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-15-3 

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. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board recently issued Partial Initial Decision 

LBP-13-13.1

 We have before us several petitions for review of LBP-13-13 and associated 

Board decisions. Our decision today addresses only the NRC Staff’s and Entergy’s requests for 

review of decisions regarding contention NYS-35/36, an environmental contention challenging 

 

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 - 

the Indian Point severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis.2

 Specifically, Entergy 

and the Staff seek review of LBP-11-17, the Board’s decision dismissing NYS-35/36, and 

LBP-10-13, the Board’s decision admitting the contention.3

NYS-35/36 raised legal and policy questions going to the completeness of the SAMA 

analysis cost-benefit results and the adequacy of the SAMA analysis conclusions. In 

LBP-11-17, the Board granted New York’s motion for summary disposition of NYS-35/36, 

agreeing with New York that the SAMA analysis in the Indian Point Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) is deficient as a matter of law.4

 Entergy and the Staff 

now seek review of the Board’s decisions on NYS-35/36. New York opposes these requests.5

We find that the Staff and Entergy petitions each raise at least one substantial question 

warranting further consideration of the Board’s decisions on NYS-35/36. We therefore grant the 

Entergy and Staff petitions insofar as they challenge the Board’s decisions in LBP-11-17 and 

LBP-10-13.6

 

2 See Applicant’s Petition for Review of Board Decisions Regarding NYS-8 (Electrical 

Transformers), CW-EC-3A (Environmental Justice), and NYS-35/36 (SAMA Cost Estimates) 

(Feb. 14, 2014), at 3, 43-60 (Entergy Petition); NRC Staff’s Petition for Review of LBP-13-13 in 

Part (Contentions NYS-8 and CW-EC-3A), and LBP-11-17 (Contention NYS 35/36) (Feb. 14, 

2014), at 41-59 (Staff Petition). We also issue today a companion order granting review of the 

State of New York’s petitions associated with NYS-12C, another SAMA analysis contention. 

See CLI-15-2, 80 NRC __ (Feb. 18, 2015) (slip op.).

3 See LBP-11-17, 74 NRC 11 (2011); LBP-10-13, 71 NRC 673 (2010).

4 See LBP-11-17, 74 NRC at 25-27. 

5 See State of New York’s Answer to Entergy and Staff Petitions for Review of Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board Decisions LBP-08-13 and LBP-13-13 with Respect to Contention NYS-8 

and for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 and LBP-11-17 with Respect to Contention NYS35/36 (Mar. 25, 2014), at 37-64.

6 See Entergy Petition at 43-60; Staff Petition at 41-59. Of note, the Staff recently—after filing 

its petition—concluded that it will supplement the FSEIS SAMA analysis. See, e.g., NRC Staff’s 

36th Status Report in Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s Order of February 

16, 2012 (Feb. 2, 2015), at 2-3. The Staff stated that the supplement will address Entergy’s 

May 2013 submission of engineering project cost estimates for the mitigation alternatives 

(continued . . .) 
- 3 - 

To aid our review, we request briefing on the following questions. Because the Board in 

LBP-11-17 found the FSEIS deficient and the Staff is responsible for the FSEIS analysis, we 

direct our questions below to the NRC Staff. 

1) The Indian Point SAMA analysis concludes that “risk can be further reduced in a costbeneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, cost-beneficial SAMAs,” 

and that “[g]iven the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction . . . further evaluation of 

these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted.”7

Does the Staff have a process in place to follow up with the licensee to determine 

which “potentially cost-beneficial” mitigation alternatives ultimately were found by 

the licensee to be cost-beneficial, if any, and which alternatives, if any, the 

licensee implemented? If not, explain why follow-up by the Staff is unwarranted. 

2) The SAMA analysis concludes that “any potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that do not 

relate to 10 C.F.R. Part 54 requirements would be considered, to the extent necessary 

or appropriate, under the agency’s oversight of a facility’s current operating license in 

accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 requirements.”8

Under what circumstances, if any, would the Staff judge a “potentially costbeneficial” mitigation alternative to warrant further NRC consideration outside of 

the license renewal review, either via a backfit analysis under 10 C.F.R. § 50.109 

or as part of another process? For example, is there any level of reduction in risk 

metric values—e.g., core damage frequency or large early release frequency—

that is or ought to be considered to determine whether a potentially costbeneficial mitigation alternative warrants additional NRC consideration under Part 

50? 

 

identified in the FSEIS as potentially cost-beneficial. See Dacimo, Fred F., Entergy, letter to 

NRC Document Control Desk, NL-13-075, License Renewal Application—Completed 

Engineering Project Cost Estimates for SAMAs Previously Identified as Potentially CostBeneficial (May 6, 2013) (ML13127A459). The core legal and policy questions raised by 

NYS-35/36 can, however, be addressed now. Our decision on review will elaborate further on 

our grounds for granting the petitions. The Staff and Entergy petitions for review before us also 

contest the Board’s resolution of contentions CW-EC-3A (environmental justice) and NYS-8 

(transformers). We will address these claims in a future decision, based upon the briefs and the 

existing adjudicatory record.

7 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-49 (FSEIS). The FSEIS is 

divided into multiple exhibits: NYS00133A-NYS00133J. 

8 See Ex. NYS00133C, FSEIS, Vol. 1, Main Report at 5-11.
- 4 - 

3) The Staff states that it does not require license renewal applicants to “finalize” their 

“SAMA calculations” by including “engineering project costs” in their analyses.9

What level of uncertainty does the Staff consider acceptable for the 

implementation cost portion of the cost-benefit analysis, and why? 

4) The Staff states that even if the NRC had authority to require implementation of 

mitigation alternatives for license renewal, “there is no reason to require such SAMAs for 

environmental protection purposes” because the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS) for reactor license renewal has already found the “probabilityweighted consequences of . . . severe accidents” to be “SMALL” for all plants, and Indian 

Point Units 2 and 3 fall within “these generic determinations.”10

Given that the “SMALL” probability-weighted impacts finding applies generically 

to all plants, why does the Staff expect a SAMA analysis to be a “comprehensive, 

systematic effort to identify and evaluate [] potential plant enhancements to 

mitigate” severe accidents?11

The Staff’s initial brief shall not exceed 20 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. Entergy and New York may file reply briefs, not to exceed 20 pages, exclusive of title 

page, table of contents, or table of authorities. Reply briefs are due within 40 calendar days of 

the initial brief’s filing. 

 

 

9 See Ex. NYS00133I, FSEIS, Vol. 3, App. G at 47-48. 

10 See Staff Petition at 51 n.187. 

11 See Ex. NYS000220, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants, Supp. 1: Operating License Renewal,” NUREG-1555, Supp. 1 (Oct. 1999), at 5.1.1-7 to 

5.1.1-8.
- 5 - 

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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.12

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL /RA/

 _____________________________ 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 18th day of February, 2015 

 

12 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-15-3) 

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-15-3) 

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-15-3) 

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