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-16-10 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

This long-pending proceeding concerns the application of Entergy Nuclear Operations, 

Inc. to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3. Today 

we address appeals of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decisions regarding contention 

NYS-35/36, which challenged the Indian Point severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) 

analysis. In CLI-15-3, we granted Entergy’s and the Staff’s petitions for review of LBP-11-17, in 

which the Board found the Staff’s SAMA analysis deficient as a matter of law and dismissed 

NYS-35/36 on summary disposition.1 We address here the questions regarding LBP-11-17. As 

 

1 CLI-15-3, 81 NRC 217 (2015); LBP-11-17, 74 NRC 11 (2011); see also Applicant’s Petition for 

Review of Board Decisions Regarding Contentions NYS-8 (Electrical Transformers), CW-EC-3A 

(Environmental Justice), and NYS-35/36 (SAMA Cost Estimates) (Feb. 14, 2014), at 43-60 

(Entergy Petition); NRC Staff’s Petition for Commission 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 granted Entergy’s petition for review of LBP-10-13, which 

admitted Contentions 35 and 36 for litigation; as discussed infra, we do not reach this appeal. 

LBP-10-13, 71 NRC 673 (2010). 
- 2 - 

discussed below, we reverse the Board’s decision granting summary disposition of NYS-35/36 

in favor of New York, find that summary disposition was appropriate in favor of the Staff and 

Entergy, and dismiss the contention. We additionally direct the Staff to refer the pending 

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for follow-up and 

disposition as appropriate. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. License Renewal and the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis

We have described the nature of the SAMA analysis in several other decisions, including 

a separate decision we recently issued regarding Contention NYS-12C, another of New York’s 

contentions that challenged the SAMA analysis.2 Our decision here does not address the 

technical aspects of the SAMA analysis, but focuses on the legal and policy questions relevant 

to the appeals before us. 

In brief, the SAMA analysis is an environmental mitigation analysis conducted pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our NEPA regulations require a SAMA 

analysis for license renewal if one was not previously performed.3 As we often have stressed, 

however, the SAMA analysis is not an NRC safety review conducted under the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The AEA requires the NRC to ensure the “adequate 

protection” of public health and safety.4 Safety measures to prevent and mitigate accidents are 

established, maintained, and continuously assessed through the agency’s regulatory oversight 

of reactor operations, which includes plant inspections, enforcement actions, severe accident 

research, analyses of generic safety issues (common to all or a subset of plants), and other 

communications with licensees on emerging issues. An “evolving set of requirements and 

 

2 CLI-16-7, 83 NRC __ (May 4, 2016) (slip op.). 

3 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). 

4 42 U.S.C. § 2232(a). 
- 3 - 

commitments for a specific plant” are “modified as necessary over the life of the plant to ensure 

continuation of an adequate level of safety.”5 For example, following the 2011 Fukushima 

accident in Japan, the NRC issued to power reactor licensees orders modifying licenses, and 

we continue to assess the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident to determine all 

appropriate regulatory action.6

The NRC safety review conducted for a license renewal application, therefore, is not 

intended to address ongoing plant safety concerns, but instead focuses on those matters that 

may not be sufficiently addressed through our reactor oversight activities. Specifically, the 

review examines whether licensees will have in place during the period of extended operation 

adequate programs to detect and manage the effects of aging on particular safety-related 

systems, structures, and components. Our regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 set forth the 

requirements and limited scope of the license renewal safety review.7 By design, the Part 54 

safety review does not require a severe accident mitigation analysis. 

Separate from the Part 54 safety review, the NRC’s environmental review for license 

renewal encompasses the issue of potential severe reactor accidents. The NEPA look at 

beyond-design-basis reactor accidents consists of two separate analyses: (1) a generic severe 

accident impacts analysis; and (2) a site-specific severe accident mitigation analysis—the 

SAMA analysis. The NRC’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for license 

 

5 See Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 

22,473 (May 8, 1995) (Final License Renewal Rule, Safety). 

6 See, e.g., “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for 

Beyond-Design-Basis External Events,” EA-12-049 (Mar. 12, 2012) (ML12056A045) (regarding 

capability to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool safety); “Order 

Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents,” EA-12-050 (Mar. 12, 

2012) (ADAMS accession no. ML12054A696); see also Proposed Rule, Mitigation of BeyondDesign-Basis Events, 80 Fed. Reg. 70,610 (Nov. 13, 2015). 

7 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.4, 54.21; see also Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-14, 71 NRC 449, 453-56 

(2010) (outlining scope of Part 54). 
- 4 - 

renewal contains an extensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of severe 

accidents.8 This generic bounding analysis is applicable to all reactor sites. The Indian Point 

environmental impacts analysis references the severe accident impacts analysis contained in 

the GEIS.9

The SAMA analysis represents the NRC’s site-specific severe accident mitigation 

analysis for the Indian Point license renewal application. It is performed solely pursuant to 

NEPA and the NRC’s NEPA-related environmental regulations.10 The analysis identifies and 

evaluates mitigation measures—either new hardware or plant procedures, or both—that could 

be installed or implemented to further reduce severe accident risk beyond that necessary to 

provide adequate protection of public health and safety. SAMAs therefore “represent only a 

minor portion of the Commission’s overall regulatory regime—separate and apart from its safety 

requirements.”11

Pursuant to NRC-endorsed guidance, the SAMA analysis typically has been performed 

as a cost-benefit analysis. The analysis identifies the main contributors to plant risk and then 

identifies potential measures to reduce those risks. It goes on to evaluate the risk reduction 

 

8 The entire GEIS is included in the record as Exs. NYS00131A-I, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” NUREG-1437 (May 1996) (GEIS). 

The severe accident environmental impacts analysis appears at id., vol. 1, Main Report, Final 

Report, at 5-12 to 5-116. In June 2013, the NRC issued a revised GEIS. See “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (Final Report), 

NUREG-1437, vols. 1-3, rev. 1 (June 2013) (ML13107A023 (package)). 

9 See “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: 

Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3” (Final Report), NUREG-1437, 

supp. 38, vol.1—Main Report (Dec. 2010), at 5-3 (ML102990043) (Final SEIS); see also 

10 C.F.R. pt. 51, subpt. A, app. B, Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (codifying the GEIS conclusion that “the probabilityweighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all 

plants”). 

10 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). 

11 See NRDC v. NRC, No. 14-1225, slip op. at 16 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 26, 2016). 
- 5 - 

potential of specific mitigation measures—e.g., to what extent population dose risk or offsite 

economic cost risk might be reduced by implementation of the mitigation measure. Ultimately, a 

monetary value is calculated representing the estimated “benefit” associated with an evaluated 

mitigation measure. The estimated cost of implementing a mitigation measure is weighed 

against the estimated benefit associated with the measure. Any mitigation measures found 

potentially cost-beneficial to implement are identified. 

B. Procedural History of Contention NYS-35/36 

Entergy provided a SAMA analysis in its Environmental Report, in which it identified 

mitigation measures found potentially cost-beneficial to implement at Indian Point to further 

reduce severe accident risk.12 The Staff conducted an independent review of Entergy’s 

analysis, which led to the identification of additional potentially cost-beneficial mitigation 

measures; in the Draft SEIS the Staff set forth its conclusions.13 The Staff concurred with 

Entergy’s “identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner 

through the implementation of all or a subset” of the identified potentially cost-beneficial 

SAMAs.14 The Staff went on to state that because of the “potential for cost-beneficial risk 

reduction . . . further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted.”15 Because “none of 

the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during 

the period of extended operation,” the Staff concluded that none “need be implemented as part 

 

12 Indian Point Energy Center, License Renewal Application, app. E, Environmental Report, at 

4-72 to 4-78.

13 See “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: 

Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3” (Draft Report for Comment), 

NUREG-1437, supp. 38, vol. 2, app. G, at G-35 to G-36 (Dec. 2008) (ML083540594) (Draft 

SEIS). 

14 Id., Main Report, at 5-10. 

15 Id. at 5-10; see also id., app. G, at G-36. 
- 6 - 

of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.”16 Nonetheless, the Staff noted Entergy’s 

intention to “consider further for implementation” the identified potentially cost-beneficial 

SAMAs.17

After issuance of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), 

additional Staff inquiries led Entergy to submit a revised SAMA analysis to the NRC in 

December 2009.18 Entergy’s reanalysis contained corrected (and more conservative) 

meteorological input data.19 The Revised SAMA Analysis depicted larger estimated benefits for 

evaluated SAMAs and identified additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.20

As part of the reanalysis, Entergy also revised its estimate of the costs to implement 

certain SAMAs.21 Citing to NRC-endorsed guidance on conducting SAMA analyses, Entergy 

stated that it is often unnecessary to conduct a detailed implementation cost review to judge 

whether a particular SAMA is potentially cost-beneficial.22 Entergy stated that for its original 

SAMA analysis (in its Environmental Report) the implementation costs were only “conceptually 

estimated to the point where conclusions regarding the economic viability of the proposed 

modification could be adequately gauged.”23 But later, for the Revised SAMA Analysis, those 

SAMAs that “appeared to be cost-beneficial” in light of the reanalysis’s new larger estimated 

 

16 Id., Main Report, at 5-10; see also id. at 5-5; app. G, at G-36. 

17 Id., app. G at G-35. 

18 See Letter NL-09-165, from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk (Dec. 11, 

2009), attach. 1, License Renewal Application—SAMA Reanalysis Using Alternate 

Meteorological Tower Data (ML093580089) (Revised SAMA Analysis). 

19 See id., attach. 1, at 3. 

20 See id. at 31-32. 

21 See id. at 7-8; 10-28.

22 See id. at 7-9. 

23 See id. at 7. 
- 7 - 

benefits were then “subjected to more comprehensive and precise cost estimating techniques to 

determine if they [were] indeed potentially cost-beneficial.”24 Entergy explained that the “new, 

more comprehensive SAMA implementation cost estimates” captured more of the “anticipated 

expenses by identifying all parts of the organization that must support the proposed SAMA 

modification.”25 In some cases, the revised implementation cost estimate rendered a SAMA no 

longer potentially cost-beneficial, and in other cases, even with the updated cost estimate, a 

SAMA remained potentially cost-beneficial.26 Overall, Entergy’s Revised SAMA Analysis 

rendered an additional six SAMAs potentially cost-beneficial (three for Unit 2 and three for Unit 

3), raising the total number of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs to twenty-two.27

Entergy stated that these newly identified potentially cost-beneficial measures as well as 

“those SAMAs identified previously as cost beneficial” had “been submitted for engineering 

project cost benefit analysis” to further evaluate their cost-effectiveness.28 Entergy also 

reiterated that none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified to date were necessary 

for “managing aging effects for components within the scope of license renewal” and therefore 

none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs needed to be “implemented as part of license 

renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.”29

In response to Entergy’s Revised SAMA Analysis, New York submitted new and 

amended contentions.30 Relevant here are two of those contentions: NYS-35 and NYS-36. In 

 

24 Id. at 8. 

25 Id. at 9. 

26 See id. at 8-9, 10-28. 

27 Id. at 31-32. 

28 See id. at 32. 

29 Id.

30 State of New York’s New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe 

Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis (Mar. 11, 2010) (Contention NYS-35/36). 
- 8 - 

NYS-35, New York claimed that the analysis was incomplete because Entergy planned to 

review further—by performing an “engineering project” cost analysis—the implementation costs 

of various SAMAs newly identified as potentially cost-beneficial.31 New York claimed that this 

additional implementation cost analysis “deprived the NRC and [the] Board of the ability to 

evaluate, and render a rational decision regarding which mitigation measures, if any, are 

sufficiently cost-effective,” such that “their inclusion as a condition for an extended operating 

license period and a new operating license is warranted.”32 NYS-35 focused on nine mitigation 

measures that “had not yet been finally determined to be cost-effective,” and which, New York 

claimed, if ultimately found “sufficiently cost effective, must be added as license conditions” prior 

to issuance of a renewed license.33

A related contention, NYS-36, focused on a different set of nine SAMAs. New York 

claimed that the Revised SAMA Analysis had shown these measures, “for the first time, to have 

substantially greater benefits in excess of their costs.”34 Entergy stated that for these nine 

SAMAs “the gap between the benefit and the cost is so great that it is extremely unlikely that 

further engineering cost work could tilt the balance” against cost-effectiveness.35

New York went on to argue that Entergy in its reanalysis did not “justify” not committing 

to implement “clearly cost effective” SAMAs that New York claimed “would, if implemented, 

substantially increase human health and safety and environmental protection.”36 Similarly, New 

York argued that the NRC in its Draft SEIS did not “justify its position that clearly cost effective 

 

31 Id. at 15. 

32 Id.

33 Id. at 13. 

34 Id. at 36. 

35 Id. at 37. 

36 Id. at 40-41. 
- 9 - 

SAMAs need not be implemented as a condition of license renewal simply because they do not 

relate to aging management.”37 In sum, New York argued that the Revised SAMA Analysis 

lacked a “rational basis” for not including a commitment to implement mitigation measures that 

were “clearly cost effective.”38 New York claimed that implementation of the measures should 

be imposed as a license condition.39 The Staff and Entergy opposed the admission of both 

contentions, claiming that they were untimely and failed to meet the NRC’s contention 

admissibility standards.40

In LBP-10-13, the Board admitted both new contentions in part and consolidated them 

as NYS-35/36. The Board first found the contentions timely, stating that they were based on 

“new, materially different information,” given that both contentions pointed to new cost-benefit 

determinations and “different cost-benefit calculations than before,” due to Entergy’s use of 

different inputs in the reanalysis.41 The Board rejected the portions of the contentions that could 

be read to “demand implementation” of cost-beneficial SAMAs, reasoning that the Part 54 

license renewal safety review did not “directly require[]” the “implementation of non-agingrelated SAMAs.”42 But it went on to state that the Staff nonetheless had the authority to impose 

 

37 Id. at 41. 

38 Id.

39 Id. at 42. 

40 See, e.g., NRC Staff’s Answer to State of New York’s New and Amended Contentions 

Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis (Apr. 5, 

2010), at 13-35; Applicant’s Answer to New York State’s New and Amended Contentions 

Concerning Entergy’s December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis (Apr. 5, 2010), at 21-31. The 

State of Connecticut, which is participating in this proceeding as an interested state under 

10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c), supported admission of the contentions. See Answer of the Attorney 

General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York’s Motion for Leave to File New and 

Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident 

Mitigation Alternatives (Apr. 1, 2010). 

41 LBP-10-13, 71 NRC at 696, 702. 

42 See id. at 697. 
- 10 - 

such license “conditions that are necessary to protect the environment . . . under a Part 50 

backfit procedure.”43 The Board admitted the “portion of NYS-35 calling for completion of the 

cost-benefit analysis to determine which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.”44

Regarding NYS-36, the Board stated that the specific SAMAs referenced in the 

contention had become, following Entergy’s reanalysis, “dramatically more cost-beneficial in 

both the baseline and sensitivity analyses.”45 As outlined by the Board, the admitted “triable 

issue of fact” was whether the Staff had explained in its record of decision “why it would allow 

the license to be renewed without requiring”—as a license condition—the implementation of 

“plainly cost-beneficial” SAMAs.46 Addressing NYS-35/36, the Board summarized its reasoning 

as follows: 

We hold that in order to meet its obligations under NEPA, once a 

SAMA has been identified as plainly cost-effective, the NRC Staff 

must either require implementation or, in the alternative, explain 

why it has decided not to require implementation prior to license 

renewal. Likewise, the applicant must supply information that is 

sufficiently complete for the Commission to be able to explain its 

decision.47

Entergy and the Staff sought interlocutory review of LBP-10-13.48 While we denied their 

petitions for not meeting the interlocutory review standards, we stated that the Board’s decision 

appeared “problematic” and could “warrant our review later in the proceeding.”49

 

43 Id. 

44 Id. at 698. 

45 Id. at 702. 

46 Id.

47 Id. 

48 See generally Applicant’s Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 (July 15, 2010); NRC 

Staff’s Petition for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s Decision 

Admitting New York State Contentions 35 and 36 on Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(LBP-10-13) (July 15, 2010). 

49 See CLI-10-30, 72 NRC 564, 568 (2010). 
- 11 - 

C. Dismissal of NYS-35/36 on Summary Disposition 

Subsequently, the Staff issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final SEIS) for the Indian Point license renewal application. In the Final SEIS, the Staff took 

into account Entergy’s Revised SAMA Analysis and other information, concluded that the SAMA 

analysis was complete and otherwise acceptable, and identified the SAMAs found to be 

potentially cost-beneficial. Again, the Staff concurred with Entergy’s “identification of areas in 

which risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all 

or a subset of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.”50 Because of the “potential for cost-beneficial 

risk reduction,” the Staff stated that “further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is 

appropriate,” and noted that Entergy would be considering “further for implementation” all of the 

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, whether identified in the baseline analysis or in the 

supplemental analyses (sensitivity studies or uncertainty analyses).51

The Staff re-emphasized, however, that none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 

related “to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation,” 

and that therefore none of the measures needed to be “implemented as part of [Indian Point’s] 

license renewal” under Part 54.52 Addressing the Board’s decision in LBP-10-13, the Staff again 

stated that regardless of whether any of the SAMAs ultimately were determined to be costbeneficial, none needed to be imposed as a “condition for license renewal.”53

Following issuance of the Final SEIS, New York moved for summary disposition of 

NYS-35/36.54 Entergy and the Staff each filed a cross-motion for summary disposition. Both 

 

50 Final SEIS, at 5-11. 

51 See id.; see also id., app. G, at G-48. 

52 Id., Main Report at 5-11. 

53 Id. at 5-12. 

54 State of New York’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36

(Jan. 14, 2011). Connecticut supported the motion. Response of Attorney General of 
- 12 - 

claimed that the SAMA analysis was complete as a matter of law and that no legal basis existed 

for ordering the implementation of SAMAs as part of the license renewal process.55 In 

LBP-11-17, the Board granted New York’s motion, concluding that no material factual dispute 

remained and that New York was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.56 Because Entergy 

intended to consider further whether to implement the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs (and 

also would further consider the SAMAs’ implementation costs), the Board concluded that the 

Staff had inappropriately permitted “Entergy to complete its SAMA review outside of the license 

renewal process.”57 Finding the analysis incomplete, the Board then stated that the NRC lacked 

“an adequate record” on which to “make its decision on the impacts of relicensing” the Indian 

Point units.58 The Board held that the Final SEIS failed to provide a “rational basis” both “for not 

requiring Entergy to complete its SAMA review” and “for not requiring the implementation of 

cost-beneficial SAMAs prior to the relicensing of Indian Point.”59 The Board found the Final 

SEIS deficient “under NRC regulations, the [Administrative Procedure Act], and NEPA.”60

In granting New York’s motion, the Board stressed that it was not “directing the 

implementation of any SAMA.”61 But it ruled that the Indian Point licenses could not be renewed 

 

Connecticut in Support of New York’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Consolidated 

Contention NYS-35/36 (Feb. 3, 2011). 

55 Applicant’s Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition to New York State’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition of Contention NYS-35/36 and in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary 

Disposition (Feb. 3, 2011); NRC Staff’s (1) Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition, and (2) 

Response to New York State’s Motion for Summary Disposition, of Contention NYS-35/36 (Feb. 

7, 2011). 

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

57 Id. at 25. 

58 Id. 

59 Id. at 27. 

60 See id.

61 Id.
- 13 - 

unless and until the Staff “reviews Entergy’s completed SAMA analyses”—that is, a SAMA 

analysis containing Entergy’s intended additional “engineering project” cost analyses—and the 

Staff either “incorporates the result of these reviews into the [Final SEIS],” or, alternatively 

“modifies its [Final SEIS] to provide a valid reason for recommending” license renewal before 

“the analysis of potentially cost-effective SAMAs is complete.”62 The Board further stated that 

the licenses could not be renewed without the Staff either modifying the Final SEIS to provide a 

“valid reason . . . for not requiring the implementation of cost-beneficial SAMAs,” or alternatively, 

modifying the Final SEIS to show that the Staff would, after all, require “the implementation of 

cost-effective SAMAs.”63

Entergy sought interlocutory review of LBP-11-17.64 In CLI-11-14, we denied Entergy’s 

petition for review for failure to meet the interlocutory review standards, additionally noting the 

large number of contentions still pending before the Board (including at that time other SAMA 

contentions) and our interest in avoiding piecemeal appeals.65

D. Entergy’s Revised Implementation Cost Estimates 

In view of the Board’s decision, and pursuant to internal processes for evaluating 

potential plant modifications, Entergy chose to prepare and submit to the NRC refined 

implementation cost estimates for all of the SAMAs that had been identified in its 2009 Revised 

SAMA Analysis (and similarly the subsequently-issued Final SEIS) as potentially cost-

 

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 See Applicant’s Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of 

Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 (July 29, 2011). The Staff supported Entergy’s request; 

New York and Connecticut opposed review. NRC Staff’s Answer to Applicant’s Petition for 

Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 

(Aug. 11, 2011); The State of New York and the State of Connecticut’s Combined Motion for 

Leave to File a Brief Reply to NRC Staff’s Answer to Applicant’s Petition for Interlocutory 

Review of LBP-11-17 (Aug. 16, 2011). 

65 CLI-11-14, 74 NRC 801, 811 (2014). 
- 14 - 

beneficial.66 Entergy on its own initiative, therefore, provided the “refined engineering project 

cost estimates” that the Board had determined in LBP-11-17 to be a necessary component for a 

complete SAMA analysis.67 Based on these refined and more comprehensive implementation 

cost estimates, Entergy stated that six out of the twenty-two SAMAs that had been previously 

identified as potentially cost-beneficial “no longer” were considered cost-beneficial, while sixteen 

continued to be cost-beneficial.68

Having completed its detailed look at SAMA implementation costs, Entergy stated that 

“to further reduce the already very small severe accident risk” it planned to implement four of the 

SAMAs found to be cost-beneficial, “though it is not required to do so as part of license 

renewal.”69 Entergy went on to state that it would defer reaching a decision on whether to 

implement any of the other cost-beneficial SAMAs “until after implementation of the 

Commission’s numerous, ongoing Fukushima action items which, by themselves, are intended 

and expected to substantially mitigate the risks of certain beyond-design-basis accidents.”70 

Entergy stated that after implementing the four SAMAs as well as mitigation measures and 

other actions relating to Fukushima, the severe accident risk at Indian Point may be so reduced 

that “many, if not all, of the remaining SAMAs will no longer be cost-beneficial.”71 Entergy 

therefore stated that it would defer any final decisions on whether to implement additional 

SAMAs, and later consider, on a case-by-case basis, the “potential costs and remaining risk 

 

66 See Letter NL-13-075 from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk (May 6, 

2013), “License Renewal Application—Completed Engineering Project Cost Estimates for 

SAMAs Previously Identified as Potentially Cost Beneficial,” & attach. 1 (Refined Cost 

Estimates). 

67 Refined Cost Estimates at 2. 

68 See id.; see also attach. 1, at 4-5. 

69 Refined Cost Estimates at 2, attach. 1, at 9. 

70 Id., attach. 1, at 10.

71 Id.
- 15 - 

benefits” of the SAMAs, as well as “other regulatory obligations, and available company 

resources.”72

In addressing Entergy’s refined implementation cost analysis, the Board clarified that the 

NEPA issues involving NYS-35/36 could not “be resolved” until the Staff either (1) issued a 

documented review of “Entergy’s completed SAMA analysis” or (2) notified the parties that it 

would not issue an evaluation of Entergy’s revised cost estimates.73

After the Board, following a merits hearing, resolved all other pending SAMA contentions 

in LBP-13-13, the Staff and Entergy again sought review of the Board’s ruling on 

NYS-35/36.74 The State of New York supports the two Board decisions.75 We granted review in 

CLI-15-3, and additionally posed several questions to the Staff.76 The Board’s decision in 

LBP-11-17 raises substantial and important questions of law and policy warranting our review, 

and we consider the issues sufficiently ripe to address them at this time.77 Further, as we note 

below, New York has filed a new contention before the Board involving similar arguments as 

those raised in NYS-35/36. Our decision today therefore aids in clarifying a significant legal and 

policy issue regarding the license renewal SAMA analysis. 

 

72 Id., attach. 1, at 12 (emphasis added). 

73 See Licensing Board Order (Granting Entergy’s Motion for Clarification) (July 9, 2013) 

(unpublished) (ML13190A068). The Board also provided that adjudicatory submissions 

addressing Entergy’s refined cost analysis would be due within sixty days of the Staff either 

issuing a draft SEIS (or an equivalent document discussing the refined cost estimates) or its 

notification that it would not issue any further review of Entergy’s analysis. Id. at 3. 

74 LBP-13-13, 78 NRC 246 (2013). 

75 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 NYS-35/36

(Mar. 25, 2014), at 37-64 (New York Answer). 

76 See CLI-15-3, 81 NRC 217. 

77 The legal and policy matters associated with the Final SEIS and at issue here are laid out in 

LBP-11-17. 
- 16 - 

E. NRC Staff’s Draft FSEIS Supplement 2 

In December 2015, the Staff completed a review of Entergy’s refined implementation 

cost estimates, outlining its conclusions in a draft second supplement to the Final SEIS.78 In 

Draft FSEIS Supplement 2, the Staff found the revised cost estimates and related conclusions 

on the SAMAs to be reasonable.79 The Staff noted that Entergy has now implemented the 

following four SAMAs: IP3-052: to open the city water supply valve for alternative auxiliary 

feedwater pump suction; IP3-053: to install an excess flow valve to reduce the risk associated 

with hydrogen explosions; and IP2-GAG and IP3-GAG: to install steam generator safety valve 

gagging devices.80 The Staff also concurred with Entergy’s decision to defer resolving whether 

to implement the other potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. 

The Staff explained that such implementation decisions “should be viewed as a dynamic 

process” because when a SAMA “previously determined to be potentially cost-beneficial is 

implemented, the risk profile from which the SAMA analysis is derived will necessarily 

change.”81 As the Staff outlined, the implementation of the four SAMAs, and Entergy’s 

implementation (either voluntary or per NRC requirement) of “plant improvements” associated 

with post-Fukushima orders and actions “will lower the plant’s risk profile and, therefore, will 

tend to lower the benefits” associated with the remaining potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.82

 

78 “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding 

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3” (Draft Report for Comment), NUREG-1437, 

supp. 38, vol. 5 (Dec. 2015) (Draft FSEIS Supplement 2). 

79 Id. at 19. The Staff did determine, however, that two of the SAMAs that Entergy had found to 

be no longer cost-beneficial ought to be retained for further consideration by Entergy because 

“the incremental difference by which the SAMAs are not cost beneficial, when viewed in the 

context of uncertainties in the cost estimates, is too small to exclude them from further 

consideration.” Id.

80 Id. at 20. 

81 Id.

82 Id. at 20-21. 
- 17 - 

The Staff noted, for example, that in response to the Fukushima accident, the NRC 

issued to power reactor licensees Order EA-12-049, “Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to 

Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design Basis External Events,” which relates to improving the 

ability to maintain or restore core cooling and containment (as well as spent fuel pool cooling). 

The Staff went on to specify the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that involve actions to 

maintain reactor core cooling, and whose “potential accident mitigation improvement . . . may be 

addressed, at least in part” by mitigation measures currently being considered as part of the 

NRC’s review of “all plants’ current licensing bases.”83 The Staff agreed that the “risk reduction 

achieved” by the four already-implemented SAMAs, along with further measures that Entergy 

will take to respond to Order EA-12-049, likely will “substantially” reduce the benefits of pending 

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.84

The Staff therefore found it reasonable for Entergy to defer any action on pending costbeneficial SAMAs until the “risk profile for each plant” at Indian Point “is reevaluated following 

the completion of both voluntary and required plant improvements.”85 And the Staff again 

stressed that none of the SAMA measures pending for possible later implementation involved 

adequately managing the effects of aging under Part 54 and that therefore none needed to be 

implemented as part of the license renewal proceeding. 

New York has challenged the Staff’s SAMA analysis conclusions in Draft FSEIS 

Supplement 2 in a newly filed contention currently before the Board.86

 

83 Id. at 20. 

84 Id.

85 Id. at 22. 

86 State of New York Contention NYS-40 (Feb. 22, 2016) (Contention NYS-40); State of New 

York Motion for Leave Contention NYS-40 (Feb. 22, 2016) (New York Motion for Leave); see 

NRC Staff’s Answer to State of New York’s Motion for Leave to File Contention NYS-40 (Mar. 

18, 2016); Entergy’s Opposition to Proposed New York State Contention NYS-40 Regarding 

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (Mar. 18, 2016). 
- 18 - 

II. ANALYSIS 

We review legal issues de novo. Following a careful review of the parties’ briefs, the 

challenged Board decisions, and the Staff’s Final SEIS, we conclude that the Board erred in 

finding the Indian Point SAMA analysis deficient as a matter of law and dismissing NYS-35/36 

on summary disposition in favor of New York.87 While we share the Board’s dissatisfaction with 

aspects of the Staff’s responses (a matter we address below), the Staff has adequately—albeit 

minimally—explained why it chose not to pursue SAMA implementation in this license renewal 

proceeding. At bottom, the Board demands resolution of SAMA implementation questions now, 

as part of this license renewal proceeding. For the reasons we explain in greater detail below, 

we agree with the Staff that it need not mandate SAMA implementation nor resolve SAMA 

implementation issues in this proceeding. 

Admittedly, standard cursory references by the Staff to identified SAMAs not “relating to 

managing the effects of aging” can be confusing or unsatisfying if considered in isolation, and 

ideally more explanation would have been provided. Yet, when set in the context of a reactor 

license renewal proceeding, the statement should be understood as a shorthand reference to 

the basic, longstanding parameters of the NRC’s license renewal process that have been 

reflected in our regulations for decades. Further, the Staff ultimately went beyond its initial 

cursory explanation, providing an expanded discussion of the topic in the Final SEIS. Here, we 

provide additional background and observations regarding the SAMA analysis and NRC 

regulations to help clarify the role of the SAMA analysis in the license renewal proceeding. Our 

decision today also refers the Indian Point potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs to the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for follow-up and appropriate action, separate from this 

proceeding. 

 

87 As discussed infra, we need not reach the issue of the need for refined implementation costs, 

as we find that the issue is moot. 
- 19 - 

A. Potential Effects of SAMA Implementation on Plant Risk Profile 

We begin with a few overarching observations about SAMAs. The SAMA analysis 

evaluates each mitigation measure independently of the others, as if each were the only 

measure contemplated. But if—and as—one or more measures ultimately are implemented, the 

plant’s configuration changes, affecting its baseline risk profile (e.g., core damage frequency), in 

turn potentially rendering other mitigation measures less cost-beneficial or even no longer costbeneficial. Similarly, two or more potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs may act on the same risk 

contributor (e.g., internal flooding, station blackout, or loss of offsite power); in such cases, the 

implementation of one measure could reduce residual risk to a point that renders another 

measure less marginally beneficial in preventing or mitigating the specific accident concern. 

Depending on the kinds of SAMAs identified and their inter-relationship, therefore, the 

implementation of a subset of SAMAs may achieve much of the potential risk reduction and 

might do so in an overall more cost-effective way than implementing all identified SAMAs. 

In short, when a SAMA analysis identifies numerous cost-beneficial measures, it should 

not be assumed that all measures would continue to afford the same level of risk reduction, and 

would remain cost-beneficial (or cost-beneficial to the same degree) regardless of the risk 

reduction achievable by implementing some of the SAMAs. As SAMAs are implemented, the 

“relative benefits of adopting additional mitigation alternatives diminish.”88 In principle, 

therefore, once specific SAMAs have been implemented, implementation decisions regarding 

other potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs would justifiably take into account the plant’s new 

configuration and risk profile. 

B. The License Renewal NEPA Analysis 

As a NEPA mitigation analysis, the SAMA analysis need not conclusively resolve exactly 

which mitigation measures (if any) will be implemented. The NRC has previously stated that the 

 

88 See NRDC, slip op. at 17. 
- 20 - 

SAMA rule is intended to satisfy NEPA-related responsibilities and purposes—to identify, 

consider, and disclose mitigation measures that may be cost-beneficial to further reduce plant 

risk, “whether or not mitigation ultimately will be implemented by the licensee.”89 That does not 

mean that the analysis results are not considered or have no practical import. On the contrary, 

over the past decades license renewal applicants have voluntarily implemented one or more of 

the SAMAs identified as potentially cost-beneficial (here, Entergy already has implemented 

four).90

But no statute or regulation requires the NRC to impose the implementation of a specific 

SAMA in this license renewal proceeding. Nor must the Staff in its NEPA review reach a final 

determination regarding SAMA implementation. 

NEPA “seeks to guarantee process, not specific outcomes.”91 The NRC need not 

“require certain mitigation measures under NEPA” because “NEPA is not outcome-driven.”92 

 

89 See Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 10,834, 10,836 

(Feb. 20, 2001). In denying a petition for rulemaking seeking to delete the SAMA analysis 

requirement, the NRC reiterated that “[t]here is no requirement in 10 CFR part 54 for analysis of 

SAMAs,” but declined to delete the rule because (1) the risks of severe accidents are not so 

remote “as to warrant their elimination [altogether from] our NEPA reviews,” and (2) the NRC 

lacked a generic severe accident NEPA mitigation analysis. See id. at 10,834, 10,838-39. 

90 See, e.g., “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: 

Regarding Monticello Nuclear Generation Plant” (Final Report), NUREG-1437, supp. 26 (Aug. 

2006), at 5-5 (ML062490078) (six SAMAs implemented); “Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1” 

(Final Report), NUREG-1437, supp. 12 (Aug. 2003), at 5-5, 5-26 (ML032110214) (seven 

SAMAs planned for implementation). 

91 Massachusetts v. NRC, 708 F.3d 63, 67 (1st Cir. 2013); see also id. at 78 (rejecting argument 

mandating implementation of SAMA as outside of scope of renewal proceeding because NEPA 

“does not mandate particular results”) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 

490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989)). In Methow Valley, the Supreme Court drew a “fundamental 

distinction between a requirement that mitigation be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that 

environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated,” and “a substantive requirement that a 

complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted.” Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352. 

92 Massachusetts, 708 F.3d at 81 n.27. 
- 21 - 

Nor must the agency have a mitigation “plan” before it can issue a license.93 NEPA’s purpose is 

to help assure that the agency and the public will have relevant information on the potential 

impacts of a proposed action. As such, NEPA calls for the disclosure of potential adverse 

effects and a discussion of potential mitigation measures. But NEPA does not require the 

elimination of all potential impacts and risks. It “does not require agencies to discuss any 

particular mitigation plans that they might put in place, nor does it require agencies—or third 

parties—to effect any.”94 “Substantive issues like . . . what mitigation conditions to adopt are 

irrelevant to NEPA compliance.”95 To satisfy NEPA, therefore, the NRC need not “obtain an 

assurance that third parties will implement particular measures.”96 The Staff had no obligation 

to impose, in this license renewal proceeding, license conditions requiring the implementation of 

mitigation measures examined in the NEPA analysis. 

Notably, there is no claim here that any of the measures at issue are necessary for the 

adequate protection of public health and safety.97 A measure that is necessary for adequate 

protection of public health and safety is a matter for immediate action as a current operating 

issue.98 We are addressing, then, whether the potential implementation of mitigation measures 

that may be or are cost-justifiable to reduce plant risk to levels lower than what the NRC 

considers adequate must be resolved in this proceeding and tied to issuance of the renewed 

licenses. We agree with the Staff that it need not. 

 

93 Id. 

94 See Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 503 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 

(internal quotation omitted). 

95 Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2008). 

96 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 353 n.16. 

97 If New York believes that any are, it may seek enforcement action under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206. 

98 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(5). 
- 22 - 

In its Final SEIS, the Staff explained why it does not view SAMA implementation as a 

matter that must be resolved in this license renewal proceeding and made a condition of license 

renewal. First, in regard to the scope of the safety review, the Staff discerned no need to 

impose SAMAs as license conditions because the examined mitigation measures are neither 

necessary for adequate protection of public health and safety nor among the aging 

management-related safety issues that must be resolved in the license renewal safety review. 

Second, in regard to the environmental review and the GEIS impacts analysis findings, 

the Staff stated that the SAMA analysis results do not call into question the GEIS’s overall 

conclusions regarding the probability-weighted consequences of potential severe accidents.99 

In other words, the Staff concluded that existing plant risk levels do not pose an unacceptable or 

undue risk to the environment, so as to warrant denial of the license. The Staff stated, for 

example, that “the [core damage frequencies] for [Indian Point, Units 2 and 3]” are “quite low.”100 

The Staff also re-emphasized in the Final SEIS that NEPA itself does not require the Staff to 

 

99 Final SEIS, Main Report, at 5-11 to 5-12 (citing id. § 5.2.2, at 5-5 to 5-6) (specifying the core 

damage frequency per year for each of the Indian Point plants, for the various evaluated 

accident initiating events); see Staff Petition at 51 n.187 (“regardless of the question of the 

agency’s authority to impose SAMAs as a condition for license renewal, the [Final SEIS] 

concluded there is no reason to require such SAMAs for environmental protection purposes”). 

Pursuant to the SAMA rule, the Staff evaluated the major severe accident risk contributors at 

Indian Point and identified measures that can be taken to further reduce risk; the separate issue 

of whether and which SAMAs ultimately will be implemented was not necessary to the Staff’s 

current NEPA conclusion in the Final SEIS that “the adverse environmental impacts of license 

renewal for [Units 2 and 3] are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for 

energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable.” See Final SEIS, Main Report, at 

9-8. 

100 See Staff Petition at 55-56 & n.198. As New York notes, “despite the low probability” of the 

accidents evaluated in the SAMA analysis, the NRC still has a NEPA obligation to “evaluate 

mitigation measures.” See State of New York Reply to NRC Staff’s Response to Commission 

Order CLI-15-3 Requesting Further Briefing on Contention NYS-35/36 (May 11, 2015), at 16 

(New York Reply Before Commission). The SAMA analysis is that mitigation evaluation. That 

the analysis searches for and may identify cost-justifiable ways to further reduce risk does not 

suggest that current plant risk levels provide inadequate protection to public safety or to the 

environment or are unacceptably high; by the same token, that cost-beneficial SAMAs may be 

identified to improve the plants’ safety profile does not mean that implementation decisions must 

be resolved prior to license renewal. 
- 23 - 

impose mitigation measures. The Staff, therefore, discerned no necessity (and no clear 

regulatory basis, given the deliberately narrow scope of the renewal safety review, the SAMA 

analysis results, and NEPA’s focus on procedures) to withhold issuance of the license based 

solely on the ground that potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs were not implemented. 

The Staff nonetheless acknowledged in the Final SEIS that the analysis identified 

various ways “in which risk can be further reduced” in a potentially justifiable or cost-beneficial 

manner through the implementation of “all or a subset” of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.101 

And the Final SEIS indicated that Entergy would “consider further for implementation” the 

identified potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.102

The Staff went on to state that although no SAMAs would be imposed as conditions in 

this proceeding, they would nonetheless be considered “to the extent necessary or appropriate, 

under the agency’s oversight of a facility’s current operating license” under 10 C.F.R. Part 50 

requirements.103 As such, the Staff has maintained throughout this proceeding that it may, 

under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, impose a backfit modifying the Indian Point’s 

current licensing basis if, following appropriate analysis pursuant to section 50.109, a 

determination is made that a backfit should be mandated. Although the SAMA analysis 

conclusions in the Final SEIS are not extensive, we do not find them insufficient as a matter of 

law. 

C. Potential Cost-Beneficial Enhancements and the Backfit Rule 

Because both the Staff and the Board refer to Part 50 backfits, a few points about 

backfits should be made clear. The NRC’s backfit rule outlines the circumstances under which 

 

101 Final SEIS, Main Report, at 5-11. 

102 Id., app. G, at G-48. 

103 Id., Main Report, at 5-11. 
- 24 - 

the NRC may order a plant modification (“backfit”),104 including what kind of evaluation or 

analysis and findings would be required, which in turn depends on the NRC’s basis for 

considering the modification.105

New York suggests that the Staff may dispense with the backfit rule requirements and 

instead simply mandate SAMA implementation as an environmental license condition.106

Although Part 54 refers to license conditions “to protect the environment,” such conditions relate 

to the monitoring, recording, and reporting of environmental data, as a means for the NRC to 

keep abreast of the environmental impacts of current operating reactors.107 For the Staff to 

impose SAMA plant modifications unrelated to the license renewal safety review would require 

the Part 50 backfit rule requirements to be satisfied. 

Under the backfit rule, plant modifications determined to be necessary for adequate 

protection are imposed regardless of cost, and without need of a full backfit analysis under 

10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(3).108 Decisions regarding whether to require a licensee to modify plant 

structures, components, systems, design, or procedures for reasons that go beyond assuring 

 

104 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(1) (defining “backfitting,” which encompasses a modification of or 

addition to structures, systems, components, or the design of a facility; or of the procedures or 

organization required to operate or design a facility). 

105 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(3)-(4).

106 See New York Reply Before Commission at 9 (the “backfit process is only one source of 

Staff’s authority to implement plant changes”). 

107 See 10 C.F.R. § 54.33(c) (referencing 10 C.F.R. § 50.36b); see also Environmental Review 

for Renewal of Operating Licenses, Proposed Rule, 56 Fed. Reg. 47,016, 47,018 (Sept. 17, 

1991) (“[l]icensees submit the information from monitoring of these conditions to the NRC on a 

routine basis”). Further, section 54.33(c) refers to “those conditions that are part of the [current 

licensing basis] at the time of issuance of the renewed license,” and their supplementation or 

amendment for the renewal term.

108 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(5) (the “Commission shall always require the backfitting of a facility if it 

determines that such regulatory action is necessary to ensure that the facility provides adequate 

protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the common defense and 

security”); see also id. § 50.109(a)(4)(ii). 
- 25 - 

adequate protection or compliance with NRC rules involve multiple considerations, including 

how proposed measures may relate to existing or proposed NRC rules, practices, and 

initiatives, and to other plant modifications and activities that may be planned or under 

consideration.109

In the circumstance, here, where a SAMA is not necessary to protect public health and 

safety but nonetheless may be warranted as an incremental safety improvement, the NRC may 

impose a plant modification “only when it determines,” based on a section 50.109(c) backfit 

analysis, that (1) there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and 

safety or the common defense and security, and (2) that the direct and indirect costs of 

implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection.110

D. Implementation Decisions and the Scope of the License Renewal Review 

The Board in LBP-11-17 makes the issue of SAMA implementation—including potential 

Part 50 backfit analysis findings—one that must be resolved in the renewal proceeding, as a 

prerequisite for agency action on the license renewal application. Although noting that NEPA 

“does not mandate the particular decisions that an agency must reach,” the Board stated that 

the Staff had “the option and the duty . . . to pursue modifications” to Indian Point’s current 

licensing basis through the backfit process.111 Moreover, the Board described the Staff as 

“refusing to require implementation of SAMAs whose benefits, at this juncture and on this 

 

109 In the specific case of SAMAs, for example, it would be insufficient simply to rank measures 

by how cost-beneficial they may be. A SAMA with a lower net benefit might afford greater 

overall risk reduction. And, as we earlier described, the implementation of one or more SAMAs 

may render others less or no longer cost-beneficial. 

110 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(3) (emphasis added). No backfit analysis under 10 C.F.R. 

§ 50.109(a)(3) is required if a plant modification is (1) necessary for adequate protection of 

public health and safety; or (2) necessary to bring the facility into compliance with a license, 

written licensee commitments, or NRC rules or orders. See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(4). No party 

here claims that any of the Indian Point SAMAs would fall into one of these categories. 

111 LBP-11-17, 74 NRC at 26-27 & n.76 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(3)). 
- 26 - 

record, clearly outweigh their costs.”112 The Board further stated that the Staff had not provided 

any explanation for not “directing a backfit” requirement for license renewal or “setting 

conditions for license renewal” to require implementation of “these cost-beneficial SAMAs.”113

But the NRC has stressed—specifically addressing the applicability of the backfit rule—

that for license renewal it did “not intend to impose requirements on a licensee that go beyond 

what is necessary to adequately manage aging effects.”114 Nor does any part of the license 

renewal rules or their history or associated Staff guidance refer to license conditions for costbeneficial SAMAs. And since the earliest license renewals, in practice it has been understood 

that follow-up actions regarding cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in the NEPA analysis would 

occur outside of the renewal proceeding, as a current operating issue.115 While the SAMA rule 

 

112 Id. at 26. 

113 Id. 

114 See Final License Renewal Rule, Safety, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,490; see also Nuclear Power 

Plant License Renewal, Proposed Rule, 55 Fed. Reg. 29,043, 29,047 (July 17, 1990) (“[i]f the 

staff or the licensee seeks to make changes in a plant’s licensing basis for reasons other than 

age-related degradation, they should be pursued either in the existing operating license or the 

renewed license, once issued. Staff-initiated changes would be evaluated in accordance with 

the backfit rule, 10 C.F.R. 50.109.” (emphasis added)). 

115 For example, in his notation vote approving the renewal of the Calvert Cliffs licenses (the first 

to be approved under Part 54), Commissioner McGaffigan encouraged the Staff, “[s]eparate 

from license renewal,” to “continue to engage [the licensee] on the merits of implementing” four 

apparently cost-beneficial SAMAs that would “offer a significant level of risk reduction.” Notation 

Vote, Commissioner McGaffigan, “SECY-00-0010—Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

and 2—Renewal of Full-Power Operating License” (Mar. 13, 2000), at 2 (ML003695350) 

(emphasis added); see note 125, infra. 

Relatedly, in LBP-11-17, the Board misconstrued our decision in Catawba/McGuire, which did 

not involve the same type of claims New York makes here. The Board suggested that we held 

that SAMA implementation need not be required as part of a plant’s license renewal review in 

the limited instance when they are already the subject of a generic safety review. See 

LBP-11-17, 74 NRC at 25. On the contrary, we emphasized that NEPA did not demand “a 

detailed explanation of specific measures which will be employed,” and further noted that 

whether the NRC “ultimately will require ice condenser plants like McGuire and Catawba to 

implement a hydrogen control SAMA” (that had already been found to be cost-beneficial in the 

SAMA review) would be determined as part of a then-ongoing generic safety review, outside of 

license renewal. See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-03-17, 58 NRC 419, 430-31 & n.60 (2003) (citation 
- 27 - 

history and guidance envisioned that cost-beneficial SAMAs would be considered for 

implementation to further reduce plant risk, our license renewal rules do not require SAMA 

implementation as a condition for license issuance. 

Moreover, by implying that the Staff has a duty to impose cost-beneficial SAMAs as 

backfits, the Board mistakenly suggested that SAMA analysis conclusions are the equivalent of 

backfit analysis determinations made under 10 C.F.R. § 50.109. Although the SAMA costbenefit analysis in practice has been guided by the same methodology used for performing the 

cost-benefit portion of a backfit analysis, ultimately the SAMA and backfit analyses are not the 

same.116 They are performed for different purposes under different governing legal standards—

one performed to satisfy NEPA and the other pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act. 

By its own terms, a backfit analysis under section 50.109(a)(3) encompasses significant 

considerations beyond those considered in a SAMA analysis.117 Further, even if a proposed 

modification is cost-beneficial, the NRC may not impose a backfit unless the modification at 

issue would provide a “substantial increase” in protection of public health and safety or the 

common defense and security.118 This proceeding never established (nor did the Board 

 

omitted); see also “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants: Regarding McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2” (Final Report), NUREG-1437, supp. 

8 (Dec. 2002), at 5-30 (ML030020238 (package)) (the identified SAMA “is cost-beneficial under 

certain assumptions,” but would be resolved “as a current operating license issue”). Our 

decision in Catawba/McGuire nowhere suggested that SAMA implementation must be resolved 

in a license renewal proceeding. 

116 See Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document, 

NEI 05-01, rev. A (Nov. 2005), at 1 (NEI SAMA Guidance) (referencing “Regulatory Analysis 

Technical Handbook,” NUREG/BR-0184 (Jan. 1997) (ML042820192)); see also “Regulatory 

Analysis Guidelines,” NUREG/BR-0058, rev. 4 (Sept. 2004) (ML042820192). 

117 A backfit analysis may consider any relevant and material information, and must consider, for 

example, the “potential safety impact of changes in plant and operational complexity, including 

the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements,” the “resource burden on the 

NRC . . . and the availability of such resources,” and the continuing costs associated with the 

backfit. See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(c). 

118 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(3). 
- 28 - 

address) which of the pending cost-beneficial SAMAs might provide a “substantial” increase in 

public safety protection because such findings are not made in SAMA analyses. In short, the 

conclusions in a NEPA SAMA analysis are not ready-made backfit analysis determinations 

under Part 50. 

It is far from the case, therefore, that “once the SAMA analysis is completed Staff is 

prepared to order implementation of SAMAs as a backfit,” although the analysis may serve to 

prompt a backfit review for one or more SAMAs.119 And notably, because the SAMAs do not 

relate to aging management, the Part 50 backfit process and its necessary determinations 

would need to be satisfied for each SAMA in question. These are all additional reasons why 

further evaluation of SAMAs in regard to the possible pursuit of backfitting, if called for, is a 

matter appropriately considered separate from the license renewal review. 

The NRC deliberately narrowed the scope of the license renewal safety review to aging 

management because it viewed—and continues to view—the agency’s Part 50 regulatory 

processes an adequate and appropriate means for addressing ongoing safety concerns. We 

therefore agree with the Staff that the Board erred in ordering the Staff either to impose SAMA 

implementation as a license renewal requirement or provide other, different reasons for why it 

was not doing so. The Staff has provided adequate justification for not requiring the 

implementation of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs as part of this license renewal 

proceeding: (1) the Staff did not need to resolve all implementation questions as a prerequisite 

 

119 See New York Answer at 60 n.271; see also id. at 64. And although backfit analysts 

presumably might choose to adopt all or a portion of the values used in the SAMA cost-benefit 

calculations, it is not clear that all of the values and considerations (including sensitivity and 

uncertainty analyses) chosen for a SAMA cost-benefit analysis would necessarily be used in the 

same fashion in a backfit analysis. Indeed, guidance specific to the SAMA analysis suggests 

that some cost-benefit considerations in the analysis, particularly those involving the calculation 

of implementation costs, may have distinctions. See NRC Staff’s Response to the 

Commission’s Memorandum and Order of February 18, 2015 (CLI-15-3) Regarding Contention 

NYS-35/36 (Mar. 30, 2015), at 14 (Staff Response to Commission) (“the SAMA analysis is not 

intended to determine whether an identified SAMA is actually cost beneficial” (emphasis added) 

(citing NEI SAMA Guidance)). 
- 29 - 

for license renewal; (2) Entergy continues to consider whether it will voluntarily implement 

additional mitigation measures beyond those four it already has implemented; and (3) the Staff 

nonetheless retains the authority and discretion, separate from this proceeding, to pursue 

implementation of cost-justifiable SAMAs that may provide substantial additional protection to 

the overall public health and safety. 

Further, as we earlier described, the Staff in its draft second Final SEIS supplement 

amplifies its earlier explanations with specific examples of how particular SAMAs still under 

consideration relate to Fukushima-related measures that Entergy may implement either 

voluntarily or per NRC requirement. The Staff accordingly notes that the implementation of 

Fukushima-related severe accident mitigation measures, together with the implementation of 

the SAMAs Entergy already has completed, may change the Indian Point plant’s baseline risk 

and affect the risk reduction and cost-benefit conclusions for the remaining SAMAs. The Staff 

therefore considers the deferral of implementation decisions on the pending twelve SAMAs to 

be appropriate.120

In short, no statute or NRC regulation requires SAMAs analyzed in a license renewal 

NEPA review to be imposed (or a decision on SAMA implementation to be finalized) as a 

prerequisite to license renewal. None of New York’s arguments suggest otherwise.121 The Staff 

 

120 See Draft FSEIS Supplement 2, at 19-23. Quoting section 51.103(a)(4), New York also 

stresses that the Staff’s record of decision must “explain” why mitigation measures “were not 

adopted.” See New York Reply Before Commission at 9. Here, as we outlined, the Staff 

provided practical, technical, and policy grounds for not imposing SAMAs in this proceeding. 

Given this explanation, the Staff has met the plain language of the rule, which requires the Staff 

to either state whether it has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm, or to “explain why those measures were not adopted.” 10 C.F.R. 

§ 51.103(a)(4). The Staff’s explanation was sufficient to explain why it did not impose SAMAs in 

this license renewal proceeding. 

121 New York emphasizes that Part 54 requires compliance with Part 51, citing 10 C.F.R. 

§ 54.29(b). But the rule simply requires “all applicable” Part 51 rules to have been satisfied. 

Part 51 is satisfied through sufficient environmental analyses and adequate environmental 

record of decision. New York, moreover, was able to challenge the adequacy of the SAMA 

analysis in this proceeding, including litigating other SAMA contentions admitted for hearing. 
- 30 - 

identified potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, along with their risk reduction potential. That final 

decisions have not been reached regarding implementation of the Indian Point SAMAs does not 

render the mitigation analysis incomplete. Nor does the analysis reflect a “generalized, 

conceptual exercise”122—to date four SAMAs already have been implemented at Indian Point, 

based on the analysis, and more may still be implemented. And while the scope of the NRC’s 

environmental review for license renewal appropriately extends beyond aging management and 

includes the requirement to consider and identify SAMAs, neither the environmental nor the 

safety review contains any SAMA implementation requirements that must be met for license 

issuance. 

In sum, the Staff’s SAMA analysis conclusions for Indian Point were not deficient as a 

matter of law. The Staff provided sufficient grounds for why in this license renewal proceeding it 

will not impose SAMA implementation requirements. We conclude, therefore, that the Board 

erred in granting summary disposition in favor of New York and prohibiting the issuance of 

renewed licenses for Indian Point on that ground. Instead, for the reasons outlined in this 

decision summary disposition of NYS-35/36 in favor of the Staff and Entergy was appropriate.123

E. Referral to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

One matter regarding the Indian Point SAMAs warrants additional discussion. The Staff 

states that it may reach potential SAMA implementation decisions outside of the proceeding, a 

choice our decision finds permissible under our rules. But while the Staff sufficiently outlined 

why it need not take action on implementation in this proceeding, it leaves vague, in practical 

terms, how a Staff determination on SAMA implementation might be made outside of the 

 

122 See New York Answer at 62. 

123 In opposing the Staff’s and Entergy’s petitions for review, New York requests that we allow 

oral argument on the merits of the appeals prior to ruling on them. See New York Answer at 65; 

10 C.F.R. § 2.343. We decline to hold oral argument. The record before us provides sufficient 

information on which to base our decision. See Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-11-8, 74 NRC 214, 219-20 (2011). 
- 31 - 

proceeding.124 We know only that Entergy will further evaluate the identified SAMAs for 

implementation and that the Staff retains the means to pursue a backfit in accordance with 

10 C.F.R. § 50.109. But unless the Staff itself also intends to further evaluate the pending 

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs (and the Final SEIS is silent on whether that is the case), then 

conceivably a significant SAMA whose implementation ought to be pursued by the NRC could 

be overlooked. Typical SAMA analysis conclusions, including those in this case, have not 

indicated whether and which potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs may provide a substantial 

increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and 

security such that additional consideration by the Staff may be warranted. 

In this regard, Staff practice in the early years of license renewal included a customary 

internal referral of identified cost-beneficial (or potentially cost-beneficial) SAMAs—that 

licensees had not yet voluntarily agreed to implement—for review and action as appropriate, as 

a current operating issue.125 This strikes us as an appropriate way to assure that mitigation 

measures that may substantially increase the overall protection of public health and safety in a 

cost-justifiable manner are not overlooked, but are reviewed for potential implementation to the 

extent appropriate. Of course, in instances where it is clear to the Staff that none of the 

 

124 We have sought more explanation from the Staff in regard to the “ultimate resolution of costbeneficial SAMAs.” See CLI-11-14, 74 NRC at 813 n.70; CLI-15-3, 81 NRC at 219. The Staff 

outlined factors it might consider, including specific “screening criteria,” to determine if a SAMA 

should be pursued “as a cost-justified ‘substantial increase in safety’ backfit.” See Staff 

Response to Commission at 6-10. The Staff did not indicate whether any of the Indian Point 

SAMAs might be appropriate candidates. Nor did the Staff suggest whether or when it might 

reach any of these considerations. 

125 See, e.g., Memorandum from P.T. Kuo, NRC, to W. Ruland, NRC, “Results of the Severe 

Accident Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) Analysis Review for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, 

Units 1 and 2)” (May 12, 2005) (ML051320165); Memorandum from P.T. Kuo, NRC, to H. 

Berkow, NRC, “Results of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) Review for 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2” (May 4, 2005) (ML051250309); Memorandum from P.T. Kuo, 

NRC, to E. Hackett, NRC, “Cost-Beneficial Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) 

Identified During the License Renewal Review for H.B. Robinson Steam Elec. Plant, Unit 2” 

(Dec. 30, 2003) (ML040050412). 
- 32 - 

identified cost-beneficial measures would afford a substantial increase in overall safety, it would 

be sufficient to so note in the Final SEIS conclusion.126 Here, however, the Staff has not 

provided such a conclusion. 

We therefore direct the NRC license renewal Staff to refer the pending potentially costbeneficial SAMAs to appropriate NRR staff for review and disposition, as appropriate, in the 

context of current plant operation.127 The Staff should make available to New York its 

conclusions regarding whether any of the pending identified SAMAs warrant a backfit analysis 

or other further NRC action. Upon completion of this review, New York may seek to require 

implementation of any specific SAMA by filing a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 to modify 

the license. 

III. ADDITIONAL MATTERS 

A. LBP-10-13: Admissibility of NYS-35/36 

Although we also granted review of LBP-10-13, the Board’s decision admitting 

NYS-35/36, we need not reach the contention admissibility question. The contentions originally 

were based on Entergy’s Revised SAMA Analysis, which incorporated new meteorological data. 

Since then, the Staff issued its Final SEIS, upon which the Board’s summary disposition 

decision was based, and recently issued a draft second supplement to the Final SEIS. In 

addition, Entergy has since provided and the Staff reviewed the augmented implementation cost 

analysis containing the “engineering project” costs, one of the key issues in NYS-35/36. Given 

these events and our decision today, we discern no need to review the admissibility of 

NYS-35/36. To the extent, however, that NYS-35/36 demanded the implementation of SAMAs 

 

126 The Staff’s general conclusions in SAMA analyses would be significantly more informative if 

it provided some indication of what degree of significance it attaches to the individually identified 

cost-beneficial SAMAs—e.g., whether in the Staff’s view a SAMA reflects a minor incremental 

safety improvement or may accord a substantial increase in public health and safety. 

127 In our decision on Contention 12C, we directed the Staff to perform a sensitivity analysis. 

The Staff may, if it chooses, wait to make its referral until that analysis is complete, to the extent 

that the sensitivity analysis may affect the cost-benefit analysis results and related conclusions. 
- 33 - 

or demanded final decisions regarding SAMA implementation, as prerequisites to license 

renewal, we would consider the contention inadmissible for the same reasons we provide here. 

A comment on the contention’s timeliness is warranted, however. Simply stated, the 

Board’s reasoning on timeliness in LBP-10-13 appears problematic. New York’s contentions 

challenged the legal sufficiency of explanations regarding why SAMA implementation was not 

required for license renewal. But these same explanations had appeared earlier in the Staff’s 

Draft SEIS, well before the Revised SAMA Analysis that was used as the basis for Contentions 

NYS-35 and NYS-36. The Board based its timeliness ruling, though, merely on the fact that in 

the Revised SAMA Analysis Entergy “utilized different inputs in its analysis,” which led to “a new 

cost-benefit picture.”128 But nearly every license renewal proceeding involves revisions of the 

SAMA analysis, whether in response to staff requests for additional information, additional 

sensitivity analyses, or for other reasons. Notably, in NYS-35/36 New York did not challenge 

the selection or adequacy of any of the new “inputs” used in the Revised SAMA Analysis. The 

mere use of new inputs, which often leads to a new “cost-benefit picture,” does not serve to 

restart the clock for arguments that could have—and therefore under our contention 

admissibility requirements should have—been raised at the outset. 

B. Implementation Costs

As we noted earlier, part of NYS-35/36 challenged Entergy’s intention to further refine its 

SAMA implementation costs to include “engineering project” costs. In other words, New York 

challenged the “costs” portion of the SAMA analysis, claiming that the implementation cost 

estimates were incomplete without inclusion of the “engineering costs” that Entergy had not yet 

considered but planned to consider. That dispute appears resolved and therefore moot, now 

that Entergy conducted the additional “engineering project” costs review and revised its SAMA 

 

128 LBP-10-13, 71 NRC at 696. 
- 34 - 

implementation costs accordingly, the Staff has reviewed and accepted those implementation 

cost revisions, and New York has not challenged the implementation costs further. 

Although we need not reach the issue, we nonetheless note the possibility that the issue 

could re-emerge in this case. That is, in our separate decision regarding Contention NYS-12C, 

we directed that sensitivity analyses for certain economic cost inputs be performed.129 Pursuant 

to those sensitivity analyses, the Staff may identify new potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for 

which Entergy may not yet have provided the “engineering project” costs. In that instance, there 

may again be a challenge regarding the adequacy of Entergy’s implementation costs. 

Entergy may choose to provide the engineering project cost estimates at the outset for 

any such newly-identified SAMAs. Applicable SAMA cost-benefit guidance may prove helpful in 

determining the cost categories that should be included in the implementation costs. As the 

Staff noted in its response to our questions on NYS-35/36, SAMA cost-benefit guidance calls for 

the implementation cost estimate to contain “all costs associated with the SAMA . . . including 

design, engineering, safety analysis, installation, and long-term maintenance, calibrations, 

training, etc. that will be required as a result of the change.”130 In short, while guidance does not 

bind Entergy or any applicant, available SAMA or NRC cost-benefit guidance serves as a useful 

guide to the kinds of costs for which estimates are expected to be included as part of the overall 

implementation cost estimates. 

 

 

129 See CLI-16-7, 83 NRC at __, __ (slip op. at 35-40). 

130 See Staff Response to Commission at 14 (emphasis added). Guidance also provides that 

the implementation cost estimate should be sufficiently detailed to permit the “economic viability 

of the proposed modification [to] be adequately gauged.” See NEI SAMA Guidance at 28. If 

there are known categories of significant expected costs, it would seem that these should be 

included, at least as estimates, in the implementation costs. Otherwise the “economic viability” 

of a measure may become an ever-fluctuating judgment, depending on potential subsequent 

sensitivity analyses and other SAMA reanalyses that may be performed. 
- 35 - 

C. Contention NYS-40 

As we previously indicated, pending before the Board is NYS-40, a new contention New 

York filed in February 2016 challenging the SAMA analysis in the Staff’s Draft FSEIS 

Supplement 2. Because NYS-40 raises similar arguments to those raised in NYS-35/36, the 

Board was directed to hold the contention in abeyance pending our further direction.131 

Contention NYS-40 asserts that “even with Entergy and NRC Staff’s revised” implementation 

costs, the SAMA analysis “identifies a number of mitigation alternatives” that have “benefits in 

excess of their costs but which are not being included as conditions of the proposed new 

operating licenses . . . in this proceeding.”132 New York challenges the Staff’s draft supplement 

because it “fails to commit to implementing any cost-effective SAMAs . . . as part of this 

licensing proceeding.”133 New York argues that now “that NRC Staff has accepted the 

engineering cost estimates as ‘complete,’ there is even less reason to defer and avoid 

implementing cost-effective site-specific SAMAs in this licensing proceeding.”134

NYS-40 does not challenge, however, any new substantive information in the draft 

supplement; it challenges neither the Staff’s evaluation of the SAMA implementation costs nor 

the Staff’s explanation of why it is reasonable for Entergy to defer future action on the pending 

cost-beneficial SAMAs. As New York describes, NYS-40 raises “similar issues” to those raised 

in the appeals regarding NYS-35/36.135 Our decision today effectively encompasses—and 

rejects—the legal arguments New York raises in NYS-40. NYS-40 does not raise a genuine 

 

131 See Order of the Secretary (Apr. 5, 2016) (unpublished). 

132 See Contention NYS-40 at 1. 

133 See id. at 9; see also id. at 17. 

134 See New York Motion for Leave at 4. 

135 See Contention NYS-40 at 2; see also State of New York Reply in Support of Contention 

NYS-40 (Mar. 25, 2016), at 4 (noting that the arguments on NYS-40 “revisit earlier disputes 

among the parties”). 
- 36 - 

dispute for hearing on a material issue of fact or law.136 We therefore direct the Board to 

dismiss NYS-40. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons provided above, we reverse LBP-11-17 and dismiss Contention 

NYS-35/36. We find that summary disposition was appropriate in favor of the Staff and Entergy. 

We also direct the Board to dismiss Contention NYS-40. Our decision today becomes part of, 

and serves to supplement, the environmental record of decision for this matter.137

IT IS SO ORDERED.138

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL 

 /RA/ . 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 2nd day of June, 2016.

 

136 We note, additionally, that New York in its NYS-40 filings failed to address, as our rules 

require, the NRC’s contention admissibility standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). New York 

subsequently submitted a late filing addressing the criteria, in which it described the earlier 

omission as inadvertent. See New York’s Supplemental Submission (Feb. 29, 2016), at S-1. 

We agree with Entergy that “oversight by counsel” does not establish “good cause” for an 

untimely submission. See Entergy’s Opposition to Proposed New York State Contention 

NYS-40 Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (Mar. 18, 2016), at 12-13. Even 

considering the supplemental filing, however, New York’s arguments do not alter our reasoning 

or conclusions. 

137 See Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-06-15, 63 NRC 687, 

707 n. 91 (2006). 

138 Chairman Burns did not participate in this matter. 
Additional Views of Commissioner Baran 

I concur with the memorandum and order, but write separately to express my views on 

the Commission’s direction to the NRC license renewal Staff to refer the potentially costbeneficial SAMAs for Indian Point to the responsible staff in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation (NRR) for appropriate action. I agree with my colleagues that referral in this case is 

a reasonable way to ensure that mitigation measures that may substantially increase safety are 

not overlooked and are reviewed for potential implementation. In fact, I think the NRC license 

renewal Staff should establish a regular practice of referring potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 

to NRR, which then should expeditiously review them to determine if additional regulatory action 

should be taken. SAMAs represent a significant technical effort, and NRC should capitalize on 

the insights they provide about potential safety enhancements at nuclear power plants. 
 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-16-10 

have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange and e-mail. 

 

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 

Julie Reynolds-Engel, Law Clerk 

Julie.Reynolds-Engel@nrc.gov 

Catherine L. Scott, Esq. 

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq. 

David E. Roth, Esq. 

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. 

Brian Harris, Esq. 

Anita Ghosh, 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 

catherine.scott@nrc.gov; 

beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; sherwin.turk@nrc.gov; 

brian.harris.@nrc.gov; 

david.roth@nrc.gov; 

anita.ghosh@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 
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-16-10 

2

Elise N. Zoli, Esq. 

Goodwin Proctor, LLP 

Exchange Place, 53 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 

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. 

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 

bmcglinn@morganlewis.com 

grant.eskelsen@morganlewis.com 

rlighty@morganlewis.com 

lrichardson@morganlewis.com 

dcalhoun@morganlewis.com 

mfreeze@morganlewis.com 

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

Matthew W. Swinehart, Esq. 

Covington & Burling LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

mswinehart@cov.com 

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. 

Ved Nanda Center for International and 

 Comparative Law 

1075 Waite Drive 

Boulder, CO 80303 

lawyerreid@gmail.com 

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
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-16-10 

3

David A. Repka, Esq. 

Victoria Hsia, Esq. 

Carlos L. Sisco, Paralegal 

Winston & Strawn 

1701 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

drepka@winston.com 

vhsia@winston.com 

CSisco@winston.com 

Paul Gallay, Esq. 

Deborah Brown 

James Bacon, Esq. 

Ramona Cearley, Secretary 

Riverkeeper, Inc. 

20 Secor Road 

Ossining, NY 10562 

pgallay@riverkeeper.org 

dbrown@riverkeeper.org 

jbacon@riverkeeper.org 

rcearley@riverkeeper.org

John J. Sipos, Esq. 

Lisa S. Kwong, Esq. 

Brian Lusignan, Esq. 

Mihir Desai, Esq. 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Teresa Manzi, Legal Assistant 

Siobhan Blank, 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 

mihir.desai@ag.ny.gov

teresa.manzi@ag.ny.gov 

siobhan.blank@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 Brian Newell ] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 2nd day of June, 2016