACCS2 input file used for the reanalysis (in electronic format). L

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 11

• Enterqy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB PRO. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel (914) 788-2055 Fred Dacimo Vice President License Renewal NL-09-165 December 11, 2009' U.S. Nuclear.Regulatory C6mmission Attn: Document Control D0esk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64

REFERENCE:

1. Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. Letter NL-09-151, "Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. Telephone Conference Call Regarding Met Tower Data for SAMA Analysis" dated November 16, 2009

Dear Sir or Madam:

In Reference 1 above, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc (Entergy) committed to providing the following information on or before December 16, 2009.

• The meteorological data and justification supporting.its use in the SAMA analysis (e.g., if a single: year is used or an average of several years),

• Revised estimates of the offsite population dose and offsite economic costs, 0 Identification of the meteorological tower elevation from which meteorological data were obtained and the rationale for selecting the data from that tower elevation,

• Revised SAMA analysis results, specifically for the analysis case discussed in response to RAI 4e, dated February 5, 2008, and

• The complete MACCS2 input file used for the reanalysis (in electronic format).

The purpose of this letter is to transmit the requested information. Attachment 1 provides the SAMA reanalysis using alternate Meteorological Tower Data.

There are no new commitments identified in this-submittal. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Robert Walpole at 914-734-6710.

NL-09-165 Page 2 of 2 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Si FRD/dmt

Enclosure:

. License Renewal Application- SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data cc: Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Sherwin E. Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel, Special Counsel Ms. Kimberly Green, NRC Project Manager Mr. John Boska, NRR Senior Project Manager IPEC NRC Resident Inspector's Office Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Department of Public Service Mr. Francis J. Murray, President and CEO, NYSERDA

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-09-165 License Renewal Application - SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS."50-247 AND 50-286 LICENSE NOS. DPR-26 AND DPR-64

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 &.50-286 Page 1 of 33 INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data NRC Requests from November 9. 2009 Teleconference (1) Provide meteorological data and justification supporting its use in the SAMA analysis (e.g., if a single year is used or an average of several years).

(2) Provide revised estimates of the offsite population dose and offsite economic costs.

(3) Provide identification of the meteorological tower elevation from which meteorological data were obtained and the rationale for selecting the data from that tower elevation.

(4) Provide revised SAMA analysis results, specifically for the analysis case discussed in response to RAI 4e, dated February 5, 2008.

(5) Provide the complete MACCS2 input file used for the reanalysis (in electronic format).

Response

The following document provides responses to the requests listed above.

(1) Section [4] describes and justifies the meteorological data used in the SAMA reanalysis.

(2) Revised estimates of the offsite population dose and offsite economic costs are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

(3) Identification of the meteorological tower elevation from which meteorological data were obtained and the rationale for selecting the data from that tower elevation are provided in Section [2].

(4) Revised SAMA analysis results, specifically for the analysis case discussed in response to RAI 4e, are provided in Tables 4 and 5.

(5) The complete MACCS2 input files used for the SAMA reanalysis listed in Section

[10] are provided in electronic format.

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 2 of 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS

[1] INTRODUCTION ...................................

.................. 3

[2] PREPARATION OF ANNUAL METEOROLOGICAL DATA .................................. 4

[3] NON-,METEOROLOGICAL LEVEL 3.MODEL INPUTS .............. ........................... 5

[41 MACCS2 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .............................................................. 5

[5] COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS RESULTS ..................................... .................. 7

[6] REVISED COST ESTIMATES .......................................... I ..... 7

[7] MAIN STEAM SAFETY VALVE GAGGING SAMA (UPDATED RESPONSE TO ROUND 2 RAI 6) ................................................... 29

[8] TI-SGTR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (REVISED RESPONSE TO ROUND 2 RAI

5) ................................... .............................. ..................... 2 9

[9] CONCLUSION ..................................................... 31

[10] MACCS2 INPUT FILES .............................................. 33

[11] REFERENCES, .. .. . ............................................. ...... 33

NL-09-165 Attachment I Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 3 of 33 IP2 and IP3 SAMA Reanalysis

[1] Introduction The IP2 and IP3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) analyses originally described in the Environmental Report (ER) of the license renewal application, dated April 3, 2007, used site specific meteorological data (wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and accumulated precipitation) obtained from the IPEC onsite meteorological monitoring system (Reference 1).

As permitted by NEI 05-01, "Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Guidance Document,"'1 (Reference 4) five years of meteorological data (2000-2004) were averaged and used in the original SAMA analyses. Since the SAMA analyses began in the fall of 2005, these five years were the most recent data available at the time of the original analyses. The.five-year data included 43,848 (two leap years) consecutivehourly values of wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and temperature recorded at the IPEC meteorological tower from January 2000 through December 2004. The results of the original SAMA analyses were reported in the ER and clarified in response to questions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (References 2 and 3).

As described above, the original SAMA analyses used five year averages of wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and temperature. The averaging method for wind direction, however, was determined to be incorrect and, as a result, the averaged wind direction data was not representative of wind direction conditions in the region for the five year period (Reference 5).

Therefore, the SAMAs have been reanalyzed using a single representative year of meteorological data as described below. As described further in Section [4] below, Year 2000 was selected as the representative year because, of the five years of data, it is the year that, resulted in the most conservative .(i.e. largest) calculated population doses. Using one representative year avoids the need to average multiple years of meteorological data, including wind direction.

In accordance with NEI 05-01 recommendations, the original SAMA analyses described in the ER included multiple cases including.a baseline case with uncertainty and three sensitivity cases (use of a 3 percent discount rate, use of a longer plant life, and consideration of economic losses by tourism and business). The sensitivity cases in the ER did not identify additional potentially cost beneficial SAMAs beyond those already identified by the baseline with uncertainty case.

During their review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff noted that incorporation of tourism and business losses could result in identification of additional cost beneficial SAMAs if it was considered the baseline case and multiplied to account for uncertainties. Therefore, in "

response to request for additional information (RAI) 4e, Entergy provided the results of a revised uncertainty analysis in which the impact of lost tourism and business was analyzed as the baseline analysis and multiplied to account for uncertainties (Reference 2). This uncertainty case resulted in the identification of two additional potentially cost beneficial SAMAs for IP2 and one additional potentially cost beneficial SAMA for IP3. Since it resulted in the largest number of potentially cost beneficial SAMAs, the RAI 4e analysis case is the most conservative case.

The SAMA reanalysis described below was performed for the same most conservative case; I NEI 05-01 was endorsed by NRC in Federal Register/ Vol; 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14,2007.

f, NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 4 of 33 i.e., the RAI 4e analysis case in which the impact of,lost tourism and business was analyzed as the baseline analysis and multiplied to account for uncertainties.

Following the SAMA reanalysis, an additional sensitivity case was analyzed to provide a revised response to Round 2 RAI 5 (Reference 3). This sensitivity case determined the impact of applying values derived from NUREG-1570, Risk Assessment of Severe Accident-Induced Steam Generator Tube Rupture, although final industry.consensus on the thermally-induced steam generator tube rupture (TI-SGTR) issue has not yet been reached. See.Section [8] for a description of this sensitivity case-As a result of the SAMA reanalysis and sensitivity case using a conservatively representative, single year of meteorological data (2000), three additional SAMA candidates were found to be potentially cost beneficial for mitigating the consequences of a severe accident for IP2 and three additional SAMA candidates were'found to be potentially cost beneficial for IP3 (in addition to those previously designated as cost beneficial in Section 4.21.6 of the ER and References 2 and 3).

[2] Preparation of Annual Meteorological Data The MACCS2 code accepts 8,760 consecutive hourly values (one year) of meteorological data.

Each of the five years of meteorological data used in the original analysis was prepared for input into the MACCS2 code by converting values recorded at the primary meteorological tower at the IPEC site to-the units used by MACCS2, assigning an atmospheric stability class based upon..

the temperature data, and using data substitution to fill in limited missing data.

The primary meteorological tower at IPEC records data on an hourly basis at three elevations,

• 1Oin, 60m, and 122m. All available data from the 1Om elevation of the primary meteorological tower was used in both the original SAMA analysis and reanalysis because it is closest to the assumed release height of 30m and,, therefore, would be most representative of the conditions at the point of release. Both the .original SAMA analysis and reanalysis assumed a release height of 30in.because it is approximately half the height above grade level of the lP2 and IP3 containment bbiildings, as recommended by NEI 05-01 to provide adequate dispersion of the plume to the surrounding area. Data from this elevation is also currently used in calculations for the effluent release reports submitted to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.36a and the IPEC emergency plan.

Data -substitution methods used in the SAMA reanalysis were in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance provided in Reference 6. These methods included substitution of limited missing meteorological data with data interpolated, averaged, or curve-fit from previous and subsequent hours and substitution of valid data collected from the 60m elevation. In the MACCS2 input file for 2000, which was conservatively selected for use in-the SAMA reanalysis, the following data substitutions were made.

Seventy-four hours of 10-meter wind direction data was missing for day 316 hour0.00366 days <br />0.0878 hours <br />5.224868e-4 weeks <br />1.20238e-4 months <br /> 14 through day 319 hour0.00369 days <br />0.0886 hours <br />5.274471e-4 weeks <br />1.213795e-4 months <br /> 15 (in METIOO.inp). To maintain consistency and wind variability, data from the 60-meter sensor was substituted for the seventy four hours of missing 10-meter wind direction data.

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 5 of 33 Eight hours of temperature data was missing for day 95 hours0.0011 days <br />0.0264 hours <br />1.570767e-4 weeks <br />3.61475e-5 months <br /> 2 through 9 (in METIOO.inp)..

Values for these eight hours were obtained by linear interpolation of the preceding and subsequent valid temperature values.

Data for all meteorological parameters was missing on day 104 hours0.0012 days <br />0.0289 hours <br />1.719577e-4 weeks <br />3.9572e-5 months <br /> 10 and 11, day 104 hour0.0012 days <br />0.0289 hours <br />1.719577e-4 weeks <br />3.9572e-5 months <br /> 19, day 255 hours0.00295 days <br />0.0708 hours <br />4.21627e-4 weeks <br />9.70275e-5 months <br /> 18 and 19, and day 294 hours0.0034 days <br />0.0817 hours <br />4.861111e-4 weeks <br />1.11867e-4 months <br /> 10 and 11 (in METIOO.inp).

Substitute values were obtained by interpolation, curve-fitting, or averaging the preceding and subsequent valid data values as appropriate.

[3] Non-Meteorological Level 3 Model Inputs In addition to meteorological data, MACCS2 also uses input data for population, land fraction, watershed class, regional economic data, agriculture data, emergency response assumptions, and source terms. These inputs are described in Sections E. 1.5 and E.3.5 of the ER.

For the regional average value of non-farm wealth (VALWNF), a value of $208,838.49/person was used in the SAMA reanalysis consistent with sensitivity case 3 in the ER. As mentioned in Section [1], the RAI 4e analysis case (which is ER sensitivity case 3 multiplied to account for uncertainty) is;the most conservative case, resulting in the largest number of potentially cost beneficial SAMAs. The reanalysis was performed for the RAI 4e analysis case in which the impact of lost tourism and business was analyzed as the baseline analysis and multiplied to account for uncertainties. Consequently, the revised benefit results for all SAMAs include the impact of lost tourism and business, as described in the response to request for additional information (RAI) 4e (Reference 2).

The other, non-meteorological data were the same as those described for the baseline case in the ER (described in Sections E.1.5 and E.3.5 of the ER). 'Since the reanalysis uses the same non-meteorological input data as the original RAI 4e analysis case, the only difference between the original RAI 4e analysis and the reanalysis is the meteorological data.

[4] MACCS2 Analysis and Results As-with the original SAMA analysis, the SAMA reanalysis also used MACCS2 to estimate the mean population dose risk (PDR) and offsite economic cost risk (OECR). Preliminary results from MACCS2 using each of the five years of meteorological data (2000-2004) were compared.

Since the dose and economic cost results for all of the individual years were similar, the year that resulted in the most conservative (i.e. largest) doses (year 2000) was selected as the representative year for use in the SAMA reanalysis. This method of choosing a representative

.year agrees with. the example provided in NEI 05-01. The revised estimated mean values of PDR and OECR for IP2 and IP3 using year 2000 meteorological data are presented in Table-1 for IP2 and Table 2 for IP3. Comparison of the values in Tables 1 and 2 with those in ER Tables E.1-14 and E.3-14 shows that the individual year PDR and OECR values are larger than the original ER values due to removal of wind direction biases introduced by the faulty wind direction averaging method.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the total population dose by containment failure mode, similar to information provided in -response to RAI 2a (Reference 2).

I

- NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 6 of 33 Table 1 IP2 Mean PDR and OECR Using Year 2000 Meteorological Data Offsite Population Offsite Release Frequency - aDose Economic. Dose Risk Economic Mode) n (person-sv)* Cost (PDR) Cost MW ($). ",(person-rem/yr) Risk($/yr)

(OECR)

NCF 1.19E-05 4.75E+01 9.98E+04 5.64E-02** 1.18E+00 EARLY HIGH 6.50E-07 6.51 E+05 2.05E+11 4.23E+01 1.33E+05, EARLY MEDIUM 4.23E-07 1.94E+05 5.87E+10 8.21E+00 2.48E+04 EARLY LOW 1.11E-07 7.93E+04 6.39E+09 8.81 E-01 7.1OE+02 LATE HIGH 6.88E-07 1.63E+05 4.64E+10 1.12E+01 3.19E+04 LATE MEDIUM 3.43E-06 6.87E+04 6.06E+09 2.36E+01 2.08E+04 LATE LOW 6.43E-07 1.61 E+04 6.59E+08 1.04E+00 4.24E+02 LATE LOWLOW 5.82E-08 1.38E+04 5.62E+08 8.04E-02 3.27E+01 Total 8.74E+01 2.12E+05

• lsv=l)00rem

• • ý 5.64E-02 (person-rem/yr) = 1.19E-05 (/yr) x 4.75E+01 -(person-sv) x 100 (rem/sv)

Table 2 IP3 Mean PDR and OECR Using Year 2000 Meteorological Data Offsite .Population Offsite Release Frequency Population Economic Dose Risk Economic Dose ,(PDR) Cost Mode (Iyr) Cost (D)Cs (person-sv)* (person- Risk (OECR)

($) rem/yr) ($/yr)

NCF 6.30E-06 8.04E+01 2.95E+05 5.06E-02** 1.86E+00 EARLY HIGH 9.43E-07 5.08E+05 1.70E+11 4.79E+01 1.60E+05 EARLY MEDIUM 1.24E-06 2.OOE+05 5.55E+10 2.47E+01 6.87E+04 EARLY LOW 1.46E-07 5.21E+04 3.58E+09 - .7.59E-01 5.21E+02 LATE HIGH 4.23E-07 1.63E+05 4.61E+10 6.89E+00 1.95E+04 LATE MEDIUM 2:01E-06 6.85E+04 6.06E+09 1.37E+01 1.22E+04 LATE LOW .3.75E-07 1.61 E+04 6.58E+08 6.03E-01 2.47E+02 LATE LOWLOW 5.66E-08 1.38E+04 .5.62E+08 7.81E-02 3.18E+01 Total 9.48E+01 2.61 E+05

• lsv=100rem

• • 5.06E-02 (person-remfyr) = .6.30E-06 (/yr) x 8.04E+01 (person-sv) x 100.(rem/sv)

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 7 of 33 Table 3 Breakdown of PopulationDose by Containment Failure Mode IP2 IP3 Containment Failure Population Percent Population Percent Mode Dose Dose (person-rem/yr) Contribution (person-rem/yr) Contribution Intact containment 0.06 0.06% '0.05 0.05%

Basemat melt-through 4.08 4.67% 2.42 2.56%

Gradual overpressure 28.27 32.35% 16.78 17.70%

Late hydrogen burns 3.55 4.07% 2.11 2.23%

Early hydrogen burns 8.64 9.89% 3.16 3.33%

In-vessel steam explosion 0.57 0.65% 0.21 0.22%

Ex-vessel steam explosion 0.0027 0.00% 0.0010 .0.00%

Vessel overpressure 4.10 4.69% 1.50 1.58%

Containment isolation 0.0375 0.04% 0.0137 0.01%

ISLOCA 6.61 7.57% 4.18 4;41%

SGTR 31.46 36.00% 64.35 67.89%

Total 87.4 100 94.8 100

[5] Updated Cost Benefit Analysis Results The cost benefit reanalysis was performed using the MACCS2 results for year 2000. The results are reported in Table 4 for IP2 and in Table 5 for IP3. The assumptions used to determine the change in plant risk that could be realized by implementation of each of the SAMAs originally described ih Sections E.2.3 and E.4.3 of the ER and subsequent RAI responses were not altered in this reanalysis. Therefore, the CDF reduction for each SAMA has not been repeated in the tables. The benefit values account for risk reduction in both internal and external.events (using multipliers described in Section 4.21.5.4 of the ER) and include the economic impact of lost tourism and business following a severe accident (as discussed in Section [3]). The benefit with uncertainty values account for analysis uncertainties (using multipliers described in Section 4.21.5.4 of the ER). Except as noted with "t" and as described in Section [6], the estimated cost values for SAMA candidates are the same as those reported previously (in Tables E.2-2 and E.4-2 in the ER and References 2 and 3).

[6] Revised Cost Estimates As described in Sections E.2.3 and E.4.3 Qf the ER, the original SAMA implementation costs were conceptually estimated to the point where conclusions regarding the economic viability of the proposed modification could be adequately gauged. Specifically, in the original analysis, the initial cost estimate for each SAMA was obtained by applying engineering judgment to determine if the implementation cost was clearly in excess of the estimated attainable benefit or by applying an existing estimate from a previous SAMA analysis. The engineering judgment cost estimates were conservative i.e. minimum or low cost estimates to implement the SAMA.

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 8 of 33 A SAMA that appeared to be cost beneficial with the initial implementation cost estimate was subjected to successively more comprehensive and more precise cost estimating to determine if the SAMA was indeed potentially cost beneficial. Only the final cost estimate for each SAMA was reported in the ER.

This method of cost estimating is consistent with NEI 05-01 guidance which states the following.

"As SAMA analysis focuses on-establishingthe economic viability of potentialplant enhancement when compared to attainablebenefit, often detailed cost estimates are not requiredto make informed decisions regardingthe economic viability of a particular modification. SAMA implementation costs may be clearly in excess of the attainable benefit estimated from a particularanalysis case. For less clear cases, engineering judgment may be applied to determine if a more detailed cost estimate is necessary to formulate a conclusion regardingthe economic viability of a particularSAMA.

Nonetheless, the cost of each SAMA candidate should be conceptually estimated to the point where economic viability of the proposed modification can be adequatelygauged.

Forhardwaremodifications, the cost of implementation may be established from existing estimates of similar modifications from previously performed SAMA and SAMDA analyses."

Comparison of Tables 4 and 5 with'the tables provided in response to RAI 4e (Reference 2) shows that the benefit obtained from each of .the SAMAs (except those with' no benefit) has increased in the reanalysis. Consistent with the approach described in NEI 05-01 and used in the original analysis, SAMAs in the reanalysis that appeared to be cost beneficial with the new benefit estimate and the old implementation cost estimate were subjected to more comprehensive and precise cost estimating techniques to determine ifthey are indeed potentially cost beneficial. The cost estimates for SAMAs noted with "t" in Table 4 and Table 5 are those that were developed in more detail.

For example, in the reanalysis, IP3 SAMA 040,,"Provide automatic nitrogen backup to steam generator atmospheric dump valves," was estimated to have a benefit with uncertainty of

$344,225 (see Table 5). Ifthis benefit is compared to the original cost estimate of $214,000, IP3 SAMA 040 appears cost beneficial. A more comprehensive plant-specific cost estimate was performed to determine if IP3 SAMA 040 is indeed potentially cost beneficial. This more comprehensive estimate concluded that a modification to provide automatic nitrogen backup to the steam generator atmospheric dump valves at IP3 would actually cost approximately

$950,000 (see Table 5). Since this value is greater than the revised benefit with uncertainty, IP3 SAMA 040 is not potentially cost beneficial.

Also, in the reanalysis 1P2 SAMA 062, "Provide a hard-wired connection to an SI pump from ASSS power supply," was estimated to have a benefit with uncertainty of $1,789,822 (See Table 4). If this benefit is compared to the original cost estimate of $722,000, IP2 SAMA 062 appears cost beneficial. The original cost estimate was reviewed and found to have conservatively not included some of the expenses necessary to implement the modification.

Therefore, a more comprehensive cost estimate was performed to determine if this SAMA is indeed potentially cost beneficial. This estimate concluded that a modification to provide a hard-wired connection to a safety injection pump from an alternate.safe shutdown system power

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 9 of 33 supply would actually cost approximately $1,500,000 (See Table 4). Since the more-comprehensive cost estimate is still smaller than the revised benefit, IP2 SAMA 062 is potentially cost beneficial following the reanalysis.

Entergy's standard process for development of conceptual level project estimates was followed for the new, more comprehensive SAMA. implementation cost estimates. The estimates capture anticipated expenses by identifying all parts of the organization that must support the proposed SAMA modification from the conceptual perspective. Typical expenses associated with project cost estimating include calculations, drawing updates, specification updates, bid evaluations, contract issuance, design package preparation, walkdowns, planning and scheduling, estimating, procurement, configuration management, as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA), quality control and quality assurance, training, simulator changes, information technology, design basis-update, construction, multi-discipline and independent review of design concepts and calculations, 50.59 review, final safety analysis report (FSAR) update, cost control, contingency, security, procedures, post.work testing, and project management and close-out. In addition, the project cost estimates include corporate indirect charges.

- m - - - - - - - ---- - m - - - -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286.

Page 10 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with 1P2 Phase IISAMA (%0) Benefit Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR Uncertainty 00i - Create an ..

independent injection systemRCPwithseala 1.60% 1.42% $374,757 $788,963

$ ,effective $1137,000 Not cost dedicated diesel.

002 - Create an independent RCP seal 1.49% 1.42% $350,396 $737,676 $1,000,000 Not cost injection system without a effective dedicated diesel.

003 - Install an additional Not cost CCW pump. p 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $1,500,000 effective 004 - Enhance procedural Not cost guidance for use of 0.23% 0.00% $48,723 $102,574 $1,750,000 effective service water pumps.

005 - Improve ability to cool the RHR heat ~Not cost exchangers by allowing 0.34% 0.47% $105,892 $222,931 $565,000 effective manual alignment of the fire protection system...._._ _

006 -Add a diesel building 0.11% 0.07% $30,496 $64202 $274,000 Not cost high temperature alarm. .11%.. effective 00.7 - Install a filtered containment vent to 16.70% 6 Not cost provide fission product 6.13% $1,725,939 $3,633,555 $5,700,000 effective scrubbing.

M-, Mm 'we o A" MY -n 41m 4MI M -M NL-09-1 65 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 11 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with IP2 Phase II SAMA (%) Benefit Uncefiatityh Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 008 - Create a large concrete crucible with heat removal potential 47.03% 34.43% $6,347,528 $13,363,217 $108,000,000. Not cost under the base mat to effective contain molten core debris.

009 - Create a reactor 47.03% 34.43% $6,347,528 $13,363,217 $4,1001000t Retain cavity flooding system.

010 - Create a core melt Not cost source reduction system.

47.03% _

34.43% _"_effective$6,347,528 $13,363,217 $90,000,000 011 01!- Provide a means tto 17.51% 21.23% $3,091,966 $6,509,402 $10,900,000ens

$10,900,000 Not cost effective inert Containment.. effective____________

012 - Use the fire protection system as a backup source for the 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 .$565,000

• effect effective containment spray system. _ "_

013 - Install a passive Not cost containment spray 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $2,000,000 effective system.

014 - Increase the depth of the concrete base mat or use an alternative Not cost Calternati e 11.56% 4.25% $1,194,251 $2,514,214 >$5,000000 effective concrete material toefctv ensure melt-through does not occur.

M" -am 1001 low - - - -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286.

Page 12 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates IP2 Phase SAMA Risk Reduction

( u o) Benefit Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion PDheSOER BUncertainty PDR I OECRCnrtbu 015 - Construct a building connected to primary Not cost containment that is .effective maintained at a vacuum. _

016 - Install a redundant $58000 Not cost containment sytm spray 1.Ieffective 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $5,800,000 effect system.__________

017 - Erect a barrier that provides containment liner Not cost protection from ejected 10.07% 11.79% $1,742,298 $3,667,996 $5,500,000f effective core debris at high pressure.

018 - Install a highly reliable steam generator shell-side heat removal Not cost system that relies on 0.46% 0.47% $73,618 $154,986 $7,400,000 effective natural circulation and stored water sources.

019 - Increase secondary side pressure capacity Not cost such that a SGTR would 30.21% 39.15% $5,594,541 $11,777,981 >$100,000,0100t effective not cause the relief valves to lift.

m . -

• m- " - -0 -M 1 = m -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 13 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction B .enefitwith

• IP2 Phase II SAMA R e) Benefit Benefit. wentinth Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 020 - Route the discharge from the main steam safety Valves through a Not cost structure where a water 2.97% 4.25% $580,766 $1,222,665 $9,700,000 Notect spray would condense the steam and remove most of the fission products.,

021 - Install additional pressure or. leak Retain monitoring 11.33% 14.62% $2,093,852 $4,408,109 $3,200,000t (New) instrumentation for ISLOCAs. -

022 - Add redundant and diverse limit switches to e5.72% 7.55% $1,071,465 $2,255,716 $2,200,000t Retain (New) each containment(Nw isolation valve.

023 - Increase leak testing of valves in ISLOCA 5.72% 7.55% $1,071,465 $2,255,716 $7,964,000 Not cost paths. aeffective 024 - Ensure all ISLOCA 11.33% 14.62% $2,093,852 $4,408,109 $9,700,000 Not cost releases are scrubbed. 1133 _4.2 effective 025 - Improve MSIV $258,310 $476,000 Not cost design. 0.57% 0.94% $122,697 $258310$47,00 effective 026 -Provide additional Not cost DC battery capacity. 0.23% 0.00% $48,723 $102,574 >$1,875,000 effective 027 - Use fuel cells Not cost, instead of lead-acid 0.23% 0.00% $48,723 $102,574 $2,000,000 effective batteries. *

- m) - i -n -: - -, m* ,-, - -' i¸m -M -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 14 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis ofl1P2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction IP2 Phase II SAMA (%). enefit Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion

_PDR OECR Uncertainty 028 - Provide a portable diesel-driven battery 9.3.8% 7.08% $1,357,046 $2,856,939 $938,000t Retain charger.

029 - Increase/improve Not cost DC bus load shedding. 0.23% 0.00% $48,723 $102,574 $460,000t effectiVe 030 - Create AC power cross-tie capability with 0.23% 0.00% $56,813 $119,607 $1,156,000 Not cost other unit. effective 031 - Create a backup source for diesel cooling 0.23% 0.00% $40,632 $85,541 $1,700,000 Not cost (not from existing system). effective 032 - Use fire protection Ntcs system as a backup 0.23% 0.00% $40,632 $85,541 - $497,000 effect source for diesel cooling. effective 033 - Convert under-voltage AFW and reactor protective system Not cost actuation signals from 2- 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $1,254,000 effective out-of-4 to 3-out-of-4 logic. -___

034 - Provide capability Not cost for diesel-driven, low 0.06% 0.05% $8,180 $17,221 >$632,000 effective pressure vessel makeup.

035 - Provide an additional high pressure 0.34% 0.47% $73,529 $154,798 $5,000,000 Not cost injection pump with effective independent diesel.

-w-0 S-, -'"- JEW , EM &w ý m a on-, M"-

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 15 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with IP2 Phase II SAMA _____(%) Benefit B Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR Uncertainty 036 - Create automatic swap-over to recirculation 0.46% Not cost cooling upon RWST 0.47% $138344 $291,251 >$1,000,000 effective depletion. .

037 - Provide capabilityNot cost for alternate injection via 0.06% 0.05% $8,180 $17,221 $750,000 effective diesel-driven fire pump.

038 - Throttle low pres .sure injection pumps earlier in medium or large- 0.11% 0.07% $22,405 $47,169 $82,000 Not cost break LOCAs to maintain effective reactor water storage tank inventory.

039 - Replace two of three motor-driven SI pumps Not cost with diesel-powered 0.34% 0.47% $73,529 $154,798 $2,000,000 effective pumps: -

040 - Create/enhance a "

reactor coolant .3.20% 3.77% $572,408 $1,205,070 $2,000,000t Not cost depressurization system:. effective 041 - Install a digital feed Not cost water ugrade.

wae pgae 0.92% 0.47% $179,154- $377,167 $900,000 effective 042 - Provide automatic nitrogen backup to steam Not cost genraoratosheic generator atmospheric 0.23% '0.00% $16,360 '.effective

$34,441 $214,000 efctv dump valves.

043 - Add a motor-driven 0.92%

• 0 79,154 $377,167 $2,000,000 Not cost feed water pump. .9 0 effective

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page .16 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with IP2 Phase IISAMA (%) Benefit Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 044 - Use fire water system as backup for 14.19% 9.91% $2,350,530 $4,948,485 $1,656,000 Retain steam generator inventory..

045 - Replace current pilot operated relief valves with larger ones such that only 3.32% 1.89% $667,806 $1,405,907 $2,700,000 Not cost one is required for effective successful feed and bleed.

046 - Modify emergency operating procedures for Not cost ability to align diesel 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $82,000 effective power to more air compressors.

047 - Add an independent 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0. $300,000 Not cost boron injection system. _ _effective 048 - Add a system of relief valves that prevent equipment damage from a 0.46% 0.47% *$105,981 " $223,119 $615,000 eNot cost effective pressure spike during an ATWS.

049 - Install motor generator set trip breakers 0.23% 0.00% $32,541 $68,508 $716,000 Not cost in control room. effective

---

---- - ---- ---

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 17 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with IP2 Phase II SAMA . Benefit Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 050 - Provide capability to remove power from the 0.23% 0.00% $32,541 $68,508 $90,000 Not cost bus powering the control effective rods. "__

051- Provide digital large Not cost break LOCA protection. effective 052 - Install secondary Not cost side guard pipes up to the 1.72% 1.89% $294,384 $619,756 $1,100,000 effective MSIVs.

053 - Keep both pressurizer PORV block 3.32% 1.89% $659,715 $1,388,873 $800,000 Retain valves open.

054 - Install flood alarm in the 480V switchgear 39.24% 28.77% $5,591,781 $11,772,170 $200,000 Retain room. _

055 - Perform a hardware modification to allow high- Not cost head recirculation from 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $1,330,000 effective either RHR heat exchanger.

056 - Keep RHR heat exchanger discharge 0.23% 0.00% $48,723 $102,574 $82,000 Retain motor operated valves (MOVs) normally open.

057 - Provide DC power 0.46% .0.47% $89,800 $189,052 $376,000 Not cost backup for the PORVs. effective

m~mm~ ~ - -- --

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 18 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with IP2 Phase II SAMA Benefit Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 058 - Provide procedural (

guidance to allow high- Not cost head recirculation from 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $82,000 effective either RHR heat exchanger.

059 - Re-install the low pressure suction trip on the AFW pumps and 0.23% 0.00% $24,450 $51,474 $318,000 Not cost enhance procedures to effective respond to loss of the normal suction path.

060 - Provide added -,

protection against flood propagation from 8.92% 6.60% $1,275,337 $2,684,920 $216,000 Retain stairwell 4 into the 480V switchgear room.

061 - Provide added protection against flood propagation from the 19.34% 14.15% $2,754,991 $5,799,982 $192,000 Retain deluge room into the 480V switchgear room.

062 - Provide a hard-wired connection to an 6.06% 4.25% $850,165 $1,789,822 $1,500,000t Retain Sl pump from ASSS (New) power supply.

m M m M m - m m m M m m-M m m m m m m NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 19 of 33 Table 4 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP2 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction P2 Phase SAMAIP2 haseII (%)Beneit SMA Benefit Uncertainty ett Estimated-Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 063 - Provide a water-tight door for additional 0.11% 0.00% $32,452 $68,320 $324,000 Not cost protection of the RHR 0 effective.

pumps against flooding.

064 - Provide backup cooling water source for Not cost the CCW theCC hat0.23%

heat -effective 0.00% $40,632 $85,541 $710,000 efctv exchangers.

065 - Upgrade the ASSS to allow timely 39.24% 28.77% $5,591,781 $11,772,170 $560,000 Retain restoration of seal injection and cooling.

066 - Harden the EDG building and fuel oil Not cost transfer pumps against 8.96% 6.19% $2,505,846 $5,275,465 $33,500,000t effective tornados and high winds. "_"

067 - Provide hardware connections to allowthe Not cost r s wawthem t 0.02% 0.00% $9,727 $20,477 $576,000 effective primary water system toefctv cool the charging pumps. ._....

068 - Provide independent source of cooling for the 0.06% 0.01% $13,408 $28,227 $710,000 Not cost recirculation pump effective motors.

I Cost estimate revised from what was previously reported. See Section [6] for more information.

- - m- n-- - - m - - - - -n- -m - - - -m NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 20 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction IP3 Phase II SAMA M Benefit Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 001 - Create an independent RCP seal 0.74% .0.38% $236,610 *$342,913 $1,137,000 Not cost injection system with a . effective dedicated diesel.

002 - Create an independent RCP seal Not cost injection system without a 0.63% 0.38% $201,222 $291626 $1,000,000 effective dedicated diesel.

003 - Install an additional CWum.0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $1,500,000 Not cost ccw pump. effective 004 - Improved ability to cool the RHR heat Not cost exchangers by allowing 0.53% 0.38% $130,575 $189,240 $565,000 effect manual alignment of the fire protection system.

005- Install a filtered containment vent to Not cost provide fission product 9.60% 2.68% $1,497,163

• effective $2,169,801 $5,700,000 scrubbing.

006 - Create a large concrete crucible with heat removal potential Not cost under the base mat to 24.16% 14.94% $5,038,071 $7,301,552. $108,000,000 effective contain molten core debris.

m - - -m - - - - m - - - - *- - - - -l NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 21 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with 1P3 Phase IISAMA (%) PDR Benefit OECRUncertainty netit Estimated Cost Conclusion 007 - Create a reactor' Retain 007-Create adreactor. 24.16% 14.94% $5,038,071 $7,301,552 $4,100,000"t Rean cavity flooding system. ________ _____ ______ (New) 008 - Create a core melt 24.16% 14.94% $5,038,071 $7,301,552 $90,000,000 Not cost source reduction system. 2,0effective 009 - Provide means to Not cost inert containment. 8.76% 9.20% $2,412,095 $3,495,790 $10,900,000 effective 010 - Use the fire protection system as a Not cost backup source for the 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $565,000 effective containment spray system.

011 - Install a passive Not cost containment spray 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $2,000,000 effective system.

012 - Increase the depth of the concrete base mat or use an alternative Not cost concrete manaterialto oncrete material to 5.59% 1:53% $867,404 $1,257,107 >$5,000,000 eftive effective ensure melt-through does not occur..

013 - Construct a building connected to primary 21.73% 15.71% $4,883,602 $7,077,683 $61,000,000 Not cost containment that is 2 effective maintained at a vacuum.

014 - Install a redundant Not cost containment spray 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $5,800,000 effective system. I _ I I _I

- - - m - - - - - ~ - - -- - - -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 22 of 33 Table 5 Results of C6st Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction IP3 Phase II SAMA (%) Benefit Unceritywit

__PDR OECR Uncertainty 015 - Erect a barrier that provides containment liner protection from ejected 4.32%. 4.21% $1,140,695 $1,653,182 $5,500,000t effct core debris at high .

pressure.

016 - Install a highly reliable steam generator shell-side heat removal Not cost system that relies on 6.27% 4.98% $1,401,717 $2,031,473 $7,400,000 effective natural circulation and stored water sources.

017 - Increase secondary side pressure capacity Not cost such that an SGTR would 45.15% 53.64% $13,520,698 $19,595,215 >$100,000,000t effective not cause the relief valves to lift.

018 - Route the discharge from the main steam safety valves through a Not cost structure where a water 11.08% 13.41% $3,327,028 $4,821,779 $12,000,00t effective spray would condense the steam and remove most of the fission products.

019 - Install additional pressure or leak Retain monitoring 7.07% 8.43% $2,126,663 $3,082,120 $2,800,000t (New) instrumentation for ISLOCAs.

---

- - m - m m - m - m -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 23 of 33' Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with 1P3 Phase II SAMA (%) PDR Benefit OECRUncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR ______

020 - Add redundant and diverse limit switches to 3.59% 421% $1069272 $1549670 $4000ooot Not cost each containment effective isolation valve.

021 - Increase leak testing Not cost of valves in ISLOCA 3.59% 4.21% $1,069,272 $1,549,670 $10,604,000 effective paths.

022 - Ensure all ISLOCA 7.07% 8.43% $2,126,663 $3,082,120 $9,700,000 Not cost releases are scrubbed. effective 023 - Improve MSIV 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $476,000 Not cost design. 0.00_ effective 024 - Provide additional 0 Not cost DC battery capacity. 0.11% 0.00% $47,141 $68,320 >$1,875,000 effective 025 - Use fuel cells Not cost.

instead of lead-acid 0.11% 0.00% $47,141 $68,320 $2,000,000 effective batteries.

026 - Increase/improve 0.11% 0.00% $47,141 $68,320 $460,000t Not cost DC bus load shedding. effective 027 - Create AC power Not cost cross-tie capability with 0.11% 0.00% $70,647- $102,387 $1,156,000. effective other unit.

028 - Create a backup Not cost source for diesel cooling 0.03% 0.00% $15,318 $22,199 $1,700,000 (not from existing system), effective effective 029 -Use fire protection Not cost system as a backup 0.03% 0.00% $15,318 $22,199 $497,000 effective source for diesel cooling.

m - m m - --- m- m - - m - mI NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 24 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Phase RP3 ReAu Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion IP3_PhaseI _ _AMA PDR PDR OECR BeneCitUncertainty 030 Provide a portable Not cost diesel-driven battery 0.95% 0.38% $213,363 $309,222 $938,000t effective effective charger.

031 - Convert under-voltage, AFW and reactor Not cost protective system 0.53% 0.38% $118,822 $172,206 $1,254,000 effective actuation signals from 2-out-of-4 to 3-out-of-4 logic.

032 - Provide capability Not cost for diesel-driven, low 0.21% 0.00% $23,764 $34,441 >$632,000 effective pressure vessel makeup.

033 - Provide an additional high pressure 0.42% 0.38% $118,693 $172,019 $5,000,000 -Not cost injection pump with effective independent diesel.

034 - Create automatic Not cost swap-over to recirculation 1.27% 0.77% $530,551 $768,914 >$1,000,000 effective upon RWST'depletion.

035 - Provide capability Not cost for alternate injectiori via 0.21% 0.00% $23,764 $34,441 $750,000 effective diesel-driven fire pump.

036 - Throttle low pressure injection pumps 1--* in medium or large- 0.00%

earlier 0 9.00% $11,753 $17,033 $82,000 Not cost break LOCAs to maintain effective reactor water storage tank inventory.

- - - - -* - - m ml - - - m -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 25 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction.

IP3 Phase II SAMA (%) Benefit Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR Uncertainty 037 - Replace two of three motor-driven SI pumps 042% 0380 $118,693 $172,019 Not cost with diesel-powered . 0 .. $2,000,000 effective pumps.

038 - Create/enhance a Ntcs reactor coolant 0.95% 0.77% $237,516 $344,225 $4,600,000 effect depressurization system. effective 039 - Install a digital feed Not cost water upgrade. w0.95% 0.00% $271,481 $393,450 $900,000 effective.

040 - Provide automatic nitrogen backup to steam Not cost generator atmospheric 0.95% 0.77% $237,516 $344,225 .$950,000t effective dump valves.

041 - Add a motor-driven 0.95% 0.00% $271,481 $393,450 $2,000,000 Not cost feedwater pump. 05effective 042 - Provide hookup for portable generators to Not cost power the turbine-driven 0.11% 0.00% $47,141 $68,320 $1,072,000 effective AFW pump after station batteries are depleted.

043 - Use fire water system as backup for Not cost steam generator 1.58% 1.15% $450,490 $652,885 $1,656,000 Notect enr reffective inventory. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

m - -m - m m* m - -1l --- -

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket. Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 26 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of 1P3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with IP3 Phase IISAMA (0) Benefit . Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR

-044 - Replace current pilot operated relief valves with larger ones such that only Not cost larroneis one rquid for is required f to 4.75% 4.21% $1,246,989 $1,807,230 $2,700,000 effect effective successful feed and bleed.

045 - Add an independent Not cost boron injection system. 0.0% _000 $0_$0_$300,000_ effective 046 - Add a system of relief valves that prevent Not cost equipment damage from a 0.74% 0.00% $224,210 $324,943 $615,000 effective pressure spike during an ATWS.

047 - Install motor Not cost generator set trip breakers 0.11% 0.00% $35,388 $51,287 $716,000 effective in control room.

048 - Provide capability to removebupower owrngte fromotrl0.11%

the 0.00% $35,388 $511287. $90,000* Not cost bus powering the control effective rods.

049 - Provide digital large 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $2,036,000 Not cost break LOCA protection. effective 050 - Install secondary Not cost side guard pipes up to the 9.07% 8.81% $2,447,095. $3,546,515 $9,671,000t effective MSIVs.

051 - Operator action: Not cost Align main feedwater for 0.11% 0.00% $23,635 $34,254 $55,000 effective secondary heat removal.

M M-- " M M - M - m M--1 M M m M M NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 27 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of 1P3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction IP3 Phase II SAMA Benefit Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR Uncertainty 052 - Open city water supply valve for 1.05% 0.77% $249,398 $361,446 $50,000 Retain alternative AFW pump suction.

053 - Install an excess flow valve to reduce the .2.07% 1.51% $498,795 $722,892 $228,000 Retain risk associated with hydrogen explosions.

054 - Provide DC power 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $376,000 Not cost backup for the PORVs. effective 055 - Provide hard-wired connection to a Sl or RHR pump from the 18.35% 11.49% $4,073,152 $5,903,118 $1,288,000 Retain Appendix R bus (MCC 312A).

056 - Install pneumatic controls and indication for Not cost the turbine-driven AFW 0.11% 0.00% $47,141 $68,320 $982,000 effective pump.

057 - Provide backup cooling water source for 0.21% 0.00% $59,023 $85,541 $109,000 Not cost the CCW heat effective exchangers.

058 - Provide automatic 0.21% 0.00% $94,282 $136,640 $1,868,000 Not cost DC.power backup._ I I effective

m m m IM -M-m- m m-m m mM -

M M NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 28 of 33 Table 5 Results of Cost Benefit Analysis of IP3 SAMA Candidates Risk Reduction Benefit with 1P3 Phase II SAMA (%) Benefit Uncertainty Estimated Cost Conclusion PDR OECR 059 - Provide hardware connections to allow the Not cost primary water system to 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $576,000 effective cool the charging pumps.

060 - Provide independent Not cost source of cooling for the 0.00% 0.00% $0 $0 $710,000 effective recirculation pump motors.

061 - Upgrade th-e ASSS -

to allow timely 19.73% 12.26% $4,359,371 $6,317,929 $560,000 Retain restoration of seal injection and cooling.

062 - Install flood alarm in the 480 VAC 19.73% 12.26% $4,359,371 $6,317,929 $196,800 Retain switchgear room.

• IP3 SAMA 048 - Cost as corrected in response to RAI 4e (Reference 2)

Cost estimate revised from what was previously reported. See Section [6] for more information.

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 29 of 33

[7] Main Steam Safety Valve Gagging SAMA (Updated Response to Round 2 RAI 6)

The benefit associated with installing a device to gag a stuck-open main steam safety valve following a steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) was originally assessed in response to Round 2 RAI 6 (Reference 3). In that response, the estimated benefit with uncertainty assuming that this SAMA is fully successful in preventing all thermally-induced steam generator tube ruptures was almost $3 million for IP2 and over $4 million for IP3. As indicated in that response, with an estimated cost of $50,000, this additional SAMA is potentially cost beneficial and it has been submitted for engineering project cost benefit analysis for more detailed examination of viability and implementation cost. With the revised meteorological input data used for the SAMA reanalysis, the total benefit of this SAMA is now estimated to be about $13 million for IP2 and $19 million for IP3.

[8] TI-SGTR Sensitivity Analysis (Revised Response to Round 2 RAI 5)

In response to Round 2 RAI 5 (Reference 3), a sensitivity study was performed to determine the impact of applying values derived from NUREG-1570. The T!-SGTR sensitivity study was performed again, as described below, to determine the impact of applying NUREG-1 570 values to the SAMA reanalysis and provide an updated response to Round 2 RAI 5.

The full lists of IP2 and IP3 Phase II SAMAs were reviewed for impact. Of those, the following twenty-seven IP2 SAMAs and twenty-two.IP3 SAMAs were identified as potentially impacted by the TI-SGTR assumption.

IP2 SAMAs: 1, 6, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 42,*44, 46, 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66 IP3 SAMAs: 1, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 38,.40, 42, 43, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62 Since IP2 SAMAs 28, 44, 54, 60, 61, 62 and 65 and IP3 SAMAs 55, 61 and 62 were previously determined to be potentially cost beneficial, they were not re-evaluated. Of the remaining SAMAs, those for which the irmplementation cost outweighed the benefit by less than a factor of, five were re-evaluated. This screening criterion was applied to facilitate the re-evaluation by limiting it to those potentially impacted SAMA candidates with a realistic possibility of becoming cost beneficial. The appropriateness of this screening criterion is justified by the fact that only

.one of the twelve SAMAs evaluated was found to be potentially cost beneficial following this conservative sensitivity analysis. See paragraph prior to Table 6 for discussion of conservatism.

The SAMAs re-evaluated were:

IP2 SAMAs: 1, 6, 25, 29, 40, 52 IP3 SAMAs: 1, 16, 18, 30, 40, 43 The baseline case (Table 5.8 of NUREG-1570) associated with moderate tube degradation was used for this sensitivity study. The full conditional induced SGTR value (0.25) shown for that case was used. The NUREG-1 570 conditional probability was applied to all high/dry sequences in the Level 2 model for each unit; in both station blackout and transient sequences. The benefit values in this sensitivity analysis included the additional impact of the loss of tourism and business. Tables 6 and 7 show the values for the IP2 and IP3 SAMAs evaluated in this

NL-09-165

• Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 30 of 33 sensitivity analysis. While the severe accident costs of both the baseline case and the individual SAMAs increased, the extent to which the revised TI-SGTR assumption impacted the benefit varied, based on the nature of the specific SAMA.

IP3 SAMA 18 was found potentially cost beneficial as a result of this sensitivity analysis.

Although the NUREG-1 570 baseline case values were used for this sensitivity analysis, the.

baseline case applies to a steam generator with a moderate flaw distribution. The IP2 and IP3 steam generators have been replaced and are being maintained in accordance with the stringent standards recommended by NEI 97-06. The 1P2 and 1P3 steam generators have only 0.19% and 0.12% of the tubes plugged, and would be classified as "pristine" in accordance with generic criteria established by Westinghouse for categorizing steam generator tube integrity.

Corrosion has not been observed in either the IP2 or IP3 steam generators. Therefore, use of the baseline case for this sensitivity study is conservative relative to application of the NUREG-1570 results for pristine generators (Table 5.8, Case 8).

Table 6 - IP2 TI-SGTR Sensitivity Results Original TI-SGTR Revised IP2 Phase II SAMA Benefit with Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion Uncertainty Uncertainty 001 - Create an independent RCP seal $788,963 $892,287 $1,137,000 Not cost injection system with a effective dedicated diesel. ._

006 - Add a diesel building $64,202 $223,493 $274,000 Not cost high temperature alarm. effective Not cost 025 - Improve MSIV design. $258,310 $430,516 * . $476,000 effetive effective 029 - Increase/improve DC Not cost bus load shedding. $102,574 $257,560 $460"000t effective 040 - Createlenhance a Not cost reactor coolant $1,205,070 $1,325,614 $2,000,000t effective depressurization system.

052 - Install secondary side guard pipes up to the MSI~s.effective

$619,756 $878,065 $1,100,000 Not cost MSIVs.II t Cost estimate revised from what was previously reported. See Section [6] for more information.

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 31 of 33 Table 7- IP3 TI-SGTR Sensitivity Results Original TI-SGTR Revised IP3 Phase II SAMA Benefit with Benefit with Estimated Cost Conclusion Uncertainty Uncertainty 001 - Create an independent RCP seal $342,913 $480,678 $1,137,000 Not cost injection system with a effective dedicated diesel.

016 - Install a highly reliable steam generator shell-side Not cost heat removal system that $2,031,473 $2,289,783 $7,400,000 effective relies on natural circulation and stored water sources.

018 - Route the discharge from the main steam safety valves through a Retain*

structurewhere a water $4,821,779 $14,637,545 $12,000,000t spray would condense the (New) steam and remove most ofithefission products.

030 - Provide a portable Not cost diesel-driven battery $309,222 $515,869 $938,000t effective charger.

040 - Provide automatic nitrogen ýbackup to steam $950 Not cost generator atmospheric $344,225 effective dump valves.

043- Use fire water system Not cost as backup for steam $652,885 $825,091 $1,656,000 effective generator inventory.

t Cost estimate revised from what was previously reported. See Section [6] for more information.

[9] Conclusion In the SAMA reanalysis using a conservatively representative, single year of meteorological data (2000), the following additional three SAMA candidates were found to be potentially cost beneficial for mitigating the consequences of a severe accident for IP2 (in addition to those previously designated as cost beneficial in Section 4.21.6 of the ER and References 2 and 3).

021 - Install additional pressure or leak monitoring instrumentation for interfacing system loss of coolant accidents (ISLOCAs) 022 - Add redundant and diverse limit switches to each containment isolation valve 062 - Provide a hard-wired connection to a safety injection (SI) pump from the alternate safe shutdown system (ASSS) power supply,

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 32 of 33 In the SAMA reanalysis using a conservatively representative, single year of meteorological data, the following three SAMA candidates were found .to be potentially cost beneficial for mitigating the consequences of a severe accident for IP3 (in addition to those previously designated as cost beneficial in Section 4.21.6 of the ER and References 2 and 3).

007 - Create a reactor cavity flooding system 018 - Route the discharge from the main steam safety valves through. a structure where a water spray would condense the steam and remove most of the fission products (cost beneficial in TI-SGTR sensitivity in Section [8])

019 - Install additional pressure or leak monitoring instrumentation for ISLOCAs As described in the aging management review results for the integrated plant assessment presented in Sections 3.1 through 3.6.of the license renewa! application, IP2 and IP3 have programs for managing aging effects for components within the scope of license renewal (Reference 1). Since these programs are sufficient to manage the effects of aging during the license renewal period without implementation of the above SAMA candidates for IP2 and IP3, these potentially cost beneficial SAMAs need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. However, consistent with those SAMAs identified previously as cost beneficial, the above potentially cost beneficial SAMAs have been submitted for engineering project cost benefit analysis.

.Since some of the potentially cost beneficial SAMAs address the same risk contributors, implementation of an optimal subset of these SAMAs could achieve a large portion of the total risk reduction at a fraction of the cost, and render the remaining SAMAs no longer cost beneficial.

IP2 SAMAs 54, 65, and the main steam safety valve gagging SAMA have the highest priority for implementation due to their potential for significant risk reduction and relatively low implementation cost (cost estimate is less than 20% of the benefit with uncertainty). SAMAs 9, 21, 28, 44, 53, and 56 would have Second-priority based on their potential for risk reduction and their mitigation of plant risk contributors not addressed by the highest priority SAMAs. . The remaining potentially cost beneficial SAMAs (22, 60, 61, and62) are considered lowest priority because their benefit and cost estimates are similar or because their benefit is expected to be reduced significantly if the higher priority SAMAs are implemented.

IP3 SAMAs 52, 61, 62, and the main steam safety valve.gagging SAMA have the highest priority for implementation due to their potential for significant risk reduction and relatively low implementation cost (cost estimate is less than 20% of the benefit with uncertainty). SAMAs 7, 53, and 55 would have second priority based on their potential for risk reduction and their mitigation of plant risk contributors not addressed by the highest priority SAMAs. The remaining potentially cost beneficial SAMAs (18 and 19) are considered lowest priority because their

• benefit and cost estimates are similar or because their benefit is expected to be reduced significantly ifthe higher priority SAMAs are implemented.

NL-09-165 Attachment 1 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286.

Page 33.of 33

[10] MACCS2 Input Files The following MACCS2 input files, used in the analysis described above, are provided in electronic format.

Filename Description siteiec.inp site input file with loss of tourism and business metiO0.inp meteorological data for year 2000 chrbiec.inp chronc input file with loss of tourism and business earbi-noE.inp early input file atmbi2ns.inp: atmos input file for IP2 atmbi3ns.inp atmos input file for IP3

[11] References

1. Entergy Letter NL-07-039,: Indian Point Energy Center License Renewal Application, April 23, 2007

2. Entergy Letter NL-08-028, Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis, February 05, 2008

3. Entergy Letter NL-08-086, Supplemental Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis, May 22, 2008

.4. NEI 05-01, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Guidance Document [Revision A], November 2005

5. Entergy Letter NL-09-151, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. Telephone. Conference Call Regarding Met Tower Data for SAMA Analysis Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3, November 16, 2009

6. Procedures for Substituting Values for Missing IWS Meteorological Data for Use in Regulatory Air Quality Models, Dennis Atkinson and Russell F. Lee, July 7, 1992

[May be found on the "Meteorological Guidance" page at epa.gov.]

7. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis Applicant's Environmental Report for License Renewal, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power, April 1998.

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 12

Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway. GSB Entergy P.O. Box 249 Buchanan. N.Y. 10511-0249 Tel (914) 788-2055 Fred Dacimo Vice President License Renewal NL-10-013 January 14, 2009 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

License Renewal Application - Supplement to SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64

REFERENCE:

1. Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. Letter NL-09-165, "SAMA Using Alternate Meteorological Tower Data" dated December 11, 2009.

Dear Sir or Madam:

In Reference 1 above, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc (Entergy) provided results of a SAMA reanalysis using alternate meteorological data.

The purpose of this letter is to provide additional,. clarifying information related to the SAMA reanalysis to answer questions raised during a teleconference between Entergy and NRC on January 7, 2010.

1) Summaries of the revised implementation cost estimates for IP2 SAMAs 17 and 40 and IP3 SAMAs 17, 20, 40, and-50 are attached. The estimates are similar to the estimate provided in response to request for additional information 51.

2) With the revised population dose and offsite economic costs resulting from the SAMA reanalysis described in the referenced letter, the total present dollar-value equivalent benefit associated with completely eliminating severe accidents caused by internal events is about $4.5 million for IP2 and $5.1 million for IP3. Use of a multiplier of 3.8 for IP2 and 5.5 for IP3 to account for

NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 2 of 2 external events increases the value to $17 million for IP2 and $28 million for IP3 and represents the dollar value benefit associated with completely eliminating the risk of severe accidents caused by all internal and external events at IP2 and IP3, respectively.

3) The revised SAMA implementation cost estimates presented in the referenced letter do not include replacement power costs.

The revised SAMA implementation cost estimates do not include a markup to account for inflation. However, the revised estimates were developed using Entergy's standard process for development of conceptual level project estimates utilizing spreadsheets containing 2009 rates for material, labor, insurance, fees, etc. Since. the original implementation estimates were developed prior to 2009, the new estimates inherently account for inflation since the time of the earlier estimates.

There are no new commitments identified in this submittal. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Robert Walpole at 914-734-6710.

Sincerely, FD/mb

Attachment:

1. License Renewal Application , Summaries of Revised SAMA Implementation Cost Estimates cc: Mr. S. J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. J. Boska, Senior Project Manager, NRC, NRR, DORL Mr. Sherwin E. Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel, Special Counsel Ms. Kimberly Green, NRC Safety Project Manager NRC Resident Inspectors Office, Indian Point Mr. Paul Eddy, NYS Dept. of Public Service Mr. Francis J. Murray, Jr., President and CEO, NYSERDA

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-10-013 License Renewal Application -

Summaries of Revised SAMA Implementation Cost Estimates ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 & 50-286

Attachment 1 NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 1 of 6 INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT TO SAMA REANALYSIS IP2 SAMA 17 Implementation Cost Estimate The SAMA improvement would be to develop a new modification that would provide an additionalstainless steel barrierto protect the containmentliner from ejected core debris at high pressure. This modification would require extensive design work to create the modification package. The associated design calculationsinclude seismic analysis, loading analysis, and possible associatedanalysis for piping orpenetrationinterferences.

Specific issues to be addressedfor this modification include the following.

1) Change licensing basis, which may require Nuclear Regulatory Commission involvement.

2) Modify or provide new floor loading calculation,seismic analysis, and reactorbuilding volume calculation.

3) Revise proceduresand training.

4) Install and test the new barrier.

5) Change various documents, i.e. Technical Specification Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report, system descriptions, design,basis documents, preventative maintenance tasks.

6) Change safety analysis calculations.

The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate.

Task.Description Cost $

Develop modification documents, including calculations 377,824 and drawings Procedurechanges and training 12,188 Installation,materialand labor 2,364,167 Safety related:costincrease i.e. quality assurance, 192,969 quality control, material increase,etc.

Projectmanagement/ modification support 495,767 Installermobilization, tools and training,construction 680,779 management fee, insurance,performancebond Installation contingency consideringlack of design 465,426 details Indirect charges (loaders) 841,467 5,430,587 Total (rounded to 5,500,000)

Attachment 1 NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 2 of 6 IP2 SAMA 40 Implementation Cost Estimate The SAMA improvement would be to install bypasses aroundthe existing atmospheric dump valves to depressurize the reactorcoolant system. This would allow successful low pressure emergency core cooling system injection following a small loss of coolant accident and high pressure safety injection failure. This modification would require extensive design work to create the modification package. The associateddesign calculationswould include seismic analysis,loading analysis, setpointcalculations,environmental qualification(EQ) calculations,and possible associatedanalysis for piping interferences.

Specific issues to be addressed for this modification include the following.

1) Change licensing basis, which may require Nuclear Regulatory Commission involvement.

2) Modify or provide new seismic analysis, loading.analysis, setpoint calculationsand EQ datasheets.

3) Revise procedures and training.

4) Install and test the new hardware.

5) Change various documents, Le. Technical Specification Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report, system descriptions,design basis documents, preventative maintenance tasks.

6) Change simulatorand associatedprocedures.

7) Change safety analysis calculations.

The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate.

Task Description Cost $

Develop modification documents, including calculations 299,250 and drawings.

Procedurechanges and training 25,000 Installation, materialand labor 360,000 Safety relatedcost.increasei.e. quality assurance, 178,500 qualityicontrol,matefialrincrease,,etc Projectmanagement/ modification support 89,250 Installer mobilization, tools and training,construction 178,500 management fee, insurance,performancebond Installation contingency consideringlack of design 476,000 details Indirect charges (loaders) 321,300

.1,927,800 Total (rounded to 2,000,000)

Attachment 1 NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 3 of 6 IP3 SAMA 17 Implementation Cost Estimate The SAMA improvement would be to increase secondary side pressure capacity to reduce the frequency of steam generatortube rupture events and decrease the likelihood of relief valves lifting and subsequently failing to reseat.

It was assumed based on engineeringjudgment that the nuclearsteam supply system vendor would not be able to qualify the existing.components to a high enough pressure rating to meet the intent of the SAMA. Therefore, the steam generators,piping from the feedwater regulating valves through the steam generators and up to the main steam isolation valves, feedwater regulatorsand main steam isolation valves would have to be replaced with upgraded components. The associatedinstrumentationwould also have to be upgraded.

The associateddesign calculationswould include seismic analysis,loading analysis, setpoint calculations,EQ calculations,and possible associated analysisfor piping interferences.

Specific issues to be addressedfor this modification include the following.

1) Change licensing basis, which may require Nuclear Regulatory Commission involvement.

2) Modify or provide new seismic analysis,loading analysis, setpoint calculationsand EQ datasheets.

3) Revise procedures and training.

4) Install and test the new hardware.

5) Change various documents, i.e. Technical Specification Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report, system descriptions,design basis documents, preventative maintenance tasks.

6) Change simulatorand associatedprocedures.

7) Change safety analysis calculations.

The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate.

Task Description Cost $

Develop modification documents, including 51,458,750 calculationsand drawings Procedure:changes and training 25,000 Installation, materialand labor 330,000,000 Safety related cost increasei.e. quality assurance, 99,517,500 quality control, materialincrease, etc Projectmanagement/ Modification Support 49,758,750 Installermobilization, tools and training, 99,517,500 constructionmanagement fee, insurance, p~erformance bond Installation contingency consideringlack of design 265,380,000 details Indirect charges (loaders) .179,131,500 1,074,789,000 Total (shown as

> 100, 000, 000)

Attachment 1 NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 4 of 6 IP3 SAMA 20 Implementation Cost Estimate The SAMA improvement would be to develop a new modification that would provide redundantand diverse limit switches to each containment isolation valve. This modification would provide additionalindicationsof valve position by monitoring the valve position with one of two different instruments, which would improve the reliabilityor availabilityof the indication. This modification would requireextensive design work to create the modification package. The associateddesign calculationswould include seismic analysis,loading analysis,loop errorcalculations,setpoint calculations,EQ calculations,and possible associatedanalysis for safe shutdown.

Specific issues to be addressedfor this modification include the following.

1) Change licensing basis, which may require Nuclear Regulatory Commission involvement.

2) Modify or provide new seismic analysis, setpoint calculations,limit and torque switch settings, EQ datasheets.

3) Revise procedures and training.

.4) Install and test the new instrument loops.

5) Change various documents, i.e. Technical Specification Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report, system descriptions,design basis,documents, preventative maintenancetasks.

6) Change simulatorand associatedprocedures.

7) Change safety analysiscalculations.

The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate.

Task:Description Cost $

Develop modification documents, including calculations 741,191 and drawings Procedurechanges and training 35,500 Installation,materialand labor* 1,469,816 Safety related cost increasei.e. quality assurance, -125,980 quality control, materialincrease, etc.

Project.management/ modification support 302,738 Installer mobilization, tools and training,construction 270,762 management fee, insurance,performance bond Installation contingency considering lack of design 377,663 details Indirectcharges (loaders) .594,921 3,918,571 Total (rounded to 4,000,000)

Attachment 1 NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 5 of 6 IP3 SAMA 40 Implementation Cost Estimate The SAMA improvement would be to provide automaticnitrogen backup to the steam generatoratmosphericdump valves. For each of the four atmospheric dump valves, the modification would use existing nitrogen at the paneland would tie into the instrument air supply using a regulatorand check valves in both the nitrogen and IA lines to prevent back feed. A local pressure gage, low pressure switch to the nitrogen line and an alarm in control room would also be required. The associateddesign calculationswould include setpoint calculations,EQ calculations,and possible associatedanalysis for piping interferences.

Specific issues to be addressedfor this modification include the following.

1) Change licensing basis, which may require Nuclear Regulatory Commission involvement.

2) Modify or provide new setpoint calculationsand EQ datasheets.

3) Revise proceduresand training.

4) Install and test the new hardware.

5) Change various documents, i.e. Technical Specification Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report, system descriptions,design basis documents, preventative maintenance tasks.

6) Change simulator and associatedprocedures.

7) Change safety analysis calculations.

The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate.

Task-Description Cost $

Develop modification documents, including calculationsand drawings 259,500.

Procedurechanges and training 25,000 Installation,materialand labor 95,000 Safety related,cost increase.i.e. quality assurance, quality control, materialincrease; etc. - 0 Project management/ modification support 49,500 Installermobilization, tools and training, construction management fee, insurance, performance bond 99,000 Installation contingency consideringlack of design details 264,000 Indirect charges (loaders) 158,400 950,400 Total (roundedto 950,000)

J Attachment 1 NL-10-013 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Page 6 of 6 IP3 SAMA 50 Cost Estimate The SAMA improvement would be to install secondary guard pipes up to the main steam isolation valves. This modification would require extensive design work to create the modification package. The associated design calculations would include thermal analysis, seismic analysis, setpoint calculations,EQ calculations, and possible associatedanalysis for piping interferences.

Specific issues to be addressed for this modification include the following.

1) Change licensing basis, which may require NuclearRegulatory Commission involvement.

2) Modifyor provide new thermal analysis, seismic analysis,setpoint calculationsandEQ datasheets.

3) Revise procedures and training.

4) Install and test the new hardware.

5) Change various documents, i.e. Technical Specification Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report, system descriptions, design basis documents, preventative maintenance tasks.

6) Change simulatorand associatedprocedures.

7) Change safety analysis calculations.

The following is a breakdown of the cost estimate.

TaskoDescrIption Cost $

Develop modification documents, including calculationsand drawings 1,847,750 Procedure.changes~andtraining 25,000 Installation, materialandlabor 1,560;,000 Safety related-costincrease i.e. quality assurance, quality control,.materialincrease,etc 895,500 Project.management/ modification support 447,750 Installermobilization, tools and training, construction.managementfee, insurance, performance bond 895,500 Installation contingency consideringlack of design details 2,388,000 Indirect charges (loaders) 1,611,900 9,671,400 Total (roundedto 9,671,000)

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion.for Summary Disposition.(February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 13

10834 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 34 Tuesday, February 20, 2001 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulations contain specific provisions contains notices to the public of the proposed related to the requirements for the issuance of rules and regulations. The Background environmental review of applications to purpose of these notices is to give interested On July 14, 1999, the NRC received a renew the operating licenses of nuclear persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final petition for rulemaking submitted by the power plants. See, for example, 10 CFR rules. NEI, by letter dated July 13, 1999. On 51.53(c) and Subpart A, Appendix B.

September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48117), the The regulations were developed to NUCLEAR REGULATORY NRC published a notice of receipt of the improve the efficiency of the process of petition (PRM-51-7). The petitioner environmental review for applicants COMMISSION requested that the NRC amend its seeking to renew a nuclear power plant regulations to delete the requirement for operating license for up to an additional 10 CFR Part 51 the NRC to evaluate Severe Accident 20 years. The regulations are based on Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) as part generic analyses reported in NUREG-

[Docket No. PRM 51-7]

of its National Environmental Policy Act 1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of (NEPA) review associated with license Statement for License Renewal of Petition for Rulemaking renewal. The petitioner requests that the Nuclear Plants" (May 1996) and in part NRC take this action to achieve on NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory consistency in the scope of its (August 1999). Those environmental Commission. regulatory requirements for issues for which the NRC made generic ACTION: Denial of petition for environmental, protection under NEPA, findings that may be adopted in rulemaking. 10 CFR part 51, and its technical individual plant license renewal requirements for license renewal under reviews are defined as Category 1 issues

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory the Atomic Energy Act, 10 CFR part 54. in the rule. Those environmental issues Commission (NRC) is denying a petition The technical requirements for that require further site-specific review for rulemaking submitted by the Nuclear renewal of operating licenses are are defined as Category 2 issues in the Energy Institute (NEI) (PRM-51-7). The specified in 10 CFR part 54 (60 FR rule. The regulations also provide for

petitioner requested that the NRC 22461; May 8, 1995). This regulation amend its regulations to delete'the the consideration of "new and focuses the license renewal review on significant information" that might requirement to consider Severe certain types of systems,. structures, and change a previous finding or introduce Accident Mitigation Alternatives components that the NRC has issues not previously reviewed and

'(SAMAs) as part of the environmental determined require evaluation to ensure codified in the regulations.

review to support license renewal that the effects of aging will be With respect to the issue of decisions. The NRCis denying the adequately managed in the period of environmental effects of severe petition because the NRC must continue extended operation. This regulation is accidents from license renewal, the NRC to consider SAMAs for issuance of a based on two regulatory principles. The found that the probability weighted new or renewed operating license for a first principle of license renewal is that, consequences are small. Specifically, power reactor in order to meet its with the possible exception of the the regulations state in Table B-1: "The responsibilities under the National detrimental effects of aging on the probability-weighted consequences of Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), functionality of.certain plant systems, atmospheric releases, fallout onto open notwithstanding the legal arguments structures, and components in the bodies of water, releases to presented in the petition. However, the period of extended operation and groundwater, and societal and economic NRC staff will continue to work with possibly a few other issues related to impacts from severe accidents are small stakeholders to determine if efficiencies safety only during extended operation, for all plants." Accordingly, the impacts in the conduct of SAMA analyses for the ongoing regulatory process is of severe accidents are encoded inthe environmental reviews can be realized. adequate to ensure that the licensing rule and are not open for review in ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for bases of all currently operating plants individual license renewal actions.

rulemaking, the public comments provide and maintain an acceptable However, one of the criteria for a received, and the NRC's letter of denial level of safety. The second principle of Category 1 finding is, as stated in to the petitioner are available for public license renewal is that the plant-specific footnote 2 of Table B-1, Part 31, inspection or copying for a fee, at the licensing basis must be maintained "Mitigation of adverse impacts NRC's Public Document Room, located during the renewal term in the same associated with the issue have been at One White Flint North, 11555 manner and to the same extent as during considered in the analysis, and it has Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, the original licensing term. This been determined that additional plant-Maryland. These documents are also principle is attained, in part, through a specific mitigation measures are likely available at the NRC's rulemaking program of age-related degradation not to be sufficiently beneficial to website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov management for systems, structures, and warrant implementation." At the time FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: components that are within the scope of the final rule was promulgated in 1996, Donald P. Cleary, Office of Nuclear license renewal. There is no the NRC discussed the ongoing Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear requirement in 10 CFR part 54 for regulatory programs focused on Regulatory Commission, Washington, analysis of SAMAs. individual plant vulnerabilities to DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415- The NRC's regulations implementing severe accidents and cost-beneficial 3903, e-mail dpc@nrc.gov. NEPA appear in 10 CFR part 51. The improvements for reducing severe HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 10834 2001

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 34/Tuesday, February 20, 2001/Proposed Rules 10835 accident frequency or consequences. For renewal review on age-related flow change was within the each plant, an individual plant degradation of plant systems, structures, contemplation of the original project.

examination (IPE) to look for plant and components. The second principle 921 F.2d 232, 235 (9th Cir. 1990). The vulnerabilities to internally initiated is continuation of the current licensing petitioner concludes from these events and a separate IPE for externally basis during the renewal term, in part, decisions that a NEPA review of SAMAs initiated events (IPEEE) was performed through a program of age-related is not required in the license renewal (61 FR 28467; June 5, 1996). The NRC degradation management of systems, review because, (1) the current licensing believed that it would be premature to structures, and components that are basis is not subject to evaluation in a reach a generic conclusion regarding important to license renewal. The license renewal review, and (2) by severe accident mitigation alternatives petitioner notes that 10 CFR 54.39, maintaining the current licensing basis before completing these programs. "Matters not subject to a renewal in the renewal term, there will be no Therefore, even though the Commission review," specifically provides that change in risk of a severe accident due has reached a generic conclusion on the deviations from the current licensing to license renewal.

magnitude of severe accident impacts, basis identified in the integrated plant The petitioner goes on to assert that the issue is nevertheless designated as a assessment performed for license NRC's requirement to include SAMAs Category 2 issue because of the renewal will be corrected under the in NEPA license renewal reviews was unresolved questions regarding terms of the current license and are not based on an overly broad application of mitigation, and applicants for license within the scope of the license renewal language in the-Limerick Ecology Action renewal are subject to the following review. The petitioner then states that v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989),.

requirement at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L): actions to evaluate and address SAMAs decision and that the decision "* * *

"If the staff has not previously are part of each licensee's current leaves undisturbed the proposition that considered severe accident mitigation licensing basis, citing the IPE and IPEEE the 'rule of reason' defines whether the alternatives for the applicant's plant in program to identify and evaluate plant- EIS has addressed the significant an environmental impact statement or specific severe accident vulnerabilities aspects of the probable environmental in an environmental assessment, a and ways to mitigate those consequences * *

• that reasonably consideration of alternatives to mitigate vulnerabilities. - may flow from the proposed action-severe accidents must be provided." renewing a plant's license as that plant The NRC stated, "* *

• that upon Concluding that SAMAs are outside of the scope of a 10 CFR part. 54 license is currently designed and operated."

completion of its IPE/IPEEE program, it renewal review, the petitioner then Finally, citing a number of court cases, may review the issue of severe accident mitigation for license renewal and presents legal arguments for deleting the petitioner argues that "* *

• SAMAs from the NEPA review. The judicial precedents allow the NRC to consider, by separate rulemaking, reclassifying severe accidents as a essence of these arguments is that 10 eliminate SAMAs from consideration in Category 1 issue" (61 FR 28481; June 5, CFR part 54 defines the scope of the license renewal proceedings based on a 1996). proposed Federal action, and that determination, through proper Federal action establishes the scope of rulemaking, that severe accidents are The Petition environmental consequences of license highly unlikely."

The petition was submitted by the renewal that are to be reviewed under Public Comments on the Petition Nuclear.Energy Institute (NEI) by letter NEPA. Citing several court cases, the dated July 13, 1999. Its receipt was petitioner asserts that this approach is The NRC received letters from 11 noticed in the Federal Register on consistent with the "rule of reason" that commenters. Ten of the comment letters September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48117), with generally governs environmental impact supported the petition. Nine of those a full description of its content. The reviews under NEPA. The petitioner letters were from nuclear utilities and petitioner requested the NRC "* *

• to then states, "Thus, under the 'rule of the tenth was from NEI, providing delete 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) and, reason,' the impacts appropriately supplemental information to support thereby, eliminate the requirement for considered under NEPA would be those the arguments made in the petition.

NRC to evaluate SAMAs as part of the that reasonably flow, from the part 54 Except for one comment, Comment 1 NEPA review associated with license decision-making." Next, the petitioner below, all of the comments made by renewal." The rulemaking would cites two cases to support the position supporters of the petition reiterated include conforming changes to 10 CFR that there should be no consideration of arguments made in the petition. Because part 51, Appendix B and NUREC-1437. SAMAs for license renewal. In City of those arguments are addressed in the The petitioner requests elimination of Aurora v. Hunt, the court ruled that a NRC's reasons for denying the petition the requirement for SAMA reviews in new procedure to use a specific airport they are not addressed in the comment 10 CFR part 51 on the belief that the runway in particular weather conditions response below. A public interest group requirement conflicts with the technical involved "* *

• no significant safety provided the one letter opposed to the requirements for license renewal in 10 impact *

• to trigger further petition; and NRC's responses to their CFR part 54. The petitioner argues that assessment or inquiry under NEPA." comments are provided below.

actions to evaluate and address SAMAs 749 F.2d 1457, 1468 n. 8 (10th Cir. Comment 1: A utility commented that are part of each licensee's current 1984) overruled on other grounds by the costs of performing the SAMA licensing basis and that 10 CFR part 54 Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque reviews required by Part 51 are not is designed to separate matters related to v. Marsh, 956 F.2d 970 (10th Cir. 1992). justified when compared to the small maintaining the current licensing basis In the second court case, Upper Snake potential safety benefits that result from from those considered in a license River Chapterof Trout Unlimitedv. the reviews, when the costs associated renewal review. The petitioner's Hodel, the court ruled that the with implementing changes to realize argument, briefly stated, is as follows. Department of Interior did not have to those benefits are evaluated, and when The petition makes reference to the two prepare an environmental impact the fact that the reviews are largely principles of license renewal, discussed statement (EIS) to adjust the flow of duplicative of the previously completed in the Background section above. The water from a dam to accommodate Individual Plant Examination (IPE) and first principle focuses the license drought conditions where the range of Individual Plant Examination for HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 10835 2001

10836 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 34/Tuesday, February 20, 2001 /Proposed Rules External Events (IPEEE) programs is 1. Scope of the License Renewal Rule Act responsibilities under Part 54 (see; considered. The petitioner's principal argument 10 CFR part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, Response: The NRC believes that it for the elimination of SAMAs as part of Table B-I).

should continue to consider SAMAs for the NEPA review associated with However, under NEPA the NRC is individual license renewal applications individual license renewal reviews is charged with considering all of the to continue to meet its responsibilities that the scope of license renewal environmental impacts of its actions, under NEPA. That statute requires NRC establishes a basis. for deleting SAMAs not just the impacts of specific technical matters that may need to be reviewed to to analyze the environmental impacts of from associated NEPA reviews. -In particular, the petitioner believes that support the action. These impacts may its actions and consider those impacts because the NRC's safety review under involve matters outside of the NRC's in its decisionmaking. In doing so, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA implicitly Part 54 does not require consideration of jurisdiction or matters within its all aspects of plant operation and jurisdiction that, for sound reasons, are requires agencies to consider measures administration, the agency's review not otherwise addressed in the NRC's to mitigate those impacts when of environmental impacts under NEPA safety review during the licensing preparing impact statements. See should be similarly limited. -In its process. In the case of license renewal, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens petition and subsequent comments, NEI it is the Commission's responsibility Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989). NRC's under NEPA to consider all obligation to consider mitigation exists identified several Federal court cases

• and NRC decisions to support its environmental impacts stemming from whether or not mitigation is ultimately its decision to allow the continued found to be cost-beneficial and whether position.' The petitioner believes that the primary thrust of these cases is that operation of the entire plant for an or not mitigation ultimately will be implemented by the licensee. Id. The no consideration of impacts is necessary additional 20 years. The fact that the where the proposed Federal action NRC has determined that it is not NRC understands that a SAMA analysis necessary to consider a specific matter

• canbe relatively expensive and is would not change the status quo. In its comments, the petitioner indicated that in conducting its safety review under prepared to discuss ways in which Part 54 does not excuse it from SAMA analyses can be conducted "[tlhe line of cases using the status quo analysis doesnot turn on maintaining considering the impact in meeting its efficiently while, at the same time, NEPA obligations.

ensuring that NRC meets its NEPA the level of safety per se, but on whether the major federal action will change the The Commission does not believe that responsibilities. the various cases offered by the operation of the facility sufficient to Comment 2: Granting the petition petitioner provide convincing support warrant an inquiry into the changes in would continue the NRC's recent course environmental effect." for the elimination of the review of of "regulatory subtraction" during The Commission does not find the SAMAs. It would appear that the logical which it has "methodically amputated petitioner's arguments here compelling. extension of many of the petitioner's

.and dismantled its statutory authority." By approving a license renewal arguments go far beyond the mere Further, numerous site-specific and application under Part 54, the elimination of SAMAs consideration generic challenges have precipitated Commission authorizes operation of the from license renewal reviews. Indeed, to "beyond design basis" events, and entire plant for an additional 20 years the extent that license renewal involves demonstrate that it is imperative to beyond the initial licensing term. Thus, a continuation of impacts already maintain Severe Accident Mitigation the review of the environmental impacts experienced at the site under the current Alternatives evaluations. of this Federal action Under the operating license, the arguments made provisions of Part 51 appropriately by the petitioner would appear to call Response: The NRC has denied the for the elimination of almost the entire petition because it believes that the legal involves the consideration of environmental impacts caused by 20 environmental review of impacts from arguments presented are insufficient to operation during the license renewal demonstrate that a license renewal additional years of operation. The petitioner is correct in stating that the term, a position clearly at odds with the NEPA review need not consider Commission's approach to the matter alternatives to mitigate the potential for Commission, in promulgating 10 CFR part 54, has limited its safety review and also, as discussed below, and consequences of severe accidents. inconsistent with case law related to under the Atomic Energy Act to certain Comment 3: Given the NRC's aspects of the plant that are directly relicensing.

shrinking budget, "this type of frivolous related to aging and other issues specific The Commission does not dispute legal action must be indexed to punitive to the license renewal. The petitioner is that a line of cases exists under NEPA damages." NEI "must be held law which excuses agencies from also correct in pointing out that many accountable, and reimburse the NRC for preparing EISs (or considering certain environmental impact issues, such as all legal and administrative costs environmental impacts) where the SAMAs, are not addressed in the NRC's

.associated with this malicious petition." safety review Under Part 54. In fact, the Federal action does not change existing environmental conditions. See, for Response: While NRC has denied the vast majority of environmental impacts example, State of North Carolinav.

petition, NRC does not believe that there from license renewal required to be FederalAviation Administration, 957 are any aspects of the submittal that considered by the NRC under its NEPA F.2d 1125 (4th Cir. 1992); Cronin v.

would suggest an abuse of the petition review (in accordance with Part 51) are not included in the analysis conducted Department of Agriculture, 919 F.2d 439 process. Accordingly, whether or not (7th Cir. 1990). In most of these cases, reimbursement measures are even in fulfilling the NRC's Atomic Energy the Federal action taken does not itself available to the Commission, no

'City of Aurora v. Hunt, 749 F.2d 1457 (l0th Cir. create any additional impacts to Commission action is warranted in this activities that are ongoing and will 1984)(overruled on other grounds); Upper Snake regard. River Chapterof Trout Unlimited v. Hodel, 921 F.2d continue with or without the Federal 232, 235 (9th Cir. 1990); Consumers Power action. None of these cases appears to Reasons for Denial Company, (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-636, 13 NRC 312 (1982); and GeneralElectric provide firm support for the petitioner's The Commission is denying the Company (GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage argument that the NRC can ignore the petition for the following reasons: Facility), LBP-82-14, 15 NRC 530 (1982). impacts of its actions in the context of HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 10836 2001

Federal Register/ Vol 66, No. 34/Tuesday, February 20, 2001/Proposed Rules 10837 license renewal. In fact, at least one further assessment or inquiry under project was first operational." 921 F.2d circuit court squarely addressed the NEPA." 749 F.2d at 1468, n. 8. at 235. In other words, the flow issue of relicensing and concluded that While certain aspects in the City of reductions were part of the normal there is the need to consider Aurora decision provide some general operations originally approved by the environmental impacts in that context. support for the petitioner's argument, agencies in that case. Conversely, in the In Confederated Tribes and Bands of the facts in that case do not appear to license renewal context, the additional the Yakima Indian Nation v. Federal be sufficiently analogous to support the .20 years of operation authorized by a Energy Regulatory Commission, 746 elimination of SAMAs reviews for renewed license were not considered license renewal. First of all, the Court during the initial licensing of the F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1984), the Ninth found the FAA's decision to permit the *facility. Thus, the reasoning in Upper Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the Federal Energy Regulatory new procedure, in essence, served as a Snake River Chapterdoes not appear to finding of an equivalent level of flight be applicable to NRC's license renewal Commission (FERC) was required to safety and thus allowed the FAA to prepare an EIS for its relicensing decisions. The Commission believes, meet its NEPA obligations even though and has stated before, that a license decision for the Rock Island Dam. In safety was not explicitly considered in renewal decision by NRC is a major response to the FERC's argument that the EA itself. Under NRC's license there had been "no change in the status Federal action that warrants the renewal process, NRC's review under preparation of an environmental impact quo" and thus no EIS was necessary, the Part 54 does not itself meet the agency's statement (61 FR 55637, 66541; court found: NEPA obligations. Environmental issues December 18, 1996).

Relicensing * *

• is more akin to an such as the potential impacts of severe irreversible and irretrievable commitment of accidents during the license renewal In submitting comments on its a public resource than a mere continuation petition, NEI identified several NRC term do not fall under the Part 54 of the status quo. [Citation omitted] Simply review. Accordingly, unlike the FAA in decisions which it believes support its because the same resource had been position. The first, Consumers Power City of Aurora, NRC cannot use the Part committed in the past does not make 54 process as the vehicle for meeting its Company (Big Rock Nuclear Plant) relicensing a phase in a continuous activity. NEPA responsibilities for considering ALAB 636, 13 NRC 312 (1982), involved Relicensing involves a new commitment of SAMAs in the license renewal context a license amendment request to expand the resource, which 2 in this case lasts for a in the same way that the FAA was the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant's spent forty-year period. fuel pool. As NEI indicates, the Appeal allowed to use its procedure approval process in City of Aurora. Secondly, it Board emphasized the limited scope of The court's statements here are the request in rejecting claims that consistent with NRC's position and its should be noted that, absent the.NRC's decision to approve a license renewal aspects of the plant's continued practice in promulgating and implementing the license renewal rule. application, the licensee's plant will not operation should also be considered in operate an additional 20 years. the EA. As quoted by the petitioner, the The cases offered in support of the Appeal Board found that "there are no petitioner's arguments offer no Accordingly, the NRC's action is a "but for" cause of those additional impacts environmental changes to evaluate" compelling reasons to alter this with the secondary or indirect effects approach. and NRC has the responsibility to consider those impacts under NEPA. In (e.g., the plant's continued operation) of 3

In City of Aurora v. Hunt, the Federal City of Aurora, the FAA's rule permitted the spent fuel pool licensing decision.

Aviation Administration (FAA), through the use of a new landing procedure at 13 NRC at 328. The petitioner's a rulemaking, approved a new approach the airport. While there is no explicit comments indicate that:

procedure for the Stapleton airport in discussion in the decision, it appears The Appeal Board correctly noted that, by order to reduce delays caused by the use that the current landing procedures at granting the license amendment request, the of the existing procedure during periods the airport would have continued Commission is not also issuing approval to of low visibility. The City of Aurora whether or not FAA had issued the new alter any other aspect of the plant's operation challenged the rule claiming, among procedure. Accordingly, the status quo or the licensed operating term of the facility.

-other things, that the FAA failed to in the context of the City of Aurora discuss the safety risks of the new decision appears to have been the Petition for Rulemaking (Docket No.

procedure in its environmental continued operation of the airport, PRM-51-7; July 13, 1999), letter from assessment. In ruling against the City's whereas the status quo in the context of NEI to Secretary, NRC, dated November claim, the Court pointed out that the license renewal is the expiration of the 16, 1999, at pp. 2,.3. The Commission FAA was required by law to issue the facility's operating license... believes that the petitioner's own new procedure only if it did not involve Similarly, the decision in Upper statement here demonstrates the lack of a change in safety risk. The FAA Snake River Chapterof Trout Unlimited support Consumers Power Company 4

considered and responded to a vast v. Hodel does not appear to provide provides for its own position. In the number of safety concerns as part of the strong support for the petitioner's context of license renewal, the rulemaking process. Accordingly, the proposal. In that case, the court found Commission is, in fact, approving an Court found that the agency's approval that the reduction in river flows extension of the licensed operating term of the procedure, in itself, was adequate approved by Federal agencies was not a of the facility. Accordingly, the facts in to fulfill the agency's responsibility major Federal action within the Consumers PowerCompany are not under NEPA. In a footnote, the Court meaning of NEPA. The court held that, analogous to those presented by license explained that "[wihile an agency may in allowing the flow reductions, the renewal. While the Commission has be required to consider the effects that Federal defendants were "simply appropriately decided through will occur if a risk is realized, where no operating the facility in the manner rulemaking that it may focus its safety increase in risk is permitted, as here, no intended" and that they were doing evaluation on certain matters specified significant safety impact exists to trigger "nothing new, nor more extensive, nor in Part 54, its overall license renewal other than that contemplated when the decision applies to the operation of the 2746 F.2d 466 at 476-477. entire plant. Therefore, the limited 749 F.2d 1457 (10th Cir. 1984). 921 F.2d 232 (9th Cir. 1990). scope considered in Consumers Power HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 10837 2001.

10838 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 34/Tuesday, February 20, 2001/Proposed Rules Company is not present in the license Despite the adverse ruling handed to conclusions regarding SAMAs. This renewal context. NRC, the Limerick-decision outlines would include the need to evaluate Finally, petitioners have also cited several paths the Commission could changes in plant design and procedures GeneralElectric (Morris Operation attempt to follow in order to eliminate since the IPEs/IPEEEs were completed, Spent Fuel Storage Facility) LBP-82-14, the requirements to analyze both severe incorporate changes in the state of 15 NRC 530 (1982). In that case, the accidents and associated mitigation knowledge regarding certain severe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board alternatives in individual license accident issues, and to extend the IPE/

ruled that NRC did not have to issue an renewal reviews. First of all, the IPEEE analyses to include offsite EIS for the license renewal of a storage Commission could attempt to conclude consequences. In addition, both benefit facility. However, in that case, the NRC generically through rulemaking that it and cost considerations of potential staff did issue an environmental impact has considered these matters and that plant improvements would need to be appraisal (referred to under current NRC further consideration in individual developed. Further, there is uncertainty regulations as an environmental license renewal actions is not whether, at the conclusion of this effort, assessment (EA)) for the action. There is warranted. In other words, the NRC the staff would be successful in no suggestion that the NRC staff was would change the designation of the developing a sufficient technical basis free to eliminate or ignore consideration severe accident issue to "Category 1" for to reclassify severe accidents as a of the impacts of the action. Rather, the license renewal in Appendix B of 10 Category 1 issue. Given the resources Board agreed with the NRC staff that the CFR part 51. Secondly, as discussed in that would be required and the impacts of the action were not Section 3 of this notice, the Commission uncertainty in achieving a successful significant enough to warrant the could eliminate consideration of outcome, the staff does not believe it preparation of a full EIS and, instead, an SAMAs for license renewal based on a would be cost beneficial to pursue environmental impact appraisal was finding that severe accidents, in the rulemaking at this time.

sufficient. The Commission believes context of plant operation during the In September 2000, the staff issued license renewal term, are remote and Supplement I to Regulatory Guide 4.2, that the preparation of EISs, not EAs, are speculative. "Preparation of Supplemental appropriate in the context of license The Commission believes that Environmental Reports for Applications renewal. However, whether an EIS or an insufficient information is available to to Renew Nuclear Power Plant EA is prepared for a particular action, conclude generically that a SAMA Operating Licenses," which includes the Commission still is responsible for analysis is not warranted for individual guidance on information and analysis considering the environmental impacts plant license renewal reviews. In content on SAMAs for environmental of the action. Accordingly, this case promulgating the license renewal rule in reports submitted as part of license seems to provide little support for the 1996, the Commission indicated that it renewal applications. Its use is intended petitioner's position. "may review the issue of severe to ensure the completeness of the

2. Impact of the Limerick Decision accident mitigation for license renewal information provided, to assist the NRC and consider, by separate rulemaking, staff and others in locating the The petitioner is correct in stating that reclassifying severe accidents as a information, and to shorten the review the 3rd Circuit's holding in Limerick' Category 1 issue" (61 FR 66537; 66540; process. The staff will continue to work

'Ecology Action v. NRC does not itself December 18, 1996). In early 1999, in with stakeholders to determine if preclude NRC from ever eliminating anticipation of completion of the IPE additional efficiencies in the conduct of SAMA reviews from its licensing and IPEEE programs, the NRC staff SAMA analyses for environmental actions. Specifically, the court held that began considering the actions needed to reviews can be realized. Furthermore, if the NRC could not generically dispense fulfill the commitment made in the new information becomes available that

• with the consideration of SAMAs Federal Register notice. The IPE indicates it is feasible to reclassify through a policy statement. Instead, the program has been,completed and the SAMAs to Category 1, the staff will NRC would need to do so through a findings of the program are summarized notify the Commission and provide a

• generic rulemaking similar to the one in NUREG-1560, "Individual Plant recommendation as to a course of completed for Table S-3 (10 CFR 51.51) Examination Program: Perspective on action.

and upheld by the Supreme Court in Reactor Safety and Plant Performance," Accordingly, the Commission believes Baltimore Gas and Electricv. Natural December 1997. The IPEEE program is that there is an inadequate basis for a Resources Defense Council, 464 U.S. 87 nearing completion. The current target rulemaking to change severe accidents (1983). Despite the limited nature of its for completing the reviews of the from a Category 2 to Category 1 issue at holding, the court in the Limerick balance of the individual submittals is this time. Applicants should continue to decision identified a variety of issues January 2001. A draft insights report - refer to the guidance set out for SAMA that NRC would have to address in will be issued for public comment in analyses in the Statements of

• orderto eliminate the consideration of April 2001 and the final report is Consideration for the license renewal SAMAs. In addition to holdirrg that the scheduled to be completed in October rule (61 FR 28467, 28480-28482; June 5, NRC could not eliminate consideration 2001. 1996). The NRC staff will continue to of these SAMAs through a policy Over the past year, the staff has work with stakeholders to discuss the statement, the court also suggested that considered the scope of the analysis that process by which SAMA reviews are the generic consideration of SAMAs would be required to reach generic done and to determine if efficiencies are may be difficult to accomplish given technical conclusions supporting a possible while ensuring compliance differences in individual plants. 869 rulemaking to reclassify severe with NRC's NEPA responsibilities to F.2d at 733-739. In addition, as the accidents as a Category 1 issue. While consider the environmental impacts of petitioner has indicated, the court the information developed in the IPE/ its licensing decisions.

rejected NRC's argument that severe IPEEE program provides a valuable accidents were remote and speculative starting point, considerable staff and 3. Considerationof Remote and because there was no basis for this contractor effort would be required to Speculative Impacts conclusion in the agency's record. Id. at extend the conclusions resulting from The Commission agrees with the 739-741. the IPE/IPEEE reviews to draw generic petitioner that there is support in the HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 10838 2001

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 34/Tuesday, February 20,. 2001 /Proposed Rules 10839

• case law for the proposition that NEPA that severe accidents are remote and public can gain entry into the NRC's does not require the consideration of speculative for the purpose of license Agencywide Document Access and remote and speculative risks.5 The court renewal reviews. As discussed, the Management System (ADAMS), which in the Limerick proceeding rejected the Commission is unable to reach that provides text and image files of NRC's NRC's argument that severe accidents conclusion. public documents. For more were remote and speculative because For the reasons cited in this information, contact the NRC Public the court could find no basis for the document, the Commission denies the Document Room (PDR) Reference staff conclusion in the NRC record. Id. at petition. at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 739-741. The Commission is not Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day by e-mail, pdr@nrc.gov.

prepared to reach the conclusion that of February, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

the risks of all severe accidents in the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material context of license renewal are so Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear unlikely as to warrant their elimination Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretaryof the Commission. Regulatory Commission, Washington, from consideration in our NEPA DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-reviews. Even though there is a low [FR Doc. 01-4104 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]

8126, e-mail mlhl@nrc.gov.

probability of a severe accident, the BILUNG CODE 7590-1-P NRC has invested considerable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

resources toward understanding The Petition potential severe accident sequences and NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION On May 10, 2000 (65 FR 30018), the alternatives for further reducing the probability of and mitigating the NRC published a notice of receipt of a consequences of severe accidents, but 10 CFR Parts 73, 76, and 95 petition for rulemaking filed by the has not yet established an agency record United Plant Guard Workers of America.

[Docket No. PRM-76-1]

that severe accidents may be eliminated The petitioner requested that the NRC from NRC's NEPA reviews. In reviewing United Plant Guard Workers of amend its regulations concerning

.licensing actions outside of the license America; Denial of Petition for security at the gaseous diffusion plants renewal context, it may be possible for Rulemaking to address sites that have both special the NRC to conclude that certain severe nuclear material security concerns and AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory .protection of classified matter concerns; accident scenarios are remote and Commission. to require that these facilities be able to speculative and do not warrant detailed consideration for the purposes of the ACTION: Denial of petition for detect, respond to, and mitigate threats NEPA review for that particular NRC rulemaking. of a sabotage event; and to require that action. However, for the purposes of the security force be armed and

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory empowered to make arrests in limited consideration of severe accidents in the Commission (NRC) is denying a petition context of license renewal NEPA situations. The petitioner believes that for rulemaking submitted by the United these amendments are necessary to reviews, the NRC staff has not Plant Guard Workers of America (PRM-developed the necessary basis for address the protection of classified 76-1). The petitioner requested that the information, equipment and materials, concluding that such occurrences are NRC amend its regulations concerning and special nuclear material at the remote and speculative, and thus security at thegaseous diffusion plants inappropriate for NRC review under gaseous diffusion plants.

to address sites that have both special First, the petitioner asserted that the

• NEPA. This position does not alter the nuclear material security concerns and conclusion that, in light of margins of regulations do not adequately address protection of classified matter concern's; sites that have both nuclear material safety and defense-in-depth, the to require that these facilities be able to likelihood of radiological offsite security concerns and classified matter detect, respond to, and mitigate threats concerns. The petitioner believes that consequences is small. of a sabotage event; and to require that In its comments, the petitioner cited the applicable regulations were not the security force be armed and appropriately merged in the regulations two cases which, in its view, empowered to make arrests in limited demonstrate that NEPA's requirements governing gaseous diffusion plants to situations. The petitioner believes that address a site that covers the protection are satisfied where potential impacts to these amendments are necessary to the environment are remote and of classified information, equipment address the protection of classified and materials, and special nuclear difficult to quantify and ongoing information, equipment and materials, regulatory safeguards are in place to material.

and special nuclear material at the As an example, the petitioner stated protect against potential risks of impacts gaseous diffusion plants.

into the future. Environmental Defense that the Controlled Area Fence Line Fundv. Andrus, 619 F.2d 1368 (1oth ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for does provide a minimum level of Cir. 1980) reh'g en banc denied; and rulemaking, the public comments protection against the unauthorized Citizens for Environmental Qualityv. received, and NRC's letter to the removal of special nuclear material Lyng, 731 F. Supp. 970 (D. Colo. 1989). petitioner may be examined at the NRC contained in 10- and 20-ton cylinders.

Public Document Room, 11555 However, the petitioner questioned While these cases may provide more support for the general proposition that Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. These whether the fence line adequately remote and speculative impacts need documents also may be viewed and protects against the unauthorized not be considered under NEPA, they do downloaded electronically via the removal of restricted information, not displace the Commission's rulemaking website. equipment, and other materials or the Documents created or received at the unauthorized access to these types of responsibility to make the threshold determination based on the NRC record NRC after November 1, 1999 are also materials.

available electronically at the NRC's The petitioner asserted that other 5

See, e.g., Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 Public Electronic Reading Room on the facilities that possess Category III F.2d at 739; San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRCI quantities of special nuclear material NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1300-01 (D.C. Cir. 1984). ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the regulated by the NRC do not share the HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 10839 2001

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 14

ML092010045 OFFICE DPR/PGCB/PM DPR/PGCB/LA DPR/PCGB/BC DPR/D DE/D DRA/D NAME ARussell CHawes MMurphy TMcGinty PHiland MCunningham DATE 07/21/09 07/23/09 04/22/10 04/26/10 08/11/09 01/14/10 OFFICE DLR/D DORL/D DIRS/D DCI/D DSS/D OGC (NLO)

NAME BHolian JGiitter FBrown MEvans WRuland GMizuno (JLubinski for)

DATE 10/27/09 08/28/09 07/31/09 08/10/09 03/17/10 03/09/10 OFFICE NRR/DDECS PMDA/D NRR/DDRSP NRR/D NAME JGrobe MGiwines B1oger ELeeds (WRuland for) (TMcGinty for) (TMcGinty for)

DATE 04/27/10 05/10/10 05/11/10 05/12/10

NRR OFFICE INSTRUCTION LIC-202, Revision 2 Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests

1. POLICY The Backfit Rule, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.109, governs the requirements for backfitting of nuclear power plants. It requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) justify each backfit with either a backfit analysis or a documented evaluation. The term backfit is used in these procedures to denote modification of or addition to (1) systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; (2) the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; (3) the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility if the modification or addition results from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or from the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position. To be considered a backfit, these new or different positions must be taken after certain dates specified. in 50.109(a)(1)(i-vii). Furthermore, a backfit is plant-specific when it involves the imposition of a position that is unique to a particular plant.1 A modification or action proposed by a licensee is not deemed to be subject to the Backfit Rule.

For new nuclear power reactors using the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, applicable backfitting and issue finality provisions are also found in that part. For nuclear power reactor combined licenses, backfitting provisions are contained in both 10 CFR 50.109 and in Subpart C of Part 52.

The Backfit Rule ordinarily does not apply in renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license under 10 CFR Part 54. However, if the NRC proposes to address safety issues outside the scope of Part 54 (e.g., time-limited aging analyses and aging of long-lived passive structures, systems, and components (SSCs)), then any actions necessary to address such out-of-scope safety issues are subject to the Backfit Rule. Once a renewed license is issued, the Backfit Rule applies, with the exception of the identification of newly-identified SSCs under 10 CFR 54.37(b).

Section 50.54(f) of 10 CFR enables the staff to seek information necessary to determine the need to modify, suspend, or revoke a plant license. Section 50.54(f) further states "Except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for that facility, the NRC must prepare the reason or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure that the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed in the requested information." NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, "NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants," establishes roles and responsibilities for NRC staff implementation of 10 CFR 50.109 and 10 CFR 50.54(f).

Plant-specific backfitting involves positions unique to a particular plant, whereas generic backfitting involves the imposition of the same or similar positions on more thanone plant.

An exception to this general principle is when the NRC conditions approval of the licensee-initiated modification or action upon a matter not technically relevant to the determination of the licensee's proposed modification or action.

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 15

NUREG- 1850 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON LICENSE'RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS Final Report Manuscript Completed: February 2006 Date Published: March 2006 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

4.3.8 How do I get answers to my questions that fall outside the scope of the environmental review from the NRC?

There are three different ways for members of the public to receive answers to questions that fall outside the scope of the environmental review:

" Public meetings - Members of the public are invited to plant-specific public meetings (see response to Question 5.1.3), where NRC staff members are available to answer any questions related to NRC-regulated activities that members of the public may have, including those that are outside the scope of the environmental review. Public Meeting

" NRC website - Answers to many questions that are outside the scope of the environmental review are also found on the NRC website, www.nrc.gov.

The NRC has also developed a number of Frequently Asked Questions documents as well as informational brochures and fact-sheets to address issues that are of concern to the public. These documents, brochures, and fact sheets are also located on the NRC website.

. NRC environmental project manager - For plant-specific questions that are outside the scope, members of the public could contact the environmental project manager assigned by the NRC for the license-renewal review for the specific plant. The phone number for each of the NRC environmental project managers is given on the NRC website, as well as in FederalRegister notices and at the public meetings. The NRC environmental project manager can either answer questions or direct callers to the appropriate person in the agency for responding to their questions that are outside the scope of the review.

4.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) Review An analysis of SAMAs is included as part of the environmental review of the application for license renewal if it had not been considered Severe accidents are earlier.for the facility. A definition of SAMAs and an explanation of those that could result why they are included in the environmental review are included in this in substantialdamage section. In addition, the process used to evaluate SAMAS and the types of changes that may occur in the plant as a result of the analysis are to the reactor core, also discussed. whether or not there are serious off-site 4.4.1 What is a Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives consequences.

(SAMAs) review?

The SAMAs review is an evaluation of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents. Severe accidents are those that could result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious off-site consequences. The NRC staff reviews and evaluates SAMAs to ensure that changes that could improve severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated. Potential improvements could include hardware modifications, changes to procedures, and changes to the training program.

4-31 Final FAQs for License Renewal March 2006 March 2006 4-31 Final FAQs for License Renewal

In some cases, SAMAs may have already been evaluated by the A Severe A ccident NRC staff in a previous environmental impact statement (EIS),

.M*1itigation Alternatives supplement, or environmental assessment (EA) written for a facility review is an evaluation of before the applicant applied for license renewal. In such cases, the alternativesto mitigate evaluation does not have to be repeated for that particular facility, severe accidents. according to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.53. However, if the NRC staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for an applicant's plant in an EIS, a supplement, or an EA, the license renewal applicant is required to consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents as part of the license renewal application.

4.4.2 Why are SAMAs considered part of the environmental review?

The Commission's regulations (10 CFR Part 51) require that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the NRC staff has not previously evaluated severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for the applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or in an environmental assessment. This requirement results, in part, from a court decision partially reversing a Commission decision upholding an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) determination that it need not adjudicate a contention alleging that the NRC staff must consider, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), severe accident mitigation design alternatives in an environmental impact statement for an operating license (Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 [3d Cir. 1989]).. At the time that this requirement was established, licensees were identifying individual plant vulnerabilities and considering cost-beneficial improvements, e.g., in the individual plant examination (IPE) and the individual plant examination for external events (IPEEE) programs. The Commission believes that it is unlikely that any site-specific consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives for license renewal would identify major plant design changes or modifications proving to be cost-beneficial for reducing severe accident frequency or consequences. However, because these programs had not yet been completed at all plants, the Commission considered a general conclusion regarding severe accident mitigation to be premature, and required a site-specific consideration of SAMAs forlicense renewal for plants lacking previously evaluated SAMAs in an EIS, related supplement, or environmental assessment.

4.4.3 What is the process for the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) review?

The evaluation of SAMAs is a four-step process, as shown in Figure 4.1. The first step is to characterize overall plant risk and the leading contributors to the risk. This typically involves the extensive use of a plant-specific probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) study. The PSA identifies the different contributors of system failures and human errors that would be required for an accident to progress either to core damage or to containment failure.

The second step is to identify potential improvements that could reduce the risk. Information from the PSA, such as dominant accident sequences, equipment failures, and operator actions is used to identify plant improvements that would have the greatest impact in reducing risk. Improvements identified in other NRC and industry studies, as well as SAMAs analysis for otherplants, are also considered in this process.

4-32 March. 2006 Final FAQs for License Renewal License Renewal 4-32 March.2006

• Step 1. Characterize Plant Risk. Use of a plant-

• specific probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) study to identify contributors of system failures and human Source,,, of Potential SAMAs:

errors required for an accident to progress to core imp'novernepts identified by other SAMAs analyses damage or containment failure" NRC and-industry studies of potential plant improvements.

Potentid improvements identified in PE and IPEEE

_lRevi",., ýt lio'.latest update to the plant PSA

,Reasons- 0figina'ISAIVIAs-areRemoved from Further

,Conýide'ration-Ný3t ipfdi-ýhle toplant design Alreýý 1, niý,lemented

_oiiniiý-,, to ,,ioth er-SAMA or was combined Not a significant safety benefit Step 3. Quantify Risk Reduction P otential and Implementation Costs - Deteirm "ine the risk :Man y-of the SAMAs will'be removed from'fUrther",

red .uction potential from the proposýea rn'provernents consideration at.this.point because theywould c6sl ,

from Step 2 and then estimatehow much these ý-than*.the' rnaxirný6ni attainable benefit (MAB) -the dollar

',proposed improvementsýwoulVcost. .value of th, 'benefit-if the risk could be-redUced.to-zero.

SAMAs -,ting rnore'tha6 MAB cannot'Ibe costben6fiýiaýi.

Detailed-16:nefit'and cost estimates are made.for

,remainingSAIVIAs Step 4. Determine Whether theAmplementation of Improvements is Justified - Conipaiýe the costs and

ý.benefits of the proposed improveiiients, determine if Express benefits in dollars and compare costs and' the improvement provides a reduction in bei,,_ýt!i,, ý,! pr iý,)sed improvements to identif, total risk and whether the risl luý.Iiý,n is associated ber, fi,-i.,l nýpiovements.

with aging effects during the' L-ii,)d of extended operations, to deterruinelwheýý-i improvements are lfbýný fit -,f -ýý,',YA is largerthan cost tn,ýý justified.

coriý.i 1-i-j t cost-beneficial.

Figure 4.1. General ized.Process for Identifying and Evaluating Potential Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs)

The third step is to quantify the risk-reduction potential and the implementation cost for each of the improvements. The risk reduction is typically estimated using A conservative analysis that generally overestimates the risk-reduction potential by assuming that the plant improvement is highly effective in eliminating the accident sequence that the impýovementis intended to address. Implementation costs are generally underestimated by neglecting certain cost factors, such as maintenance costs or sufveillance costs associated with the plant modification. Overestimating the risk-reduction potential and under estimating the implementation costs in this step make it more likely that a potentially useful safety improvement would be retained for further consideration in the final step.

The risk-reduction potentials and the implementation cost estimates are used in the final step, which is to determine whether implementation of any of the improvements is justified. In determining whether the improvement is justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors: whether the improvement is cost-beneficial,.in other words, whether the estimated benefit is greater than the estimate of the March 2006 4-33 Final FAQs for License Renewal

implementation cost of the SAMAs; whether the improvement provides a significant reduction in total risk, in other words, whether it eliminates a sequence or containment failure mode that contributes to a large fraction of plant risk; and whether the risk reduction is associated with aging effects during the period of extended operation, which would be an improvement implemented as part of the license renewal process.

4.4.4 What is the outcome of the review?

The outcome of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives The Severe Accident Mitigation (SAMAs) analysis is a list of plant improvements that meet Alternatives analysis results in the criteria of being cost-beneficial, provide a significant a list of plant improvements. reduction in total risk, and are associated with aging effects that meet the criteriaof" during the period of extended operation.

• being cost beneficial In some cases, however, the review leads to a determination

• providinga significant that there are no specific SAMA candidates that are reduction in total risk, and cost-beneficial. This may be the case where there is a low

" being associatedwith aging residual level of risk and where the applicant has, in fact, already implemented many plant improvements. In other effects duringthe periodof cases, a SAMA that is potentially cost-beneficial may not extended operation. relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Such SAMAs need not be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

4A4.5 Does the applicant have to implement any identified changes?

The only changes that must be implemented by the applicant as part of The SAMAs analyses the license renewal process are those that are identified as being that have been cost-beneficial, that provide a significant reduction in total risk, and perfbrmed to date have that are related to adequately managing the effects of aging during the fbund SAMA4s that *periodof extended operation. However, the Severe Accident were cost beneficial, Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) evaluation may identify some plant or at leastpossibly enhancements that appear to be cost-beneficial but that are not related to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of cost beneficialsubject extended operation. Such enhancements are considered as current tofiurther analysis; in operating issues and are further evaluated as changes that might approximately halfof appropriately be made under the current operating license'rather than as the plants. None of the a license renewal issue.

SAMAs identified 4.4.6 Have any changes been implemented at a plant as a related to managing result of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives the ejcits of aging (SAMAs) review?

during the periodof extended operation. The SAMAs analyses that have been performed to date have found SAMAs that were cost-beneficial, or at least possibly cost-beneficial subject to further analysis,- in approximately half of the plants. However, none of the SAMAs identified related to managing the effects of aging during the. period of extended operation. Therefore, they did not Final FAQs for License Renewaf 4-34. March 2006

need to be implemented as part of license renewal, pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 54. In general, the cost-beneficial SAMAs were identified for further evaluation by the licensee under the current operating license. In several cases, the applicant has decided to implement the modifications even though they were not related to license renewal.

4.5 Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel Although the storage and disposal of high-level waste are not within the scope of environmental issues pertaining to license renewal, questions about these topics are asked frequently during public meetings and other opportunities for public comment. In the interest of providing a full picture of the issues associated with nuclear power facilities, this section provides information about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the status of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and the storage of spent fuel at nuclear power facilities.

4.5.1 What is the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes the Federal government's responsibility to provide a place for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and the generators' (commercial nuclear power facilities') responsibility to.bear the costs of permanent disposal. The Act authorizes and requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to locate and build a permanent repository and an interim storage facility and develop a transportation system to safely link nuclear plants to the repository and interim storage facility. The Act was signed into law by President Reagan on January 7, 1983. The Act obligated DOE to begin disposal of high-level radioactive waste from commercial nuclear facilities by January 31, 1998. To date, an application for licensing these facilities has not been submitted to.the NRC.

4.5.2 What is the status of Yucca Mountain?

For over two decades, research has been conducted to determine whether a site near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is suitable for safely isolating highly radioactive nuclear waste. Four major steps - site characterization, site approval, licensing review, and construction - have to be completed before operation of the proposed high-level waste repository could occur. The first step, site characterization, including excavation of exploratory tunnels and testing of groundwater, has been completed. The result of the characterization study was documented by the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS). A draft EIS was Yucca Mountain, Nevada 4-35 Final FAQs for License Renewal March 2006 March 2006 4-35 Final FAQs for License Renewal

Applicant's Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition (February 3, 2011)

NYS-35/36: ATTACHMENT 16

NUREG-1800, Rev. 1 Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants Manuscript Completed: September 2005 Date Published: September 2005 Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF TIME-LIMITED AGING ANALYSES Review Responsibilities Primary- Branch responsible for the TLAA issues Secondary- Other branches responsible for engineering, as appropriate 4.1.1 Areas of Review This review plan section addresses the identification of time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs).

The technical review of TLAAs is addressed in section 4.2 through 4.7. As explained in more detail below, the list of TLAAs are certain plant-specific safety analyses that are based on an explicitly assumed 40-year plant life (for example, aspects of the reactor vessel design).

Pursuantto 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1), a license renewal applicant is required to provide a list of TLAAs, as defined in 10 CFR 54.3. The area relating to the identification of TLAAs is reviewed.

TLAAs may have developed since issuance of a plant's operating license. As indicated in 10 CFR 54.30, the adequacy of the plant's CLB, which includes TLAAs, is not an area within the scope of the license renewal review. Any question regarding the adequacy of the CLB must be addressed under the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) and is separate from the license renewal process.

In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(2), an applicant must provide a list of plant-specific exemptions granted under 10 CFR 50.12 that are based on TLAAs. However, the initial license renewal applicants have found no such exemptions for their plants.

It-is an applicant's option to include more analyses than those required by 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1).

The staff should focus its review to confirm that the applicant did not omit any TLAAs, as defined in 10 CFR 54.3.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(d), each application is to include a FSAR Supplement summary description for each TLAA that is identified in accordance with 10 CFR 54.3.

4.1.2 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for the areas of review described in Subsection 4.1.1 of this review plan section delineate acceptable methods for meeting the requirements of the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1). For the applicant's list of exemptions to be acceptable, the staff should have reasonable assurance that there has been no omission of TLAAs from that list.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.3, TLAAs are those licensee calculations and analyses that:

1. Involve systems, structures, and components within the scope of license renewal, as delineated in 10 CFR 54.4(a);

2. Consider the effects of aging;

3. Involve time-limited assumptions defined by the current operating term, for example, 40 years;

4. Were determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a safety determination; September 2005 4.1-1 NUREG-1800, Rev. 1

4.7 OTHER PLANT-SPECIFIC TIME-LIMITED AGING ANALYSES Review Responsibilities Primary- Branch responsible for the TLAA issues Secondary - Other branches responsible for systems, as appropriate 4.7.1 Areas of Review There are certain plant-specific safety analyses that may have been based on an explicitly assumed 40-year plant life (for example, aspects of the reactor vessel design) and may, therefore, be time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs.) Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 (c), a license renewal applicant is required to evaluate TLAAs. The definition of TLAAs is provided in 10 CFR 54.3 and in Section 4.1 of this standard review plan.

TLAAs may have evolved since issuance of a plant's operating license, and are plant-specific.

As indicated in 10 CFR 54.30, the adequacy of the plant's CLB, which includes TLAAs, is not an area within the scope of the license renewal review. Any question regarding the adequacy of the CLB must be addressed under the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) and is separate from the license renewal process.

License renewal reviews focus on the period of extended operation. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.30, ifthe reviews required by 10 CFR 54.21(a) or (c) show that there is not reasonable assurance during the current license term that licensed activities will be conducted in accordance with the CLB, the licensee is required to take measures under its current license to ensure that the intended function of those systems, structures, or components will be maintained in accordance with the CLB throughout the term of the current license. The adequacy of the measures for the term of the current license is not within the scope of the license renewal review.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(c), an applicant must provide a listing of TLAAs and plant-specific exemptions that are based. on TLAAs. The staff reviews the applicant's identification of TLAAs and exemptions separately, following the guidance in Section 4.1 of this standard review plan.

Based on lessons learned in the review of the initial license renewal applications, the staff has developed review procedures for the evaluation of certain TLAAs. If an applicant identifies these TLAAs as applicable to its plant, the staff reviews them separately, following the guidance in Sections 4.2 through 4.6. The reviewer reviews other TLAAs that are identified by the applicant, following.the generic guidance in this section. For particular systems, the reviewers from branches responsible for those systems may be requested to assist in the review, as appropriate.

The following areas relating to a TLAA are reviewed:

4.7.1.1 Time-Limited Aging Analysis The evaluation of the TLAA for the period of extended operation is reviewed.

4.7.1.2 FSAR Supplement The FSAR supplement summarizing the evaluation of the TLAA for the period of extended operation in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(d) is reviewed.

Septembet 2005 4.7-1 NUREG-1800, Rev. 1