UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

_________________________________________ 

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

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

 ) 50-286-LR 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) ) 

 ) 

_________________________________________ ) 

CLI-15-2 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

This proceeding concerns the application of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to renew 

the operating licenses of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 for an additional 

twenty years. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued 

Partial Initial Decision LBP-13-13, resolving nine contentions.1

 While we have before us a 

number of petitions for review of LBP-13-13, our decision today addresses only the State of 

New York’s two petitions for review.2

 New York challenges LBP-13-13 to the extent it resolves 

 

1

 LBP-13-13, 78 NRC 246 (2013). The Board’s decision addresses only contentions that the 

Board earlier designated as “Track 1” contentions, on which a hearing was held in October 

2012. See id. at 275-76, 278-79. Several “Track 2” contentions remain pending before the 

Board and will be the subject of a later evidentiary hearing. See id. 

2

 We also issue today an order granting review of the NRC Staff’s and Entergy’s appeals of 

Board decisions addressing contention NYS-35/36. See CLI-15-3, 80 NRC ___ (Feb. 18, 2015) 

(slip op.). 

(continued . . .) 
- 2 - 

NYS-12C, an environmental contention.3

 New York also challenges a subsequent Board order 

declining to reconsider LBP-13-13 or to reopen the hearing record on NYS-12C.4

NYS-12C challenged the Indian Point severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) 

analysis, contesting particular decontamination times and decontamination cost assumptions.5

 

In LBP-13-13, the Board resolved NYS-12C in favor of the Staff.6

 New York seeks review of the 

Board’s findings. Entergy and the Staff oppose New York’s petitions. The State of Connecticut 

has filed a brief amicus curiae supporting New York’s petition for review.7

We may, as a matter of discretion, grant review of a full or partial initial decision, giving 

due weight to the existence of a substantial question with respect to any of the considerations 

outlined in 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(4). We find that the New York petitions raise at least one 

substantial question warranting further consideration of the decisions on NYS-12C. We 

therefore grant the New York petitions.8

 

3 State of New York Petition for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Decision LBP-13-

13 with Respect to Consolidated Contention NYS-12C (Feb. 14, 2014) (New York Petition).

4 See State of New York Petition for Review of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s April 1, 

2014 Decision Denying the State’s Motion to Reopen the Record and for Reconsideration of the 

Board’s November 27, 2013 Partial Initial Decision Concerning Consolidated Contention NYS12C (Apr. 28, 2014) (New York Petition with Respect to Reopening); see also Order (Denying 

New York’s Motion to Reopen the Record; Setting Deadline for New or Amended Contention) 

(Apr. 1, 2014) (unpublished).

5

 No party seeks review of the Board’s resolution of NYS-16B, another SAMA analysis 

contention resolved in LBP-13-13. Contention 16B challenged population estimates; the Board 

resolved the contention in favor of the Staff. LBP-13-13, 78 NRC at 475-89.

6

 LBP-13-13, 78 NRC at 450-74, 544. 

7 See State of Connecticut’s Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of the State 

of New York’s Petition for Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s Partial Initial 

Decision LBP-13-13 (Feb. 14, 2014); Amicus Brief of the Attorney General of Connecticut (Feb. 

14, 2014). We will address in a future decision the question of Connecticut’s participation as an 

amicus curiae under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d). 

8

 Our decision on review will outline further our grounds for granting the petitions.
- 3 - 

New York, Entergy, and the Staff raise a number of complex technical and legal 

arguments regarding NYS-12C. To aid our review, we direct the parties to provide further 

briefing on the following questions. In answering the questions, the parties must not introduce 

any new documents or exhibits; all references shall be limited to submissions already in the 

record. References to affidavits and exhibits should include page citations. 

1) The Board in LBP-13-13 stated that the “genesis” of the decontamination time values 

used in the Indian Point SAMA analysis can be traced to a 1984 report (NUREG/CR3673) that concluded that a 90-day decontamination time period represents “an average 

time to complete decontamination efforts following the most severe reactor accident.”9

Address the underlying support and reasoning (if available) behind the report’s 

conclusion that a 90-day time period is an “average” period of time for completing 

decontamination for “the most severe type of reactor accident.” 

2) Identify from the record any peer review or similar vetting of the NUREG-1150 values for 

the decontamination cost inputs for nonfarm land and property (CDNFRM) and the 

decontamination time inputs (TIMDEC) used in the MACCS2 computer code. 

3) Providing references to the record, discuss the underlying reasons behind the Staff and 

Entergy experts’ opinion that the NUREG-1150 CDNFRM and TIMDEC values continue 

to reflect reasonable estimates for severe accident decontamination times and costs 

today, including for the heavier (DF of 15) decontamination effort. 

4) Discuss the appropriateness of performing sensitivity analyses to account for 

uncertainties in the estimated decontamination times and non-farm decontamination 

costs, including what might be reasonable CDNFRM and TIMDEC inputs to use in 

sensitivity analyses for the Indian Point SAMA analysis. 

5) Would it be appropriate to treat decontamination times and decontamination costs (and 

related decontamination factors) from an uncertainty analysis standpoint, using a range 

of values—e.g., smaller values for smaller release accident categories and larger values 

for the larger release categories? Why or why not? 

6) Discuss whether, and, if so, how, the SAMA analysis should account for the possibility of 

potential decontamination times longer than one year. 

7) Discuss whether the Indian Point analysis contains conservatisms that bound or 

otherwise compensate for the uncertainty in the decontamination times and non-farm 

decontamination costs inputs used in the analysis. 

 

9 See LBP-13-13, 78 NRC at 469 (referencing Ex. NRC000058, “Economic Risks of Nuclear 

Power Reactor Accidents,” NUREG/CR-3673 (May 1984)). 
- 4 - 

8) The Indian Point SAMA analysis states that the methodology for cleaning up a nuclear 

weapons accident that was described in a 1996 Sandia National Laboratory study is “not 

relevant to clean-up following” a nuclear reactor accident.10 Nonetheless, the SAMA 

analysis goes on to describe a comparison of decontamination cost values derived from 

the study with the decontamination cost values used in the Indian Point analysis. 

Address to what extent (if any) the comparison to the weapons accident study explains 

or otherwise substantiates the decontamination cost parameters used in the Indian Point 

analysis. 

Initial briefs shall not exceed 40 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents or table 

of authorities, and shall be filed within 40 calendar days of the date of this order. Reply briefs 

shall not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of title page, table of contents, or table of authorities, and 

may be filed within 30 calendar days of the initial briefs’ filing. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 

§ 2.315(d), the State of Connecticut may file an amicus brief, not to exceed 20 pages, exclusive 

of title page, table of contents, or table of authorities. Connecticut may file its brief within the 

time allowed to the party whose position the brief will support. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.11

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL /RA/

 _____________________________ 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 18th day of February, 2015. 

 

10 See Ex. NYS00133I, “Final Report, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 3, regarding Indian Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Dec. 2010), App. G at G-23 (referencing Ex. 

NYS000249, “Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable Costs from Plutonium-Dispersal 

Accidents,” SAND96-0957 (May 1996)). 

11 Chairman Burns did not participate in this matter. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

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

 ) and 50-286-LR 

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating, ) 

 Units 2 and 3) ) 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-2) 

have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange. 

 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

Mail Stop O-7H4M 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

ocaamail@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Mail Stop O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop T-3F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Lawrence G. McDade, Chair 

Administrative Judge 

lawrence.mcdade@nrc.gov

Richard E. Wardwell 

Administrative Judge 

richard.wardwell@nrc.gov 

Michael F. Kennedy 

Administrative Judge 

michael.kennedy@nrc.gov 

Alana Wase, Law Clerk 

alana.wase@nrc.gov 

Kathleen E. Schroeder, Law Clerk 

Kathleen.Schroeder@nrc.gov

Edward L. Williamson, Esq. 

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. 

David E. Roth, Esq. 

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. 

Brian Harris, Esq. 

Mary B. Spencer, Esq. 

Anita Ghosh, Esq. 

Christina England, Esq. 

Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq. 

Joseph Lindell, Esq. 

John Tibbetts, Paralegal 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop O-15D21 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; 

edward.williamson@nrc.gov 

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; brian.harris.@nrc.gov 

david.roth@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov 

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov; 

christina.england@nrc.gov; 

catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov; 

joseph.lindell@nrc.gov; 

john.tibbetts@nrc.gov 

OGC Mail Center 

OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov 

William B. Glew, Jr. 

Organization: Entergy 

440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601 

wglew@entergy.com 

Elise N. Zoli, Esq. 

Goodwin Proctor, LLP 

Exchange Place, 53 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-2) 

2

Daniel Riesel, Esq. 

Victoria Shiah Treanor, Esq. 

Adam Stolorow, Esq. 

Natoya Duncan, Paralegal 

Counsel for Town of Cortlandt 

Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. 

460 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

driesel@sprlaw.com; vtreanor@sprlaw.com 

astolorow@sprlaw.com; nduncan@sprlaw.com 

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. 

Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 

Martin J. O’Neill, Esq. 

Raphael Kuyler, Esq. 

Brooke McGlinn, Esq. 

Grant Eskelsen, Esq. 

Ryan Lighty, Esq. 

Lesa G. Williams-Richardson, Legal Secretary 

Doris Calhoun, Legal Secretary 

Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

ksutton@morganlewis.com 

martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 

rkuyler@morganlewis.com; 

lescher@morganlewis.com 

bmcglinn@morganlewis.com 

sraimo@morganlewis.com 

geskelsen@morganlewis.com 

rlighty@morganlewis.com 

lrichardson@morganlewis.com 

dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 

mfreeze@morganlewis.com 

Deborah Brancato, Esq. 

Ramona Cearley, Secretary 

Riverkeeper, Inc. 

20 Secor Road 

Ossining, NY 10562 

dbrancato@riverkeeper.org

rcearley@riverkeeper.org

Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. 

Assistant County Attorney 

Office of Robert F. Meehan, 

Westchester County Attorney 

148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor 

White Plains, NY 10601 

mjr1@westchestergov.com

Bobby Burchfield, Esq. 

Matthew Leland, Esq. 

Emre Ilter, Esq. 

McDermott, Will and Emery LLP 

500 North Capitol Street NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

bburchfield@mwe.com 

mleland@mwe.com 

eilter@mwe.com 

Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq. 

Covington & Burling LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

mswinehart@cov.com 

Edward F. McTiernan, Esq. 

New York State Department 

 of Environmental Conservation 

Office of General Counsel 

625 Broadway 

14th Floor 

Albany, NY 12233-1500 

efmctier@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director 

Steven C. Filler 

Peter A. Gross 

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 

724 Wolcott Ave. 

Beacon, NY 12508 

mannajo@clearwater.org; 

stephenfiller@gmail.com; 

peter@clearwater.org 

Andrew Reid, Esq. 

Organization: Hudson River Sloop 

Clearwater, Inc. 

Springer & Steinberg, P.C. 

1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 

Denver, CO 80202 

lawyerreid@gmail.com 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-2) 

3

Richard Webster, Esq. 

Public Justice, P.C. 

For Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

rwebster@publicjustice.net

Michael J. Delaney, Esq. 

Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs 

NYC Department of Environmental Protection 

59-17 Junction Boulevard 

Flushing, NY 11373 

mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov

Robert D. Snook, Esq. 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 

55 Elm Street 

P.O. Box 120 

Hartford, CT 06141-0120 

robert.snook@po.state.ct.us

John J. Sipos, Esq. 

Lisa S. Kwong, Esq. 

Brian Lusignan, Esq. 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Teresa Manzi, Legal Assistant 

Office of the Attorney General 

 of the State of New York 

The Capitol, State Street 

Albany, New York 12224 

john.sipos@ag.ny.gov 

lisa.kwong@ag.ny.gov 

brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov

teresa.manzi@ag.ny.gov 

Kathryn M. DeLuca, Esq. 

Laura Heslin, Esq. 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of the Attorney General 

 of the State of New York 

120 Broadway, 26th Floor 

New York, New York 10271 

kathryn.deluca@ag.ny.gov 

laura.heslin@ag.ny.gov 

 

Sean Murray, Mayor 

Kevin Hay, Village Administrator 

Village of Buchanan 

Municipal Building 

236 Tate Avenue 

Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 

smurray@villageofbuchanan.com

administrator@villageofbuchanan.com

 [Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 18th day of February, 2015