2008/04/07-Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Questions Regarding Contention EC-2ML081080422 |
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) |
|
|
---|
Category:Legal-Intervention Petition
MONTHYEARML11257A1102011-09-14014 September 2011 Certificate of Service for Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention and for Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions ML11257A1092011-09-13013 September 2011 Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings ML11257A1112011-09-13013 September 2011 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report ML11228A0302011-08-11011 August 2011 the State of New York and the State of Connecticut'S Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergy'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 ML11217A0662011-07-29029 July 2011 Applicant'S Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 ML11210B4192011-07-26026 July 2011 State of New York'S Response to Applicant'S Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 ML11179A0922011-06-21021 June 2011 Letter Regarding New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Matter of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewals ML11133A2882011-04-29029 April 2011 Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, State Submittal of Letter to Bring Two Recent Documents to Attention of the Board and Parties in Connection with NYS Contention-25 ML11117A1462011-04-19019 April 2011 Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Dahchi Nuclear Power Station Accident ML11229A8022011-03-22022 March 2011 Supplementary Certification Regarding Consultation ML11108A1062011-03-21021 March 2011 Combined Reply to Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater'S Motion for Leave and Petition to Amend Contention EC-3 ML1108307802011-03-18018 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Answers to the State'S Proposed Contention 37 Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Its Deficient Analysis of Energy Alternatives ML1107601812011-03-16016 March 2011 Indian Point - Supplement to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to File a New Contention, and New Contention EC-8 Concerning NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML1107000972011-03-0404 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to the Answer of Entergy and NRC Staff to the State'S Proposed Amended Contention NYS-17B ML1106703812011-02-25025 February 2011 Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Joint Motion for Leave and Petition to Add New Contentions ML1107402862011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York Withdrawal of Request for Enlargement of Page Limitation for the State'S Consolidated Answer to Separate Motions for Summary Disposition on Contention 35/36 ML1106604252011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1105602702011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. and Riverkeeper, Inc.'S New Contentions Concerning the Waste Confidence Rule ML1105605892011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Proposed Amended Contention, New York State 17B and the Associated Request for Exemption And/Or Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Section 51.23(b) ML1104604922011-02-10010 February 2011 State of New York Answer in Support of the Admission of Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Proposed Waste Confidence Contentions ML1106802122011-02-0303 February 2011 State of New York New Contention 12-C Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Underestimation of Decontamination & Clean Up Costs Associated with Severe Reactor Accident in New York Metropolitan Area ML1030000602010-10-22022 October 2010 State of New York'S Joint Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Separate Answers to the State'S Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 ML1030101042010-10-12012 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to Amended Contention New York State 25 Concerning Aging Management of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals ML1029101452010-10-0404 October 2010 Supporting Attachments to Applicants Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1028802972010-10-0404 October 2010 Letter from Martin J. O'Neill Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Emile L. Julian Attachments 8 & 13 to Entergy'S Answer to New & Amended Contention New York State 26B & Riverkeeper TC-1B ML1029101422010-10-0404 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1030105182010-09-14014 September 2010 State of Ny & Riverkeeper, Inc Submittal of Counter Statement of Material Fact, Combined Response to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Combined Contentions NYS 26/26A & Rk TC-1/TC-1A, Declaration of Janice A. Dean.. ML1023712142010-08-16016 August 2010 Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Riverkeeper Technical Contention 2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) ML1023001462010-08-13013 August 2010 Entergy'S Answer to Riverkeeper Inc.'S Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents ML1022405782010-08-0202 August 2010 Applicant'S Reply to the State of New York'S & State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy & NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1021100862010-07-26026 July 2010 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 & 36 (LBP-10- ML1020300502010-07-15015 July 2010 Applicant'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1011604152010-04-12012 April 2010 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Energy and NRC Staff Answers to the State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1014503282010-04-0505 April 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New York State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning Entergy'S December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis ML1011004732010-04-0101 April 2010 Answer of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York'S Motion for Leave to File New & Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ML1005702402009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0934803252009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML0934910432009-11-20020 November 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add New Contentions Based Upon New Information ML0935101942009-11-20020 November 2009 Town of Cortlandt'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 & SC-1 Re Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005700112009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML1008200282009-11-19019 November 2009 Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0930801292009-10-26026 October 2009 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information ML0909802072009-04-0707 April 2009 Lr - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater'S Petition to File New Contention, Based Upon New Information Regarding Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Using the Hudson River as a Drinking Water Supply ML0910502112009-04-0606 April 2009 Entergy'S Consolidated Response to Riverkeeper'S February & March 2009 Filings Concerning Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 and Riverkeeper Contention TC-2 ML0909604702009-03-31031 March 2009 State of New York Combined Reply to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and NRC Staff in Support of Contentions 12-A, 16-A, 17-A, 33, and 34 ML0909302042009-03-24024 March 2009 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing New and Amended Environmental Contentions of New York State ML0908401162009-03-24024 March 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Amended and New Contentions Filed by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc., Concerning the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0908608682009-03-18018 March 2009 Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Preservation of Right to Amend Contention TC-2 - Flow Accelerated Corrosion Based Upon NRC Staff'S Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items ML0906903032009-02-27027 February 2009 State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff'S Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0904105002009-01-26026 January 2009 Entergy'S Reply to Riverkeeper'S Answer Opposing Interlocutory Appeal of Licensing Board Admission of Consolidated Contention 2011-09-14
[Table view] Category:Responses and Contentions
MONTHYEARML11257A1102011-09-14014 September 2011 Certificate of Service for Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention and for Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions ML11257A1092011-09-13013 September 2011 Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings ML11257A1112011-09-13013 September 2011 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report ML11228A0302011-08-11011 August 2011 the State of New York and the State of Connecticut'S Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergy'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 ML11217A0662011-07-29029 July 2011 Applicant'S Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 ML11210B4192011-07-26026 July 2011 State of New York'S Response to Applicant'S Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 ML11179A0922011-06-21021 June 2011 Letter Regarding New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Matter of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewals ML11133A2882011-04-29029 April 2011 Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, State Submittal of Letter to Bring Two Recent Documents to Attention of the Board and Parties in Connection with NYS Contention-25 ML11117A1462011-04-19019 April 2011 Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Dahchi Nuclear Power Station Accident ML11229A8022011-03-22022 March 2011 Supplementary Certification Regarding Consultation ML11108A1062011-03-21021 March 2011 Combined Reply to Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater'S Motion for Leave and Petition to Amend Contention EC-3 ML1108307802011-03-18018 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Answers to the State'S Proposed Contention 37 Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Its Deficient Analysis of Energy Alternatives ML1107601812011-03-16016 March 2011 Indian Point - Supplement to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to File a New Contention, and New Contention EC-8 Concerning NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML1107000972011-03-0404 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to the Answer of Entergy and NRC Staff to the State'S Proposed Amended Contention NYS-17B ML1106703812011-02-25025 February 2011 Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Joint Motion for Leave and Petition to Add New Contentions ML1107402862011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York Withdrawal of Request for Enlargement of Page Limitation for the State'S Consolidated Answer to Separate Motions for Summary Disposition on Contention 35/36 ML1106604252011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1105602702011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. and Riverkeeper, Inc.'S New Contentions Concerning the Waste Confidence Rule ML1105605892011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Proposed Amended Contention, New York State 17B and the Associated Request for Exemption And/Or Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Section 51.23(b) ML1104604922011-02-10010 February 2011 State of New York Answer in Support of the Admission of Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Proposed Waste Confidence Contentions ML1106802122011-02-0303 February 2011 State of New York New Contention 12-C Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Underestimation of Decontamination & Clean Up Costs Associated with Severe Reactor Accident in New York Metropolitan Area ML1030000602010-10-22022 October 2010 State of New York'S Joint Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Separate Answers to the State'S Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 ML1030101042010-10-12012 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to Amended Contention New York State 25 Concerning Aging Management of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals ML1029101452010-10-0404 October 2010 Supporting Attachments to Applicants Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1028802972010-10-0404 October 2010 Letter from Martin J. O'Neill Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Emile L. Julian Attachments 8 & 13 to Entergy'S Answer to New & Amended Contention New York State 26B & Riverkeeper TC-1B ML1029101422010-10-0404 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1030105182010-09-14014 September 2010 State of Ny & Riverkeeper, Inc Submittal of Counter Statement of Material Fact, Combined Response to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Combined Contentions NYS 26/26A & Rk TC-1/TC-1A, Declaration of Janice A. Dean.. ML1023712142010-08-16016 August 2010 Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Riverkeeper Technical Contention 2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) ML1023001462010-08-13013 August 2010 Entergy'S Answer to Riverkeeper Inc.'S Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents ML1022405782010-08-0202 August 2010 Applicant'S Reply to the State of New York'S & State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy & NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1021100862010-07-26026 July 2010 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 & 36 (LBP-10- ML1020300502010-07-15015 July 2010 Applicant'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1011604152010-04-12012 April 2010 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Energy and NRC Staff Answers to the State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1014503282010-04-0505 April 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New York State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning Entergy'S December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis ML1011004732010-04-0101 April 2010 Answer of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York'S Motion for Leave to File New & Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ML1005702402009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0934803252009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML0934910432009-11-20020 November 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add New Contentions Based Upon New Information ML0935101942009-11-20020 November 2009 Town of Cortlandt'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 & SC-1 Re Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005700112009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML1008200282009-11-19019 November 2009 Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0930801292009-10-26026 October 2009 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information ML0909802072009-04-0707 April 2009 Lr - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater'S Petition to File New Contention, Based Upon New Information Regarding Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Using the Hudson River as a Drinking Water Supply ML0910502112009-04-0606 April 2009 Entergy'S Consolidated Response to Riverkeeper'S February & March 2009 Filings Concerning Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 and Riverkeeper Contention TC-2 ML0909604702009-03-31031 March 2009 State of New York Combined Reply to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and NRC Staff in Support of Contentions 12-A, 16-A, 17-A, 33, and 34 ML0909302042009-03-24024 March 2009 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing New and Amended Environmental Contentions of New York State ML0908401162009-03-24024 March 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Amended and New Contentions Filed by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc., Concerning the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0908608682009-03-18018 March 2009 Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Preservation of Right to Amend Contention TC-2 - Flow Accelerated Corrosion Based Upon NRC Staff'S Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items ML0906903032009-02-27027 February 2009 State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff'S Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0904105002009-01-26026 January 2009 Entergy'S Reply to Riverkeeper'S Answer Opposing Interlocutory Appeal of Licensing Board Admission of Consolidated Contention 2011-09-14
[Table view] |
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. )(Indian Point Nuclear Generating
)Station, Units 2 and 3) )Docket Nos.50-247-LR 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 2 Contention EC-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,*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 Also by e-mail:. Lawrence.McDade0anrc.gov Robert D. Snook, Esq.Assistant Attorney General 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 By e-mail: Robert.Snook~aipo.state.ct.us 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 Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(,nrc.gov William C. Dennis, Esq.Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: wdennisaientergy.com Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.303 South Broadway, Suite 222 Tarrytown, NY 10591 Also by e-mail: sfiller@nylawline.com Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.112 Little Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Also by e-mail: Mannajondclearwater.org Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq.Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6 th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Also by e-mail: jdp3@a westchestergov.com Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.Senior Attorney for Special Projects New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 14th floor Albany, New York 12233-5500 By e-mail: ilmatthews(hgw.dec.state.ny.us Zackary S. Kahn, Esq., Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by e-mail: Zachary.Kahnanrc.gov Thomas F. Wood, Esq.Daniel Riesel, Esq.Sive, Paget and Riesel, P.C.460 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Also by e-mail: driesel asprlaw.corn I Judge Kaye D. Lathrop 190 Cedar Lane East Ridgeway, CO 81432 Also by e-mail: Kaye.Lathrop(anrc.gov Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge, CT 06878 Also by e-mail: NancyBurtonCTgaol.com Elise N. Zoli, Esq.Goodwin Procter, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Also by e-mail: ezoliha)goodwinprocter.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq.Victor Tafur, Esq.Riverkeeper, Inc.828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 Marcia Carpenter, Esq., Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 E2B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Marcia.Carnentera~nrc.gov Janice A. Dean, Esq.Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, NY 10271 Also by e-mail: Janice.dean(oag.state.ny.us 2
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq.Executive Deputy Attorney General 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 Also by e-mail: mylan.denerstein( ,oan.state.
nv.us John L. Parker, Esq.Regional Attorney, Region 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Comers New Paltz, NY 12561 Also by e-mail: jlparkercgw.dec.state.ny.us Mane Curran 3