ML111570501

NRC Staff'S Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch'S Request for Hearing on Post Fukushima SAMA Contention

ML111570501
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	06/06/2011
From:	Mizuno B NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML111570500	List: ML111570501 ML111570502
References
RAS 20428, 50-293-LR, ASLBP-06-848-02-LR
Download: ML111570501 (18)

Text

June 6, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co., and ) Docket No. 50-293-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )

) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

NRC STAFFS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PILGRIM WATCHS REQUEST FOR HEARING ON POST FUKUSHIMA SAMA CONTENTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby files its answer opposing the May 12, 2011 Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on Post Fukushima SAMA Contention (PW Post Fukushima Contention).1 The contention should not be admitted because Pilgrim Watch (PW) has not met the requirements for reopening a closed record: the issue PW seeks to raise is not supported by expert opinion; PW has not demonstrated that a materially different result would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially; the contention fails to meet the requirements for a nontimely contention; and its reference to the recent events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant in Japan, serious as those events are, does not establish that the contention itself raises an exceptionally grave issue. Finally, the contention lacks a factual and legal basis; it is 1

Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on Post Fukushima SAMA Contention (Post Fukushima SAMA Contention) (May 12, 2011) (Agencywide Document Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML111320651). The procedural history in this matter through the date PW filed this contention is described in NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Hold Licensing Decision in Abeyance Pending Commission Decision Whether to Suspend the Pilgrim Proceeding to Review the Lessons of the Fukushima Accident, May 12, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111320669), and is hereby incorporated by reference.

unsupported by expert opinion; and it does not raise a material issue in dispute. Thus, it fails to meet the admissibility requirements applicable to all contentions.

DISCUSSION A. Pilgrim Watch Fails to Meet the Requirements for Reopening the Record.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a), a motion or petition to reopen a closed record to consider additional evidence will not be granted unless all of the criteria in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.326 are satisfied. The motion must set forth the factual or technical bases for the contention and must be accompanied by one or more affidavits given by "competent individuals with knowledge of the facts alleged" or by experts in disciplines appropriate to the issues raised. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b). See also AmerGen Energy Co., LLC. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLl-1-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 286 - 291 (2009). In addition, it must address a significant safety or environmental issue and it must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered in the first instance. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2) and (3); AmerGen Energy Co., LLC. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 673 (2008). Moreover, the moving papers must be strong enough, in the light of any opposing filings, to avoid summary disposition. Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005).

Where a reopening contention raises an issue not previously in controversy, the contention must meet the requirements for nontimely contentions at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c).

10 C.F.R. § 2.326(d). Foremost among the requirements for admission of nontimely contentions is good cause for the failure to file on time. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i).

Finally, PWs Post Fukushima Contention must meet the general admissibility requirements at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) applicable to all contentions; inter alia, it must have a

legal and factual basis, must be supported by expert analysis and must raise a material issue.2

1. Pilgrim Watchs Attempt to Reopen the Record Is Not Supported by Expert Affidavit.

In order to reopen the record, a petitioner must support its request with an affidavit from an expert. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b). In order to give an expert opinion, the individual proffered by the party must be qualified an expert in the field of study at issue in the contention.

Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Combined License Application, Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-10-02, 71 NRC ___ (Jan. 7, 2010) (slip op. at 17) (affirming appropriateness of boards evaluation of experts qualifications in determination whether contention was adequately supported by expert opinion); Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP 09-07, 69 NRC 613, 639-40 (2009) (expert testimony dependent on witnesses qualifications as experts regarding issues at bar); Public Service Co.

of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-32, 30 NRC 375, 417 (1989);

Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-05-04, 61 NRC 71, 81 (2005). PWs attempt to reopen the record and its Post Fukushima Contention, however, are not supported by an affidavit from an expert in the field of study at issue.

In its contention, PW asserts that there is ongoing criticality at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan (Fukushima) and that, because the MACCS2 Code used in 2

The Staff discussed reopening and contention admissibility at length in NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on New Contention (January 7, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110070837), and NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watchs January 20, 2011 Amended Contention (February 14, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110450664), and hereby incorporates those discussions and argument by reference.

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.s (Applicant) severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis is unable to model an accident involving ongoing criticality, the model is flawed.3 Accordingly, ongoing criticality at Fukushima is a necessary factual predicate for the contention. In support of its claim that there is ongoing criticality at Fukushima, PW cites an article on the website of GLG Research that asserts that the high activity of an isotope of iodine as compared to cesium proves that there is ongoing criticality at Fukushima.4 The assertion that the activities of 131I vis--vis 134Cs or 137Cs establishes ongoing criticality is not self-evident and is clearly of the class of statements that must be supported by expert opinion. Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-06-10, 63 NRC 314, 352 (2006), affd CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727 (2006). The GLG Research website does not, however, identify the author of the article or provide the authors credentials and PW fails to supply this information. Because the identity of the author and his or her expertise cannot be determined, there is no basis for finding that the author is competent to hold forth as an expert on nuclear chemistry or criticality. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 NRC 1321, 1330 n. 16 (1983). Accordingly, the GLG Research article does not and cannot constitute expert support for the contention.

This lack of expert support is not cured by the affidavit by David Chanin (Chanin), the only expert PW did identify. In his Statement, Chanin cites his experience in the development, application, maintenance, and verification/validation of large scientific codes, primarily for 3

Post Fukushima SAMA Contention at 1-2.

4 The article can be accessed at http://www.glgroup.com/News/TEPCO-Data-Shows-Ongoing-Criticalities-Inside-Leaking-Fukushima-Daiichi-Unit-2-53751.html?obj=Search&Keyword=fukushima&cb=1 (last accessed May 31, 2011).

assessing the environmental impacts of radiological releases.5 With respect to the issue of ongoing criticality he avers only that he has read and reviewed the enclosed proposed contention and fully support[s] all its statements. PW has provided no statement of qualifications, no resume, and no curriculum vitae for Chanin and has not established his qualifications as an expert in the fields of chemistry or nuclear physics, which are the bases for the claim of ongoing criticality. Indeed, from the brevity of his statement, it is unclear whether Chanin is even holding himself out as the expert PW needs on the issue of nuclear chemistry and ongoing criticality, rather than the computer modeling that addresses radiological releases.6 Expert opinion is admissible only if the affiant is competent to give an expert opinion and only if the factual basis for that opinion is adequately stated and explained in the affidavit. Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, LBP-05-04, 61 NRC at 81. Because Chanin has not been qualified as an expert capable of addressing whether or not there is ongoing criticality at Fukushima and because his statement does not include the factual basis for an opinion on ongoing criticality, his statement will not support admission of the contention. As the Commission observed in Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 342 (1999), It is surely legitimate for the Commission to screen out contentions of doubtful worth and to avoid starting down the path toward a hearing at the behest of petitioners who themselves have no particular expertise - or expert assistance. This is 5

Post Fukushima SAMA Contention, Statement of David Chanin, p. 1, para. 1 6

In a 2007 pleading, PW attached a resume for Chanin, which shows that Chanins educational background is in mathematics and his work experience is in the field of computer modeling. Resume of David I. Chanin, attached to Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3, dated June 29, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071840568).

particularly true given the present posture of the case, where the record has been closed for over two years and the stricter requirements for reopening apply.

Not only must the affidavit be from an expert in the field, the evidence in the affidavit must meet the admissibility standards of 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart C. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b). At 10 C.F.R. § 2.337, the regulations provide that [o]nly relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. PW has failed to proffer any indicia of reliability for the article. It has not identified the author of the article, and has not provided his or her credentials so that the Board may determine whether the author qualifies as an expert.

Accordingly, the GLG article is inadmissible for lack of reliability and cannot support reopening the record.

2. The Contention Fails to Demonstrate that a Materially Different Result Would Have Been Likely.

PW asserts, without any supporting analysis, that if the SAMA analysis addressed releases [that] extend into days, weeks and even months, the offsite consequence will be larger, and this will affect the cost-benefit analysis.7 However, bare assertions and claims without supporting technical detail do not demonstrate that a materially different result would have been likely and thus will not support reopening. AmerGen Energy Co., Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC at 287.

As NRC Staff experts Dr. Nathan E. Bixler and Dr. S. Tina Ghosh explain, the benefits associated with the next most cost-beneficial SAMA would have to double in order to change the SAMA analysis.8 They state that this is highly unlikely because the re-criticality upon which 7

Post Fukushima SAMA Contention at 7.

8 Affidavit of Dr. Nathen E. Bixler and Dr. S. Tina Ghosh in Support of the NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watchs Request for Hearing on Post Fukushima SAMA Contention (Bixler and (continued. . .)

PW relies is itself unlikely to have occurred at Fukushima and that even if it were to occur, it would not change the SAMA analysis in a material way because it would only slightly change the source terms for a small subset of accidents in the SAMA analysis.9 Moreover, they state that [m]ost of the radioactivity released into the atmosphere at Fukushima Daiichi occurred early in the accident, within the first week [and that] since that time, offsite atmospheric and ground contamination levels have been decreasing.10 In contrast, PW provides no admissible evidence and no analysis in support of its claim. It simply states that the concerns it raises regarding ongoing criticality and release over a longer term will affect the SAMA cost-benefit analysis. PW does not explain how this will occur; it simply states that it will.

In light of Dr. Bixler and Dr. Ghoshs affidavit, PWs unsupported conclusory statement clearly does not meet the strict reopening requirement that the moving party put forward a case sufficient to withstand a motion for summary disposition. Private Fuel Storage, CLI-05-12, 61 NRC at 350 (appropriate for boards to consider the evidence of the party opposing reopening when applying summary disposition standard).

3. PW Has Not Shown Good Cause for Its Failure to File on Time.

A contention that is filed in conjunction with reopening that raises an issue not previously in controversy must meet the requirements at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) that govern the admissibility of nontimely contentions. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(d). The most important of these requirements is good cause for failure to file on time. Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

(. . .continued)

Ghosh Affidavit), para. 10.

9 Id. at para. 18.

10 Id. at para. 19.

(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 8, 24 (1996). In this instance, PW has not shown good cause for its failure to file the contention in a timely fashion.

Specifically, it has failed to show that it could not have raised the contention previously.

In support of the contention, PW cites the recent events at Fukushima.11 However, PWs focus on the recent events at Fukushima is misplaced. The proper focus of the inquiry is whether PW could have raised this challenge to the SAMA analysis previously.

As PW itself points out, the deficiency in the SAMA analysis that it relies on is inherent in the analysis itself and reflects a fundamental shortcoming in not just the MACCS2 code, but all PRAs [probabilistic risk assessments] conducted using tools based on the NRCs PRA Procedures Guide.12 PW asserts that the MACCS2 Code is unable to model the consequences of an accident at a reactor where the fission chain reaction continues apace despite reactor scram and notes that this alleged deficiency was highlighted by the 1986 Chernobyl accident.13 The alleged deficiency in the SAMA analysis was, according to PW, inherent in the analysis, i.e., that deficiency is embedded in the SAMA analysis. If the deficiency is inherent in the SAMA analysis, it is a deficiency that has existed since the Applicant filed its Environmental Report in 2006 because that report included that allegedly deficient analysis. Accordingly, the time to assert that the SAMA analysis was deficient was when the original contentions were filed in this matter, over five years ago. PWs Post 11 Post Fukushima SAMA Contention at 14-15.

12 Id. at 2.

13 Id.

Fukushima Contention is late and thus does not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§§ 2.309(c)(1)(i) or 2.326(d).

4. The Contention Does Not Raise an Exceptionally Grave Issue.

The reopening standards require that petitions to reopen be filed in a timely fashion, but allow boards to exercise discretion where a motion presents an exceptionally grave issue. 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(1). While the situation at Fukushima is assuredly serious, the gravity of that situation is not at issue here. Again, the proper question under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.326(a)(1) is whether the contention itself raises a grave issue at Pilgrim and PWs Post Fukushima Contention does not meet that standard. In their affidavit, Dr, Bixler and Dr.

Ghosh explain that the SAMA analysis is not a safety analysis; it is a cost-benefit analysis for the purpose of identifying cost-beneficial mitigation alternatives that existing plant examinations missed.14 Thus, the SAMA analysis has no direct safety significance. The SAMA analysis merely augments existing programs to identify mitigation alternatives that could further reduce the risk at a plant that ha[s] no identified safety vulnerabilities.15 Accordingly, it does not, and indeed it cannot, raise an exceptionally grave issue.

B. PWs Post Fukushima SAMA Contention Fails to Meet the Requirements for Admissibility in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

In addition to meeting the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), nontimely contentions must also meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) that apply to all contentions.16 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),

14 Bixler and Ghosh Affidavit, para. 8.

15 Id.

16 In order to be admitted, a contention must satisfy the following requirements:

(continued. . .)

LBP-00-01, 51 NRC 1, 5 (2000); Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200, 205-207 (1993). Application of these requirements ensures that contentions raise matters appropriate for adjudication in the proceeding in which they are raised, establish a sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry, and provide the other parties with sufficient notice of the issues so that they will know what they will have to address. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic

(. . .continued)

(f) Contentions. (1) A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request of petition must:

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestors/petitioners position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to supports its position on the issue; and (vi) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicants environmental report and safety report) that the petition disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioners belief.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974). As the Commission noted when it revised the hearing regulations, it should not have to expend resources to support the hearing process unless there is an issue that is appropriate for, and susceptible to, resolution in an NRC hearing. Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2202 (Jan. 14, 2004).

1. PWs Post Fukushima SAMA Contention Lacks a Basis in Fact.

PW bases its contention on the events at Fukushima in Japan, but it does so without establishing the relevance of those events to Pilgrim in Massachusetts. PW asserts that the Applicants SAMA analysis ignores new and significant lessons learned regarding the possible off-site radiological and economic consequences in a severe accident and points out that the Pilgrim reactor is similar in design to the reactors at Fukushima.17 PW appears to be suggesting that the same type of accident that occurred at Fukushima could occur at Pilgrim.

However, Dr. Bixler and Dr. Ghosh explain that severe accident hazards are site-specific, and the effects of these hazards are plant-specific and they point out that [t]he issue is not whether Pilgrims SAMA analysis accounted or could account for the events that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi plant but whether it accounts for the hazards present at the Pilgrim site.18 They state that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis considered all potential challenges from environmental hazards, such as the seismic events and tsunami events that could trigger a station blackout at Pilgrim.19 They note that five of the seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 17 Post Fukushima SAMA Contention, at 1.

18 Bixler and Ghosh Affidavit, para. 9.

19 Id.

identified in the [Applicants Environmental Report] and as a result of the NRCs SAMA review mitigate the loss-of-power scenarios . . . of which station blackout is a subset.20 PWs claim that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis must incorporate lessons learned from Fukushima into its SAMA analysis lacks a factual basis because it does not explain why the events at Fukushima are relevant to Pilgrim. In addition, it ignores the portions of the Pilgrim SAMA analysis that address the station blackout issues that triggered the events at Fukushima.

The contention thus fails to meet the basis requirements at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) and should not be admitted.

2. PWs Post Fukushima SAMA Contention Lacks a Basis in Law.

PWs Post Fukushima Contention raises issues that this Board and the Commission have rejected. Accordingly, it has no basis in law and should be dismissed.

As the Commission observed in remanding PWs Contention 3, Unless it looks genuinely plausible that inclusion of an additional factor or use of other assumptions or models may change the cost-benefit conclusions for the SAMA candidates evaluated, no purpose would be served to further refine the SAMA analysis, whose goal is only to determine what safety enhancements are cost-effective to implement.

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC ___ (March 26, 2010) (slip op. at 39). The Commission also pointed out that NRC SAMA analyses are not a substitute for, and do not represent, the NRC NEPA analysis of potential impacts of severe accidents. Id. at 37. The SAMA analysis is not expected to be a research document reflecting the frontiers of scientific methodology, studies and data. Id. The Commission recognized, while there will always be more data that could 20 Id.

be gathered, agencies must have some discretion to draw the line and move forward with decisionmaking. Id.

PW asserts that the MACCS2 Code that is used in the Applicants SAMA analysis does not model a radiological release that occurs over weeks or months and does not include the kind of ongoing criticality that it asserts is occurring at Fukushima and that, therefore, the Applicants Environmental Report is deficient.21 PW further asserts that indeed [n]o consequence code in the world allows the modeling of releases from reactor cores where the fission chain reaction continues many weeks after scram.22 PW notes that this is a generic shortcoming in what NRC considers to be the state of the art computer model.23 PW claims that a scenario that involves the ongoing release of radionuclides will result in larger offsite consequences than are currently modeled by the MACCS2 code: As releases extend into days, weeks and even months, the offsite consequence will be larger, and this will affect the cost-benefit analysis.24 PW also asserts that the Applicant must perform a fresh analysis to evaluate how these changes to assumptions and the resulting uncertainties would affect the overall cost benefit analysis.25 PW thus asserts that the MACCS2 Code does not and cannot model the kind of release that PW asserts is occurring at Fukushima and that it is therefore deficient. But the Commission 21 Post Fukushima SAMA Contention at 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

22 Id. at 2, 3, and 6.

23 Id. at 6.

24 Id. at 7.

25 Id. at 13.

has explicitly held that the MACCS2 Code is acceptable for the purposes of preparing SAMA analyses. Pilgrim, CLI-10-11, 71 NRC ___ (slip op. at 4). PW thus raises an issue that has no basis in law. Its argument that the MACCS2 Code is unusable has already been rejected by the Commission.

Furthermore, PW assumes that the SAMA analysis should model the kind of release that PW asserts is occurring at Fukushima. But again, as the Commission has made clear, the SAMA analysis is not supposed to model actual severe accidents; it is a tool to be used for the purpose of identifying potentially cost-beneficial severe accident mitigation alternatives. Id. at 3-

4. And thus, again, PW has raised an issue that has no basis in law. As Dr. Bixler and Dr.

Ghosh explain in their affidavit, there is a difference between models that address accidents for emergency management purposes (i.e., to address an actual release and to estimate its path in order to determine whether individuals in the path should shelter in place or evacuate, and when to do so) and models that address all possible accidents in a probabilistic manner for purposes of developing a cost-benefit framework to identify cost-beneficial mitigation alternatives.26

3. PWs Post Fukushima SAMA Contention Fails to Raise a Material Issue.

To the extent that PW asserts that [n]o consequence code in the world allows the modeling of releases from reactor cores where the fission chain reaction continues many weeks after scram,27 it raises an issue that will have no material effect on the SAMA analysis. Dr.

Bixler and Dr. Ghosh agree with PW that there is no computer code capable of modeling severe accidents for a SAMA analysis that is currently capable of modeling an extended but 26 Bixler and Ghosh Affidavit, para. 20.

27 Post Fukushima SAMA Contention at 2.

slow release over 8 weeks.28 They note that a number of codes can model extended releases, but such models are more appropriate for emergency planning modeling of specific plumes in actual accidents, rather than the modeling that occurs in a SAMA analysis.29 If no code can model the kind of release it claims is occurring at Fukushima, then PW is raising an issue that, by its own admission, cannot change the SAMA analysis. If the MACCS2 Code cannot be changed easily to address PWs concerns, there can be no material change in the resulting SAMA cost-benefit analysis, and the contention is inadmissible for failing to raise a material issue in dispute. Pilgrim, CLI-10-11, 71 NRC ___ (slip op. at 39). It is also inadmissible as it raises an issue that is not susceptible of resolution in this proceeding. Peach Bottom, ALAB-216, 8 AEC at 20-21.

4. PWs Post Fukushima SAMA Contention Is Not Supported by Expert Opinion Where a contention seeks to connect a set of facts with a specific result and that result is not self-evident, expert analysis is needed to bridge the gap. Palisades, LBP-06-10, 63 NRC at 352. As set forth above, supra 3 to 6, while PW claims that the ratio of iodine to cesium establishes ongoing criticality at Fukushima, and while that is clearly the kind of statement that is not self-evident and that requires expert support, PW has provided none. Because PW has not supported its contention with expert analysis, the contention is inadmissible and should be denied.

CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, Pilgrim Watch has failed to meet the requirements for reopening the record and its Post Fukushima Contention fails to meet the requirements for 28 Bixler and Ghosh Affidavit, para. 20.

29 Id.

admissibility. Accordingly, the record should not be reopened to admit Pilgrim Watchs Post Fukushima SAMA Contention and, because the contention itself is inadmissible, it should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed Electronically By/

Beth N. Mizuno Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-3122 E-mail: Beth.Mizuno@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day of June 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition To Pilgrim Watchs Request for Hearing on Post Fukushima SAMA Contention has been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 6th day of June, 2011:

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Ann Marshall Young, Chair Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: T-3F23 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY) Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov

Sheila Slocum Hollis Terence A. Burke, Esq.

Duane Morris LLP Entergy Nuclear 505 9th St., NW, Suite 1000 1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20004 Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com Mary Lampert David R. Lewis, Esq.

148 Washington Street Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.

Duxbury, MA 02332 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP E- mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1137 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Chief Kevin M. Nord Town Manager Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency Town of Plymouth Management Agency 11 Lincoln St.

668 Tremont Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Duxbury, MA 02332 E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Richard R. MacDonald Matthew Brock Town Manager Assistant Attorney General 878 Tremont Street Commonwealth of Massachusetts Duxbury, MA 02332 One Ashburton Place E-mail: macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us Boston, MA 02108 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us

/Signed Electronically By/

Beth N. Mizuno Counsel for the NRC Staff

.