ML081080422: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:M'?S E -'/April 7, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD USNRC April 8, 2008 (8:00am)Before Administrative Judges: Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop)In the Matter of ))Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )(Indian Point Nuclear Generating | {{#Wiki_filter:M'?S E -'/ | ||
)Station, Units 2 and 3) ) | April 7, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD USNRC April 8, 2008 (8:00am) | ||
("tr. at 632-38)), Riverkeeper, Inc.("Riverkeeper") | Before Administrative Judges: | ||
hereby provides additional information in response to the questions posed during the oral argument by the ASLB panel regarding Subpart 2 of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2 (Inadequate Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives). | Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop | ||
As stated in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, one of the deficiencies in Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s ("Entergy's") | ) | ||
severe accident mitigation alternatives | In the Matter of ) | ||
("SAMA") analysis is that in order to evaluate the consequences of a severe accident, Entergy assumes a "source term" that is significantly lower than the source term put forward by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | ) | ||
("NRC") for the same accidents in NUREG-1465, Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants (1995)3, &~- C4-37 51 E (- y- 4 - | Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos. | ||
("NUREG-1465"). | (Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Station, Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR RIVERKEEPER, INC.'S RESPONSE TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD QUESTIONS REGARDING CONTENTION EC-2 As requested by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") during the oral argument on March 12, 2008 (transcript ("tr. at 632-38)), Riverkeeper, Inc. | ||
See Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Etc. at 55, 68-70 (November 30, 2007) ("Hearing Request"). | ("Riverkeeper") hereby provides additional information in response to the questions posed during the oral argument by the ASLB panel regarding Subpart 2 of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2 (Inadequate Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives). | ||
As a result, Entergy calculates health and environmental effects of a severe accident that are less severe and therefore less costly than the health and environmental impacts that would be calculated by using the NRC's source term.The source term is a description of the fraction of the radioactive contents of the reactor core that is assumed to be released to the environment during a severe accident.It includes the magnitude, timing and duration of the releases of radioactive isotopes during a nuclear plant accident. | As stated in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, one of the deficiencies in Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s ("Entergy's") severe accident mitigation alternatives | ||
See Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant at 16, 28 (September 2004) ("Chernobyl on the Hudson Report") (Attachment 3 to Declaration of Dr. Edwin S. Lyman in Support of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2 (November 30, 2007)).While NUREG- 1465 describes the release of radionuclides from the core to the containment building, NRC has concluded in past studies that in a severe accident involving a large early containment failure at a pressurized-water reactor, such as the accident evaluate by Entergy and Riverkeeper, 80-98% of the radionuclide inventory released from the core to the containment would be released to the environment following an energetic containment breach. Id. at 32, citing NUREG-1 150, Severe Accident Risks:. An Assessment for Five Nuclear Power Plants at C- 108 (1990).Therefore, for a large early containment failure scenario, the NUREG-1465 source term can be regarded as essentially equivalent to the radiological release to the environment 2 | ("SAMA") analysis is that in order to evaluate the consequences of a severe accident, Entergy assumes a "source term" that is significantly lower than the source term put forward by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for the same accidents in NUREG-1465, Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants (1995) 3,&~- C4-37 51 E (-y- 4 - | ||
with the conservative assumption that nearly all radioactive material released to the containment is expelled through the containment breach.As discussed at page 63 of Riverkeeper's Hearing Request, one reason for the disparity between Entergy's and NUREG-1465's source terms appears to originate in a difference between the computer codes used to generate the source terms, MAAP (used by Entergy in this case and by the nuclear industry as a general matter) and the Source Term Code Package (STCP) and MELCOR codes (used in NRC studies that formed the basis for the regulatory source term presented in NUREG-1465).' | ("NUREG-1465"). See Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Etc. at 55, 68-70 (November 30, 2007) ("Hearing Request"). As a result, Entergy calculates health and environmental effects of a severe accident that are less severe and therefore less costly than the health and environmental impacts that would be calculated by using the NRC's source term. | ||
While the NRC has been aware for at least two decades of the discrepancy between the source term generated by the MAAP code and the source terms generated by the NRC Staff, the NRC has not investigated or determined the reason for the difference. | The source term is a description of the fraction of the radioactive contents of the reactor core that is assumed to be released to the environment during a severe accident. | ||
See Dr. Lyman's expert report,"A Critique of the Radiological Consequence Assessment Conducted in Support of the Indian Point Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Analysis" at 3 (November 2007)("Lyman Report") (Attachment 2 to Declaration of Dr. Edwin S. Lyman in Support of | It includes the magnitude, timing and duration of the releases of radioactive isotopes during a nuclear plant accident. See Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant at 16, 28 (September 2004) ("Chernobyl on the Hudson Report") (Attachment 3 to Declaration of Dr. Edwin S. Lyman in Support of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2 (November 30, 2007)). | ||
Riverkeeper then compared its result to Entergy's result for the same event.2 At the oral argument, counsel for Entergy incorrectly asserted that the MAAP code was "recently approved by the NRC." Statement by Martin O'Neill, tr. at 627. The MAAP code has not been approved by the NRC. At most, individual industry applications of the code have been approved by NRC. The NRC has not independently validated the code itself, nor has it resolved the substantial differences between results generated by NUREG- 1465 and those generated by MAAP, although it continues to observe significant disparities between the results of NRC-sponsored studies and industry 3 source term used by Riverkeeper (based on NUREG-: 1465 and the conservative assumption of 100% release from the containment to the environment) could be based on different assumptions regarding the release of radionuclides from the core to the containment, releases from the containment to the environment, or both. The Entergy Environmental Report does not break down its source term into core-to-containment and containment-to-environment factors, however, and therefore these individual factors cannot be directly compared with those used by Riverkeeper. | While NUREG- 1465 describes the release of radionuclides from the core to the containment building, NRC has concluded in past studies that in a severe accident involving a large early containment failure at a pressurized-water reactor, such as the accident evaluate by Entergy and Riverkeeper, 80-98% of the radionuclide inventory released from the core to the containment would be released to the environment following an energetic containment breach. Id. at 32, citing NUREG-1 150, Severe Accident Risks:. An Assessment for Five Nuclear Power Plants at C- 108 (1990). | ||
Dr. Lyman concludes that in light of the significant disparity between the source terms assumed by Entergy and the NRC Staff in evaluating the consequences of the same severe accident sequences, and in light of the fact that the NRC has not reviewed the adequacy of the MAAP code or satisfied itself that the reasons for the discrepancy in source terms are acceptable, Entergy should not be allowed to rely on MAAP-generated source terms unless it can provide a technically credible justification for the differences between them and the source term developed by the NRC. Id.Riverkeeper also wishes to clarify that in evaluating the impacts and costs of a severe accident in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, Riverkeeper assessed the highest-impact severe accident scenario identified in Entergy's Environmental Report, early studies using MAAP. See Lyman Report at 3. In a recent draft report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), for instance, the author noted "areas of disagreement" between NRC (using the codes SCDAP/RELAP5) and EPRI (using the MAAP code) in the analysis of thermally induced steam generator tube rupture, one of the severe accident scenarios that is evaluated in Entergy's environmental report (and which is the subject of subpart 1 of Contention EC-2). Kenton, Marc, A Review of Recent NRC-Sponsored Station Blackout Analyses (Draft: April 16, 2007) (ADAMS Accession No.ML071140093). | Therefore, for a large early containment failure scenario, the NUREG-1465 source term can be regarded as essentially equivalent to the radiological release to the environment 2 | ||
According to the report, "[s]everal key differences in the two approaches persist, and resolution of these differences should greatly affect the perceived risk." Id. at 27.4 containment failure. Lyman Report at 3. See also tr. at 629 and tr. at 626-27 (statement by Mr. O'Neill that Riverkeeper "looked at the same thing using a different source term"). Riverkeeper did not evaluate a containment bypass scenario in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, although the costs of a containment bypass accident are addressed in Subpart 1. See question by Judge McDade at page 622 of the oral argument transcript and response by Ms. Curran at p. 623.3 Riverkeeper also wishes to clarify that assumptions regarding plume dispersal do not affect the calculation of the source term. See question by Judge Lathrop, tr. at 625-26. The source term relates only to the radioactive inventory of the core, not to how it is subsequently dispersed. | |||
The analysis of radiation dispersal is a separate subject that is addressed in paragraph (b) of the basis of Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2. See Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 61-63, Lyman Report at 4. The source term is used as an input into the MACCS2 code, which calculates the dispersal and deposition of radionuclides subsequent to their release from reactor containment, and also calculates the resulting radiation doses to the exposed population. | with the conservative assumption that nearly all radioactive material released to the containment is expelled through the containment breach. | ||
This information is then used to estimate the costs of a severe accident for the purpose of conducting a SAMA analysis.3 In a containment bypass accident, the containment does not fail, but rather radiation is released through pathways other than a breached containment. | As discussed at page 63 of Riverkeeper's Hearing Request, one reason for the disparity between Entergy's and NUREG-1465's source terms appears to originate in a difference between the computer codes used to generate the source terms, MAAP (used by Entergy in this case and by the nuclear industry as a general matter) and the Source Term Code Package (STCP) and MELCOR codes (used in NRC studies that formed the basis for the regulatory source term presented in NUREG-1465).' While the NRC has been aware for at least two decades of the discrepancy between the source term generated by the MAAP code and the source terms generated by the NRC Staff, the NRC has not investigated or determined the reason for the difference. See Dr. Lyman's expert report, "A Critique of the Radiological Consequence Assessment Conducted in Support of the Indian Point Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Analysis" at 3 (November 2007) | ||
See Dr. Thompson's expert report, "Risk-Related Impacts from Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants" at 14 (November 28, 2007) (Attachment 2 to Declaration of Dr.Gordon R. Thompson in Support of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2).5 Respectfully submitted,*ýane ýCurran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 FAX 202/328-6918 dcurran(aharmoncurran.com Phillip usegaas Staff Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc.828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)Fax 914-478-4527 phi llipDriverkeeper.org www.riverkeeper.org Victor M. Tafur Senior Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc.828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)Fax 914-478-4527 vtafurariverkeeper.org April 7,2008 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 7, 2008, copies of the foregoing Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Questions Regarding Contention EC-2 were served on the following by e-mail and first-class mail: Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 | ("Lyman Report") (Attachment 2 to Declaration of Dr. Edwin S. Lyman in Support of Contention EC-2). 2 In addition, the disparity between Entergy's source term and the To clarify what we believe is the crux of Judge McDade's question at page 618 of the transcript, Riverkeeper used a source term corresponding to an early containment failure scenario derived from NUREG- 1465 and the assumption (based on technical references) of 100% transmission of the radionuclide inventory from the containment to the environment. Riverkeeper then compared its result to Entergy's result for the same event. | ||
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq.Executive Deputy Attorney General 120 Broadway, | 2 At the oral argument, counsel for Entergy incorrectly asserted that the MAAP code was "recently approved by the NRC." Statement by Martin O'Neill, tr. at 627. The MAAP code has not been approved by the NRC. At most, individual industry applications of the code have been approved by NRC. The NRC has not independently validated the code itself, nor has it resolved the substantial differences between results generated by NUREG- 1465 and those generated by MAAP, although it continues to observe significant disparities between the results of NRC-sponsored studies and industry 3 | ||
nv.us | |||
source term used by Riverkeeper (based on NUREG-: 1465 and the conservative assumption of 100% release from the containment to the environment) could be based on different assumptions regarding the release of radionuclides from the core to the containment, releases from the containment to the environment, or both. The Entergy Environmental Report does not break down its source term into core-to-containment and containment-to-environment factors, however, and therefore these individual factors cannot be directly compared with those used by Riverkeeper. | |||
Dr. Lyman concludes that in light of the significant disparity between the source terms assumed by Entergy and the NRC Staff in evaluating the consequences of the same severe accident sequences, and in light of the fact that the NRC has not reviewed the adequacy of the MAAP code or satisfied itself that the reasons for the discrepancy in source terms are acceptable, Entergy should not be allowed to rely on MAAP-generated source terms unless it can provide a technically credible justification for the differences between them and the source term developed by the NRC. Id. | |||
Riverkeeper also wishes to clarify that in evaluating the impacts and costs of a severe accident in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, Riverkeeper assessed the highest-impact severe accident scenario identified in Entergy's Environmental Report, early studies using MAAP. See Lyman Report at 3. In a recent draft report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), for instance, the author noted "areas of disagreement" between NRC (using the codes SCDAP/RELAP5) and EPRI (using the MAAP code) in the analysis of thermally induced steam generator tube rupture, one of the severe accident scenarios that is evaluated in Entergy's environmental report (and which is the subject of subpart 1 of Contention EC-2). Kenton, Marc, A Review of Recent NRC-Sponsored Station Blackout Analyses (Draft: April 16, 2007) (ADAMS Accession No. | |||
ML071140093). According to the report, "[s]everal key differences in the two approaches persist, and resolution of these differences should greatly affect the perceived risk." Id. at 27. | |||
4 | |||
containment failure. Lyman Report at 3. See also tr. at 629 and tr. at 626-27 (statement by Mr. O'Neill that Riverkeeper "looked at the same thing using a different source term"). Riverkeeper did not evaluate a containment bypass scenario in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, although the costs of a containment bypass accident are addressed in Subpart 1. See question by Judge McDade at page 622 of the oral argument transcript and response by Ms. Curran at p. 623.3 Riverkeeper also wishes to clarify that assumptions regarding plume dispersal do not affect the calculation of the source term. See question by Judge Lathrop, tr. at 625- | |||
: 26. The source term relates only to the radioactive inventory of the core, not to how it is subsequently dispersed. The analysis of radiation dispersal is a separate subject that is addressed in paragraph (b) of the basis of Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2. See Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 61-63, Lyman Report at 4. The source term is used as an input into the MACCS2 code, which calculates the dispersal and deposition of radionuclides subsequent to their release from reactor containment, and also calculates the resulting radiation doses to the exposed population. This information is then used to estimate the costs of a severe accident for the purpose of conducting a SAMA analysis. | |||
3 In a containment bypass accident, the containment does not fail, but rather radiation is released through pathways other than a breached containment. See Dr. Thompson's expert report, "Risk-Related Impacts from Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants" at 14 (November 28, 2007) (Attachment 2 to Declaration of Dr. | |||
Gordon R. Thompson in Support of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2). | |||
5 | |||
Respectfully submitted, | |||
*ýaneýCurran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P. | |||
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 FAX 202/328-6918 dcurran(aharmoncurran.com Phillip usegaas Staff Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc. | |||
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224) | |||
Fax 914-478-4527 phi llipDriverkeeper.org www.riverkeeper.org Victor M. Tafur Senior Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc. | |||
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224) | |||
Fax 914-478-4527 vtafurariverkeeper.org April 7,2008 6 | |||
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 7, 2008, copies of the foregoing Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Questions Regarding Contention EC-2 were served on the following by e-mail and first-class mail: | |||
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Robert D. Snook, Esq. | |||
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20555 By e-mail: Robert.Snook~aipo.state.ct.us Also by e-mail:. Lawrence.McDade0anrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York City Econ. Development Corp. | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10038 Also by e-mail: Richard.Wardwell Canrc.gov Also by e-mail: mdelaney cnycedc.com John LeKay Martin J. O'Neill, Esq. | |||
Heather Ellsworth Burns-DeMelo Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. | |||
Remy Chevalier Paul M. Bessette, Esq. | |||
Bill Thomas Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq. | |||
Belinda J. Jaques Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP FUSE USA 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. | |||
351 Dyckman Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Peekskill, NY 10566 martin.oneiIl(Amorganlewis.com Also by e-mail: fuse usa(,yahoo.com pbessette Vamorganlewis.com ksuttonC(morganlewis.com Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977 Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: mbs( )ourrocklandoffice.com Also by e-mail: OCAAMAIL(anrc.gov John J. Sipos, Esq. Sherwin E. Turk, Esq., Lloyd B. Subin, Esq. | |||
Assistant Attorney General Beth N. Mizuno, Esq., David E. Roth, Esq. | |||
Office of the New York Attorney General Christopher C. Chandler, Esq. | |||
for the State of New York Kimberly A. Sexton, Esq. | |||
The Capitol Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Also by e-mail: John.Sipos(oag.state.n .us; Washington, D.C. 20555 sbt(nrc.gov; lbs3 @nrc.gov; bnm2@nnrc.gov; der ýnrc.gxov; Kimberlv.sexton(~nrc.gov; christopher.chandleroanrc.gov | |||
Office of the Secretary William C. Dennis, Esq. | |||
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. | |||
U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(,nrc.gov Also by e-mail: wdennisaientergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. | |||
303 South Broadway, Suite 222 112 Little Market Street Tarrytown, NY 10591 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Also by e-mail: sfiller@nylawline.com Also by e-mail: Mannajondclearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. | |||
Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Senior Attorney for Special Projects Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq. New York State Department Westchester County Attorney of Environmental Conservation 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor 625 Broadway, 14th floor White Plains, NY 10601 Albany, New York 12233-5500 Also by e-mail: jdp3@a westchestergov.com By e-mail: ilmatthews(hgw.dec.state.ny.us Zackary S. Kahn, Esq., Law Clerk Thomas F. Wood, Esq. | |||
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Daniel Riesel, Esq. | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C. | |||
Washington, D.C. 20555 460 Park Avenue Also by e-mail: Zachary.Kahnanrc.gov New York, NY 10022 I Also by e-mail: driesel asprlaw.corn Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Nancy Burton 190 Cedar Lane East 147 Cross Highway Ridgeway, CO 81432 Redding Ridge, CT 06878 Also by e-mail: Kaye.Lathrop(anrc.gov Also by e-mail: NancyBurtonCTgaol.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq. | |||
Goodwin Procter, LLP Victor Tafur, Esq. | |||
53 State Street Riverkeeper, Inc. | |||
Boston, MA 02109 828 South Broadway Also by e-mail: ezoliha)goodwinprocter.com Tarrytown, NY 10591 Marcia Carpenter, Esq., Law Clerk Janice A. Dean, Esq. | |||
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Mail Stop: T-3 E2B Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway, 26th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 New York, NY 10271 Marcia.Carnentera~nrc.gov Also by e-mail: Janice.dean(oag.state.ny.us 2 | |||
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq. John L. Parker, Esq. | |||
Executive Deputy Attorney General Regional Attorney, Region 3 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York State Department of New York, NY 10271 Environmental Conservation Also by e-mail: 21 South Putt Comers mylan.denerstein( ,oan.state. nv.us New Paltz, NY 12561 Also by e-mail: jlparkercgw.dec.state.ny.us Mane Curran 3}} | |||
Revision as of 18:43, 14 November 2019
| ML081080422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/2008 |
| From: | Curran D, Musegaas P, Tafur V Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Riverkeeper |
| To: | Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECYRAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-77 | |
| Download: ML081080422 (9) | |
Text
M'?S E -'/
April 7, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD USNRC April 8, 2008 (8:00am)
Before Administrative Judges:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop
)
In the Matter of )
)
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Station, Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR RIVERKEEPER, INC.'S RESPONSE TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD QUESTIONS REGARDING CONTENTION EC-2 As requested by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") during the oral argument on March 12, 2008 (transcript ("tr. at 632-38)), Riverkeeper, Inc.
("Riverkeeper") hereby provides additional information in response to the questions posed during the oral argument by the ASLB panel regarding Subpart 2 of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2 (Inadequate Analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives).
As stated in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, one of the deficiencies in Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s ("Entergy's") severe accident mitigation alternatives
("SAMA") analysis is that in order to evaluate the consequences of a severe accident, Entergy assumes a "source term" that is significantly lower than the source term put forward by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for the same accidents in NUREG-1465, Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants (1995) 3,&~- C4-37 51 E (-y- 4 -
("NUREG-1465"). See Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Etc. at 55, 68-70 (November 30, 2007) ("Hearing Request"). As a result, Entergy calculates health and environmental effects of a severe accident that are less severe and therefore less costly than the health and environmental impacts that would be calculated by using the NRC's source term.
The source term is a description of the fraction of the radioactive contents of the reactor core that is assumed to be released to the environment during a severe accident.
It includes the magnitude, timing and duration of the releases of radioactive isotopes during a nuclear plant accident. See Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant at 16, 28 (September 2004) ("Chernobyl on the Hudson Report") (Attachment 3 to Declaration of Dr. Edwin S. Lyman in Support of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2 (November 30, 2007)).
While NUREG- 1465 describes the release of radionuclides from the core to the containment building, NRC has concluded in past studies that in a severe accident involving a large early containment failure at a pressurized-water reactor, such as the accident evaluate by Entergy and Riverkeeper, 80-98% of the radionuclide inventory released from the core to the containment would be released to the environment following an energetic containment breach. Id. at 32, citing NUREG-1 150, Severe Accident Risks:. An Assessment for Five Nuclear Power Plants at C- 108 (1990).
Therefore, for a large early containment failure scenario, the NUREG-1465 source term can be regarded as essentially equivalent to the radiological release to the environment 2
with the conservative assumption that nearly all radioactive material released to the containment is expelled through the containment breach.
As discussed at page 63 of Riverkeeper's Hearing Request, one reason for the disparity between Entergy's and NUREG-1465's source terms appears to originate in a difference between the computer codes used to generate the source terms, MAAP (used by Entergy in this case and by the nuclear industry as a general matter) and the Source Term Code Package (STCP) and MELCOR codes (used in NRC studies that formed the basis for the regulatory source term presented in NUREG-1465).' While the NRC has been aware for at least two decades of the discrepancy between the source term generated by the MAAP code and the source terms generated by the NRC Staff, the NRC has not investigated or determined the reason for the difference. See Dr. Lyman's expert report, "A Critique of the Radiological Consequence Assessment Conducted in Support of the Indian Point Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Analysis" at 3 (November 2007)
("Lyman Report") (Attachment 2 to Declaration of Dr. Edwin S. Lyman in Support of Contention EC-2). 2 In addition, the disparity between Entergy's source term and the To clarify what we believe is the crux of Judge McDade's question at page 618 of the transcript, Riverkeeper used a source term corresponding to an early containment failure scenario derived from NUREG- 1465 and the assumption (based on technical references) of 100% transmission of the radionuclide inventory from the containment to the environment. Riverkeeper then compared its result to Entergy's result for the same event.
2 At the oral argument, counsel for Entergy incorrectly asserted that the MAAP code was "recently approved by the NRC." Statement by Martin O'Neill, tr. at 627. The MAAP code has not been approved by the NRC. At most, individual industry applications of the code have been approved by NRC. The NRC has not independently validated the code itself, nor has it resolved the substantial differences between results generated by NUREG- 1465 and those generated by MAAP, although it continues to observe significant disparities between the results of NRC-sponsored studies and industry 3
source term used by Riverkeeper (based on NUREG-: 1465 and the conservative assumption of 100% release from the containment to the environment) could be based on different assumptions regarding the release of radionuclides from the core to the containment, releases from the containment to the environment, or both. The Entergy Environmental Report does not break down its source term into core-to-containment and containment-to-environment factors, however, and therefore these individual factors cannot be directly compared with those used by Riverkeeper.
Dr. Lyman concludes that in light of the significant disparity between the source terms assumed by Entergy and the NRC Staff in evaluating the consequences of the same severe accident sequences, and in light of the fact that the NRC has not reviewed the adequacy of the MAAP code or satisfied itself that the reasons for the discrepancy in source terms are acceptable, Entergy should not be allowed to rely on MAAP-generated source terms unless it can provide a technically credible justification for the differences between them and the source term developed by the NRC. Id.
Riverkeeper also wishes to clarify that in evaluating the impacts and costs of a severe accident in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, Riverkeeper assessed the highest-impact severe accident scenario identified in Entergy's Environmental Report, early studies using MAAP. See Lyman Report at 3. In a recent draft report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), for instance, the author noted "areas of disagreement" between NRC (using the codes SCDAP/RELAP5) and EPRI (using the MAAP code) in the analysis of thermally induced steam generator tube rupture, one of the severe accident scenarios that is evaluated in Entergy's environmental report (and which is the subject of subpart 1 of Contention EC-2). Kenton, Marc, A Review of Recent NRC-Sponsored Station Blackout Analyses (Draft: April 16, 2007) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML071140093). According to the report, "[s]everal key differences in the two approaches persist, and resolution of these differences should greatly affect the perceived risk." Id. at 27.
4
containment failure. Lyman Report at 3. See also tr. at 629 and tr. at 626-27 (statement by Mr. O'Neill that Riverkeeper "looked at the same thing using a different source term"). Riverkeeper did not evaluate a containment bypass scenario in Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2, although the costs of a containment bypass accident are addressed in Subpart 1. See question by Judge McDade at page 622 of the oral argument transcript and response by Ms. Curran at p. 623.3 Riverkeeper also wishes to clarify that assumptions regarding plume dispersal do not affect the calculation of the source term. See question by Judge Lathrop, tr. at 625-
- 26. The source term relates only to the radioactive inventory of the core, not to how it is subsequently dispersed. The analysis of radiation dispersal is a separate subject that is addressed in paragraph (b) of the basis of Subpart 2 of Contention EC-2. See Riverkeeper's Hearing Request at 61-63, Lyman Report at 4. The source term is used as an input into the MACCS2 code, which calculates the dispersal and deposition of radionuclides subsequent to their release from reactor containment, and also calculates the resulting radiation doses to the exposed population. This information is then used to estimate the costs of a severe accident for the purpose of conducting a SAMA analysis.
3 In a containment bypass accident, the containment does not fail, but rather radiation is released through pathways other than a breached containment. See Dr. Thompson's expert report, "Risk-Related Impacts from Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants" at 14 (November 28, 2007) (Attachment 2 to Declaration of Dr.
Gordon R. Thompson in Support of Riverkeeper's Contention EC-2).
5
Respectfully submitted,
- ýaneýCurran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 FAX 202/328-6918 dcurran(aharmoncurran.com Phillip usegaas Staff Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)
Fax 914-478-4527 phi llipDriverkeeper.org www.riverkeeper.org Victor M. Tafur Senior Attorney Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 914-478-4501 (ext. 224)
Fax 914-478-4527 vtafurariverkeeper.org April 7,2008 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 7, 2008, copies of the foregoing Riverkeeper, Inc.'s Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Questions Regarding Contention EC-2 were served on the following by e-mail and first-class mail:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Robert D. Snook, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Washington, D.C. 20555 By e-mail: Robert.Snook~aipo.state.ct.us Also by e-mail:. Lawrence.McDade0anrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Michael J. Delaney, V.P. - Energy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York City Econ. Development Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 110 William Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, NY 10038 Also by e-mail: Richard.Wardwell Canrc.gov Also by e-mail: mdelaney cnycedc.com John LeKay Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Heather Ellsworth Burns-DeMelo Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Remy Chevalier Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Bill Thomas Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.
Belinda J. Jaques Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP FUSE USA 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
351 Dyckman Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Peekskill, NY 10566 martin.oneiIl(Amorganlewis.com Also by e-mail: fuse usa(,yahoo.com pbessette Vamorganlewis.com ksuttonC(morganlewis.com Susan H. Shapiro, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 21 Perlman Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spring Valley, NY 10977 Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: mbs( )ourrocklandoffice.com Also by e-mail: OCAAMAIL(anrc.gov John J. Sipos, Esq. Sherwin E. Turk, Esq., Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Beth N. Mizuno, Esq., David E. Roth, Esq.
Office of the New York Attorney General Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.
for the State of New York Kimberly A. Sexton, Esq.
The Capitol Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Also by e-mail: John.Sipos(oag.state.n .us; Washington, D.C. 20555 sbt(nrc.gov; lbs3 @nrc.gov; bnm2@nnrc.gov; der ýnrc.gxov; Kimberlv.sexton(~nrc.gov; christopher.chandleroanrc.gov
Office of the Secretary William C. Dennis, Esq.
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 440 Hamilton Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(,nrc.gov Also by e-mail: wdennisaientergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
303 South Broadway, Suite 222 112 Little Market Street Tarrytown, NY 10591 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Also by e-mail: sfiller@nylawline.com Also by e-mail: Mannajondclearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Senior Attorney for Special Projects Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq. New York State Department Westchester County Attorney of Environmental Conservation 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor 625 Broadway, 14th floor White Plains, NY 10601 Albany, New York 12233-5500 Also by e-mail: jdp3@a westchestergov.com By e-mail: ilmatthews(hgw.dec.state.ny.us Zackary S. Kahn, Esq., Law Clerk Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Daniel Riesel, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 460 Park Avenue Also by e-mail: Zachary.Kahnanrc.gov New York, NY 10022 I Also by e-mail: driesel asprlaw.corn Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Nancy Burton 190 Cedar Lane East 147 Cross Highway Ridgeway, CO 81432 Redding Ridge, CT 06878 Also by e-mail: Kaye.Lathrop(anrc.gov Also by e-mail: NancyBurtonCTgaol.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Phillip Musegaas, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Victor Tafur, Esq.
53 State Street Riverkeeper, Inc.
Boston, MA 02109 828 South Broadway Also by e-mail: ezoliha)goodwinprocter.com Tarrytown, NY 10591 Marcia Carpenter, Esq., Law Clerk Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General Mail Stop: T-3 E2B Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway, 26th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 New York, NY 10271 Marcia.Carnentera~nrc.gov Also by e-mail: Janice.dean(oag.state.ny.us 2
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq. John L. Parker, Esq.
Executive Deputy Attorney General Regional Attorney, Region 3 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York State Department of New York, NY 10271 Environmental Conservation Also by e-mail: 21 South Putt Comers mylan.denerstein( ,oan.state. nv.us New Paltz, NY 12561 Also by e-mail: jlparkercgw.dec.state.ny.us Mane Curran 3