ML110400479: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML110400479
| number = ML110400479
| issue date = 02/03/2011
| issue date = 02/03/2011
| title = 2011/02/03-Response of Attorney General of Connecticut in Support of New York'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36
| title = Response of Attorney General of Connecticut in Support of New York'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36
| author name = Snook R
| author name = Snook R
| author affiliation = State of CT, Office of the Attorney General
| author affiliation = State of CT, Office of the Attorney General
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:p k-3 k7 -q44ý0 0 DOCKETED February 3, 2011 (11:30a.m.)
{{#Wiki_filter:p k-3 k7 -q44ý                 0                                   0 DOCKETED February 3, 2011 (11:30a.m.)                           UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SECRETARY                         NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-------------------------------------------------
                ------------------------------------------------- X In re:                                                 Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by               ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC,                   DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.                       February 3, 2011
X In re: License Renewal Application Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.------------------------------------
                ------------------------------------             x RESPONSE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT IN SUPPORT OF NEW YORK'S MOTION FOR SUMMAY DISPOSITION OF CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-35/36 The State of Connecticut, an interested governmental party in this proceeding, files this response in support of the State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36.
x Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 DPR-26, DPR-64 February 3, 2011 RESPONSE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT IN SUPPORT OF NEW YORK'S MOTION FOR SUMMAY DISPOSITION OF CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-35/36 The State of Connecticut, an interested governmental party in this proceeding, files this response in support of the State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36.
The Attorney General of Connecticut has previously filed several pleadings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") as part of its review of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s application for renewal of its license to operate the Indian Point nuclear power station for an additional 20 years. The State of Connecticut fully supports the positions taken by the State of New York, particularly that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") released in December, 2010, does not meet the requirements of the
The Attorney General of Connecticut has previously filed several pleadings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") as part of its review of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s application for renewal of its license to operate the Indian Point nuclear power station for an additional 20 years. The State of Connecticut fully supports the positions taken by the State of New York, particularly that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement  
* National Environmental Policy Act and that Entergy and NRC Staff's severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis is deficient.
("FSEIS")
Specifically, The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C § 4321, el seq.
released in December, 2010, does not meet the requirements of the* National Environmental Policy Act and that Entergy and NRC Staff's severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis is deficient.
("NEPA"), mandates that federal agencies involved in activities that may have a significan~t
Specifically, The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C § 4321, el seq.("NEPA"), mandates that federal agencies involved in activities that may have a significan~t
                              ~~p1A-~~               Pc-C         S3;
~~p1A-~~ Pc-C S3; impact on the enviromrnent complete a detailed statement of the environmental impacts and project alternatives. "NEPA was created to ensure that agencies will base decisions on detailed information regarding significant environmental impacts and that information will be available to a wide variety of concerned public and private actors. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.Federal Aviation Administration, 161 F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir. 1998)" (quoted in Mississippi River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 2000)).The fundamental goal of an evaluation under NEPA is to require responsible government agencies involved with a given project to undertake a careful and thorough analysis of the need for that project and its impacts before committing to proceed with the project. As the Tenth Circuit has held: The purpose of NEPA is to require agencies to consider environmentally significant aspects of a proposed action, and, in so doing, let the public know that the agency's decisionmaking process includes environmental concerns.
 
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983); Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of Energy, 287 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir.2002).Utahns For Better Transportation
impact on the enviromrnent complete a detailed statement of the environmental impacts and project alternatives. "NEPA was created to ensure that agencies will base decisions on detailed information regarding significant environmental impacts and that information will be available to a wide variety of concerned public and private actors. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
: v. United States Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10" Cir. 2002). NRC's NEPA regulations require the FSEIS to include"consideration of major points of view concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives, and contain an analysis of significant problems and objections raised by other Federal, State, and local agencies, by any affected Indian tribes, and by other interested persons" (10 C.F.R. § 51.71(b)), and discuss and respond to any relevant responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the DSEIS. 10 C.F.R. § 51.91 (3)(b).2 As required by NEPA and NRC regulations 10 C.F.R. § 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(L), NRC Staff is required to examine site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives
Federal Aviation Administration, 161 F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir. 1998)" (quoted in Mississippi River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 2000)).
("SAMAs").
The fundamental goal of an evaluation under NEPA is to require responsible government agencies involved with a given project to undertake a careful and thorough analysis of the need for that project and its impacts before committing to proceed with the project. As the Tenth Circuit has held:
The SAMA analysis for Indian Point indicates that there are at least 22 mitigation alternatives that appear to be cost-effective and beneficial.
The purpose of NEPA is to require agencies to consider environmentally significant aspects of a proposed action, and, in so doing, let the public know that the agency's decisionmaking process includes environmental concerns. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983); Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of Energy, 287 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir.
These measures would mitigate the environmental impacts in Connecticut that could come about from a severe reactor accident at either of the two Indian Point reactors.
2002).
As explained by New York in its motion, the reasons given by the FSEIS for not requiring the implementation of the cost effective mitigation measures do not withstand scrutiny under NRC precedent and regulations.
Utahns For Better Transportationv. UnitedStates Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10" Cir. 2002). NRC's NEPA regulations require the FSEIS to include "consideration of major points of view concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives, and contain an analysis of significant problems and objections raised by other Federal, State, and local agencies, by any affected Indian tribes, and by other interested persons" (10 C.F.R. § 51.71(b)), and discuss and respond to any relevant responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the DSEIS. 10 C.F.R. § 51.91 (3)(b).
Accordingly, the Board should grant New York's motion.These identified measures could have a significant mitigative impact on the environmental consequences of an accident at Indian Point. At the very least, without completing the analysis, it is impossible to fully evaluate the environmental consequences of relicensing.
2
Moreover, the FSEIS's discussion of the SAMA issue does not meaningfully respond to the concerns provided by Connecticut and New York in their previous submissions in this proceeding.
 
As such, the FSEIS does not comply with 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.71(b) and 51.91(3)(b).
As required by NEPA and NRC regulations 10 C.F.R. § 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(L), NRC Staff is required to examine site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives
The NRC has therefore failed to provide a thorough and accurate analysis of mitigation alternatives to severe accidents and thus has failed to take a "hard look" at the adverse impacts of this project. As a consequence, the FSEIS is fundamentally incomplete and the NRC Staff must provide the missing analyses and provide a meaningful and rational response to Connecticut and New York's concerns before proceeding.
("SAMAs"). The SAMA analysis for Indian Point indicates that there are at least 22 mitigation alternatives that appear to be cost-effective and beneficial. These measures would mitigate the environmental impacts in Connecticut that could come about from a severe reactor accident at either of the two Indian Point reactors. As explained by New York in its motion, the reasons given by the FSEIS for not requiring the implementation of the cost effective mitigation measures do not withstand scrutiny under NRC precedent and regulations. Accordingly, the Board should grant New York's motion.
As the Connecticut Attorney General has repeatedly brought to the attention of the ASLB, approximately one third of the State of Connecticut lies within the 50-mile 3 0 0 ingestion pathway zone for Indian Point. An accident or attack on Indian Point would therefore have an immediate and potentially devastating impact of the citizens of this state. Until NRC Staff provide a full accounting of demonstrably beneficial mitigation alternatives to reasonably foreseeable severe accidents, the citizens of Connecticut and their responsible officials will not be able to make informed decisions regarding the relicensing of this facility.The Connecticut Attorney General therefore fully supports the Motion for Summary Disposition brought by the State of New York and urges the ASLB to grant the relief requested.
These identified measures could have a significant mitigative impact on the environmental consequences of an accident at Indian Point. At the very least, without completing the analysis, it is impossible to fully evaluate the environmental consequences of relicensing. Moreover, the FSEIS's discussion of the SAMA issue does not meaningfully respond to the concerns provided by Connecticut and New York in their previous submissions in this proceeding. As such, the FSEIS does not comply with 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.71(b) and 51.91(3)(b). The NRC has therefore failed to provide a thorough and accurate analysis of mitigation alternatives to severe accidents and thus has failed to take a "hard look" at the adverse impacts of this project. As a consequence, the FSEIS is fundamentally incomplete and the NRC Staff must provide the missing analyses and provide a meaningful and rational response to Connecticut and New York's concerns before proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Robert Snook Assistant Attorney General Dated: February 3, 2011 4 S 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 3,2011, copies of the foregoing were served on the following by first-class mail and electronic mail on the following, as indicated below: Office of the Secretary' Office of the General Counsel Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555 email: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov email: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 190 Cedar Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ridgway, CO 81432 Mail Stop T-3 F23 email: KDL2(,nrc.
As the Connecticut Attorney General has repeatedly brought to the attention of the ASLB, approximately one third of the State of Connecticut lies within the 50-mile 3
gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 email: LGM10@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P: -Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York City Economic Dev. Corp.Washington, D.C. 20555 110 William Street email: REW@nrc.gov New York, NY 10038 email: mdelaney@nycedc.comn Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Martin J. O'Neill, Esq..Brian G. Harris, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.David E. Roth, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.Andrea Z. Jones, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Office of the General Counsel 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Washington, D.C. 20004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission email: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 pbessette@imorganlewis.com email: set(anrc.gov; ksuttonaimorganlewis com bnm 1 @cric. gov david.rothgnrc.gov brian.han'is@inrc.gov andrea.jones(@nrc.gov Original and 2 copies provided to the Office of the Secretary.
 
Susan H. Shapiro, Esq.21 Perlman Drive Spring Valley, NY 10977 email: mbs nwourrocklandoffice.com Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-16G4 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 email: OCAAMAIL Q'nrc.gov Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman 84 East Thetford Road New York AREA Lyme, NH 03768 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 email: aroisman(nationallegalscholars.com New York, NY 10016 email: ajkremner@infpc.com kremergarea-atliance.org William C. Dennis, Esq.Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 email: wdennisR(?entergy.coin Sherwood Martinelli Manna Jo Greene FUSE USA Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.351 Dyckman Street 112 Little Market Street Peekskill, NY 10566 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 email: fuse usaOiyahoo.com; email: Mannaio@clearwater.org roycepenstinger(2aol.com Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk Phillip Musegaas, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Deborah Brancato, Esq.Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Riverkeeper, Inc.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Secor Road Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ossining, NY 10562 Email: Josh.Kirsteina,,nrc.gov philIip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato(2criverkeeper.org Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. John J. Sipos, Esq.Senior Attorney for Special Projects Charile Donaldson, Esq.New York State Department of Environmental Assistant Attorneys General Conservation Office of the Attorney General 625 Broadway, 1 4 th Floor State of New York Albany, New York 12233-5500 The Capitol email: ilmatthews( ,gw.dec.state.ny.us Albany, NY 12224 John. sipos@oag.state.ny.us 2
0                                       0 ingestion pathway zone for Indian Point. An accident or attack on Indian Point would therefore have an immediate and potentially devastating impact of the citizens of this state. Until NRC Staff provide a full accounting of demonstrably beneficial mitigation alternatives to reasonably foreseeable severe accidents, the citizens of Connecticut and their responsible officials will not be able to make informed decisions regarding the relicensing of this facility.
S 0 Elise N. Zoli, Esq. John Louis Parker, Esq.Goodwin Proctor, LLP Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Exchange Place NYS Department of Environmental 53 State Street Conservation Boston, MA 02109 21 S.Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 ilparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us Diane Curran, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.Harmon, Curran, Spielberg  
The Connecticut Attorney General therefore fully supports the Motion for Summary Disposition brought by the State of New York and urges the ASLB to grant the relief requested.
& Eisenberg, LLP Assistant County Attorney 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Office of Westchester County Attorney Washington, D.C. 20036 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 email: MJR1 @westchestergov.com Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.Daniel Riesel, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Sive, Page and Riesel, P.C. New York 460 Park Avenue 120 Broadway, 2 6 th Floor New York, N.Y. 10022 New York, NY 10271 drieselgspriaw.com Janice.dean(c2oag.state.ny.us jsteinberg  
Respectfully submitted, Robert Snook Assistant Attorney General Dated: February 3, 2011 4
@sprlaw.com Robert D. Snook Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (860) 808-5020 (860) 808-5347 Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us 3}}
 
S                                             0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 3,2011, copies of the foregoing were served on the following by first-class mail and electronic mail on the following, as indicated below:
Office of the Secretary'                                     Office of the General Counsel Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff                           U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                           Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555                                       email: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov email: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair                                     Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                       Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                             190 Cedar Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                           Ridgway, CO 81432 Mail Stop T-3 F23                                             email: KDL2(,nrc. gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 email: LGM10@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell                                           Michael J. Delaney, V.P: -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                             Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                           New York City Economic Dev. Corp.
Washington, D.C. 20555                                         110 William Street email: REW@nrc.gov                                           New York, NY 10038 email: mdelaney@nycedc.comn Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.                                         Martin J. O'Neill, Esq..
Brian G. Harris, Esq.                                         Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq.                                           Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.                                           Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.
Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.                                         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Office of the General Counsel                                 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Mail Stop 0-15 D21                                             Washington, D.C. 20004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                           email: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001                                   pbessette@imorganlewis.com email: set(anrc.gov;                                           ksuttonaimorganlewis com bnm 1@cric. gov david.rothgnrc.gov brian.han'is@inrc.gov andrea.jones(@nrc.gov Original and 2 copies provided to the Office of the Secretary.
 
Susan H. Shapiro, Esq.                     Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive                            U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977                    Mail Stop O-16G4 email: mbs nwourrocklandoffice.com        Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 email: OCAAMAIL Q'nrc.gov Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.                   Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman 84 East Thetford Road                       New York AREA Lyme, NH 03768                             347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 email: aroisman(nationallegalscholars.com   New York, NY 10016 email: ajkremner@infpc.com kremergarea-atliance.org William C. Dennis, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 email: wdennisR(?entergy.coin Sherwood Martinelli                         Manna Jo Greene FUSE USA                                   Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
351 Dyckman Street                         112 Little Market Street Peekskill, NY 10566                         Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 email: fuse usaOiyahoo.com;                 email: Mannaio@clearwater.org roycepenstinger(2aol.com Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk                   Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel     Deborah Brancato, Esq.
Mail Stop: T-3 F23                         Riverkeeper, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission         20 Secor Road Washington, DC 20555-0001                   Ossining, NY 10562 Email: Josh.Kirsteina,,nrc.gov             philIip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato(2criverkeeper.org Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.                   John J. Sipos, Esq.
Senior Attorney for Special Projects       Charile Donaldson, Esq.
New York State Department of Environmental Assistant Attorneys General Conservation                             Office of the Attorney General 625 Broadway, 1 4 th Floor                 State of New York Albany, New York 12233-5500                 The Capitol email: ilmatthews( ,gw.dec.state.ny.us     Albany, NY 12224 John. sipos@oag.state.ny.us 2
 
S                                 0 Elise N. Zoli, Esq.                       John Louis Parker, Esq.
Goodwin Proctor, LLP                       Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Exchange Place                             NYS Department of Environmental 53 State Street                               Conservation Boston, MA 02109                           21 S.Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 ilparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us Diane Curran, Esq.                         Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP Assistant County Attorney 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600               Office of Westchester County Attorney Washington, D.C. 20036                     148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 email: MJR1 @westchestergov.com Thomas F. Wood, Esq.                       Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Daniel Riesel, Esq.                       Assistant Attorney General Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.                Office of the Attorney General of the State of Sive, Page and Riesel, P.C.                New York 460 Park Avenue                            120 Broadway,  2 6th Floor New York, N.Y. 10022                       New York, NY 10271 drieselgspriaw.com                         Janice.dean(c2oag.state.ny.us jsteinberg @sprlaw.com Robert D. Snook Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (860) 808-5020 (860) 808-5347 Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us 3}}

Latest revision as of 10:45, 6 December 2019

Response of Attorney General of Connecticut in Support of New York'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36
ML110400479
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/03/2011
From: Snook R
State of CT, Office of the Attorney General
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS E-446
Download: ML110400479 (7)
v • d • e


Text

p k-3 k7 -q44ý 0 0 DOCKETED February 3, 2011 (11:30a.m.) UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SECRETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

X In re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO1 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. February 3, 2011

x RESPONSE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT IN SUPPORT OF NEW YORK'S MOTION FOR SUMMAY DISPOSITION OF CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION NYS-35/36 The State of Connecticut, an interested governmental party in this proceeding, files this response in support of the State of New York's Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36.

The Attorney General of Connecticut has previously filed several pleadings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") as part of its review of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s application for renewal of its license to operate the Indian Point nuclear power station for an additional 20 years. The State of Connecticut fully supports the positions taken by the State of New York, particularly that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") released in December, 2010, does not meet the requirements of the

  • National Environmental Policy Act and that Entergy and NRC Staff's severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis is deficient.

Specifically, The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C § 4321, el seq.

("NEPA"), mandates that federal agencies involved in activities that may have a significan~t

~~p1A-~~ Pc-C S3;

impact on the enviromrnent complete a detailed statement of the environmental impacts and project alternatives. "NEPA was created to ensure that agencies will base decisions on detailed information regarding significant environmental impacts and that information will be available to a wide variety of concerned public and private actors. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.

Federal Aviation Administration, 161 F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir. 1998)" (quoted in Mississippi River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 2000)).

The fundamental goal of an evaluation under NEPA is to require responsible government agencies involved with a given project to undertake a careful and thorough analysis of the need for that project and its impacts before committing to proceed with the project. As the Tenth Circuit has held:

The purpose of NEPA is to require agencies to consider environmentally significant aspects of a proposed action, and, in so doing, let the public know that the agency's decisionmaking process includes environmental concerns. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983); Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of Energy, 287 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir.

2002).

Utahns For Better Transportationv. UnitedStates Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10" Cir. 2002). NRC's NEPA regulations require the FSEIS to include "consideration of major points of view concerning the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives, and contain an analysis of significant problems and objections raised by other Federal, State, and local agencies, by any affected Indian tribes, and by other interested persons" (10 C.F.R. § 51.71(b)), and discuss and respond to any relevant responsible opposing view not adequately discussed in the DSEIS. 10 C.F.R. § 51.91 (3)(b).

2

As required by NEPA and NRC regulations 10 C.F.R. § 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(L), NRC Staff is required to examine site-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives

("SAMAs"). The SAMA analysis for Indian Point indicates that there are at least 22 mitigation alternatives that appear to be cost-effective and beneficial. These measures would mitigate the environmental impacts in Connecticut that could come about from a severe reactor accident at either of the two Indian Point reactors. As explained by New York in its motion, the reasons given by the FSEIS for not requiring the implementation of the cost effective mitigation measures do not withstand scrutiny under NRC precedent and regulations. Accordingly, the Board should grant New York's motion.

These identified measures could have a significant mitigative impact on the environmental consequences of an accident at Indian Point. At the very least, without completing the analysis, it is impossible to fully evaluate the environmental consequences of relicensing. Moreover, the FSEIS's discussion of the SAMA issue does not meaningfully respond to the concerns provided by Connecticut and New York in their previous submissions in this proceeding. As such, the FSEIS does not comply with 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.71(b) and 51.91(3)(b). The NRC has therefore failed to provide a thorough and accurate analysis of mitigation alternatives to severe accidents and thus has failed to take a "hard look" at the adverse impacts of this project. As a consequence, the FSEIS is fundamentally incomplete and the NRC Staff must provide the missing analyses and provide a meaningful and rational response to Connecticut and New York's concerns before proceeding.

As the Connecticut Attorney General has repeatedly brought to the attention of the ASLB, approximately one third of the State of Connecticut lies within the 50-mile 3

0 0 ingestion pathway zone for Indian Point. An accident or attack on Indian Point would therefore have an immediate and potentially devastating impact of the citizens of this state. Until NRC Staff provide a full accounting of demonstrably beneficial mitigation alternatives to reasonably foreseeable severe accidents, the citizens of Connecticut and their responsible officials will not be able to make informed decisions regarding the relicensing of this facility.

The Connecticut Attorney General therefore fully supports the Motion for Summary Disposition brought by the State of New York and urges the ASLB to grant the relief requested.

Respectfully submitted, Robert Snook Assistant Attorney General Dated: February 3, 2011 4

S 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 3,2011, copies of the foregoing were served on the following by first-class mail and electronic mail on the following, as indicated below:

Office of the Secretary' Office of the General Counsel Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555 email: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov email: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 190 Cedar Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ridgway, CO 81432 Mail Stop T-3 F23 email: KDL2(,nrc. gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 email: LGM10@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P: -

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York City Economic Dev. Corp.

Washington, D.C. 20555 110 William Street email: REW@nrc.gov New York, NY 10038 email: mdelaney@nycedc.comn Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Martin J. O'Neill, Esq..

Brian G. Harris, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

David E. Roth, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.

Andrea Z. Jones, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Office of the General Counsel 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Washington, D.C. 20004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission email: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 pbessette@imorganlewis.com email: set(anrc.gov; ksuttonaimorganlewis com bnm 1@cric. gov david.rothgnrc.gov brian.han'is@inrc.gov andrea.jones(@nrc.gov Original and 2 copies provided to the Office of the Secretary.

Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977 Mail Stop O-16G4 email: mbs nwourrocklandoffice.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 email: OCAAMAIL Q'nrc.gov Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman 84 East Thetford Road New York AREA Lyme, NH 03768 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 email: aroisman(nationallegalscholars.com New York, NY 10016 email: ajkremner@infpc.com kremergarea-atliance.org William C. Dennis, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 email: wdennisR(?entergy.coin Sherwood Martinelli Manna Jo Greene FUSE USA Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

351 Dyckman Street 112 Little Market Street Peekskill, NY 10566 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 email: fuse usaOiyahoo.com; email: Mannaio@clearwater.org roycepenstinger(2aol.com Josh Kirstein, Law Clerk Phillip Musegaas, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Riverkeeper, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Secor Road Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ossining, NY 10562 Email: Josh.Kirsteina,,nrc.gov philIip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato(2criverkeeper.org Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. John J. Sipos, Esq.

Senior Attorney for Special Projects Charile Donaldson, Esq.

New York State Department of Environmental Assistant Attorneys General Conservation Office of the Attorney General 625 Broadway, 1 4 th Floor State of New York Albany, New York 12233-5500 The Capitol email: ilmatthews( ,gw.dec.state.ny.us Albany, NY 12224 John. sipos@oag.state.ny.us 2

S 0 Elise N. Zoli, Esq. John Louis Parker, Esq.

Goodwin Proctor, LLP Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Exchange Place NYS Department of Environmental 53 State Street Conservation Boston, MA 02109 21 S.Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 ilparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us Diane Curran, Esq. Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.

Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP Assistant County Attorney 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Office of Westchester County Attorney Washington, D.C. 20036 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 email: MJR1 @westchestergov.com Thomas F. Wood, Esq. Janice A. Dean, Esq.

Daniel Riesel, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Sive, Page and Riesel, P.C. New York 460 Park Avenue 120 Broadway, 2 6th Floor New York, N.Y. 10022 New York, NY 10271 drieselgspriaw.com Janice.dean(c2oag.state.ny.us jsteinberg @sprlaw.com Robert D. Snook Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (860) 808-5020 (860) 808-5347 Robert.Snook@po.state.ct.us 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML110400479&oldid=2242038"