Clearwater’s Indian Point Challenges Accepted by Relicensing Panel Our ‘Environmental Justice’ Challenge Will Go to a Full Hearing Hudson River Sloop Clearwater’s challenges to Indian Point Nuclear Plant’s license renewal application on environmental and public health grounds will be heard during the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s (ASLB) upcoming relicensing hearings.   Following several months of legal proceedings, the ASLB announced on July 31, 2008 that two of the six contentions filed by Clearwater, covering a range of challenges to Indian Point’s application for another 20-year operating permit, have been accepted for further review.   Clearwater’s Environmental Director Manna Jo Greene, and Stephen Filler, an attorney who serves on the Clearwater Board of Directors’ Executive Committee, submitted Clearwater’s petition to intervene, which featured our Environmental Justice concerns, last fall and presented oral argument before the ASLB panel in March.   “Clearwater continues to fight for the environment and for the health and safety of the people in this region, as it has since Indian Point was first commissioned in the 1960’s. The panel accepted 15 contentions—the largest number ever considered—a clear indication of the many serious problems at Indian Point,” said Stephen Filler.   Clearwater claimed that the license renewal application filed by Indian Point’s owner, Entergy, was defective in a variety of ways. In particular, the ASLB panel of judges agreed that Clearwater’s contention that Entergy did not adequately account for groundwater impacts of leaking spent fuel rod containment pools raised significant questions as to whether Entergy’s application was complete or legally sufficient.   Clearwater was the only party to submit a contention concerning environmental justice, claiming that Entergy’s license renewal application failed to take into account the disproportionate impact that license renewal would have on the millions of minority and low income people living in the Hudson Valley. Clearwater argued that Entergy failed to consider the impact that a radioactive release at Indian Point would have on the many minority and low income people in the dozens of institutions—including hospitals and jails—in the region. The board agreed that there was enough evidence to order a hearing on this issue.   “We’re thrilled to be participating in the upcoming relicensing hearings to provide critical information that will assure a more credible evaluation of Entergy’s deficient relicensing application,” said Manna Jo Greene, “but are also disappointed that the health impacts have essentially been dismissed as out of scope of these proceedings.”   In response to the ASLB’s decision, Clearwater’s Executive Director Jeff Rumpf said, “We’re proud of the job Steve Filler and Manna Jo Greene performed on behalf of Clearwater and the people of the Hudson Valley in successfully presenting our case before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board. Clearwater is earning a reputation as a champion of the environmental justice movement. We look forward to making our case.” Click here for the full text of ASLB decision. Click here for the full text of the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing in the Indian Point Licensing Renewal Application (LRA) case submitted by Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) on 12/10/07. Click here for a summary of the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing in Indian Point Licensing Renewal Application Case submitted by Clearwater to ASLB on 12/10/07.   Details of Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) Decision   Abbreviations: ER = Environmental Review LRA = License Renewal Application TC = Technical Contention EC = Environmental Contention AMP = Aging Management Programs CUF = Cumulative Usage Factor MACCS2= MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System; ATMOS = Entergy uses the MAACS2 code that incorporates a straight line Gaussian plume model, called ATMOS, to predict atmospheric dispersion. RPV = Reactor Pressure Vessel SAMA = Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives SSC = Systems, structures and components The following contentions have been admitted: NYS-5 - The LRA does not provide adequate AMP for buried pipes, tanks, and transfer canals that contain radioactive fluid that meet 10 C.F.R. § 54.4(a) criteria. In addition, the LRA is not clear whether an AMP for IP1 buried SSCs that are being use by IP2 and IP3 exists and whether the LRA is adequate if it does exist. NYS-6/7 - Entergy has not proposed an AMP for Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage and Low-Voltage Cables and Wiring. NYS-8 - Entergy has not proposed an AMP for each electrical transformer in IP2 and IP3 required for compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.48 and 50.63. This does not include transformer support structures. NYS-9 (Adopted by Clearwater) - Entergy in its ER has not evaluated energy conservation as part of its “no action” alternative analysis. NYS-12 (Adopted by Clearwater) - Entergy’s SAMAs for IP2 and IP3 do not accurately reflect decontamination and clean up costs associated with a severe accident because specific inputs and assumptions made in the MACCS2 code regarding decontamination and clean up costs may not be correct. NYS-16 - NYS challenges whether the population projections used by Entergy are underestimated. And also, within the framework of the bounding assumptions and conservative inputs used in MACCS2 SAMA analyses, whether the ATMOS module in MACCS2 is being used beyond its range of validity—beyond thirty-one miles (fifty kilometers)—and, whether use of MACCS2 with the ATMOS module leads to non-conservative geographical distribution of radioactive dose within a fifty-mile radius of IPEC. NYS-17 - The ER limits consideration of land value to tax-driven land-use changes and does not consider the impact on real estate values caused by license renewal or the positive impacts on land values if the license is not renewed. NYS-24 - The LRA does not include an adequate AMP to ensure the continued integrity of the containment structures during the license renewal period. NYS-25 - The LRA does not include an adequate AMP to monitor and manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of the RPVs and associated internals. NYS-26A - The LRA does not include an adequate AMP to manage the effects of aging due to metal fatigue on key reactor components, specifically relating to the calculation of the CUFs and the resulting AMP for components with CUFs greater than 1.0. (Consolidated with Riverkeeper TC-1A). Riverkeeper TC-1A - The LRA does not include an adequate AMP to manage the effects of aging due to metal fatigue on key reactor components, specifically relating to the calculation of the CUFs and the resulting AMP for components with CUFs greater than 1.0. (Consolidated with NYS-26A). Riverkeeper TC-2 - The LRA does not include an adequate AMP to manage components subject to FAC. Riverkeeper EC-3 - The ER does not adequately assess new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of radionuclide leaks from spent fuel pool leaks at Indian Point. (Consolidated with Clearwater EC-1). Clearwater EC-1 - The ER does not adequately assess new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of radionuclide leaks from spent fuel pool leaks at Indian Point. (Consolidated with Riverkeeper EC-3). Clearwater EC-3 - The EJ analysis in the ER does not adequately assess the impacts of Indian Point on the minority, low-income and disabled populations in the surrounding area. Having determined that the hearing requests of New York State, Riverkeeper and Clearwater should be granted, this Board must determine, under 10 C.F.R. § 2.310, the type of hearing procedures to be used for each admitted contention. Given that the timing of initial disclosures and the availability of discovery 1155 are contingent on our determination as to whether Subpart G or Subpart L procedures apply, the parties are instructed to hold such activities in abeyance until the hearing procedure ruling is issued. New York State, Riverkeeper and Clearwater shall, no later than, August 21, 2008, indicate, for each admitted contention, whether each Party wishes to proceed pursuant to Subpart G or Subpart L. This motion should indicate why the contention proponent believes a particular Subpart is more appropriate. The NRC Staff and Entergy may reply to these proposals no later than September 15, 2008. The following Contentions have been consolidated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.316: NYS-26A and Riverkeeper TC-1 - Metal Fatigue Riverkeeper EC-3 and Clearwater EC-1 - Spent Fuel Pool Leaks We direct the Parties who have submitted consolidated contentions to confer and submit a draft of the Consolidated Contention for the Board’s consideration within 21 days of the date of this Order. In addition, at the time the draft of the Consolidated Contention is submitted, the Parties who have submitted these contentions shall advise the Board which Party will take the lead in litigating the Consolidated Contention. If agreement cannot be reached among the Parties, the Board will recast the Consolidated Contention and assign a lead party. Click here for the full text of ASLB decision. Click here for the full text of the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing in the Indian Point Licensing Renewal Application (LRA) case submitted by Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) on 12/10/07. Click here for a summary of the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing in Indian Point Licensing Renewal Application Case submitted by Clearwater to ASLB on 12/10/07. For further information, please contact: Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Hudson River Sloop Clearwater 845 454-7673 x113 mannajo@clearwater.org