ML110630579

Entergy'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Meteorological Matters Raised in Pilgrim Watch Contention 3

ML110630579
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	03/04/2011
From:	Gaukler P, Doris Lewis Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 19749, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR
Download: ML110630579 (85)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 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) )

ENTERGYS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON METEOROLOGICAL MATTERS RAISED IN PILGRIM WATCH CONTENTION 3 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 L.L.C.

Dated: March 4, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2 II. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................... 15 III. THE PARTIES WITNESSES AND QUALIFICATIONS, AND EXHIBITS ..................... 19 A. Entergy.............................................................................................................................. 19

1. Entergy Witnesses....................................................................................................... 19

2. Entergy Exhibits.......................................................................................................... 22 B. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff ............................................................................. 23

1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Witnesses...................................................... 23

2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Exhibits......................................................... 25 C. Pilgrim Watch ................................................................................................................... 27

1. Pilgrim Watch Witness ............................................................................................... 27

2. Pilgrim Watch Exhibits............................................................................................... 28 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT............................................................................................................. 30 A. Background ....................................................................................................................... 30

1. Overview of SAMA Analysis and MACCS2 Code.................................................... 30

2. Pilgrim License Renewal SAMA Analysis................................................................. 38 B. Appropriateness of the Gaussian Plume Model as Implemented by MACCS2 ............... 41 C. The Meteorology Data Inputs Used for the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis Are Both Temporally and Spatially Representative ......................................................................... 49 D. Coastal Breezes Are Appropriately Accounted For in the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis ....... 52 E. Hot Spots As Claimed By Pilgrim Watch Are Both Technically Incorrect and Immaterial ......................................................................................................................... 58 F. The CALMET Wind Trajectory Analysis shows that any short-term differences in observed winds across the SAMA domain have negligible effect on the annual frequencies of trajectory directions and on the Pilgrim SAMA consequences ................ 63 G. Terrain is conservatively treated for purposes of the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis ............... 69 i

H. Pilgrim Watchs other Contention 3 issues are without merit .......................................... 71

1. Resuspension of materials deposited on Site is accounted for as provided by MACCS2..................................................................................................................... 71

2. Long-Range use of Gaussian Plume Segment Model is reasonable here................... 72 I. Source Term...................................................................................................................... 74 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .................................................................................................... 78 VI. ORDER ................................................................................................................................... 80 ii

March 4, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 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) )

ENTERGYS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON METEOROLOGICAL MATTERS RAISED IN PILGRIM WATCH CONTENTION 3 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.712 and the Order of the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (Licensing Board or Board) dated February 22, 2011,1 Applicants Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) submit, in the form of an initial decision, their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the meteorological matters raised in Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (Contention 3). The proposed initial decision is organized as follows.Section I provides the procedural background for Pilgrim Watch Contention 3.Section II presents the standards governing the issuance of a renewed license.Section III identifies and discusses the qualifications of the witnesses for the parties who testified regarding the Contention.Section IV presents Entergys proposed findings of fact on the Contention, in sequentially numbered paragraphs.Section V presents Entergys proposed conclusions of law on the Contention, also in sequentially numbered paragraphs.

Section VI presents Entergys proposed order for resolving the meteorological issues raised in Contention 3.

1 Order (Addressing Joint Motion, Motion in Limine, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law/Concluding Statements of Position, and Argument to be held March 9, 2011) (Feb. 22, 2011) (February 22nd Order).

I. BACKGROUND This proceeding involves the application by Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) to renew the operating license for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim or PNPS) for an additional twenty-year period. 71 Fed. Reg. 15,222 (Mar. 27, 2006). The operating license for Pilgrim expires on June 8, 2012.

Id.

On October 16, 2006, the Board granted a petition by Pilgrim Watch to intervene in this proceeding and admitted two Contentions: Contention 1, dealing with the aging management of buried pipes and tanks; and Contention 3, regarding analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA). Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),

LBP-06-23, 64 N.R.C. 257 (2006). The Board also granted requests by the Towns of Plymouth and Duxbury to participate in this proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c). An intervention petition by the Massachusetts Attorney General was denied. Id. at 271.

Contention 1 was later resolved in favor of Entergy after an evidentiary hearing on the merits.2 The Board now issues this Final Initial Decision resolving the remaining Contention 3 meteorological issues as remanded by the Commission in Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al.

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 N.R.C. __, slip op. at 2-3 (Mar. 26, 2010)

(CLI-10-11).

As admitted by the Board, Contention 3 states:

Applicants 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 2

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-08-22, 68 N.R.C. 590 (2008)

(Initial Decision). Judge Young concurred with the Board majoritys Initial Decision. Concurring Opinion of Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young to Initial Decision Issued October 30, 2008, 68 N.R.C. 611 (Oct. 31, 2008). The Commission denied Pilgrim Watchs petition for review on Contention 1. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-14, 71 N.R.C. __, slip op. at 29 (2010) (CLI 14).

2

conclusions about the costs versus benefits of possible mitigation alternatives, such that further analysis is called for.

LBP-06-23, 64 N.R.C. at 341.

On May 17, 2007, Entergy moved for summary disposition of Contention 3.3 The NRC Staff filed a response supporting the Motion, and Pilgrim Watch opposed the Motion.4 By Memorandum and Order of October 30, 2007, a majority of the Board granted the Motion.

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-13, 66 N.R.C.

131 (2007). Pilgrim Watch sought interlocutory Commission review of LBP-07-13,5 which the Commission denied, holding that Pilgrim Watchs appeal must await the Boards final decision.

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-08-2, 67 N.R.C. 31 (2008).

After the Board issued its Initial Decision resolving Contention 1, Pilgrim Watch filed a petition for review, which, in addition to seeking review of other issues, again petitioned the Commission for review of the Board majoritys ruling granting summary disposition of Contention 3.6 Both Entergy and the NRC Staff opposed Pilgrim Watchs petition for review.7 3

Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (May 17, 2007).

4 NRC Staff Response to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (June 29, 2007); Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (June 29, 2007). Pilgrim Watch also filed a response to the NRC Staffs Answer. Pilgrim Watchs Answer to NRC Staff Response to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 9, 2007).

5 See Pilgrim Watch Brief on Appeal of LBP-07-13 Memorandum and Order (Ruling of [sic] Motion to Discuss

[sic] Petitioners Contention 3 Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (Nov. 13, 2007).

6 Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review of LBP-06-848 [sic], LBP-07-13, LBP-06-23 and the Interlocutory Decisions in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Proceeding (Nov. 12, 2008).

7 Entergys Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review (Nov. 24, 2008); NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review of LBP-08-22, LBP-07-13, LBP-06-23 and Interlocutory Decisions (Nov. 24, 2008).

3

Subsequently, the Commission requested additional briefing related to Contention 3.8 Entergy, the NRC Staff, and Pilgrim Watch each filed initial briefs and responsive briefs.9 Upon consideration of Pilgrim Watchs petition for review, including the additional briefing on Contention 3, the Commission granted review of the Board majoritys decision dismissing Contention 3. The Commission reversed in part the Board majoritys decision, and remanded Contention 3, as limited by [its] ruling, to the Board for hearing. CLI-10-11 at 3.10 In CLI-10-11, the Commission held that the Board majority erred in declaring that no genuine material dispute remained with respect to the meteorological issues raised by Pilgrim Watch in Contention 3 and therefore remanded the meteorological issues to the Board. Id. at 14-26.

Specifically, the Commission remanded for further inquiry the adequacy of the straight-line Gaussian plume model as used in the MACCS2 code (a version of the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System code) for performing SAMA analyses, including its consideration of sea breeze and the potential for plumes headed out to sea to change direction, remain tightly concentrated and thus cause hot spots of radioactivity. Id.

While the Commission reversed the Board majoritys decision regarding Pilgrim Watchs Contention 3 meteorological claims, the Commission affirmed the Board majoritys decision dismissing Pilgrim Watchs challenges to the evacuation times and economic costs aspects of the Pilgrim license renewal SAMA analysis. The Commission expressly stated:

Insofar as Pilgrim Watch raises distinct economic costs or evacuation times challenges that extend beyond its meteorological modeling concerns, we agree 8

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 N.R.C. 529 (2009).

9 Entergys Brief in Response to CLI-09-11 (June 25, 2009); NRC Staffs Initial Brief in Response to CLI-09-11 (Memorandum and Order (Request for Additional Briefing) (June 25, 2009); Pilgrim Watchs Brief in Response to CLI-09-11 (Requesting Additional Briefing) (June 25, 2009); Entergys Reply to Pilgrim Watchs Brief in Response to CLI-09-11 (July 5, 2009); NRC Staffs Reply to Pilgrim Watchs Brief in Response to CLI-09-11 (Jul. 6, 2009); Pilgrim Watchs Brief in Response to Entergys Response to CLI-09-11 (Requesting Additional Briefing) (July 6, 2009); Pilgrim Watchs Brief in Response to NRC Staffs Initial Brief in Response to CLI 11 (Requesting Additional Briefing)) (July 6, 2009).

10 The Commission denied all other aspects of Pilgrim Watchs petition for review. CLI-10-14 at 3.

4

with the majority that Pilgrim Watch fails to raise a genuine material dispute for hearing.

CLI-10-11 at 27 (emphasis added). The Commission found that Pilgrim Watch presented no supported argument raising a genuine material dispute over the bounding nature of the no evacuation or sheltering sensitivity evaluation that Entergy had performed as part of its motion for summary disposition.11 Id. at 35. The Commission therefore agree[d] with the majority that none of Pilgrim Watchs arguments regarding evacuation speed and timing, traffic, and other delays, shadow evacuation, etc., raise a genuine material dispute for hearing over the current evacuation times assumptions in the Pilgrim SAMA analyses. Id. (footnote omitted). Similarly, the Commission agree[d] with the majoritys conclusion that Pilgrim Watch failed to present significantly probative evidence countering the Entergy expert evidence and supplemental analyses on economic costs. Id. at 36 (footnote omitted).

Pilgrim Watch provides no supported evidence raising a genuine material dispute with the SEISs conclusion that further adjustments to more precisely account for business and tourism would not change the overall conclusions of the SAMA analysis. . . . Even viewing Pilgrim Watchs claims on economic costs in the most favorable light, we do not find significantly probative evidence of a genuine material dispute for hearing on any of Pilgrim Watchs particular economic cost input claims.

Pilgrim Watchs arguments, largely based on its own unsupported reasoning and computations, are insufficient to demonstrate a genuine material dispute with Pilgrim SAMA analysiss current overall cost-benefit conclusions.

Id.

11 Entergys summary disposition motion established that, for any additional SAMA to become potentially cost effective, the baseline benefit, or the total cost avoided, would have to increase by more than 100%. Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (May 17, 2007) at 10. With respect to evacuation time estimates, Entergy presented a bounding sensitivity analysis that demonstrated that, even if there were no evacuation or sheltering, the total cost risk would increase by only 2%. Id. at 18. With respect to the economic inputs, Entergy presented a sensitivity case that modified the input parameters for the value of non-farm property to include data that specifically accounted for county and metropolitan area gross domestic product (accounting for tourism, business activity, and wages) and showed that the OECR would increase by only 1%. Id.

at 26-27.

5

The Commission also affirmed the majoritys rulings that certain claims raised by Pilgrim Watch for the first time in opposition to summary disposition were beyond the scope of the admitted Contention. These claims beyond the scope of the Contention include health costs, mortality risk, cancer coefficients, the dollar value assigned per person-rem, alleged difficulty in ecological restoration, alleged difficulty in surface decontamination, and alleged underestimation of decontamination or cleanup costs. Id. at 29-31. The Commission also held that claims concerning spent fuel pool fires were properly rejected both as outside scope and as a challenge to NRC regulations. Id. at 33.

Thus, the Commission made clear that no material issues remained concerning Pilgrim Watchs challenges to the evacuation times and economic costs aspects of the Pilgrim license renewal SAMA analysis. The Commission did indicate, however, that it would be premature to dismiss entirely from this proceeding other portions of Contention 3 that may be linked to the adequacy of the meteorological modeling underpinning the SAMA analysis. Id. at 26. As the Commission explained, if the Board on remand were to conclude that there is a material deficiency in the meteorological patterns modeling, the economic cost calculations also could warrant re-examination. We therefore remand the economic cost and evacuation time portions of Contention 3 to the Board, but only to the extent that the Boards merits conclusion on meteorological patterns may materially call into question the relevant economic cost and evacuation timing conclusions in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.

Id. at 27. The Commission then immediately reiterated,

[i]nsofar as Pilgrim Watch raises distinct economic costs or evacuation times challenges that extend beyond its meteorological modeling concerns, we agree with the majority that Pilgrim Watch fails to raise a genuine material dispute for hearing. Accordingly, if the Board on remand concludes that there is no significant meteorological modeling deficiency calling into question the overall Pilgrim SAMA 6

cost-benefit analysis conclusions, no genuine dispute concerning economic costs or evacuation timing inputs will remain.

Id.

Pilgrim Watch subsequently asked the Commission to reconsider its decision in CLI 11 remanding Contention 3 for hearing, claiming that the Commission had improperly rewritten Contention 3 to limit the scope of issues that were part of the economic consequences portion of Contention 3.12 The Commission denied that Motion, confirming that the remanded Contention 3 excludes the effects of a spent fuel accident, decontamination/interdiction clean-up costs, and health costs, which Pilgrim Watch asserted were part of the original contention. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-15, 71 N.R.C. __, slip op. at 3-7 (June 17, 2010) (CLI-10-15). Pilgrim Watch did not otherwise challenge the Commissions conclusions on the remanded meteorological patterns issue, or the evacuation timing issue. Id. at 2.

The Commission again addressed the scope of remanded Contention 3 when rejecting Pilgrim Watchs request that Judge Abramson be disqualified from the proceeding.13 Seeking to clarify matters and perhaps simplify the proceeding on remand, CLI-10-22 at 7, the Commission noted that the issue on remand focuses on the adequacy of the atmospheric dispersion modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, not the methodology of underlying assumptions used for translating the atmospheric dispersion modeling results into economic costs. Id. at 7-8 (emphasis in original). However, the Commission stated that it would be 12 Pilgrim Watch Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-10-11 (Apr. 5, 2010).

13 Pilgrim Watch moved to disqualify Judge Abramson from the proceeding, claiming that he has personal knowledge of the adequacy of the MACCS2 code and is biased against Pilgrim Watchs witness David Chanin.

Motion on Behalf of Pilgrim Watch for Disqualification of Judge Paul B. Abramson in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Relicensing Proceeding (May 14, 2010). Judge Abramson denied the Motion and referred the Motion to the Commission. Decision (Denying Motion on Behalf of Pilgrim Watch for My Self-Disqualification from the Remand Proceedings and Referring Motion to the Commission) (June 10, 2010). The Commission agreed that disqualification was not warranted. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-22, 72 N.R.C. __, slip op. (Aug. 27, 2010) (CLI-10-22).

7

appropriate for the Board to consider whether the NRCs practice [of utilizing mean consequence values] is reasonable for a SAMA analysis and whether Pilgrim Watchs concerns are timely raised. Id. at 8 n.34.

The Commission also clarified that it had not directed or otherwise required that the MACCS2 [code] computations be redone by varying the meteorological modeling in the code.

Id. at 8 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation omitted). In addition, the Commission stated that it is not possible simply to plug in and run a different atmospheric dispersion model in the MACCS2 code to see if the SAMA cost-benefit conclusions change. Id. at 9. Further, the Commission advised that If relevant or necessary meteorological data or modeling methodology prove to be unavailable, unreliable, inapplicable, or simply not adaptable for evaluating the SAMA analysis cost-benefit conclusions, there may be no way to assess, through mathematical or precise model-to-model comparisons, how alternate meteorological models would change the SAMA analysis results. Some assessments may necessarily be qualitative, based simply on expert opinion.

Id.

By subsequent Order, the Board explained that it would first consider whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns/issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost beneficial to implement.14 The Board also stated that it would consider whether Pilgrim Watchs concerns about the NRCs practice of using mean consequence values in SAMA analyses were timely raised, and if so, whether such concerns could bring into question the reasonableness of this NRC practice.15 The Board further advised that, if it determined that the 14 Order (Scheduling Telephone Conference) (Sept. 2, 2010) at 1.

15 Id. at 1-2.

8

meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable under NEPA, and no significant meteorological modeling deficiency exists that would call into question the Pilgrim SAMA cost-benefit analysis conclusions, then the Boards action on the remand would be complete.16 If, alternatively, the Board found any meteorological modeling deficiencies that could call into question the Pilgrim SAMA cost-benefit conclusions, the Board would consider whether and to what extent certain evacuation time and economic cost issues identified in CLI-10-11 might be open for adjudication, i.e., the extent to which evacuation and economic matters raised and admitted as part of Contention 3 might call into question the cost-benefit analysis conclusions in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.17 Pilgrim Watch requested clarification of the Boards September 2, 2010 Order.18 On September 15, 2010, the Board held a teleconference and issued a subsequent Order summarizing matters discussed during the teleconference.19 During the teleconference and in its subsequent Order, the Board further clarified that the hearing on Contention 3 will be bifurcated to the following extent:

If the Board decides in favor of intervenors on the primary and threshold issue of whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns/issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could, on its own, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement (hereinafter referred to as the meteorological modeling issues), the hearing will proceed to consideration of whether, and the extent to which

[the admitted evacuation and economic cost issues should be adjudicated.]20 16 Id. at 2.

17 Id. at 2-3.

18 Pilgrim Watch Motion for Clarification ASLB Order (Sept. 9, 2010).

19 Order (Confirming Matters Addressed at September 15, 2010 Telephone Conference) (Sept. 23, 2010)

(September 23rd Order).

20 Id. at 1 (emphasis in original), 3. During the teleconference, the Board advised Pilgrim Watch that it would not be ruling on its Motion for Clarification, but that it could seek further clarification from the Commission. Id. at 3.

On the day prior to the Boards issuance of its summary of the September 15, 2010 teleconference, Pilgrim Watch 9

The Board further explained that, it would consider Pilgrim Watchs concerns regarding the use of mean consequence values in SAMA analyses only upon first finding that they were timely raised.21 Accordingly, the Board directed that the parties file additional briefs on whether Pilgrim Watch timely raised the mean consequence issue.22 The Board also directed that the parties, in addition to providing other evidence that they deem appropriate and necessary, address in their direct testimony certain Board inquiries with respect to the meteorological phenomena at issue in this remand hearing and the source term used in the SAMA analysis. The Boards inquiries concerning the meteorological phenomena at issue in this remand hearing were as follows:

Regarding the meteorological phenomena at issue in this remand hearing, describe in depth each of the following, with supporting data also provided, to the extent available:

a. The annual frequency of occurrence of the sea breeze effect and the hot spot effect, and the respective duration of each such occurrence;

b. The spatial and time-dependent pattern of wind and other meteorological phenomenological parameters associated with each such occurrence, or, if such data are not available, expert professional opinion for such parameters, and scientific literature references supporting those opinions;

c. The radioactive deposition distribution you would expect to occur from each such occurrence, assuming a normalized source term. If such depositions are not readily discernable or determinable, a computer model, such as those contained in ATMOS (excluding the straight line Gaussian plume portion) or another model selected by the relevant expert may be utilized to provide such information;

d. How that deposition would differ from that expected using a straight-line Gaussian plume model; and sought such clarification from the Commission. Pilgrim Watch Motion Regarding ASLB Refusal to Respond to Pilgrim Watchs Motion for Clarification ASLB Order (Sept. 2, 2010) (Sept. 22, 2010). The Commission denied Pilgrim Watchs Motion, finding that Pilgrim Watchs questions either have been answered by the Board or prematurely raised evidentiary matters that will be resolved by the Board at the appropriate point in the proceeding. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-28, 71 N.R.C. __,

slip op. at 1-2 (Nov. 5, 2010) (CLI-10-28). In addition, the Commission saw no ground for upsetting the Boards decision to bifurcate the hearing by first determining whether the asserted deficiencies in meteorological modeling credibly could have had a material impact on the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions, and, if so, then assess - to the extent reasonable - the degree to which any modeling deficiency may have materially affected the current economic cost and evacuation timing conclusions. Id. at 2 n.3.

21 September 23rd Order at 1-2.

22 Id. at 2.

10

e. The cost differential caused by the differences indicated in subsection d above (to be provided quantitatively if practicable, or if not, supported qualitative estimates may be provided).

September 23rd Order, Appendix A at 1-2 (footnote omitted). The Boards inquiries concerning the source term used in the SAMA analysis focused on potential conservatisms in the source term as those conservatism might affect the SAMA analysis. The Boards inquiries in this regard were as follows:

Regarding the radioactive contamination to be computed from the dispersion and deposition caused by the meteorological patterns at issue, describe in sufficient detail for scientific understanding the following:

a. How the source term to be used for each computation of radioactivity dispersion and deposition is determined (i.e., what is the frequency distribution of source terms used in SAMA analyses for the Pilgrim Plant and how is a particular source term selected to be assumed for each dispersion/deposition computation);

b. The degree of conservatism imbedded in that methodology, its sources, and the rationale for each source of conservatism;

c. The extent to which those conservatisms cause the resultant deposition to be conservative. Be as quantitative as is practicable, but qualitative discussions are acceptable where quantitative analysis is not practicable.23 Upon review of the briefs filed by the parties on the mean consequence issue, a majority of the Board requested that the parties experts submit affidavits answering certain questions in sufficient detail for understanding of the MACCS2 computer codes process order and mechanics.24 Having reviewed the pleadings and affidavits submitted, a majority of the Board found that the mean consequence values issue was not timely raised by Pilgrim Watch and 23 September 23rd Order, Appendix A at 2.

24 Order (Questions from Board Majority Regarding the Mechanics of Computing Mean Consequences in SAMA Analyses) (Oct. 26, 2010). Judge Young filed a separate statement disagreeing with the Board majoritys request for affidavits. Separate Statement of Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, in the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-293-LR, ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR (Oct. 26, 2010).

11

therefore the issue would not be entertained by the Board during the evidentiary hearing on Contention 3.25 On January 3, 2011, the parties filed their initial statements of position on Contention 3, pre-filed expert testimony, and pre-filed exhibits.26 While Pilgrim Watch submitted a document titled as Prefiled Testimony, that document was a position statement and not the testimony of any expert witness. Thus, Pilgrim Watch elected not to submit any direct testimony on its contention. Moreover, in its position statement, PW admitted:

It is not possible for either Pilgrim Watch, or anyone else, to show that meteorology, in and of itself, would result in a significantly different SAMA analysis.

25 Order (Ruling on Timeliness of Mean Consequence Issue) (Nov. 23, 2010). The Board majority indicated that it would issue a follow-up Order setting forth its analysis of the timeliness issue in due course. Id. at 2. Judge Young issued a separate statement indicating that she did not join the Board Majoritys Order and may provide additional clarification when the Board majority is ready to issue its more detailed analysis of the issue. See id. at 3, Separate Statement of Judge Ann Marshall Young (Nov. 23, 2010). On March 3, 2011, the Board majority issued its Order providing the analysis for its conclusion that Pilgrim Watch did not timely raise the mean consequence values issue. Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Timeliness of Mean Consequence Values Issue)

(Mar. 3, 2011). The Board majority held that Pilgrim Watch did not raise the mean consequence values issue by challenging certain MACCS2 code input parameters in Contention 3 as originally proffered, (id. at 12), nor did it raise the issue when opposing Entergys Motion for summary disposition of Contention 3 (id. at 15). The Board majority then found that Pilgrim Watch made no attempt to address the 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) non-timely filing criteria, and, in any event, found no indication of good cause for the non-timely raising of the issue. Id. at 20-21.

Accordingly, the Board majority ruled that it could not entertain the mean consequence values issue. Id. at 21.

Judge Young dissented, agreeing with the Board majority that Pilgrim Watch did not raise the mean consequence values issue in Contention 3 as originally proffered, but did raise the issue in response to Entergys Motion for summary disposition of Contention 3. Separate Statement of Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young (Mar. 3, 2011) at 3-4.

26 Entergys submissions included: Entergys Initial Statement of Position on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (Jan. 3, 2011) (Entergy Position Statement); Testimony of Dr. Kevin R. OKula and Dr. Steven R. Hanna on Meteorological Matters Pertaining to Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (Jan. 3, 2011) (Exhibit No. ENT000001)

(Entergy Test.); Testimony of Dr. Kevin OKula on Source Term Used in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis (Jan. 3, 2011) (Exhibit No. ENT000012) (Entergy Source Term Test.); and ten other pre-filed exhibits. The NRC Staffs submissions included: NRC Staffs Initial Statement of Position on Remanded Contention 3 (Jan. 3, 2011) (NRC Staff Position Statement); NRC Staff Testimony of Nathan E. Bixler and S. Tina Ghosh Concerning the Impact of Alternative Meteorological Models on the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis (Exhibit No. NRC000014) (Bixler & Ghosh Test.); NRC Staff Testimony of James C. Ramsdell, Jr., Concerning the Impact of Specific Meteorological Conditions on the Severe Accident Mitigation Analysis (Exhibit No. NRC 000015) (Ramsdell Test.); and 13 other pre-filed exhibits. Pilgrim Watchs submission consisted of a document styled Pilgrim Watch SAMA Remand Pre-Filed Testimony (Jan. 3, 2011) (PW Statement) and 21 pre-filed exhibits. The NRC Staff and Entergy jointly submitted one pre-filed exhibit.

12

PW Statement at 2 (emphasis in original).

[O]n its own using a variable plume model would not alter Entergys SAMA analysis.

Id. at 3. These admissions raise a substantial question whether Pilgrim Watch has satisfied its burden of going forward. See, e.g., Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C. 1076, 1093 (1983), citing Consumers Power Co.

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 A.E.C. 331, 345 (1973). Nevertheless, this Board has considered all of the evidence in this Initial Decision.

On January 13, 2011, Entergy requested that the Board exclude from evidence Pilgrim Watchs SAMA remand pre-filed testimony and exhibits, claiming that Pilgrim Watch did not submit any expert testimony but rather only argument unsupported by any qualified witness, and that many of Pilgrim Watchs exhibits or portions thereof were beyond the scope of the proceeding, as well as being unsupported by a qualified witness.27 The NRC Staff supported, and Pilgrim Watch opposed, Entergys Motion in Limine.28 On February 1, 2011, the parties each filed rebuttal testimony.29 On February 16, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Motion requesting that the Board resolve with no oral evidentiary hearing, based solely on the parties submitted pre-filed testimony and 27 Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude from Evidence Pilgrim Watchs SAMA Remand Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits (Jan. 13, 2011).

28 NRC Staffs Response in Support of Entergys Motion in Limine (Jan. 24, 2011); Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude From Evidence Pilgrim Watchs SAMA Remand Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits (Jan. 23, 2011).

29 Entergys submissions included Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Kevin R. OKula and Dr. Steven R. Hanna on Meteorological Matters Pertaining to Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (Feb. 1, 2011) (Exhibit No. ENT000013)

(Entergy Reb. Test.); and Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Kevin R. OKula on Source Term Used in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station SAMA Analysis (Feb. 1, 2011) (Exhibit No. ENT000014) (OKula Reb. Test.). The NRC Staff filed NRC Staff Rebuttal Testimony of S. Tina Ghosh Concerning Pilgrim Watchs Application of NUREG-1150 and NUREG-1465 (Jan. 31, 2011) (Exhibit No. NRC000016) (Ghosh Reb. Test.). Pilgrim Watch submitted Pilgrim Watchs Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Initial Statement of Position on Pilgrim Watch Contention (Feb. 1, 2011) (PW Reply) and the Statement by Bruce A. Egan, ScD., CCM (Jan. 30, 2011)

(Egan Test.).

13

exhibits the threshold issue of Contention 3, i.e., whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could, on its own, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost beneficial to implement.30 The Joint Motion also requested that the Board accept into the record the parties pre-filed testimony on the meteorological issues, including the January 30, 2011 declaration of Dr. Bruce Egan submitted by Pilgrim Watch, and the pre-filed exhibits of the parties subject to ruling on Entergys Motion in Limine.31 On February 18, 2011, the Board held a teleconference with the parties to address the Joint Motion and related matters.32 The Board granted the Joint Motion, and granted the Motion in Limine to the extent of excluding as evidence the PW Statement, stating that the Board would consider the PW Statement as argument in the nature of a statement of position.33 Further, the Board ruled that it would admit all of the exhibits of the parties into the record (54 in total), but shall in its deliberations accord each exhibit only the weight to which it is entitled, based on whether the exhibit is relevant, material, and reliable under 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), and otherwise persuasive on the threshold issue.34 The Board further requested that the parties file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 4, 2011.35 The Board also directed that it would hear arguments on March 9, 2011 on Contention 3, including answers to Board questions on the parties proposed findings of 30 Joint Motion Requesting Resolution of Contention 3 Meteorological Issues on Written Submissions (Feb. 16, 2011) at 2 (Joint Motion).

31 Id.

32 February 22nd Order at 1-2.

33 Id. at 2.

34 Id.

35 Id. at 2-3.

14

fact and conclusions of law, and short closing arguments (10 minutes) from each party.36 The Board also permitted parties to have their witnesses present and available at the oral argument to answer any clarifying questions that the Board may have, and indicated that any further issues would be addressed through written questions.37 On March 4, 2011, the parties filed findings of fact and conclusions of law as requested by the Board and oral argument was held on March 9, 2011 in Plymouth, MA.

Having considered the testimony, exhibits, and arguments of the parties, the Board hereby issues the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in Sections IV and V below, respectively, on the meteorological issues raised in Pilgrim Watch Contention 3.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 challenges the sufficiency of the SAMA analysis in Entergys Environmental Report, which is a matter that must be judged under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Commissions license renewal regulations require that, before a renewed license is issued, the Commission must find that any applicable requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Subpart A (which implement the Commissions NEPA obligations) have been satisfied. 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(b). The requirement applicable to Contention 3 is 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), which provides that [i]f the staff has not previously considered [SAMAs] for the applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an environmental assessment, a consideration of [SAMAs] must be provided.

The NRC has generically determined that, for all nuclear power plants, the risk of a severe accident is SMALL. 10 C.F.R. Part 51 App. B, Table B-1. Nevertheless, a plant 36 Id. at 3.

37 Id.

15

seeking to renew its license must consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if a SAMA analysis has not been previously performed for the plant that considers such alternatives. Id. A SAMA is a potential change to a nuclear power plant, or its operations, that potentially could reduce the risk (the likelihood or the impact or both) of a severe accident. Entergy Testimony at A15; CLI-10-11 at 3. A SAMA analysis assesses whether and to what extent the probability-weighted consequences of the analyzed severe accident sequences would decrease if a specific SAMA were implemented at a particular facility, and whether the decrease in consequences would sufficiently reduce risk for the SAMA to be cost-effective to implement. CLI-10-11 at 3.

If the cost of implementing a particular SAMA is greater than its estimated benefit, the SAMA is not considered cost-beneficial to implement. Id.

Two tenets of NEPA law are germane to whether these requirements have been satisfied.

First, NEPA does not require analysis of worst-case scenarios. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Counsel, 490 U.S. 332, 333 (1989). There, in rejecting a claim that NEPA required worst-case analyses, the Supreme Court stated:

[Council on Environmental Quality] explained that by requiring that an EIS focus on reasonably foreseeable impacts, the new regulation will generate information and discussion on those consequences of greatest concern to the public and of greatest relevance to the agencys decision, rather than distorting the decision-making process by overemphasizing highly speculative harms. [The] regulation is entitled to substantial deference.

Id. at 356 (citations omitted).

Therefore, a NEPA analysis should estimate realistic consequences, not the worst-case scenario.38 This tenet of NEPA law is in accordance with the NRCs policy statement on the use of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) that PRA evaluations in support of regulatory 38

[W]orst-case scenarios need not be considered because their consideration involves the arduous and unproductive task of analyzing conceivable, but very speculative, catastrophes and diverts NRCs limited resources from other more productive efforts. Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-25, 56 N.R.C. 340, 354 (2002).

16

decisions should be as realistic as practicable. 60 Fed. Reg. 42,622, 42,629 (Aug. 16, 1995).

Thus, the cost-benefit portion of a SAMA analysis looks at the average case, not the worst case, in determining whether a SAMA would be potentially cost beneficial. Otherwise, the cost benefit analysis would be skewed.

Second, it is well established that NEPA does not require federal agencies to resolve all uncertainties. Indeed, as one court has stated, [i]f we were to impose a requirement that an impact statement can never be prepared until all relevant environmental effects were known, it is doubtful that any project could ever be initiated. Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Morton, 471 F.2d.

1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1973).

Thus, in Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 88,98-100, 101-02 (1983),

the Supreme Court held that NRC complied with NEPAs requirements of consideration and disclosure where it summarized major uncertainties and found the evidence tentative but favorable. In Baltimore Gas, the Supreme Court upheld the NRCs analysis of uncertainties where the NRC had estimate[d] its impact[s] conservatively, based on the best available information and analysis. Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 102.39 Further, the Courts have held that NEPA does not require time consuming and expensive studies to resolve uncertainties when impacts are small. In Izaak Walton League of Am. v.

Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 377 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 (1981), the Court held that an agency was not required to conduct a major study to better quantify biological impacts when it had concluded that the physical impacts were minor. As the Court explained:

39 In holding that the NRCs promulgation of Table S-3 did not violate NEPA, the Supreme Court noted:

[T]he Commissions staff did not attempt to evaluate the environmental effects of all possible methods of disposing of waste. Rather, it chose to analyze intensively the most probable long-term waste disposal method - burial in a bedded-salt repository several hundred meters under ground - and then estimate its impact conservatively, based on the best available information and analysis.

462 U.S. at 102 (citation omitted).

17

Detailed analysis is required only where impacts are likely. . . . Where adverse impacts are not likely, expensive and time-consuming studies are unnecessary.

So long as the environmental impact statement identifies areas of uncertainty, the agency has fulfilled its mission under NEPA.

Izaak Walton League, 655 F.2d at 377.40 For nuclear power plant license renewal reviews, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts of severe accidents are small for all nuclear power plants. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Vol. 1 (May 1996) (GEIS) at § 5.5.2.5; Final Rule, Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,481 (June 5, 1996) (the GEIS analysis of severe accident consequences and risk is adequate). Thus, under Walton, NEPA does not require either the NRC or Entergy to conduct extensive new studies to eliminate all uncertainties stemming from the unlikely offsite radiological consequences.

Regarding the adjudication of Contention 3, the Commission has previously advised that NEPA requirements are tempered by a practical rule of reason. CLI-10-22 at 9 (citing Communities, Inc. v. Busey, 956 F.2d 619, 626 (6th Cir. 1992); See also CLI-10-11 at 37; Hells Canyon Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., 227 F.3d 1170, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Further, an environmental impact statement is not intended to be a research document. Id.

(citing Town of Winthrop v. FAA, 533 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2008). Accordingly, NEPA requires only a reasonable mitigation alternatives analysis, containing reasonable estimates, including, where appropriate, full disclosures of any known shortcomings in available methodology, disclosure of incomplete or unavailable information and significant uncertainties, and a reasoned evaluation of whether and to what extent 40 See also Carolina Envtl. Study Group v. U.S., 510 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1975);.Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O.

Box 777, Crownpoint, New Mexico 87313), LBP-04-23, 60 N.R.C. 441, 447 (2004) (The environmental assessment need not include every environmental effect that could potentially result from the federal action, but rather may be limited to effects which are shown to have some likelihood of occurring.) (footnote omitted).

18

these or other considerations credibly could or would alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

CLI-10-22 at 9-10 (citation omitted).

III. THE PARTIES WITNESSES AND QUALIFICATIONS, AND EXHIBITS A. Entergy

1. Entergy Witnesses Entergys testimony on the meteorological matters pertaining to Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 was presented by a panel of two individuals, Dr. Kevin R. OKula and Dr. Steven R. Hanna, who are experienced and well qualified in disciplines germane to the issues here. Dr.

OKula holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering, and Dr. Hanna holds a doctorate in meteorology.

Dr. OKula is an Advisory Engineer with URS Safety Management Solutions LLC. He has over 28 years of experience as a technical professional and manager in the areas of safety analysis methods and guidance development, computer code evaluation and verification, probabilistic safety assessment, deterministic and probabilistic accident and consequence analysis applications for reactor and non-reactor nuclear facilities, source term evaluation, risk management, reactor materials dosimetry, and shielding. Dr. OKula has supported relicensing issue resolution on SAMA analysis for several commercial nuclear plants. Specific to Pilgrim, Dr. OKula is the principal author and was responsible for the preparation for the Washington Safety Management Solutions Report entitled Radiological Dispersion and Consequence Analysis Supporting Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Analysis Rev. 1 (May 2007).

Dr. OKula has over twenty years experience using and applying the MACCS and MACCS2 computer codes, which is a focus of Contention 3. He has taught MACCS2 training 19

courses for the Department of Energy (DOE), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and the DOE Safety Basis Academy.

He is a member of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) Project Peer Review Committee that provides recommendations on applying MACCS2 in the context of phenomena and subsequent off-site consequences in the context of severe reactor accidents to Sandia National Laboratories and the NRC. Among other recent projects, Dr. OKula led work in reviewing environmental impact statement food pathway consequence analysis performed on assumed accident conditions from the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River.

This project compared and evaluated the impacts calculated from three computer models --

MACCS2, GENII, and UFOTRI.

Among other distinctions, Dr. OKula is past Chair of the American Nuclear Society Nuclear Installations Safety Division and the Energy Facility Contractors Group Accident Analysis Subgroup. Dr. OKula obtained his B.S. in Applied Engineering Physics from Cornell University in 1975, and both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1977 and 1984, respectively.41 Dr. Steven R. Hanna is President of Hanna Consultants and is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Harvard School of Public Health where he lectures on dispersion modeling. He is an American Meteorological Society (AMS) Certified Consulting Meteorologist with over 43 years of experience. He specializes in atmospheric turbulence and dispersion, in the analysis of meteorological and air quality data, and in the development, evaluation, and application of air quality models. Dr. Hanna developed and evaluated numerous transport and dispersion models for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy. Dr. Hanna co-developed the 41 Declaration of Kevin R. OKula in Support of Entergys Pre-Filed Testimony on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (Dec. 30, 2010) (Exhibit No. ENT000002); Entergy Test. at A3.

20

CALMET/CALPUFF Lagrangian puff model, which is one of the models recommended by the EPA for complying with the Clean Air Act requirements. Many aspects of his Hybrid Plume Dispersion Model (HPDM) for calculating dispersion of plumes from tall stacks were used in the EPA AERMOD model, and he chaired the 1997 external peer review of AERMOD.

Dr. Hannas work on the EPA models is prefaced by his many years of experience in meteorological dispersion and modeling. He previously worked on meteorological analysis and dispersion modeling for the NRC and DOE while at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations Atmospheric Turbulence and Dispersion Laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN. In 1982, he coauthored the Handbook on Atmospheric Diffusion, which summarized his research findings and provided recommendations for applied dispersion models. His recommended formulas are still widely used in applied dispersion models around the world. He developed the ATCOOL model/code for cooling tower plumes, which has been incorporated into the model used for most cooling tower studies and recommended by the NRC. Dr. Hanna developed an urban dispersion model, which has been adapted by the EPA, DOE and other agencies. While employed with an environmental consulting company, Dr. Hanna developed the Rough Terrain Dispersion Model, which formed the basis for EPAs Complex Terrain Dispersion model and later parts of the meteorological preprocessor and complex terrain module in AERMOD. He also developed the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion model for the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service for use in assessing the dispersion of emissions from offshore oil platforms. He also developed the HPDM model for power plant stack plumes, which as stated above, formed the basis for many parts of EPAs AERMOD dispersion model.42 Among other distinctions, Dr. Hanna is a Fellow of the AMS, has served as Chief Editor of the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology, is the 1994 recipient of the AMS Award for 42 Entergy Test. at A7.

21

Outstanding Contribution to the Advance of Applied Meteorology, and is the 2010 recipient of the AMS Helmut E. Landsberg Award for Significant novel and insightful contributions in applied meteorology and urban studies. He has published 148 articles in peer-reviewed journals (including three in the past year), six chapters in books, and five books in which he is the primary author. Dr. Hanna received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Meteorology from Penn State University in 1964, 1966, and 1967, respectively.43 The Board finds these witnesses well qualified and knowledgeable.

2. Entergy Exhibits Entergy submitted more than a dozen exhibits in support of its position. These exhibits include Entergys direct and rebuttal testimonies, relevant portions of the license renewal application, and Entergys responses to NRC Staff requests for additional information (RAI).

In addition, Entergy prepared and submitted two expert reports providing supplemental analyses.

Exhibit No. ENT000004 is the Analysis of Annual Wind Roses and Precipitation within about 50 Miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, and Use of CALMET to Calculate the Annual Distribution of Trajectories from the Pilgrim Station prepared by Dr. Hanna (Dec. 2010)

(Hanna Meteorological Report or CALMET Trajectory Analysis). The main purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the 2001 Pilgrim Meteorological Tower wind observations and the 2001 Plymouth Municipal Airport precipitation data used as inputs to MACCS2/ATMOS in the SAMA analysis satisfactorily represent of the annual 2001 wind field and precipitation conditions over the SAMA geographic domain.44 Entergy also submitted Exhibit No.

ENT000011, Exposure Index Analysis Using MACCS2 and CALMET: Sensitivity Study Supporting the Pilgrim Station SAMA Analysis, Rev. 1 (Jan. 2011) (Exposure Index 43 Declaration of Steven R. Hanna in Support of Entergys Pre-Filed Testimony on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (Dec. 22, 2010) (Exhibit No. ENT000003); Entergy Test. at A7.

44 Exhibit No. ENT00004 at 3.

22

Calculation), which is an expert report prepared by Dr. Kevin OKula. The purpose of this study is to calculate the Exposure Index (EI) as a surrogate for the SAMA analysis metrics to better understand the impact of using localized wind trajectories throughout the 50-mile radius domain around the Pilgrim station, in lieu of using a single set of annual wind trajectories based on measurements taken at the Pilgrim site.45 The Board finds Entergys exhibits relevant, material, reliable, and persuasive on the threshold meteorological issue.

B. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff

1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Witnesses The NRC Staffs testimony concerning Contention 3 was presented by a panel of three experienced and well-qualified experts, Dr. Nathan E. Bixler, a Principal Member of the Technical Staff employed by the Department of Energys Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia); Dr. S. Tina Ghosh, a Senior Program Manager for the Division of Systems Analysis in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in the NRC; and Mr. James V. Ramsdell Jr., a Senior Technical Researcher employed by Battelle, which operates the Pacific Northwest Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Dr. Bixler holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota (1982) and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Toledo (1976). Dr. Bixler has been employed by Sandia for more than 28 years as an engineer and computer software researcher in the areas of accident analysis and fluid mechanics. Since 1998, he has been the principle investigator for code development and analysis of nuclear accident consequences for the NRC for multiple codes, including MACCS2, RADTRAD, WinMACCS, SECPOP2000, and MELMACCS. From 2003-2009, Dr. Bixler was the principal instructor for a weekly NRC 45 Id. at 1.

23

training program on accident consequence analysis, which emphasized (among other things) the use of the WinMACCS/MACCS2 code system for estimating health and economic consequences. Dr. Bixler has authored or co-authored over four dozen publications including, for example, MACCS2 Consequence Calculations for a Postulated Short-Term Station Blackout at a Pressurized Water Reactor with and Ice Condenser Containment and a Boiling Water Reactor with a Mark III Containment, SAND2006-0632 (2006).46 Dr. Ghosh holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering and S.M. in Technology & Policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2004 and 2000, respectively), and a B.S.E. in Civil Engineering and Operations Research from Princeton University (1995). When completing her doctorate, she was a fission engineering major, specializing in probabilistic risk assessment. She has worked for the NRC for over six years in multiple roles, including most recently as the NRC lead for the uncertainty analysis of the state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis. While serving as a Reactor Engineer in the Division of Risk Assessment, Dr. Ghosh reviewed SAMA analyses for nuclear power plant license renewal applications. While serving as a Systems Performance Analyst in the Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety, Dr. Ghosh evaluated performance assessments and risk analyses in a license application for a proposed high-level waste/spent nuclear fuel repository. Dr. Ghosh has published several papers, including one entitled Perspectives on Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for U.S. Plant License Renewal (2009).47 Mr. Ramsdell holds an M.S. in Meteorology and a B.S. in General Sciences from Oregon State University (1962 and 1961, respectively), and has also undertaken several years of graduate study in Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. Mr. Ramsdell has been 46 See Bixler & Ghosh Test. (Exhibit No. NRC000014) at A1a, A2a; Bixler Statement of Qualifications (Exhibit No. NRC000011).

47 See Bixler & Ghosh Test. (Exhibit No. NRC000014) at A1b, A2b.; Ghosh Statement of Qualifications (Exhibit No. NRC000012).

24

employee by Battelle since 1967. He has worked as an individual contributor, on research teams, and as project leader for research teams in his areas of expertise, which include research planning and organization, dispersion modeling, and applied atmospheric boundary layer description. His positions have included working as the manager of a project assisting the NRC Staff in preparing site-specific reviews of environmental issues related to nuclear power plant license renewals. In 2007, he updated the NRCs guidance on SAMAs in the Environmental Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1555). Mr. Ramsdell is also a lead scientist in the development of applied dispersion models at Battelle including having developed the atmospheric dispersion and dose calculation models that are part of the NRCs Radiological Assessment System for Consequence Analysis (RASCAL). He is a member of the American Meteorological Society. He has authored or co-authored multiple scientific articles and over six dozen reports on topics in his expertise.48 The Board also finds the NRC Staffs witnesses well qualified and knowledgeable

2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Exhibits The NRC Staff also submitted over a dozen exhibits in support of its position. The NRC Staffs exhibits included NUREG/CR-6613, Code Manual for MACCS2: Vol. 1, Users Guide (May 1998) and NUREG/CR-4691, MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS),

Vol. 2 (1986). NUREG/CR-6613 describes the use of the MACCS2 code, which represents a major enhancement of its predecessor, MACCS.49 The MACCS2 code was developed to evaluate the impacts of severe accidents at nuclear power plants on the surrounding public, considering atmospheric transport and deposition under time-variant meteorology, short- and long-term mitigative actions and exposure pathways, deterministic and stochastic health effects, 48 Ramsdell Test. at A1-A2; Ramsdell Statement of Qualifications (Exhibit No. NRC000013).

49 Exhibit No. NRC000008 at iii.

25

and economic costs.50 NUREG/CR-4691 describes the MACCS (the MACCS2 predecessor),

which was developed to evaluate the impact of severe accidents at nuclear plants considering atmospheric transport, mitigative actions based on dose projection, dose accumulation by a number of pathways, early and latent health effects, and economic costs.51 In addition, the NRC Staff, on behalf of itself and Entergy, submitted a joint exhibit, NUREG/CR-6853, Comparison of Average Transport and Dispersion Among a Gaussian, a Two-Dimensional, and a Three-Dimensional Model (Exhibit No. JNT000001). Among other things, this document compares the atmospheric transport and dispersion assumption used by MACCS2 to ADAPT/LODI, a state-of-the-art, three-dimensional advection-dispersion code.52 The Board finds these NRC Staff exhibits and joint exhibit relevant, material, reliable, and persuasive on the threshold meteorological issue.

The NRC Staff also submitted several exhibits (NRC000003 through NRC000007)53 for the limited purpose of showing NRC Staff witness Bixlers familiarity with, and knowledge of, the issues in this proceeding.54 The Board admits these exhibits for this limited purpose only.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 Pilgrim Watchs Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene (May 25, 2006) (Exhibit NRC000003); Entergy's Answer to the Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by Pilgrim Watch and Notice of Adoption of Contention (June 26, 2006) (Exhibit NRC000004); NRC Staffs Response to Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Filed by Pilgrim Watch (June 19, 2006) (Exhibit NRC000005); WSMS-TR-07-0005, Revision 1, Radiological Dispersion and Consequence Analysis Supporting Pilgrim Nuclear Station Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Analysis (May 2007) (Exhibit NRC000006); Declaration of Bruce A. Egan, Sc.D., CCM, in Support of Pilgrim Watch's Response Opposing Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (June 20, 2007) (Exhibit NRC000007).

54 See NRC Staffs Response In Support of Entergys Motion in Limine (Jan. 24, 2011) at 7.

26

C. Pilgrim Watch

1. Pilgrim Watch Witness The Board accepted statements from Pilgrim Watch witness Dr. Bruce A. Egan,55 who is currently the Principal of Egan Environmental, Inc. and holds a Sc.D in the Environmental Health Sciences (1972) and an S.M. in Industrial Hygiene (1969) from the Harvard School of Public Health, as well as an S.M. in Mechanical Engineering (1962) from Harvard University and an A.B. in Engineering (1961) from Harvard College. Dr. Egan has over 35 years experience in Clean Air Act regulatory consulting, air quality model development and application, and micrometeorology, among other disciplines.56 While Dr. Egan has extensive experience related to the Clean Air Act and other EPA-related emissions/air pollutants dispersion modeling systems, he did not demonstrate any education, knowledge, or experience with respect to SAMAs as they are developed and used for nuclear power plant environmental reviews.

Indeed, Dr. Egans Declaration and Statement repeatedly discusses meteorological modeling appropriate for emergency response purposes, which is not the purpose of a SAMA analysis and is beyond the scope of this proceeding.57 Furthermore, when Dr. Egan does refer to SAMAs, he discusses how SAMAs ought to be applied across all plants or how their results might not be the same at different plants.58 This testimony overlooks the fact that, for this proceeding, the threshold question is whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could, on its own, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions regarding which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

55 Statement by Bruce A. Egan, Sc.D., CCM (Jan. 30, 2011) (Egan Statement); Declaration of Bruce A. Egan in Support of Pilgrim Watchs Response Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (June 20, 2007) (Egan Decl. or Egan Declaration).

56 Egan Curriculum Vitae at 1.

57 Egan Decl. at ¶¶ 14-15; Egan Statement at 3.

58 Id.

27

Indeed, Dr. Egan acknowledges the testimony of Entergys witness, Dr. OKula, that, for Pilgrim, one would have to show substantial changes to the projected population doses and the economic consequences to have [] another SAMA be cost effective,59 but he states in response only that this is a site specific comment and would not necessarily be applicable to other power plants.60 Thus, Dr. Egan either overlooks or ignores the fact that the focus of this proceeding on remand is the Pilgrim SAMA analysis. As such, Dr. Egan states no conclusions regarding the threshold issue of whether any additional Pilgrim SAMAs might be cost beneficial assuming that the meteorological patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch were taken into account.

Thus, while Dr. Egan is well qualified in his area of expertise, there is no indication that Dr. Egan has any familiarity with the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, or whether the meteorological patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions and result in additional SAMAs being cost-beneficial. Dr. Egans statements therefore provide little, if any, insight on this threshold issue.

2. Pilgrim Watch Exhibits Pilgrim Watch submitted over 20 exhibits in support of its position, but many of these exhibits are not relevant to, or beyond the scope of, the threshold meteorological issue on remand. For example, Pilgrim Watch submits two exhibits from Mr. David Chanin.61 But these exhibits concern economic inputs to MACCS2, which is not relevant to the threshold question of whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns/issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could, on its own, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement. Similarly, many other Pilgrim Watch exhibits 59 Id.

60 Id.

61 Exhibit Nos. PWA 00003 and PWA 00004.

28

concern economic cost issues or other issues outside the scope of the remanded contention, and thus are irrelevant to the threshold issue as defined by the Board.62 While certain other Pilgrim Watch exhibits appear superficially to relate to the threshold meteorological question, a closer examination of these exhibits reveals that the exhibits say nothing about whether any Pilgrim SAMA analysis might be cost beneficial and are, therefore, of limited evidentiary value in this proceeding.63 Indeed, they often concern emergency planning, which the Commission has ruled is beyond the scope of license renewal.64 Florida Power &

Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. 3, 10 (2001).

In addition, whether or not relevant to Contention 3, certain Pilgrim Watch exhibits or portions thereof are unsupported by a witness qualified by training or experience as a technical expert to review, analyze, or express any opinion on any of the meteorological plume transport and modeling issues relevant to Contention 3. Non-expert testimony on a technical issue is accorded no weight. Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station), LBP-62 These irrelevant exhibits include Pilgrim Watch Exhibit Nos. PWA 00008, Economic Consequences of a Rad/Nuc Attack: Cleanup Standards Significantly Affect Cost; PWA 00009, Survey of Costs Arising Form Potential Radionuclide Scattering Events; PWA00012, A Critique of the Radiological Consequence Assessment Conducted in Support of the Indian Point [SAMA] Analysis; and PWA 00015, Revisiting Goiania - 1987 Radiological Accident in Goiania, Brazil. Also irrelevant are those exhibits or portions thereof that go to issues beyond the meteorological inputs challenged in Contention 3, such as spent fuel fire issues, source term, and probabilistic modeling. These impermissible exhibits include PWA00002, Declaration of Dr. Jan Beyea in Support of Pilgrim Watchs Response Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3; and Excerpt from Report to the Massachusetts Attorney General on the Potential Consequences of a Spent-Fuel-Pool Fire at the Pilgrim or Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant; PWA00012; PWA 00014, Use of Risk Measures in Design and Licensing of Future Reactors; the last page of PWA00019, NRC 2009 Dispersion Modeling Complex Terrain; and PWA00020, NUREG/CR-6572, Rev.1, Kalinin VVER-1000 Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 PRA, Procedure Guides for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Dec. 2005).

63 These exhibits include Exhibit Nos. PWA00006, Modeling of the Coastal Boundary Layer and Pollutant Transport in New England; PWA 00011, Feasibility of Exposure Assessment for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant; and PWA 00013, Meteorological Monitoring (DOE/EH-0173T).

64 The exhibits that impermissibly concern emergency planning issues, which are beyond the scope of this proceeding include: PWA00005, Declaration of Richard Rothstein in Support of Pilgrim Watchs Response Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3, and PW00013, Revised Chapter 4, Meteorological Monitoring, of Guide DOE/EH-0173T.

29

84-55, 20 N.R.C. 1646, 1651 (1984); see Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station), Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 N.R.C. 356, 367 (1983). Therefore, any exhibit or portion thereof that purports to address meteorological patterns or phenomena in the New England coastal area that are unsupported by qualified witness are excluded from evidence.65 In sum, little (if any) of the information in Pilgrim Watchs exhibits is relevant, material, reliable, and persuasive on the threshold meteorological issue.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background

1. Overview of SAMA Analysis and MACCS2 Code

1. The purpose of a SAMA analysis is to identify potential changes to a nuclear power plant, or its operations, that could reduce the risk (the likelihood or the impact, or both) of a severe reactor accident for which the benefit of implementing the change outweighs the cost of implementation.66 To determine whether a SAMA is cost-beneficial, it is necessary to determine the expected value or benefit of implementing a SAMA (i.e., the expected value of the risk averted by the SAMA), which is compared to the cost of implementing the SAMA.67

2. A SAMA analysis is a probabilistic analysis focused on long-term and spatially averaged impacts from severe accident events for the purpose of making cost-benefit evaluations.68 The analysis simulates the travel of and deposition from a set of postulated radiological releases based on a years worth of site-specific meteorological data to predict the 65 The exhibits or portions thereof excluded for lack of support by qualified witness include PWA00002, PWA00006, PWA00012, PWA00019, and PWA00021, MACCS2 Computer Code Application Guidance for Documented Safety Analysis, DOE-EH-4.2.1.4-MACCS2-Code Guidance (June 2004).

66 Entergy Test. at A15; Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A7.

67 Entergy Test. at A16.

68 Id. at A16.

30

probabilistic consequences over the area within a 50-mile radius of the site. The ultimate goal is a cost-benefit analysis comparing the expected value of the avoided consequences against the cost of implementing specific preventative or mitigative measures.69

3. Because SAMA analyses are concerned with calculating temporal and spatially averaged expected consequences, they are not designed to model precisely a single radiological release event under specific meteorological conditions at a single moment in time. Instead, a SAMA analysis models numerous accident release conditions that could, based on probabilistic analysis, occur at any time under varying weather conditions during a one-year period to develop the expected annual average of the potential impacts for the entire area of interest.70

4. As such, as explained by Entergy, the function and purpose of a SAMA analysis differs from the function and purpose of emergency response. With emergency planning, the primary interest is to predict a single individual plume path and dose impacts for purposes of taking early, preventative measures and protecting close-in populations. The focus is on anticipating the path and impacts of an individual plume occurring at a specific time under real-time meteorological conditions. The focus is not on determining the annual consequences over a broad area from a distribution of potential consequence outcomes in order to make a cost-benefit evaluation.71

5. SAMA analyses consist of multiple sequential steps that generally proceed as outlined in industry guidance endorsed by the NRC (NEI 05-01, Rev. A),72 as follows:

(1) Determine the total severe accident risks; (2) Determine the monetary value of the total severe accident risk; 69 Id.

70 Id.

71 Id. at A17; see also Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A40.

72 Entergy Test. at A15, A18.

31

(3) Identify potential SAMA candidates that could prevent core damage and significant releases from containment; (4) Perform a preliminary screening of SAMA candidates to eliminate inapplicable SAMAs; (5) Perform a final screening of SAMA candidates by estimating the benefit of the severe accident risk that could be averted by implementing each remaining SAMA candidate and comparing the benefit to the estimated cost for implementing the SAMA developed on a conceptual basis.

(6) Perform sensitivity analyses that evaluate how changes to assumptions and uncertainties in the SAMA analysis would affect the overall cost-benefit analysis outcome; (7) Identify conclusions. Summarize results and identify any potentially cost-beneficial SAMA candidates.73 The scope of Contention 3 as limited by the Commission is the meteorological inputs to and the computer modeling of the atmospheric transport and dispersion of the radioactive plume in step 1.74

6. Entergy utilized the MACCS2 computer code for modeling the atmospheric transport and dispersion of the radioactive plume.75 The MACCS2 computer-modeling software is generally accepted and used in the nuclear industry for performing PRA and severe accident consequence determinations.76

7. As explained by both Entergy and the Staff, the MACCS2 code executes three modules in sequence to calculate consequence and risk values necessary for a SAMA analysis. (1) The first module is the ATMOS module which calculates the air and ground radioactivity concentrations, plume size, and timing information for all plume segments as a function of 73 Entergy Test. at A18; see also License Renewal Application (LRA) Environmental Report (ER), Appendix E of the Pilgrim LRA, Section 4.21 (Exhibit No. ENT000005); Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A8 to A13. The Bixler &

Ghosh testimony describes the nature of the evaluations at each of the steps.

74 Entergy Test. at A18.

75 Id. at A19; see also Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A4a and Ramsdell Test. at A4.

76 Entergy Test at A19.

32

downwind distance. The results of the ATMOS calculations are stored for subsequent use by the EARLY and CHRONC modules. (2) The EARLY module uses radioactivity concentrations calculated by ATMOS and other inputs (e.g., population) to calculate consequences due to radiation exposure in the emergency phase (the first seven days) from the time of release. (3) The CHRONC module uses radioactivity concentrations calculated by ATMOS and other inputs (e.g., population and economic data) to calculate the long-term doses due to exposure after the emergency phase and the economic impacts from each accident sequence.77

8. The meteorological concerns raised in Contention 3 solely relate to the ATMOS module and the meteorological inputs used for the ATMOS module.78

9. The key consequence values of interest computed by MACCS2 are (1) total off-site population dose (units of person-sievert) and (2) total off-site economic cost (units of dollars). The key risk values of interest for determining potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are (1) population dose risk (PDR) in units of person-rem/year; and (2) off-site economic cost risk (OECR) in units of dollars/year.79

10. As explained by Entergys expert, Dr. Kevin R. OKula, there are multiple steps in the calculation sequence and several modules in MACCS2 for performing the calculations to derive the total off-site population dose and PDR and the total off-site economic cost and the OECR. These steps are as follows: (1) the user enters into MACCS2 the different accident sequences (referred to as postulated accident scenarios) which encompass the full range of severe accident scenarios evaluated for the SAMA analysis;80 (2) the 50 mile region 77 Id. at A22; Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A19, A20.

78 Entergy Test. at A22.

79 Id. at A23.

80 Id. at A24.

33

surrounding the facility (in which the accident releases are modeled and for which consequences are calculated) is divided into a polar coordinate grid with the plant at its center;81 (3) one years worth of hourly weather observations are categorized based on atmospheric stability, wind speed, and precipitation meteorological conditions that occur throughout the year into a series of weather bins. Each weather bin represents a different type of weather condition under which a release may occur. Each hour of weather data is assigned to one of these weather bins;82 (4) for each postulated accident scenario, a series of radioactive releases are simulated based on weather sequences randomly selected from the different weather bins. For each simulated radioactive release, ATMOS models the transport and dispersion using the Gaussian plume segment model. ATMOS calculates the air and ground radioactivity concentrations within each grid spatial element of the polar grid over which that plume passes;83 (5) using the output information from ATMOS and several non-meteorological inputs (e.g., population, land use, and economic data, and interdiction model applicable to each grid spatial element) MACCS2 calculates the off-site population dose and off-site economic cost during the short-term phase and the subsequent long-term phase for each simulated radioactive release;84 (6) steps 4 and 5 yield a distribution of population dose results and a distribution of off-site economic cost results for each postulated accident scenario. Each result is weighted by its probability of occurrence. The arithmetic means of the population dose and the off-site economic cost for each postulated accident scenario are determined and reported in the MACCS2 calculation;85 (7) outside of MACCS2, the arithmetic mean of the population dose distribution as computed by MACCS2 is multiplied 81 Id.

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 Id.

85 Id.; see also Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A20.

34

by the mean annual frequency of occurrence of the accident scenario to provide the population dose risk (PDR) for each accident scenario.86 The individual PDRs for the different accident scenarios are summed to determine the overall PDR for the SAMA analysis. The same method is used to calculate the off-site economic cost risk (OECR) for each accident scenario, which are summed to determine the overall OECR for the SAMA analysis.87

11. In order to perform the SAMA analysis, MACCS2 requires input data for use by the ATMOS module, including meteorological observations and source term information. Meteorological observations include hourly wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability class (based on observed temperature gradient across two levels of a meteorological tower), seasonal mixing layer heights, and precipitation. The source term information describes the amount of radioactivity for each radionuclide released. Also required are the associated plume physical parameters, such as height of release, release duration and heat content (proportional to the difference between the plume and ambient air temperatures), and initial plume dimensions (height and width). ATMOS also requires the user to specify the surface roughness length which accounts for the surface characteristics over the region of transport.88

12. ATMOS uses a Gaussian plume segment model to simulate the radioactive plumes transport, dispersion, and deposition from the source location over the fifty-mile region from the plant.89 A Gaussian plume segment dispersion model assumes that the atmospheric content being modeled has a Gaussian shape or distribution in the crosswind (lateral and vertical) directions for continuous releases (and also in the direction of the wind for 86 Entergy Test. at A24.; see also Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A21.

87 Entergy Test. at A24.

88 Id. at A34.

89 Id. at A25, A33.

35

instantaneous releases, or puffs). In the specific case of atmospheric dispersion modeling of a postulated radioactive release, a Gaussian distribution means that, as the plume is carried downwind from its emission source, the cross-wind (horizontal and vertical) distributions of concentrations of radioactivity within the plume can be approximated by assuming that the highest concentrations occur on the horizontal and vertical midlines of the plume, with the distribution about these midlines characterized by Gaussian- or bell-shaped concentration profiles. The Gaussian distribution formula is the key component of nearly all transport and dispersion models for industrial stacks.90

13. A Gaussian plume segment model differs in key respects from a standard straight-line Gaussian plume model.91 The standard straight-line Gaussian plume model assumes that the same wind speed, wind direction, stability, mixing depth, rain rate, and other variables apply for the entire averaging period and over the entire plume trajectory, even at distances of tens of miles from the source. The Gaussian plume segment model as used in the ATMOS applications for the Pilgrim Station assumes that the length of the segment is equal to the wind speed times the duration of the release. For the first hour of the release, the plume segment is governed by the meteorological input data specified for that hour, but for subsequent hours, the meteorological data are updated. The only major meteorological input that does not change from hour to hour is the wind direction.92

14. ATMOS performs, as part of its atmospheric transport and dispersion modeling of the radioactive plume, weather binning and sequencing in order to take into account different meteorological patterns on a statistical basis producing results based on a large number of representative weather events, each weighted by the probability of the representative weather 90 Id. at A30.

91 Id. at A33.

92 Id.

36

sequence and the wind direction.93 ATMOS selects the weather data used for modeling by means of a two-step sampling technique where a full year, or 8,760 hours0.0088 days <br />0.211 hours <br />0.00126 weeks <br />2.8918e-4 months <br /> of hourly weather data, is used. The two steps are: (1) weather data assessment and (2) random sampling of weather bins and sequencing. The first step is a weather data assessment of the 8,760 hourly (1-year) weather data. The weather data assessment is performed by sorting the weather data into categories or bins that provide a realistic representation of the years weather. The Pilgrim SAMA analysis uses 40 weather categories, or bins. Within each weather bin there are sets of weather sequences. Each weather sequence consists of a starting time followed by the subsequent hourly weather data necessary to simulate consequences from the release until the plume reaches and crosses the 50-mile boundary of the SAMA domain. The second step is statistically random sampling of the weather bins. By randomly sampling from each of the 40 weather bins, MACCS2 statistically simulates potential consequences based on a full years weather data. The sampling process therefore ensures representation of each weather category, which is important for realistic representation of the annual weather data.94

15. Additionally, to account for fact that the wind could be blowing in different directions at different times throughout the year, consequences for each of the randomly selected samples are calculated assuming that the wind blows in each of the 16 polar wind direction sectors.

Each of these 16 results (for the 16 polar wind directions) is weighted by the relative frequency that the wind blows in that direction for the specific weather bin from which the random sample is selected times the probability of the weather sequence.95

16. For the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, this approach resulted in 2,336 simulations for each of the postulated accident sequences, with 2,336 calculated results for the population dose and 93 Id. at A36-A37, A50.

94 Id. at A36.

95 Id. at A37; see also Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A19.

37

2,336 calculated results for the off-site economic costs, each with a probability of occurrence.

The mean population dose and mean off-site economic cost for the postulated accident sequence are determined from these sets of 2,336 results.96

2. Pilgrim License Renewal SAMA Analysis

17. Pilgrim performed its SAMA analysis following the generally accepted NRC-endorsed industry guidance (NEI 05-01, Rev. A). The SAMA analysis was based on the Pilgrim plant-specific Level 3 probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). The PSA was used to develop a set of 19 accident scenarios and the source term characteristics associated with each of the postulated accident scenarios.97 MACCS2 was used to calculate the consequences caused by each of the 19 accident scenarios. For each of the 19 accident scenarios, 2,336 random simulations (146 weather sequences x 16 possible principal compass directions) were run, as described above, to evaluate postulated consequences under different meteorological conditions using Pilgrim site-specific meteorological data.98 The mean or average consequence results obtained for each of the 19 accident scenarios were multiplied by the frequency of occurrence of the accident scenario, and then summed to yield the overall PDR and OECR for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.99

18. The meteorological data sources used for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis were described in License Renewal Application Environmental Report, Attachment E (ENT000006).100 Pilgrim obtained the required hourly meteorological data from two sources: (1) the Pilgrim onsite meteorological monitoring system and (2) the Automated Surface Observatory System (ASOS) at Plymouth Municipal Airport. Hourly meteorological data for the wind direction, 96 Entergy Test. at A37.

97 Id. at A38; see also Pilgrim Environmental Report Attachment E (ENT000006).

98 Id. at A36, A37, A38.

99 Id. at A38.

100 Id. at A39.

38

wind speed, and stability class inputs used in ATMOS for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis were taken from the 33 ft and 220 ft levels of the upper meteorological tower on the Pilgrim site.

Pilgrim used hourly precipitation observations from the ASOS weather observing system at the Plymouth Municipal Airport.101 The atmospheric stability class for each hour was determined from the difference in observed temperatures between the 220 ft and 33 ft levels of the upper tower. The meteorological input data also includes the seasonal mixing layer heights used for the SAMA analysis based on mixing height data provided by the National Climatic Data Center for the area surrounding Pilgrim Station.102 .

19. Dr. OKula presented the base case results for the MACCS2 portion of the SAMA analysis.103 An analysis of the base case results shows that: (1) over 95% of the population dose risk occurs in the 10 to 50 mile range and 83% occurs in the 20 to 50 mile range, and (2) about 94% of the off-site economic cost risk occurs in the 10 to 50 mile range and 79%

occurs in the 20 to 50 mile range.104

20. Based on the base case results, Dr. OKula explained that because the land contamination result is the principal contributor to the long-term population dose and economic costs, hourly variations in plume behavior and individual plume travel trajectories are of secondary importance to these long-term, longer-distance (out to 50 miles) land contamination impacts.

Consequently, population dose and economic cost results are relatively insensitive to individual plume transport behavior.105 101 Id.

102 Id.

103 Id. at A42 & n.13.

104 Id. at A43.

105 Id. at A44.

39

21. Dr. OKula also describes the overall SAMA analysis results based on the PDR and OECR.106 For relevant purposes here, in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, the averted risk attributable to the PDR contributes about 32% of the total benefit. The averted off-site economic costs attributable to the OECR contribute about 54% of the total benefit. Thus, 86% of the overall SAMA benefit is attributable to the PDR and OECR. The remaining 14%

of the SAMA benefit consists of a combination of different averted on-sites costs, which are the averted occupational exposure, and the averted on-site economic costs, including on-site decontamination and replacement power.107

22. The results of the SAMA analysis show that for the next potentially cost-beneficial SAMA, SAMA 8, the approximate cost of implementing the SAMA (>$5,000,000) is more than twice the benefit ($2,410,000) derived from the cost averted by implementing the SAMA.108 The significance of this fact for our purposes here is that the benefit, or cost averted, must increase by approximately a factor of two before the next SAMA is potentially cost beneficial. More precisely, the sum of the OECR and PDR, which together comprise most (86%) of the averted cost benefit, would need to increase by a more than a factor of two before another SAMA would be considered potentially cost beneficial.109 As noted by the NRC Staffs expert witness Mr. Ramsdell, this averted cost benefit would need to increase by a factor of about 2.5 [in order] to make the next lowest cost SAMA appear cost-beneficial.110 106 Id. at A46.

107 Id.

108 Id. at A47; GEIS, Supplement 29 Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, NUREG-1437 (July 2007) (Exhibit No. NRC000002).

109 Entergy Test. at A47.

110 Ramsdell Test. at A36.

40

B. Appropriateness of the Gaussian Plume Model as Implemented by MACCS2

23. The Gaussian Plume segment model used in the ATMOS module of MACCS2 to simulate the radioactive plumes transport, dispersion, and deposition is adequate and reasonable for performing SAMA analyses.111 Unlike a standard straight-line Gaussian plume model, the plume segment model used by ATMOS updates key meteorological variables, other than wind direction, on an hourly basis.112

24. The Gaussian plume segment model used by MACCS2 is appropriate for use in SAMA analyses that are concerned with calculating annual expected consequences integrated over a 50-mile radius domain based on numerous accident release conditions that could occur at any time under varying weather conditions.113 As described above, ATMOS takes into account different meteorological patterns on a statistical basis producing results based on a large number of representative weather events, each weighted by the probability of the representative weather sequence and the wind direction.114 Taking into account a multitude of wind patterns on a statistical basis, and probabilistically sampling from a full year of hourly conditions, as done by ATMOS, produces a reasonable estimate of the mean consequences - one that is sufficient for the SAMA application.115

25. According to both Dr. Hanna and Dr. OKula, the details of a particular plumes trajectory do not have a material impact on the statistical expected value, or mean, of the overall SAMA analysis because the unique behavior in a wind trajectory for a specific plume will tend to be compensated by the trajectories of other plumes. For example, if the annual frequencies of wind directions blowing towards the northeast (NE) quadrant are twice those towards the 111 See Entergy Test. at A33 and A48-A50.

112 Id. at A33, A48.

113 Id. at A16, A48-A50.

114 Id. at A36-A37, A50.

115 Id. at A50.

41

southeast (SE) quadrant, then the annual averaged concentrations in the NE quadrant would generally be about twice those in the SE quadrant. While an individual trajectory at a given hour may curve in some direction, it will generally be balanced over the year by individual trajectories that curve in the opposite direction. Thus, for purposes of performing a SAMA analysis, which focuses on summed effects over time and space, taking into account hundreds of different wind patterns on a statistical basis, as done by MACCS2, is more than adequate.116

26. Furthermore, because the primary goal of the SAMA analysis involves weighting the concentration distributions by the population and because the population input is provided as a single value over a 22.5° wind direction sector between two radial distances (usually a ten-mile increment, say from 20 miles to 30 miles), it follows that the details of the crosswind distribution of concentrations do not matter as much. This provides an additional, important reason why the tracking of individual plumes is not required for computing a long-term annual consequence summed over a broad area.117

27. The Staff agrees that the Gaussian plume segment model used by MACCS2 is appropriate for use in SAMA analyses and is indeed conservative.118

28. Pilgrim Watchs expert, Dr. Egan, points out that NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, which contains a general description of a plume segment model, does not include the equations for this model.119 This is irrelevant because Dr. Egan agrees that [t]he plume segment model as has been applied to the PNPS uses temporal but not spatial variations of meteorological conditions.120 In other words, Dr. Egan acknowledges that the segment model used by 116 Id. at A17, A48, A52.

117 Id. at A48.

118 Bixler & Gosh Test. at A24, A25, and A26.

119 See Egan Statement at 2.

120 Id.; see also Egan Decl. at ¶ 13, Item 14.

42

Entergy is able to account for hour-to-hour changes in atmospheric stabilities, wind speed, and precipitation during plume travel, but he takes issue with the fact that the model does not vary wind direction.

29. Dr. Egan overlooks the fact that the random sampling process employed by MACCS2 (described in Finding A14 above) takes into account the probability of the wind blowing in different directions throughout the year. As explained by Dr. Hanna and Dr. OKula, it is the annual frequency of the wind blowing in different directions that controls temporal and spatially averaged consequences. While an individual trajectory at a given hour may curve in some direction, it will generally be balanced over the year by individual trajectories that curve in the opposite direction.121 SAMA analyses, therefore, have an entirely different purpose from that of emergency response or from a worst-case analyses, which are concerned with the tracking of individual plumes122 on which Dr. Egan has generally focused his testimony.

30. Furthermore, as discussed below, Entergy presented specific evidence to rebut Dr. Egans claims based on analyses performed by Dr. Hanna using the CALMET (the meteorological processor in CALPUFF) along with meteorological observations from 26 surface weather stations (plus the Pilgrim Stations meteorological observations), and observations from the two radiosonde (upper air) stations throughout the area. This analysis showed that the modeling in MACCS2 using the Gaussian plume segment model is reasonably representative of models that take into account temporal and spatial three-dimensional wind fields generated with data from multiple weather stations. A SAMA analysis is interested in annual distributions summed over time and over the Pilgrim SAMA domain and, therefore, the 121 Entergy Test. at A16, A17, A48, A52.

122 Id.; see also Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A40.

43

ability to account for short-term time and space variations of meteorology does not significantly enhance the accuracy of the SAMA analysis.123

31. In challenging the adequacy of ATMOS, Pilgrim Watch generally argues that more sophisticated models, such as AERMOD or CALPUFF, are required for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis. According to Pilgrim Watchs expert Dr. Egan, more sophisticated models can simulate the features and effects of coastal breezes, boundary layer parameterizations, and terrain and their use would result in significant differences in results.124 AERMOD, however, is a straight-line Gaussian plume model.125

32. Entergy explained, however, that codes such as AERMOD and CALPUFF were not designed to perform SAMA analysis but to enhance prediction of individual plume behavior in order to meet specific regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act, typically determining maximum allowable concentrations at any location, which differ from the objectives of a SAMA analysis.126 The focus of the EPA applications is usually the maximum concentration at any location within the larger geographic domain being modeled, whereas a SAMA analysis is concerned with consequences integrated over the SAMA domain. Also, in addition to long term annual averaged concentrations, EPA Clean Air Act applications require consideration of maximum short-term (e.g. one-hour, eight-hour and/or 24-hour, depending on the pollutant) averaged concentrations at a specific location. Modeling individual plumes for determining such worst-case scenarios at specific locations is distinctly different from the annual estimations and weighting by population and economic activity over a 50-mile radius required for a SAMA analysis.

123 Entergy Test. at A97.

124 Egan Decl. at ¶¶ 11, 14; see also Egan Statement at 3, 5.

125 Entergy Test. at A54.

126 Id. at A52.

44

33. Entergy establishes that using different codes for performing detailed modeling of individual plume transport and dispersion will not significantly improve the accuracy of the SAMA analyses, nor will it necessarily identify any new SAMAs.127 It is not necessarily true that more sophisticated or complex models will be better or more accurate models. ATMOS includes parameterizations of boundary layers and dispersion that were originally derived from fundamental dispersion field experiments. Thus, like all models, ATMOS has been implicitly fit to these basic field experiments. Notably, AERMOD, CALPUFF, and most other models were calibrated with the same sets of field observations and, as a result, their accuracy is about the same.128 Because all codes have generally been fitted to the same basic set of field experiments, using other codes, such as AERMOD or CALMET, will not significantly improve the accuracy of a SAMA analysis.129

34. Indeed, MACCS2 closely approximates the results of more complex models. Entergy and the Staff presented evidence of a model-to-model comparison between MACCS2 and more complex atmospheric transport and dispersion models showing that results calculated by the various models are generally within a factor of two and that MACCS2 is within plus or minus 10% of a state-of-the art three dimensional model when averaged over a series of radial arcs out to fifty miles.130 The Staffs experts concurred that the estimates of the MACCS2 dispersion model were generally within the bounds of the other models and that MACCS2 performed as well as either of the more advanced Gaussian puff model codes (similar to CALPUFF in capability) evaluated in the study.131 127 Id.

128 Id. at A56.

129 Id. at A52, A54-A55, A60.

130 Id. at A58; Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A38-A41; and JNT000001 (Comparison of Average Transport and Dispersion Among a Gaussian, a Two-Dimensional, and a Three-Dimensional Model, NUREG/CR-6853 (Oct.

2004) (Molenkamp Report).

131 Ramsdell Test. at A30; Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A38.

45

35. Dr. Egan does not dispute the conclusions of the Molenkamp Report (JNT000001).

However, Dr. Egan suggests that the Molenkamp Report may be inapplicable to the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, stating that a comparison of model predictions made in the relatively flat area of the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Oklahoma and Kansas, [used as the basis for the Molenkamp study], cannot be used to state how model comparisons would fare at a coastal area like Plymouth, MA.132

36. It is true that the topography and other surface property variability could affect local wind speed and direction.133 But in making the site selection, the Molenkamp Report concluded that there was sufficient variability for the purpose of this study, which was to evaluate whether it was necessary to use more sophisticated models than MACCS2 for performing SAMA analyses.134

37. Furthermore, Dr. Hanna provided specific evidence indicating adequate similarity between the Southern Great Plains and the Pilgrim coastal domain, in terms of wind variations and topography.135 Dr. Hanna reviewed the observations provided in Section 9 of the Molenkamp Report of wind variability for the six sites with the study area.136 His review indicated that the variability shown by these six wind roses is approximately the same as the variability of the wind roses analyzed in his CALMET Report for weather sites in the Pilgrim SAMA domain.137 132 Egan Statement at 7.

133 Entergy Reb. Test. at A6.

134 Molenkamp Report at 3 (JNT000001).

135 Entergy Reb. Test. at A7, A8.

136 Id. at A7.

137 Id.; Analysis of Annual Wind Roses and Precipitation within about 50 Miles of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, and Use of CALMET to Calculate the Annual Distribution of Trajectories from the Pilgrim Station, Dec.

2010 (CALMET Report) (Exhibit No. ENT000004).

46

38. In addition, Dr. Hanna had previously performed an independent study analyzing weather data for the same Southern Great Plains region where the meteorological data were obtained in support of the Molenkamp Report. This study showed similarity of the wind variations found in the region of the Molenkamp Report with those of other geographic domains, including coastal domains such as the Pilgrim SAMA domain. This similarity found by Dr.

Hanna demonstrates that the Molenkamp et al. (2004) study is an appropriate comparison of transport and dispersion models for the Pilgrim SAMA domain and that the study reflects meteorological variations in time and space representative of those expected at Pilgrim.138

39. Further, Dr. Hanna reviewed topographical maps of different areas of the SGP domain.139 Based on his review and his own personal work and visits to the SGP domain, Dr. Hanna concluded that the terrain in the SGP is similar to that in eastern Massachusetts (with the exception of occasional significant hills in Massachusetts such as Pine Hill near the Pilgrim Station and Blue Hill which as discussed below would serve to reduce the radiological impact of a severe accident at the Pilgrim Station).140

40. Therefore, based on the evidence, we find that the Molenkamp Report (JNT000001) and its conclusions are fully valid and applicable for the Pilgrim SAMA domain.

41. Entergy also clarified that it is not feasible to run the MACCS2 model using AERMOD or CALPUFF for the atmospheric and dispersion model in place of ATMOS. Replacing the ATMOS module with AERMOD or CALPUFF or another meteorological model and dispersion model would be a very complicated process, particularly since neither AERMOD nor CALPUFF is designed to model radiological doses, including long-term doses.

Replacing the ATMOS module with AERMOD or CALPUFF would constitute an entire new 138 Entergy Reb. Test. at A6, A7, A8.

139 Id. at A7.

140 Id. at A8.

47

modeling system that would require extensive programming, testing, and other software quality assurance work to assure that the code as modified would work as intended.141

42. Pilgrim Watchs expert, Dr. Egan, acknowledges that replacing the ATMOS module with AERMOD or CALPUFF or another meteorological model and dispersion model would take substantial effort to complete.142

43. In this respect, the Staff submitted evidence that neither AERMOD nor CALPUFF were developed for specific applications that generally require estimates of concentration and deposition. Hence, neither provides for estimates of consequences such as population dose or off-site economic costs. Further, modifying either AERMOD of CALPUFF to add the MACCS2 consequences functions, or implementing AERMOD or CALPUFF within the MACCS2 framework would be a major undertaking.143

44. Additionally, the Staffs experts emphasize that it is very important to accurately account for radioactive decay in performing a SAMA analysis.144 In this respect, neither AERMOD nor CALPUFF can accurately model radioactive decay for multiple isotopes or daughter ingrowth.145 Adding these capabilities as well as the other MACCS2 features required for a SAMA analysis that are absent from AERMOD and CALPUFF (such as dose pathways, dose mitigation and economic consequences) would be a very large task.146

45. In summary, based on our review of the evidence, we reject Pilgrim Watchs claim that MACCS2 is inadequate for SAMA analyses and that a more sophisticated atmospheric transport and dispersion model is necessary. After closely reviewing the evidence presented, 141 Entergy Test. at A60.

142 Egan Statement at 4-5.

143 Ramsdell Test. at A27.

144 Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A27 to A31.

145 Id. at A34, A36.

146 Id.

48

we conclude that the Gaussian plume segment model embedded in MACCS2 and utilized by ATMOS is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA. We therefore conclude that the issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch regarding the sufficiency of the Gaussian plume segment model cannot, by themselves, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions of which SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial to implement C. The Meteorology Data Inputs Used for the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis Are Both Temporally and Spatially Representative

46. As stated in Finding 18, Pilgrim obtained the required hourly meteorological data for the SAMA analysis from two sources: (1) the Pilgrim onsite meteorological monitoring system and (2) the Automated Surface Observatory System (ASOS) at Plymouth Municipal Airport. According to Entergys experts, Pilgrim used 2001 hourly data from the upper towers 33-ft level as the input data for wind speed and direction for the SAMA analysis and used 2001 hourly precipitation observations from the ASOS weather observing system at the Plymouth Municipal Airport.147

47. Entergy used 2001 meteorological data for the SAMA analysis because of their completeness and representativeness.148 Pilgrim Watchs expert, Dr. Egan, argues that one-year of meteorological data is insufficient and claims that by using only one year of meteorological data Entergy cannot determine the year-to-year variability of the single annual average which determines the SAMA alternatives and that the SAMA149 analysis should have been based on five or more years of data.150 Pilgrim Watch further argues that one single meteorological 147 Entergy Test. at A39.

148 Id. at A41.

149 Egan Statement at 8.

150 Id.

49

data collection site five or so miles inland is insufficient and that data from multiple weather stations are required.151

48. Entergy presented evidence to demonstrate that the 2001 meteorological data used in the SAMA analysis are, however, both temporally and spatially representative. As explained by Entergys expert, Dr. Hanna, comparing the annual Pilgrim wind rose (which shows the frequency that the wind is blowing in each of 16 wind directions) at Pilgrim for 2001 to the annual wind roses at Pilgrim from 1996-2000 shows that the 2001 annual wind rose at the Pilgrim Station is representative of other years.152 Indeed, a quantitative comparison of the Pilgrim 2001 annual wind rose to the Pilgrim annual wind roses for 1996-2001 shows that, more than half of the time, the percentage that the wind is blowing towards any of the direction sectors varies by less than 1% from year to year, and has a maximum variation of 3% for the sectors towards the NNE.153

49. Entergy provided similar evidence that the Pilgrim 2001 annual wind rose derived from the meteorological input data used for the SAMA analysis was representative of the 50-mile region. Dr. Hanna compared the Pilgrim 2001 annual wind rose to 18 other sites spread throughout the 50-mile region, including an overwater site.154 The wind roses studied by Dr.

Hanna all had predominate winds blowing towards the eastern sector, and far fewer winds blowing towards the western sector.155 A quantitative evaluation performed for the wind roses confirms the dominance of the winds toward the east in all the wind roses. The summed frequency towards the western half of the circle, where the majority of the land and population for the Pilgrim SAMA domain are located, ranges from 25.8% to 37.4% with an 151 PW Statement at 5; Egan Decl. at ¶ 13, Item 20.

152 Entergy Test. at A65.

153 Id.

154 Id. at A66.

155 Id. at A67.

50

average of 31.2%. The Pilgrim 33 ft value was 29.4%, slightly below the average but well within the range.156

50. Finally, Entergy also presented evidence of its evaluation of the 2001 Plymouth Municipal Airport annual precipitation data used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, which shows that the data are representative both spatially and temporally of the precipitation levels from 1995-2009 at Plymouth and at eight other sites in the 50-mile region.157

51. Dr. Egan provides no evidence to contradict the testimony and analysis of Dr. Hanna presented by Entergy which demonstrates the sufficiency of the meteorological data Pilgrim used in its SAMA analysis. The use of one year of data is standard practice for performing SAMA analyses so long as the data are determined to be representative and typical, as demonstrated by Entergy here.158 No additional years of meteorological data are required to run MACCS2, and in fact, MACCS2 can process only on year of hourly meteorological data.159 Because Dr. Egan has provided no evidence to contradict the convincing evidence and analysis provided by Dr. Hanna, we find, based on the totality of the evidence in the record, that the 2001 meteorological data used in the SAMA analysis is adequate and sufficient.

52. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that the meteorology data inputs used for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis are both temporally and spatially representative and therefore adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA. We further conclude that the issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch regarding the sufficiency of the meteorological inputs cannot, on their own, 156 Id at A68.

157 Id. at A72.

158 Id. at A40.

159 Id.

51

credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial to implement.

D. Coastal Breezes Are Appropriately Accounted For in the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis

53. A major part of Pilgrim Watchs Contention 3 meteorology claims is that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis fails to adequately account for sea breezes that would occur near and around the Pilgrim plant. However, based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that there are no aspects of the sea breeze phenomenon that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis failed to take into account that could lead to additional SAMAs becoming cost beneficial. As we discussed above, the SAMA analysis is interested in expected consequences over a 50-mile radius domain based on a year of weather data and is not concerned with the tracking of individual plumes.160 Simply put, sea breezes and land breezes (referred to generically as coastal breezes) are seasonal, localized phenomenon that offset each other when calculating expected consequences averaged on an annual basis. Sea breezes blowing onshore during the day are generally offset by land breezes blowing offshore at night such that when integrated for long term annual conditions in a SAMA analysis their effects approximately cancel out.161 The adequacy of the treatment of sea breezes in the SAMA analysis is further confirmed by the CALMET Trajectory Analysis, which we discuss below.162

54. Coastal breezes are generated by differences in land and water surface temperatures, which cause differences in surface air pressures. Sea and land breezes are thermal circulations resulting from the presence of relatively lower pressures over the warmer surface and higher pressures over the cooler surface. This pressure differential exerts a force that causes the air 160 Id. at A17, A79.

161 Id. at A74, A75, A78.

162 Id. at A79-A80.

52

near the surface to try to flow from high to low pressure. During the day this temperature and pressure difference may cause air flows from sea to land (sea breeze) and during the night, it may cause air flows from land to sea (land breeze). The coastal breezes occur as long as the local pressure difference is strong enough to overcome the prevailing larger scale pressure gradients, which generally cause the synoptic wind, which is the larger scale wind.163

55. Because of the limited range of the thermal circulations resulting from the land-water pressure differential and the offsetting synoptic winds, sea and land breezes usually do not extend more than a few miles from the coast. On days with significant sea breezes, they average about 5 to 10 miles inland penetration, with occasional larger values of up to 30 miles or so, and smaller values as little as only a few 100 feet.164

56. There are a limited number of days per year where noticeable coastal breezes that are not offset by synoptic winds could occur. In the Pilgrim coastal area, there are about 45 days per year during the summer months where the thermal gradient is sufficient and the synoptic winds are weak enough for a noticeable sea breeze. The durations of sea breezes are typically a few hours. Usually days with a noticeable sea breeze (blowing inland) are days with light synoptic winds, and therefore there is also an opposing land breeze (blowing offshore) at night, which is often stronger.165

57. The standard sea and land breeze cycle occurs in the late spring and summer along the New England coast, when daytime land temperatures are usually warmer than the ocean temperatures. But, for the other half of the year, from late fall to winter, when daytime land 163 Id. at A74; Ramsdell Test. at A7.

164 Entergy Test. at A74.

165 Id. at A75.

53

temperatures are usually cooler than ocean temperatures, there is more likely a land (offshore) breeze generated.166

58. Notably, none of the parties to this proceeding dispute that the sea breeze phenomenon as described above is limited to roughly 30 to 50 days per year, has a typical inland penetration of 10 miles, and has a duration of a only a few hours.167 Thus, the issue revolves around the adequacy of the MACCS2 code to model this phenomenon for purposes of a SAMA analysis concerned with integrated spatial and temporal expected consequences.

59. Pilgrim Watch contends that the MACCS2 model utilized by Entergy would result in a significant underestimation of offsite consequences of a severe accident because (1) the code ignores sea breeze circulations and (2) because one meteorological data collection site cannot adequately capture the complex wind trajectories caused by the sea breeze effect.168 Pilgrim Watch also argues that the topography of a coastal environment plays an important role in the sea breeze circulation, and can alter the typical flow pattern expected from a typical sea breeze along a flat coastline and that Pilgrims coastal location increases doses on communities inland to an approximate 15 km (9.3 miles).169

60. At the outset, Pilgrim Watchs claims ignore the offsetting nature of the sea and land breezes for purposes of performing a SAMA analysis.170 Dr. Hanna explained that for every day when there is a sea breeze blowing on shore, during the same day there is typically a nighttime land breeze blowing offshore, such that the two effects cancel out when performing 166 Id. at A74.

167 Id.; Ramsdell Test. at A7, A8; PW Statement at 6, 24; Egan Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10; and J. Spengler and G. Keeler, Final Project Report, Feasibility of Exposure Assessment For the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (May 1988) (PWA000011) (Spengler Report).

168 Egan Decl. at ¶13, Item 20.

169 PW Statement at 6-7, citing Spengler Report (PWA000011).

170 Entergy Test. at A75, A80.

54

an annual consequence evaluation over a broad area, as done in a SAMA analysis.171 The Staffs expert, Mr. Ramsdell, fully concurs with Dr. Hanna that onshore winds during the day are effectively offset for purposes of a SAMA analysis by offshore winds during the night or early morning hours.

61. Furthermore, contrary to Pilgrim Watchs claim, MACCS2 does not ignore sea breezes.

Entergys SAMA analysis covers the entire year and thus includes both types of coastal breeze phenomena, land and sea breezes.172 Coastal breezes were captured by the Pilgrim on-site meteorological tower during 2001 and were therefore included as part of the MACCS2 calculation.173 Both sea breezes and land breezes that are reflected in the 2001 meteorological weather data are used in the MACCS2 calculation and are treated equally in the SAMA analysis.174

62. Dr. Hanna and Dr. OKula further explained that the deposition that would occur from an individual sea breeze occurrence is conservatively accounted for in the SAMA analysis.175 Sea breezes are localized phenomena that generally occur within 10 miles of the coast.176 As a result, any deposition impacts from a typical single sea breeze would generally be limited to 10 miles inland. Nevertheless, MACCS2 treats all winds, including sea breezes, as prevailing winds that travel the entire 50-miles considered in the SAMA analysis, not merely 10 miles in the case of coastal breezes. Therefore, the actual deposition distribution impacts 171 Id. at A74, A75, A78, A80.

172 Id. at A74; Ramsdell Test. at A10.

173 Entergy Test. at A77.

174 Ramsdell Test. at A10.

175 Id. at A80.

176 Id. at A74.

55

caused by an individual sea breeze occurrence would be less than the deposition distribution impacts calculated by a straight-line Gaussian plume segment model.177

63. Pilgrim Watchs claim that sea breezes in combination with Pilgrims coastal location may increase doses to coastal inhabitants for up to 15 km (9.3 miles) inland is unfounded. Pilgrim Watch hypothesizes specific short-term scenarios for which the ability to track an individual plume and determine concentrations and depositions at specific locations are important, as would be the case for emergency responses or for EPA air permit applications.178 However, the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is focused on expected annual consequences integrated over an area with radius 50 miles, based on use of one year of hourly meteorological data. As explained by Entergys expert, Dr. Hanna, while over the course of a year it is possible that a hypothetically simulated plume during one or two hours could be redirected onshore by an individual sea breeze, thereby increasing impacts, it is also true that a hypothetically simulated plume during another hour could be redirected offshore by an individual land breeze yielding no impacts. Because the SAMA analysis simulates postulated plume travel based on weather scenarios experienced over the course of a year, which includes both sea breezes and land breezes, there is little net change expected on an annual basis over a broad area.179 The NRC Staffs expert, Mr. Ramsdell, concurs.180

64. Similarly, Pilgrim Watchs and Dr. Egans claims that one meteorological data collection site cannot adequately capture the complex wind trajectories caused by the sea breeze effect was shown to be incorrect by Dr. Hanna. Dr. Hanna presented comparisons of annual wind roses for other coastal sites in the SAMA domain which show that, on an annual basis for purposes 177 Id. at A77, A80.

178 Id. at A78.

179 Id.

180 Ramsdell Test. at A14.

56

of a SAMA analysis, the Pilgrim sites observed wind directions for 2001 are representative of the other coastal sites. Moreover, comparisons of the Pilgrim 2001 annual wind rose to inland sites within the SAMA domain, beyond typical sea breeze range such as Taunton, shows that there is little net change from the Pilgrim 2001 annual wind rose used in the SAMA analysis.181 Thus, the 2001 annual wind roses show no dramatic differences that would affect the long term and broad area impacts produced by a SAMA analysis. The locally temporal and spatial dependencies of individual sea breezes average out over the year so as not to affect the results of the SAMA analysis. This result was further confirmed by the CALMET Trajectory Analysis discussed below.

65. The NRC Staffs expert, Mr. Ramsdell, agrees that the SAMA analysis considers all meteorological conditions to determine the transport and dispersion of the radionuclides, including coastal breezes.182 As such, [t]his treatment of sea breeze is reasonable for the use to which the code output is being applied and the atmospheric model in MACCS2.183

66. Viewed in its totality, the evidence presented by Entergy and the NRC Staff demonstrates that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis adequately accounts for sea breezes. Pilgrim Watchs evidence does not dispute any of the evidence presented by Entergy and the Staff. As such, we reject Pilgrim Watchs unsupported claims and conclude that Pilgrims SAMA analysis adequately takes coastal breezes into account and further refinement of the accounting for sea breezes and land breezes will not significantly alter the overall impacts estimated by MACCS2 and the conclusions regarding those SAMAs that are potentially cost-beneficial.

181 Entergy Test. at A79; see also Hanna Meteorological Report (ENT000004).

182 Ramsdell Test. at A10.

183 Id. at A11.

57

E. Hot Spots As Claimed By Pilgrim Watch Are Both Technically Incorrect and Immaterial

67. As set forth below, we find Pilgrim Watchs claims that plumes headed out to sea may remain tightly concentrated and upon a change of direction thus cause hot spots to be both technically incorrect and immaterial. Contrary to Pilgrim Watchs unsupported claims, testimony by Entergy demonstrates that a postulated radioactive plume in the atmospheric boundary layer will always disperse significantly and never remain tightly concentrated, even under very stable conditions.184 Furthermore, hot spots are irrelevant for SAMA analyses because they are based on a single plume and set of hypothetical weather conditions occurring during a limited period. As already explained, a SAMA analysis is not focused on tracking individual plumes to identify the annual expected consequences for a set of accident scenarios in order to perform a cost benefit analysis. Whether or not the SAMA analysis can predict infrequently occurring speculative plume concentrations as a result of hypothetical weather conditions is irrelevant to this contention.185 Finally, there is no evidence that accounting for hot spots will in any way impact the ultimate outcome of the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.186

68. Pilgrim Watch speculates that a radioactive plume traveling over water may remain tightly concentrated due to reduced turbulence and that if such an event were to occur when winds headed initially offshore are blown back towards shore due to wind shifts, the result is a hot spot of radioactivity along the coast.187 Pilgrim Watchs expert witness, Dr. Egan, provides 184 Entergy Test. at A82.

185 Id.

186 Id. at A89.

187 PW Statement at 8, 24, citing Declaration Of Dr. Jan Beyea In Support Pilgrim Watchs Response Opposing Entergys Motion For Summary Disposition Of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3; and Excerpts From Report To The Massachusetts Attorney General On The Potential Consequences Of A Spent-Fuel-Pool Fire At The Pilgrim Or Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant (2007) (Exhibit No. PWA00002)(Beyea Decl. & Report).

58

no support for Pilgrim Watchs hot spot claim. Rather, Pilgrim Watch relies solely upon a reference in a report by Dr. Beyea and a technical paper by Angevine et al. 188

69. As a threshold matter, none of the documents relied upon by Pilgrim Watch provide any support for Pilgrim Watchs hot spot claims. As conclusively addressed by Dr. Hanna in his expert and rebuttal testimony, neither the Beyea Declaration and referenced report nor the technical paper by Angevine et al. provide any support for Pilgrim Watchs hot spot claims.189 Beyeas report provides no technical support for Pilgrim Watchs hot spot claim Beyea only briefly raises at pages 11-12 of his paper the potential specter of hot spots, as something that should be studied with no supporting scientific justification or evidence of their existence. Furthermore, Beyea is not a meteorologist and he provides no scientific rationale to support his conjecture.190

70. As explained by Dr. Hanna, the Angevine et al. paper relates to ozone transport and is not applicable to radionuclide transport.191 There are key differences in behavior of a broad regional ozone polluted air mass, such as that evaluated by Angevine et al., and a single plume emitted from a point source evaluated in a SAMA analysis. The plume from a point source will initially disperse rapidly in both the lateral and vertical directions, causing large decreases in ground level concentrations.192 Even after the plume disperses vertically so that it fills the mixing layer, it will still significantly disperse in the lateral direction. In contrast, the basic physics and chemistry of an ozone plume will result in the plume being 100 to 200 miles wide by the time it reaches the Eastern Massachusetts coast. The plume (better 188 Angevine et al., Modeling Of The Coastal Boundary Layer And Pollutant Transport In New England (2006)

(Exhibit No. PWA00006); PW Statement at 8, 30, 34-36.

189 Entergy Test. at A87, A88; Entergy Reb. Test. at A3, A4.

190 Entergy Test. at A87 191 Entergy Test at A88; Entergy Reb. Test. at A3.

192 Entergy Test. at A84, A85; Entergy Reb. Test. at A3.

59

referred to as a regional polluted air mass) has nearly uniform ozone concentration, with no more than a factor of two difference, in a lateral direction for at least 100 miles in either direction and for hundreds of miles upwind. This plume or polluted air mass has already filled up the mixing layer. Even though the broad ozone plume is dispersing at its sides at the normal rate, this is insufficient to cause much of a decrease in concentration over the wide area.193

71. Thus, the physics and chemistry principles that apply for the ozone plumes studied in Angevine et al. (2006) are inapplicable for point source plumes, such as those considered in a SAMA analysis. Based on the above evidence, we find that the Angevine et al. paper relates to ozone transport and is not applicable to Contention 3. We also find that the Beyea Declaration and report excerpts is unsupported and unreliable. As such, we hold that Pilgrim Watch failed to present any probative or reliable evidence to support its hot spots claims.

72. In contrast, Entergy, through its expert, Dr. Hanna, presented extensive evidence refuting Pilgrim Watchs claim of hot spots. As explained by Dr. Hanna, plumes in the atmospheric boundary layer always disperse significantly and never remain tightly concentrated. Even under very stable atmospheric conditions, there is sufficient turbulence occurring overwater to cause a plume from an industrial stack to rapidly disperse such that maximum plume centerline ground level concentrations will decrease by a factor of about 10 to 30 for each factor of ten increase in distance.194

73. As plumes disperse, their centerline concentrations always decrease. The greater the distance travelled, the greater the dispersion and hence the less concentration on the plume 193 Entergy Reb. Test. at A3.

194 Entergy Reb. Test at A3; Entergy Test at A85.

60

centerline.195 The basic scientific aspects of atmospheric transport and dispersion are the same over land and water,196 and plumes travelling over land and water behave generally the same and always disperse significantly as they travel.197 Therefore, Pilgrim Watchs claim that plumes remain tightly concentrated as they travel out over the ocean and come back onto land as hot spots simply lacks any technical merit. All plumes rapidly disperse even if they travel under worst-case very stable conditions.198 Therefore, the facts show that by the time such a postulated release reached land after first traveling out to sea, the plume would be significantly dispersed and maximum plume centerline concentrations greatly reduced having generally traveled a much further distance than if the plume had traveled directly over land.199

74. Furthermore, Agevine, et al., relied upon by Pilgrim Watch for its hot spot claims, concerns solely worst case, hot summer-time conditions. It is well known that stable conditions, such as those described in Angevine, et al., sometimes exist over the ocean during the summer (due to warm air passing over colder water). However, these impacts of a few days of stable conditions over the ocean during the summer on the overall SAMA analysis, which covers the entire year, would be offset by unstable conditions over the ocean during some periods during the winter (due to cold air passing over warmer water) that result in increased dispersion and lower concentrations.200

75. In this respect, Pilgrim Watchs hot spot claims based on a single plume and set of weather conditions occurring during a limited period of time are irrelevant for SAMA purposes. The 195 Entergy Test at A83.

196 Id. at A85.

197 Id.

198 Id.

199 Id. at A89.

200 Entergy Reb. Test. at A4; Entergy Test. at A88, A108.

61

SAMA analysis is not focused on tracking individual plumes but on the mean or expected consequences over a large domain for a set of 19 postulated accident scenarios (obtained from the Pilgrim PSA) for many different weather sequences occurring over a year. The results identify the annual expected consequences for the set of accident scenarios in order to perform a cost benefit analysis. Whether or not the SAMA analysis can predict infrequently occurring speculative plume concentrations as a result of hypothetical weather conditions is irrelevant to this analysis.201

76. Finally, the CALMET analysis performed by Entergy shows that there is no consistent, frequently occurring pattern of wind blowing out to sea and then reversing direction and heading for the coast that might conceivably affect the time and space integrated results of the SAMA analysis. The comparison of the CALMET and Pilgrim roses shows slightly more CALMET trajectories towards the north-north-west, but this difference and other differences between the CALMET and Pilgrim roses are minor and have negligible impact on the SAMA analysis.202

77. In summary, we find that Pilgrim Watch presented no probative or reliable evidence to support its hot spot claim. Nor has Pilgrim Watch disputed any of the evidence proffered by Entergys Experts. Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that Pilgrim Watch claims are both technically incorrect and immaterial to the Pilgrim SAMA analysis and that hot spots, as hypothesized by Pilgrim Watch, do not exist and therefore do not impact deposition or cost differentials, and ultimately have no impact on Pilgrims SAMA analysis.

We find no merit to Pilgrim Watchs claims of hot spots and reject the contention that hot spots may change the outcome of the SAMA analysis.

201 Entergy Test. at A82.

202 Entergy Test. at A89.

62

F. The CALMET Trajectory Analysis shows that any short-term differences in observed winds across the SAMA domain have negligible effect on the annual frequencies of trajectory directions and on the Pilgrim SAMA consequences

78. Entergy performed a supplemental analysis using CALMET, which is a meteorological model that uses data from multiple weather stations to develop three-dimensional time and spatially variable wind fields. Entergy used data from multiple weather stations throughout the Pilgrim SAMA region to generate three-dimensional wind fields for the Pilgrim SAMA domain, which were then used to develop and evaluate trajectories for assumed hypothetical releases from the Pilgrim Station for each hour of 2001. The CALMET wind trajectories developed for each hour of 2001 were then compared to the 2001 Pilgrim wind rose used as the basis of the SAMA analysis. The purpose of the CALMET Trajectory Analysis was to evaluate whether the annual trajectory roses developed using CALMET, which accounted for time and spatially variable observed winds over the Pilgrim SAMA domain, were similar to the 2001 Pilgrim wind rose.203

79. A wind trajectory rose has the same format as a wind direction rose, but they differ in that a wind rose uses observed wind directions for determining the annual frequency for each wind direction, whereas a trajectory rose uses the direction a plume trajectory is traveling when it passes over a radial arc at a given distance from the Pilgrim Station as the basis for determining the annual frequency for each wind direction.204 Trajectory roses were calculated and documented for arcs at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 miles.205

80. The supplemental CALMET Trajectory Analysis performed by Entergy used inputs of hourly-observed winds from 26 surface sites in the SAMA analysis domain, as well as data obtained from four upper air sites via weather balloons. Using this input data, CALMET is 203 Entergy Test. at A92-A93.

204 Id. at A92.

205 Id. at A93.

63

able to calculate hourly spatially variable wind fields used to produce the trajectory roses necessary for the comparison to the wind rose.206 This is the type of three-dimensional wind field based on multiple weather stations that Dr. Egan and Pilgrim Watch have claimed should be developed and used for SAMA analyses.207

81. After reviewing several available meteorological models for developing three dimensional time dependent wind fields, Entergy chose the CALMET model to perform the wind trajectory rose to wind rose comparison because its wind outputs could be more easily used to calculate trajectories. Furthermore, it is the most widely used and accepted technology in the U.S. for developing spatially variable wind fields that can be used to take into account changes in plume travel direction as a result of changes in the wind on an hourly basis. In this respect, CALMET is used to develop the three-dimensional time dependent meteorological wind fields for the EPA approved CALPUFF Langrangian puff dispersion model.208

82. The supplemental CALMET Trajectory Analysis performed by Entergy involved the following steps. First, a square domain was established with 200 km (125-mile) sides and with the Pilgrim site located at the center. The domain covered an area beyond the 50-mile radius of the Pilgrim SAMA domain in order to assure sufficient data to interpolate wind fields at the edges of the 50-mile radius circle. The square domain was then divided into a grid whose elements are square with 4 km (2.5-mile) sides, which provides an adequate resolution for terrain features and is often used for CALMET runs for EPA applications.

Second, the terrain was characterized for modeling, which encompasses terrain elevations from sea level to approximately 300 meters on the northwestern edge of the domain. Third, 206 Id. at A94.

207 See, e.g., Egan Statement at 2.

208 Entergy Test. at A94, A55.

64

meteorological data were obtained from 26 near-surface sites with adequate quality hourly data for 2001, and certified upper air meteorological data (whose measurements are taken twice daily) were obtained from four locations in the domain. Fourth, plume trajectory heights for the analysis were chosen at 100 meters, 200 meters, and 500 meters to cover the range of possible plume heights in the MACCS2/ATMOS calculation. A trajectory was initiated at each of these three heights from the Pilgrim Station at each hour for 2001, which followed the speed and direction of the CALMET wind fields wherever the trajectory is located during a given time period. Last, CALMET was used to produce the spatially variable wind fields over the domain for each hour of 2001, which governed the speed and direction of the plume trajectories. Each plume trajectory passed the radial arcs at one-mile increments from 1 to 10 miles, and then at 20, 30, 40, and 50 miles for plume elevations of 100, 200, and 500 meters. The statistical distribution around each of these radial arcs for the 50-mile SAMA analysis circle were determined and used to generate annual trajectory roses for comparison with the Pilgrim wind rose.209

83. A comparison of the visual depiction of the annual Pilgrim wind rose used in the SAMA analysis with the visual depictions of the CALMET annual calculated trajectory roses for the different radial arcs shows that they are very similar. For example, the dominant wind directions for the trajectory roses are towards the east over the water, similar to the annual Pilgrim wind rose. Similarly, the fractions of the wind directions towards the more populated areas to the northwest and west are relatively small for both the trajectory roses and the Pilgrim wind rose.210 209 Id. at A95.

210 Id. at A96 and Figures 6 and 7; Hanna Meteorological Report (Exhibit No. ENT000004) at Apps. C, D, and E.

65

84. An example quantitative comparison between the annual 2001 wind direction frequencies at the 500 meter trajectory height at a distance of 50 miles from Pilgrim with the wind direction as taken from the Pilgrim 33 ft. meteorological tower wind rose (used in the SAMA analysis) shows that the there is minimal difference between the CALMET trajectories (500 m level and 50-mile distance) and the 33 ft. Pilgrim observations.211

85. The close similarity of the Pilgrim wind rose used for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis with the CALMET-generated trajectory roses demonstrates that the Gaussian plume segment ATMOS model used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis produces results similar to the three-dimensional CALMET trajectory model. The two models produce similar results even though ATMOS assumes that wind direction persists over the duration of the plume trajectory until it passes the 50-mile arc, whereas CALMET trajectories change direction based on the three-dimensional wind-field generated by CALMET. The CALMET trajectories show little difference from the Pilgrim wind rose used in the SAMA analysis even though the CALMET trajectories are three-dimensional wind fields and have been affected by any sea breeze and terrain impacts to the extent they exist. Thus, short-term differences in observed winds have little effect on the annual wind direction frequencies, and the ability to account for short-term time and space variations of meteorology does not significantly enhance the accuracy of the SAMA analysis.212

86. The supplemental CALMET Trajectory Analysis confirms that there is no significant impact due to coastal breezes, including sea breezes, on the results of the SAMA analysis. Nor is there any significant directional bias in other locations (e.g., due to the wind heading out to sea and then turning inshore to land) that would alter the annual SAMA results.213 211 Entergy Test. at A100.

212 Id. at A97.

213 Id. at A98-A99.

66

87. The results of the CALMET Trajectory Analysis are further confirmed by the quantitative calculation and comparison performed by Entergy of the Exposure Index (EI) for the CALMET trajectory roses with the EI for the Pilgrim wind rose. EI is a metric that was used by the NRC in the GEIS for nuclear plant license renewal to assess future plant operation impacts from atmospheric release pathways. EI is a relative measure of the population potentially affected by a radiological release, and is quantitatively proportional to the mean annual wind direction frequencies weighted by population in those sectors. Because PDR and OECR are strongly dependent on wind-directed radiological exposures to high population densities, EI is an indication of relative change between the models for estimating the impact of using different wind direction frequencies. In other words, the relative change in EI from the MACCS2 based 2001 Pilgrim SAMA wind rose and the CALMET-based trajectory rose will indicate the relative change expected in SAMA PDR and OECR that would result from using CALMET-based trajectory roses instead of the Pilgrim SAMA wind rose.214

88. Entergy compared the EI for the CALMET trajectory roses at heights of 500 meters and 100 meters to the EI for the 33 ft. Pilgrim wind rose that was used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis observations at 33 ft. The 500-meter result (which represents a mixing height of 1000 meters) is a more representative comparison for the Pilgrim site than the 100-meter result because (1) seasonal mixing heights used in the SAMA analysis range from 800-1300 meters, and (2) most atmospheric plumes released from Pilgrim station will mix vertically as they move downwind and will extend to the full mixing layer height after about ten miles of 214 Id. at A101-A102; Exposure Index Calculation (Exhibit No. ENT000011).

67

travel. Most of the population in the Pilgrim SAMA domain is located outside of a 10-mile radius from the plant.215

89. The CALMET-based EI for the 50-mile SAMA domain using the 500-meter trajectory rose is 3.24% higher than the MACCS2 based EI. The CALMET-based EI for the 50-mile SAMA domain using the 100-meter trajectory rose is 13.80% higher than the MACCS2 based EI. Neither the 500-meter nor the 100-meter EI comes close to the factor of more than two for another SAMA to be considered potentially cost beneficial.216

90. Dr. Egan does not address the supplemental CALMET analysis and EI calculations performed by Entergy.217 Because the supplemental CALMET analysis directly accounts for time and spatially variable wind fields that Dr. Egan claims should be considered in a SAMA analysis, we find Dr. Egans failure to address the supplemental CALMET analysis and EI calculations to be highly significant.

91. Based on the supplemental CALMET analysis and EI calculations performed by Entergy, we find that the use of an alternate atmospheric transport and dispersion model that considers time and spatially variable wind fields, as argued for by Dr. Egan and Pilgrim Watch, as opposed to the ATMOS Gaussian plume segment model used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, would have little effect on the outcome of the SAMA cost-benefit analysis.218 The supplemental CALMET analysis and EI calculations performed by Entergy conclusively demonstrate that the use of a more sophisticated model that considers time and spatially variable wind fields would not result in identifying any additional SAMAs that are potentially cost-beneficial. Indeed, Pilgrim Watch has acknowledged that [i]t is not possible 215 Entergy Test. at A104; Exposure Index Calculation (Exhibit No. ENT000011) at 6.

216 Entergy Test. at A104.

217 See Egan Statement.

218 Entergy Test. at A105.

68

for either Pilgrim Watch, or anyone else, to show that meteorology, in and of itself, would result in a significantly different SAMA analysis.219 .

G. Terrain is conservatively treated for purposes of the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis

92. The terrain surrounding the Pilgrim Station within the 50-mile region of the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is relatively flat with a few hills of height of about 300 to 600 feet within 10 miles of the coast, and 900 feet within the western edge of the domain.220

93. For the purposes of a SAMA analysis, terrain features such as hills have a dispersive effect on a plume at distances of a few miles beyond the hills, after a plume passes over and around the features. As a plume passes over and around a feature, it becomes more dispersed and less concentrated than it otherwise would have been, and therefore would have less impact on persons and property on the far downwind side of the terrain feature.221

94. In the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, the ATMOS Gaussian plume segment model does not directly model the effects of terrain features such as the possible effects of plumes impacting on the side of large hills because it assumes a uniform, flat terrain. As a result, ATMOS would overestimate concentrations in the plume at distances several miles downwind of the obstacle - where the bulk of the population of concern in the SAMA analysis is located -

which is conservative because it results in an overestimation of the SAMA consequences.222

95. Pilgrim Watch offered testimony that flat terrain models cannot be relied upon to provide competent predictions of plume trajectory and atmospheric dispersion rates.223 Even assuming, arguendo, that this may be true with respect to tracking a specific plume, this 219 PW Statement at 2 (emphasis in original).

220 Id. at A106.

221 Id. at A107-A108.

222 Id. at A109, A112.

223 See Egan Decl. at ¶7; Egan Statement at 7.

69

testimony does not dispute the ATMOS models conservative overestimation of plume concentrations when averaged over the entire SAMA domain, which results in overestimation of consequences and, thus, costs across the numerous plume trajectories that are analyzed in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.

96. Dr. Egan and Pilgrim Watch also claim that the flat-earth Gaussian plume model is inadequate because it does not take into account the effect that terrain can have on wind patterns. However, the CALMET Trajectory Analysis confirmed the minimal impact of the terrain within the Pilgrim SAMA domain on annual wind field patterns for purpose of the SAMA analysis, which involves spatial and temporal averages. The CALMET Trajectory Analysis considered topography local to Pilgrim and determined that the difference in exposure between an analysis with ATMOS ignoring the terrain and an analysis with CALMET considering terrain was less than 4%. Thus, any impact of topography and other terrain features on wind field patterns is localized and has minimal, inconsequential impact on the results of the SAMA analysis.224

97. Surface roughness length is a measure of the mechanical mixing effects due to the presence of small-scale surface features such as grass, crops and other vegetation, brush and trees, and buildings. As surface roughness length decreases, there will be less mechanical mixing due to surface features and MACCS2/ATMOS simulated plume concentrations will be somewhat larger.225

98. One way that the MACCS2 code was conservatively applied to the Pilgrim SAMA analysis was by utilizing a smaller surface roughness length than could have reasonably been selected based on actual land usage and characteristics in the 50-mile region around 224 Entergy Test. at A113.

225 Id. at A110.

70

Pilgrim, particularly the areas 20-40 miles downwind with larger populations. Using a larger roughness value would have resulted in reduction of concentrations and doses.226

99. Pilgrim Watch offered testimony that more advanced models allow roughness length and other surface characteristics to vary spatially.227 Even if this may be true, this does not dispute the conservative input for the surface roughness length used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, resulting in less mechanical mixing and higher plume concentrations.

100. Based on all of the testimony and evidence, the Board finds that the MACCS2 flat-earth methodology for accounting for terrain effects is adequate for purposes of the Pilgrim SAMA analysis where long-term mean annual consequences are integrated over the 50-mile Pilgrim SAMA domain. As applied in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, the MACCS2 flat-earth methodology is conservative because, over broad areas downwind from Pilgrim, non-flat terrain features would otherwise have a dispersive effect on a plume and decrease the plumes concentration and therefore its consequences. In addition, the Pilgrim SAMA analysis used a conservative surface roughness factor which provides additional conservatism in the analysis.228 H. Pilgrim Watchs other Contention 3 issues are without merit

1. Resuspension of materials deposited on Site is accounted for as provided by MACCS2.

101. For on-site consequences, the Pilgrim SAMA analysis used the methodology established in NUREG/BR-0184 and NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4 to calculate on-site exposure and economic costs. MACCS2 was not used to calculate these costs.229 226 Id. at A111.

227 Egan Statement at 6.

228 Entergy Test. at A114.

229 Id. at A45, A115.

71

102. Although the MACCS2 code is not used to calculate on-site consequences, the MACCS2 Pilgrim SAMA analysis does calculate deposition of radioactive materials within the first third of a mile from the release point. This calculated deposition includes any deposition on the Pilgrim site, even though this amount is negligible relative to the total amount that would be deposited throughout the 50-mile Pilgrim SAMA domain.230 103. The MACCS2 code provides that plume radiological particulates and aerosols that are deposited throughout the 50-mile SAMA domain, including materials deposited within this one-third-mile ring, are also subject to resuspension as provided for by the MACCS2 code.231

2. Long-Range use of Gaussian Plume Segment Model is reasonable here 104. In general, the range for which a Gaussian plume model may be used is understood to depend on various factors, including significant changes in weather over the range of distances and times modeled.232 105. Although a standard straight-line Gaussian plume model which does not update weather data, such as AERMOD, might be limited to a smaller range, the MACCS2/ATMOS uses a Gaussian plume segment model, which does consider significant changes in weather over the range of distances and times modeled by allowing wind speed, stability, and precipitation to change from one hour to the next along the plume trajectory.233 106. Although the Gaussian plume segment model does not update wind direction along the plume trajectory, the wind rose and the CALMET trajectory rose comparisons show the 230 Id. at A116.

231 Id. at A116 & n.23; see also Bixler & Ghost Test. at A20 (the MACCS2 EARLY module considers resuspension factors).

232 Entergy Test. at A117.

233 Id.

72

similarity of wind directions within the 50 miles, such that no significant change in the SAMA analysis would result from considering time and spatially variable regional weather data.234 107. No major terrain features exist within the 50-mile range that would significantly impact the plume at the major population areas within the 50-mile range.235 108. Pilgrim Watch offered testimony that, at distances greater than 31 miles, the EPA would generally call for the use of a puff model capable of handling temporally and spatially changing meteorological conditions.236 But neither Pilgrim Watch nor its witness pointed to any regulatory requirement to restrict the MACCS2/ATMOS Gaussian plume segment models to less than 31 miles, or to use a puff model at greater than 31 miles. Nor did they dispute the facts that the Gaussian plume segment model accounts for changes in wind speed, stability, and precipitation along the 50-mile trajectory, or the similarity of wind directions within the 50-mile range.

109. Pilgrim Watch also offered testimony that data from the Pilgrim Station cannot be relied upon to provide accurate predictions out to 50 miles and that data from multiple weather stations are required.237 However, to address this issue, Dr. Hanna compared the Pilgrim wind rose with wind roses from 18 other weather sites within the 50-mile SAMA region and performed the CALMET Trajectory Analysis.238 Both the wind rose comparisons and the CALMET Trajectory Analysis show that the use of the Pilgrim Station data is reasonable and representative for the SAMA domain.239 Significantly, Dr. Egan does not 234 Id. at A118.

235 Id.

236 Egan Statement at 6.

237 Egan Statement at 7-8.

238 Entergy Test. at A66, A93.

239 Entergy Test. at A68, A69, A97, A105.

73

take issue with, or even address the wind rose comparisons or CALMET Trajectory Analysis performed by Dr. Hanna.240 Also undisputed by Pilgrim Watch is the fact that the puff model discussed by Dr. Egan, CALPUFF, fails to model key aspects of a radioactive release from a severe accident (e.g., radioactive decay, daughter ingrowth, etc.) required for a SAMA analysis.241 110. Because (i) the Gaussian plume segment model updates the meteorological data (except wind direction) hourly, (ii) the wind rose and the CALMET trajectory rose comparisons demonstrate that wind directions within the 50-mile range are similar, and (iii) there are no major terrain features within 50 miles that would significantly impact the plume, we find that the Gaussian plume segment model is reasonable for calculating expected annual consequences throughout the 50-mile SAMA range.242 The use of a variable plume of puff model, such as CALPUFF, would not result in the identification of any addition potentially cost-effective SAMAs. Indeed, Pilgrim Watch has admitted that on its own, using a variable plume model would not alter Entergys SAMA analysis.

I. Source Term 111. In our September 23rd Order, the Board directed that the parties address in their direct testimony certain Board inquiries with respect to potential conservatisms in the source term used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.243 Pursuant to the Boards Order, the parties submitted their responses to the questions in the Order.244 Experts for Entergy and the Staff proffered specific testimony and evidence in response to the Boards source term 240 See Egan Statement.

241 Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A36.

242 Id. at A117-A118.

243 See September 23rd Order, Appendix A at 2.

244 See Entergy Source Term Test.; Ramsdell Test. at A19-A23; Bixler & Ghosh Test. at A14, A22, and PW Statement at 43-50.

74

inquires. Pilgrim Watchs response did not address the Boards inquiries, but instead directly challenged the source term used by Entergy in its SAMA analysis.

112. Entergys position is that the additional the testimony, exhibits, and argument related to source term are not relevant to Contention 3, because Contention 3 does not challenge the source term used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.245 We agree with Entergy and hold that issues related to source terms and its treatment in the SAMA analysis are beyond the scope of this proceeding. In CLI-10-11, the Commission was clear that Contention 3 as submitted and admitted did not include specific challenges to the Pilgrim SAMA analysiss consideration of source term magnitude, timing, duration and energy of release.246 Notwithstanding this holding, we make the following findings based on the evidence in the record related to the source term utilized by Entergy in its SAMA analysis.

113. Entergy provided testimony as requested in the September 23rd Order concerning the conservatisms of the source term. Dr. OKula testified that probabilistic safety assessment frequency and source term analyses supporting the Pilgrim SAMA analysis have several sources of conservatism in frequency and inventory. The first source of conservatism is the Frequency for Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) initiating event.247 The 2003 PSA model used one single frequency for loss of offsite power from the 345kV ring bus. Loss of the 23kV feed from the Manomet Station to the shutdown transformer was modeled as a split fraction (i.e. conditional probability) of this frequency. It was conservatively assumed that 50% of the losses of offsite power resulted in a complete loss of all incoming AC power, 245 Entergy Position Statement at 1 n.2; see also Letter from Paul Gaukler, Counsel for Entergy, Entergy's Rebuttal Testimony (Feb. 1, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110320681); Entergys Motion in Limine to Exclude from Evidence Pilgrim Watchs SAMA Remand Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits (Jan. 13, 2011) at 12-13.

246 CLI-10-11 at 33 n.123.

247 Entergy Source Term Test. at A6.

75

despite the independence of the 23kV line. Thus, for this initiating event, a higher frequency is assumed than if independence of the 23kV line is credited.248 114. The second source of conservatism is inventory.249 An initial estimate to the radionuclide inventory for the SAMA analysis was originally based on expected power level alone, as provided for by industry guidance. This default inventory was revised per a NRC Request for Additional Information in consideration of an increased level of long-lived radionuclides such as Sr-90, Cs-134, and Cs-137. The inventory was recalculated above that expected based on power level alone from a calculation assuming 4.65% enrichment and average burn-up according to the expected fuel management practice over the twenty-year extended (license renewal) operation period as provided in ENT000007.250 The inventory obtained with this approach was approximately 25% higher than the power-scaled reference inventory for long-lived radionuclides. The revised baseline benefits in the SAMA analysis include the impact of the 25% increase in the inventory values for Sr-90, Cs-134, and Cs-137 for each analysis case. The inventory change in the base case led to a 7.4% increase to the mean off-site population dose risk and a 14.6% increase in the mean off-site economic cost risk.251 115. No party takes issue with, or disputes, the evidence set forth by Dr. OKula. We therefore accept Entergys conservatisms as findings of fact.

116. On its part, Pilgrim Watch challenges the adequacy of the Pilgrim source term. Pilgrim Watch asserts that the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) code, which was used to develop the source term for use in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, should not be used 248 Id.

249 Id.

250 LRA Amendment 4, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding SAMAs, Entergy Letter to NRC (July 5, 2006) (ENT000007).

251 Entergy Source Term Test. at A6.

76

for several reasons.252 First, Pilgrim Watch argues that, because the MAAP code has not been validated by the NRC, the code should not be used.253 However, as explained by Dr.

OKula in his rebuttal testimony, the MAAP code is a state-of-the-art code developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for use by utilities to quantify accident progression and source terms in the plant-specific Individual Plant Examinations (IPEs) and Probability Safety Assessments (PSAs). The NRC Staff has accepted the use of MAAP in IPE and PSA applications for regulatory purposes for many years. Moreover, MAAP is used throughout the world and produces results comparable to MELCOR, a similar code developed by Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) for the NRC in the modeling of severe accidents.254 117. Second, Pilgrim Watch states that that the MAAP code release fractions are consistently smaller for key radionuclides than the release fractions specified in NUREG-1465.255 However Dr. OKula and Dr. Ghosh explain that MAAP produces results that are different from, and consistently smaller than, the release fractions specified in NUREG-1465 because MAAP is used in these instances to model different phenomena than that considered in NUREG-1465. MAAP models the release of radionuclides from the containment into the environment following a postulated severe accident. In contrast, the NUREG-1465 source term solely represents radionuclides released into the containment.

It is often used for design basis accident evaluation in plant safety analyses and for meeting NRC safety and licensing requirements. The NUREG-1465 source term does not specify the source term released from containment into the environment following a severe 252 PW Statement at 43-50.

253 Id. at 43.

254 OKula Reb. Test. at A2.

255 PW Statement at 43-44; Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants, Final Report, NUREG-1465 (Feb. 1995) (NUREG-1465).

77

accident and does not take into account the reductions of the source term that would occur in those circumstances from various factors, such as containment spray and other mitigative systems and time delay in release from the containment.256 118. Last, Pilgrim Watch refers to two comparisons involving MAAP for which Pilgrim Watch claims the environmental release fractions estimated by MAAP were smaller than those estimated using the codes that were used for a NUREG-1150 study.257 However, according to both Dr. OKula and Dr. Ghosh, the NUREG-1150 comparison is not relevant because of the significant advancements that have been made in the modeling of severe accidents since the NUREG-1150 study that was performed in the 1980s.258 119. Based on the foregoing, we reject Pilgrim Watchs unsupported criticisms of the source term utilized in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis and we find that the source term is adequate for purposes of the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon a review of the entire hearing record and the foregoing discussion and Findings of Fact, the Board concludes the following:

1. Entergy has demonstrated that the meteorological inputs used and the transport and dispersion modeling that Pilgrim performed were reasonable and adequate to determine the average annual probabilistic off-site risk over a large area for use in a SAMA cost-benefit analysis. As discussed herein, the Pilgrim SAMA analysis contained reasonable estimates, considered uncertainties, and provided a reasoned evaluation of whether and to what extent 256 OKula Reb. Test. at A3; Ghosh Reb. Test. at A4.

257 PW Statement at 43-44; Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1150 (Dec. 1990) (NUREG-1150).

258 OKula Reb. Test. at A5; Ghosh Reb. Test. at A4.

78

these uncertainties could credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

2. Accordingly, Entergy has demonstrated that the modeling used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is reasonable and adequate to satisfy NEPA.

3. The use of alternative dispersion models for the SAMA analysis would have no material impact on the analysis and would result in no additional SAMAs becoming potentially cost beneficial. Pilgrims SAMA analysis adequately takes sea breezes into account, and comparison to other models shows that there are no major differences. As such, the occurrence of the sea breeze phenomenon would not significantly alter the overall impacts estimated by MACCS2. More importantly, the phenomenon would not make any additional SAMAs potentially cost beneficial.

4. Hot spots, as defined by Pilgrim Watch, do not exist and have no impact on the Pilgrim SAMA analysis. Even under the most stable conditions, plumes will always disperse at a large rate, with about a factor of 10 to 30 decrease in concentration with each factor of ten increase in distance traveled. As such, there would be no change to the overall impacts estimated by MACCS2, nor would there be any additional SAMAs potentially cost beneficial.

5. In sum, we conclude that Entergy has demonstrated that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis meteorological inputs, including the meteorological data and the Gaussian plume segment atmospheric transport and dispersion model embedded in MACCS2, were sufficient and reasonably applied in the SAMA analysis for NEPA purposes, and that changes to the meteorological inputs would not result in categorizing any additional SAMAs as potentially cost beneficial.

79

VI. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Pilgrim Watchs Contention 3 is resolved in favor of Entergy.

Accordingly, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is authorized to issue a renewed operating license for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, for a period of twenty years, consistent with the terms of this Initial Decision and the Staffs review of the License Renewal Application.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(1), any party to this proceeding may file a petition for review of this Decision with the Commission within fifteen (15) days after service of this initial decision.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(a)(2) and § 2.1210, this Initial Decision shall constitute the final decision of the Commission forty (40) days after its issuance, unless a petition for Commission review is filed, or the Commission decides to review this Initial Decision on its own motion.

Unless otherwise authorized by law, a party who wishes to seek judicial review of this Initial Decision must first seek Commission review.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.340(f) and 2.1212(d), this Initial Decision is immediately effective. See also 72 Fed. Reg. 49,352, 49,415-16 (Aug. 29, 2007).

Respectfully Submitted,

[Signed Electronically by Paul A. Gaukler]

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: March 4, 2011 80

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that Entergys Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Meteorological Matters Raised in Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 was provided to the Electronic Information Exchange for service on the individuals below, this 4th day of March, 2011. In addition, a copy of this pleading was provided by email to the persons designated by an asterisk below.

• Secretary Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop O-16 C1 Mail Stop O-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov secy@nrc.gov; hearingdocket@nrc.gov

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

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

• Ms. Mary Lampert *Susan L. Uttal, Esq.

148 Washington Street *Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.

Duxbury, MA 02332 *Brian Harris, Esq.

mary.lampert@comcast.net Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan.Uttal@nrc.gov; andrea.jones@nrc.gov; brian.harris@nrc.gov

• Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General *Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Duane Morris LLP Office of the Attorney General 505 9th Street, NW One Ashburton Place Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20006 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us sshollis@duanemorris.com Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us

• Mr. Mark D. Sylvia *Chief Kevin M. Nord Town Manager Fire Chief and Director, Duxbury Emergency Town of Plymouth Management Agency 11 Lincoln St. 688 Tremont Street Plymouth, MA 02360 P.O. Box 2824 msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Duxbury, MA 02331 nord@town.duxbury.ma.us

• Richard R. MacDonald *Katherine Tucker, Esq.

Town Manager Law Clerk, 878 Tremont Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Duxbury, MA 02332 Mail Stop T3-E2a macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Katie.Tucker@nrc.gov

[Signed Electronically by Paul A. Gaukler]

Paul A. Gaukler 2