ML102790404

Entergys Brief on Untimeliness of Pilgrim Watch Concerns Regarding Use of Mean Values

ML102790404
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	10/01/2010
From:	Doris Lewis Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS J-277
Download: ML102790404 (15)

Text

DOCKETED USNRC October 1, 2010 (5:00p.m.)

October 1, 2010 OFFICE OF SECRETARY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RULEMAKINGS AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

))

Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and )

Docket No. 50-293-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

)

ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)

)

ENTERGY'S BRIEF ON UNTIMELINESS OF PILGRIM WATCH CONCERNS REGARDING USE OF MEAN VALUES Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("Board") September 23, 2010 Order (Confirming Matters Addressed at September 15,-2010 Telephone Conference) ("Order"),

Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively "Entergy") submit this brief on whether Pilgrim Watch timely raised concerns about the NRC's practice of using mean consequence values in analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives

("SAMA"), resulting in an averaging of potential consequences. As demonstrated below, such concerns were never part of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3, and there is no previously unavailable information that would allow such concerns to now be consider timely under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). Similarly, there is no good cause to allow Pilgrim Watch to inject new issues at this late stage of the proceeding.

The NRC does not look with favor on amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing.' As the Commission has repeatedly stressed,

[O]ur contention admissibility and timeliness rules require a high level of discipline and preparation by petitioners, "who must examine the publicly available material and set forth their claims and the support for their claims at the outset." There simply would be "no end to NRC licensing proceedings if Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 N.R.C.

631, 638 (2004).

3io:L0

petitioners could disregard our timeliness requirements" and add new contentions at their convenience during the course of a proceeding based on information that could have formed the basis for a timely contention at the outset of the proceeding. Our expanding adjudicatory docket makes it critically important that parties comply with our pleading requirements and that the Board enforce those requirements.

AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 N.R.C.

235, 271-72 (2009) (footnotes omitted).

Here, the SAMA analysis included in the Environmental Report ("ER"), submitted as part of the license renewal application for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ("PNPS") on January 27, 2006, clearly indicated the use of mean consequence values, consistent with longstanding Commission guidance. Pilgrim Watch had every opportunity to challenge this aspect of the PNPS SAMA analysis in its initial contention, but simply did not do so. Its very belated expression of concern with the mean values, raised for the first time more than four years later in a teleconference with the Board and parties, displays exactly the sort of disregard for the Commission's pleading and timeliness requirements that should not be permitted.

I.

BACKGROUND In CLI-10-1 1, which remanded certain meteorological issues related to the Pilgrim analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives, the Commission observed:

As a mitigation analysis, NRC SAMA analysis is neither a worst-case nor a best-case impacts analysis. It is NRC practice to utilize the mean values of the consequence distributions for each postulated release scenario or category - the mean estimated value for predicted total population dose and predicted off-site economic costs. These mean consequence values are multiplied by the estimated frequency of occurrence of specific accident scenarios to determine population dose risk and offsite economic cost risk for each type of accident sequence studied. There is in SAMA analysis, therefore, an averaging of potential consequences. As a policy matter, license renewal applicants are not required to base their SAMA analysis upon consequence values at the 9 5 th percentile consequence level (the level used for the GEIS severe accident environmental impacts analysis).

2

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 N.R.C. _, slip op. at 38-39 (Mar. 26, 2010).

Following the remand, the Board scheduled a teleconference with the parties to discuss the scope of the remanded issues, which the Board initially proposed defining as follows:

Whether the Pilgrim SAMA analysis's meteorological modeling using the straight-line Gaussian plume dispersion model is adequate, see [CLI 11] at 14, 18, 21-28, when adequacy is defined by whether alternative modeling as argued by Pilgrim Watch would cause any additional SAMAs to become cost-beneficial when examined using median results from probabilistic analyses performed using such alternative modeling in comparison to the current results using the Gaussian plume dispersion model, see [CLI-10-11] at 38:3 9, by virtue of having a material impact on the economic cost issues originally raised by Intervenor Pilgrim Watch, as defined and limited by the Commission in CLI 11, see [CLI 11] at 36-37.

Order (Regarding Agenda for Telephone Conference Call) (May 4, 2010) at 2.

During the ensuing teleconference, Pilgrim Watch asserted:

[I]f everyone is talking about mean, which David [Chanin] says is meaningless, instead I noted at two in the order the phrase was used "median."

It's a very different terminology. It gets a little more towards reality, perhaps. So I think it's important that there be a definition of appropriate average and support for it.

Tr. 637 (Lampert).

In CLI-10-22, which denied Pilgrim Watch's subsequent motion to disqualify Judge Abramson, the Commission noted the parties' disagreement on the scope of the remanded issue and took the opportunity to provide clarification. CLI-10-22 at 7. In a footnote in this discussion, the Commission stated:

We additionally noted in CLI 11 that it is NRC practice for SAMA analysis to utilize mean consequence values, which results in an averaging of potential consequences. See [CLI-10-11] at 3 8-39. Because Pilgrim Watch apparently questions this practice, see, e.g., Tr. at 637, it would be appropriate for the Board on remand to consider whether the NRC's practice is reasonable for a SAMA analysis, and whether Pilgrim Watch's concerns are timely raised.

3

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-22, 72 N.R.C. _,

slip op. at 8 n.34 (Aug. 27, 2010) ("CLI-10-22"). The Board's September 23, 2010 Order has therefore directed the parties to address:

whether Pilgrim Watch, either explicitly or implicitly, raised the averaging practice concerns in its original Contention 3; and, if not, when such concerns were first raised and whether, taking all relevant circumstances into consideration and applying the principles stated at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) and (f)(2), the raising of such concerns was timely.

Order at 2.

II.

PILGRIM WATCH'S CONCERNS WITH THE USE OF MEAN VALUES ARE NOT TIMELY RAISED A.

Pilgrim Watch's Concerns Are Not Within the Scope of its Contention Challenging the PNPS SAMA Analysis Pilgrim Watch's new-found concern with the use of mean values is not timely raised, because this concern was not raised in any of the contentions that Pilgrim Watch filed at the outset of this proceeding. The Commission's rules, at 10 C*F.R. § 2.309(b)(3), require an intervenor to raise its contentions within sixty days after the notice of opportunity for hearing, which in this proceeding was issued on March 27, 2006. 71 Fed. Reg. 15,222 (Mar. 27, 2006).

As 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) makes clear, contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is filed. Pilgrim Watch's contentions, which were submitted in its Petition to Intervene on May 25, 2006,2 raised no challenge to the use of mean values in the PNPS SAMA analysis.

In particular, while Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 raised certain challenges to SAMA analysis, none of those challenges related to the use of mean values. PW Contention 3 as initially pled stated:

2 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by Pilgrim Watch (May 25, 2006) ("PW Pet.").

4

The Environmental Report inadequately accounts for off-site health exposure and economic costs in its SAMA analysis of severe accidents. By using probabilistic modeling and incorrectly inputting certain parameters into the modeling software, Entergy has downplayed the consequences of a severe accident at Pilgrim and this has caused it to draw incorrect conclusions about the costs versus benefits of possible mitigation alternatives.

PW Pet. at 26. Thus, as pled, Contention 3 sought to raise two issues: (1) that probabilistic modeling should not be used (see PW Pet. at 29-31); and (2) that "Entergy may also have minimized consequences by using incorrect input parameters for the computer consequences model" (id. at 31).

Similarly, nowhere in the bases for Contention 3 did Pilgrim Watch make any claim that mean values could not be used in the SAMA analysis. Pilgrim Watch did not challenge averaging. Rather, as its statements made clear, Pilgrim Watch asserted that consequences should not be multiplied by probability.

By using probabilistic modeling and incorrect parameters in its SAMA analysis Entergy arrives at a result that downplays the likely consequences of a severe accident at PNPS, and thus incorrectly discounts possible mitigation alternatives.

PW Pet. at 28.

[T]he likely impacts of a severe accident have been drastically minimized by using probabilistic modeling which makes the costs of all severe accidents appear negligible..... [T]he overarching defect in the Applicant's SAMA analysis is that it looked at severe accident risks, rather than severe accident mitigation alternatives, as required by the regulations. As described below, any time an Applicant multiplies an accident consequence by an extremely low probability number, the consequences will appear minute. The regulations require a broad assessment of mitigation alternatives, not an easy dismissal by "probability weighting."

Id. at 29 (emphasis in original).

It would make no sense for the NRC to require Severe Accident Mitigation Analysis if an Applicant could simply multiply all.consequences of an accident by extremely low probability and thus reject all possible mitigation as too costly.

It is widely recognized that probabilistic modeling can underestimate the deaths, injuries, and economic impact likely from a severe accident. By multiplying high 5

consequence values with low probability numbers, the consequence figures appear far less startling.

Id. at 30. Not one of these statements, which Pilgrim Watch provided to explain its contention, raised any concern with the use of mean values. Pilgrim Watch simply opposed any probabilistic modeling.

The Board rejected the portion of Contention 3 challenging use of probabilistic modeling:

[T]o the extent that any part of the contention or basis may be construed as challenging on a generic basis the use of probabilistic techniques that evaluate risk, we find any such portion(s) to be inadmissible. The use of probabilistic risk assessment and modeling is obviously accepted and standard practice in SAMA analyses.

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23, 64 N.R.C. 257, 340 (2006) (footnotes omitted). Thus, as admitted, Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 was limited to challenges to the inputs to the MACCS2 modeling. Id. at 341.3 Moreover, Pilgrim Watch cannot use its original challenge to the use of probabilistic modeling as justification for now raising concerns with the use of mean values, because Pilgrim Watch has forfeited its original claim. In its Petition for Review4 of the numerous Board decisions including LBP-06-23, Pilgrim Watch did not challenge the Board's rejection of the portion of Contention 3 challenging use of probabilistic modeling. Because Pilgrim Watch chose not to pursue this issue on appeal, it is considered abandoned. International Uranium (USA) Corporation (White Mesa Uranium Mill), CLI-01-21, 54 N.R.C. 247, 253 (2001);

The contention as admitted reads: "Applicant's SAMA analysis for the Pilgrim plant is deficient in that the input data concerning (1) evacuation times, (2) economic consequences, and (3) meteorological patterns are incorrect, resulting in incorrect conclusions about the costs versus benefits of possible mitigation alternatives, such that further analysis is called for." LBP-06-23, 64 N.R.C. 257, 341 (2006).

4 Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of LBP-06-848, LBP-07-13, LBP-06-23 and The Interlocutory Decisions in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Proceeding (Nov. 12, 2008) ("Petition for Review").

6

Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-828, 23 N.R.C.

13, 20 n.18 (1986).

As the Commission has stated in this proceeding in rejecting other attempts by Pilgrim Watch to expand its contention:

NRC threshold contention standards require petitioners to review application materials and set forth their contentions "with particularity." Where any issue arises over the proper scope of a contention, "NRC opinion has long referred back to the bases set forth in support of the contention." The "reach of a contention necessarily hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases." Our contention rules require "'reasonably specific factual and legal' allegations at the outset" to assure that matters admitted for hearing have at least some minimal foundation, are material to the proceeding, and provide notice to opposing parties of the issues they will need to defend against. Intervenors therefore may not "freely change the focus of an admitted contention at will" to add a host of new issues and objections that could have been raised at the outset. Where warranted we allow for amendment of admitted contentions, but do not allow distinctly new complaints to be added at will as litigation progresses, stretching the scope of admitted contentions beyond their reasonably inferred bounds.

CLI 11 at 28 (footnotes omitted). Here, the original contention and its bases were limited to a general challenge to the use of probabilistic modeling (which was rejected, not appealed, and therefore abandoned), and challenges to certain model inputs. Pilgrim Watch is not now free to simply add a new challenge to the use of mean values.

B.

Pilgrim Watch's Concern Is Not Timely Under the Standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.209(f)(2)

Pilgrim Watch's concern with use of mean values is not timely under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) because (1) Pilgrim Watch did not raise this concern as part of its original contention challenging the ER, and (2) the concern is not founded on any information not previously available. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) states that "[c]ontentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition [to intervene] is to be filed, such as the...

environmental report." Other than new or amended contentions challenging new data or 7

conclusions in the NRC Staff's environmental impact statement (not applicable here), 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii) allow contentions to be amended after this initial filing only with the leave of the presiding officer upon a showing that:

(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.

Pilgrim Watch does not meet any of these standards because Entergy's use of mean values in the PNPS SAMA analysis has been apparent from the outset of this proceeding.

Entergy's ER clearly indicated the use of mean values. Section 4.21.5 of the ER states:

The method used to perform the Severe Accident Mitigation Analysis (SAMA) was based on the handbook used by the NRC to analyze benefits and costs of its regulatory activities ER at 4-31, citing NUREG/BR-0 184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (Jan.

1997). This Handbook states:

Section 4.3 of the[Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] requires the use of best estimates. Often these are evaluated in terms of the mean or "expected value," the product of the probability of some event occurring and the consequences which would occur assuming the event actually happens. Sometimes, measures other than the expected value may be appropriate, such as the median or even a point estimate. However, the expected value is generally preferred.

NUREG/BR-0184 at 4.7, 5.20. The NRC's Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, to which this Handbook refers, similarly state:

Value and impact estimates are to be incremental best estimates relative to the baseline case....

When possible, best estimates should be made in terms of the "mean" or "expected value." However, depending upon the level of detail available from the 8

data source employed in the regulatory analysis, acceptable estimates could include other point estimates such as the median. However, the rationale for use of estimates other than mean values should be provided.

NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Rev. 4, Sept. 2004), at 23 (emphasis added).5 Consistent with this NRC guidance, ER Section E. 1.5.3, Results, states:

Table E. 1-15 shows estimated base case mean risk values for each release mode.

The estimated mean values of PDR and offsite OECR for PNPS are 13.6 person-rem/yr and $45,900/yr, respectively.

ER at E. 1-66 (emphasis added),

Thus, Pilgrim Watch has been on notice from the outset of this proceeding that the PNPS SAMA analysis employed mean values, consistent with established NRC guidance. It could have challenged this approach in its initial contentions, but did not. That such a challenge did not occur to Pilgrim Watch at the time.provides no basis for expanding its original contention.

See, eg., Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("we think it unreasonable to suggest that the NRC must disregard its procedural timetable every time a party realizes.., that maybe there was something after all to a challenge it either originally opted not to make or which simply did not occur to it at the outset") (footnote omitted).

C.

Pilgrim Watch Does Not Meet the Late Filing Standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)

Pilgrim Watch's Contention 3 should not be expanded to include its very late concern with the use of mean values because Pilgrim Watch has shown no good cause for excusing its extreme tardiness.

Essentially the same language was included in Revision 2 of NUREG/BR-0058 that was in effect when the Handbook was issued.

9

Section 2.309(c)(1) provides that non-timely contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Board that the contentions should be admitted based upon a balancing of the following factors:

(i) Good cause, if any, for the failure to file on time; (ii) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (iii) The nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; (iv) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest; (v) The availability of other means whereby the requestor's/petitioner's interest will be protected; (vi) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's interests will be represented by existing parties; (vii) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding; and (viii) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1). In keeping with the Commission's disfavor of contentions after the initial filing, these factors are "stringent." Oyster Creek, CLI-09-7, 69 N.R.C. at 260, citing Florida Power & Light Co. et al. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, et al.), CLI-06-21, 64 N.R.C. 30, 33 (2006). "Late petitioners properly have a substantial burden in justifying their tardiness." Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 N.R.C. 273, 275 (1975).

10

Commission case law places utmost importance on whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient good cause for the untimely filing.6 "Good cause" has been consistently interpreted to mean that a proposed new contention be based on information that was not previously available, and was timely submitted in light of that new information. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-09-5, 69 N.R.C. 115, 125-26 (2009) citing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-08-1, 67 N.R.C. 1, 6 (2008). "In addressing the good-cause factor, a petitioner must explain not only why it failed to file within the time required, but also why it did not file as soon thereafter as possible." Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Nuclear Fuel Export License for Czech Republic - Temelin Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-94-7, 39 N.R.C. 322, 329 (1994). The petitioner must establish that (1) the information is new and could not have been presented earlier, and (2) the petitioner acted promptly after learning of the new information. Texas Utilities Electric Co. (ComanchePeak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-12, 36 N.R.C. 62, 69-73 (1992).

As already discussed, the use of mean values in the PNPS SAMA analysis was apparent in the ER and consistent with longstanding Commission guidance. Pilgrim Watch could have challenged the use of mean values in its initial contentions, but chose instead to challenge probabilistic modeling (the weighting of consequences by probability). Thus, the information that Pilgrim Watch now seeks to challenge was previously available. Consequently, good cause is absent.

6 Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), CLI-10-12, 71 N.R.C._, slip op at 4 (Mar. 26, 2010) ("CLI-10-12"); Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-00-02, 51 N.R.C. 77, 79 (2000).

II

Under NRC case law, failure to demonstrate good cause requires the petitioner to make a "compelling" showing with respect to the other factors. Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-04, 37 N.R.C. 156, 165 (1993). In other words, A petitioner's showing must be highly persuasive; it would be a rare case where

[the Commission] would excuse a non-timely petition absent good cause.

Watts Bar, CLI-10-12 at 4 (footnote omitted).

Because Pilgrim Watch has not yet made any attempt to address these other factors, Entergy does not know what Pilgrim Watch will claim and reserves the right to respond once Pilgrim Watch has addressed these factors. However, factor (vii) - the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding - weighs against Pilgrim Watch. Clearly, adding an additional issue will broaden the proceeding. Further, Pilgrim Watch has already used its alleged need to prepare testimony on this issue as the basis for requiring more than three and a half months to submit its prefiled testimony. See Tr. 696-97, 704-05. As Pilgrim Watch has stated, As far as would the issue of statistical treatment of the data take considerable time, the answer is yes.

Tr. 682 (Lampert).

12

III.

CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above, the Board should not entertain Pilgrim Watch's belated concern with the use of mean values in the PNPS SAMA analysis.

David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: October 1, 2010 13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)

))

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 50-293-LR ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Entergy's Brief on Untimeliness of Pilgrim Watch's Concerns Regarding Use of Mean Values" were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and where indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail, this 1st day of October 2010.

• Secretary Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop 0-16 Cl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 secy@nrc.gov; hearingdocket@nrc.gov

• Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 amy@nrc.gov

• Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 pba@nrc.gov

• Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop 0-16 C I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov

• Administrative Judge Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 rfc1@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

• Ms. Mary Lampert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 mary.lampert@comcast.net

• Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us

• Mr. Mark D. Sylvia Town Manager Town of Plymouth 11 Lincoln St.

Plymouth, MA 02360 mnsylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us

• Richard R. MacDonald Town Manager 878 Tremont Street Duxbury, MA 02332 macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us

• Susan L. Uttal, Esq.

• Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.

• Brian Harris, Esq.

• Michael G. Dreher Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0- 15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan.Uttal@nrc.gov; andrea.jones@nrc.gov; brian.harris@nrc.gov; michael.dreher@nrc.gov

• Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.

Duane Morris LLP 505 9th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 sshollis@duanemorris.com

• Chief Kevin M. Nord Fire Chief and Director, Duxbury Emergency Management Agency 688 Tremont Street P.O. Box 2824 Duxbury, MA 02331 nord@town.duxbury.ma.us

• Katherine Tucker, Esq.

Law Clerk, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T3-E2a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Katie.Tucker@nrc.gov David R. Lewis 15