ML11178A380

NRC Staff'S Response to Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Motion to Admit Contention and, If Necessary, Re-Open Record Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed by Fukushima Accident

ML11178A380
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	06/27/2011
From:	Andrea Jones NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 20503, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR
Download: ML11178A380 (30)

Text

June 27, 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 RESPONSE TO COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MOTION TO ADMIT CONTENTION AND, IF NECESSARY, RE-OPEN RECORD REGARDING NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REVEALED BY FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENT INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h) (1), the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) files its response opposing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts) motion to admit a new contention, and, if necessary, to re-open the record regarding new and significant information revealed by the Fukushima accident filed on June 2, 2011.1 1

Massachusetts submitted two pleadings. One pleading describes the new contention while the other pleading addresses the Commissions late-filing and reopening requirements. The Staff will address both pleadings in the response herein. See Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion To Admit Contention And, If Necessary, to Reopen Record Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed By Fukushima Accident ) (June 2, 2011) (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML111530340) (Motion); Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contention Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed By the Fukushima Radiological Accident (GEIS Contention) (June 2, 2011)(ADAMS Accession No. ML111530343). Attached to the GEIS Contention is a Declaration of Dr. Gordon R. Thompson in Support of Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contention And Related Petitions and Motions; New Significant Information From the Fukushima Daiichi Accident in the Context of Future Operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (June 1, 2011)(ADAMS Accession ML111530345) (Thompson Report).

Massachusetts alleges that the Staffs discussion of environmental impacts of severe accidents in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (Pilgrim) site-specific Environmental Impact Statement, supplement 29 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal, and the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis are inadequate because they do not address new and significant information revealed by the radiological accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) complex in Japan. GEIS Contention at 1.

The Staff submits that Massachusetts Motion should be denied for several reasons:

First, the Motion does not satisfy the standards for reopening a closed record to litigate a new contention. The reference in the Thompson Report to the recent events at FDNNP, serious as those events are, does not establish that the information itself materially alters the Pilgrim SAMA analysis and the findings of the GEIS, or that the GEIS Contention raises a significant environmental issue, or is timely. Second, the Motion does not meet the standards under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) or the standards for an admissible contention. It raises issues that are outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding, are immaterial, and do not raise a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact with the applicants license renewal application.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The history of this license renewal proceeding spans five years and includes scores of pleadings. Accordingly, only those portions of the procedural history directly relevant to the discussion below will be addressed herein.

By letter dated January 27, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Applicant or Entergy) submitted an application for renewal of Operating License No. DPR-35 for Pilgrim for

an additional 20 years.2 On May 26, 2006, Massachusetts filed an initial hearing request,3 which the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB or Board) denied.4 Subsequently, Massachusetts participated in these proceedings as an interested state under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c).5 On May 25, 2006, the intervenor group Pilgrim Watch filed a petition to intervene in this matter and submitted five contentions for consideration by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.6 The Board granted the petition and admitted two contentions.7 The Board granted Applicants motion for summary disposition with respect to the contention that challenged the Applicants analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA).8 After an evidentiary hearing on the remaining contention, which challenged the adequacy of the applicants aging management program for buried pipes and tanks, the Board disposed of that contention in favor 2

Letter from Michael A. Balduzzi, Entergy Nuclear Operations, to U.S. NRC, Re: License Renewal Application (Jan. 25, 2006) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060300026).

3 Massachusetts Attorney Generals Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene wit[h] respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.s Application for Renewal of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant Operating and Petition for Backfit Order Requiring New Design Features to Protect Against Spent Fuel Pool Accidents (May 26, 2006) (ADAMS Accession No. ML061630088).

4 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23, 64 NRC 257, 288 (2006). The Commission affirmed the Boards decision and denied rehearing. See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station &

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-07-3, 65 NRC 13, 21, reconsideration denied, CLI-07-13, 65 NRC 211 (2007), affd sub nom, Massachusetts v. NRC, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (upholding Commission decision that generic challenges to GEIS Category 1 issues may only be made by petition for rulemaking).

5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Notice of Intent to Participate as an Interested State (May 6, 2008) (ADAMS Accession No. ML081500531).

6 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene by Pilgrim Watch (May 25, 2006) (ADAMS Accession No. ML061630125).

7 Pilgrim, LBP-06-23, 64 NRC at 341.

8 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-13, 66 NRC 131 (2007). Judge Young dissented from the Boards Order. Id. at 156.

of the Applicant.9 Pilgrim Watch filed an appeal, and on March 26, 2010, the Commission issued CLI 11, reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding the SAMA contention, as limited by the Commissions Order, to the Board for further proceedings.10 Pilgrim Watch then filed two new contentions in late 2010.11 At a hearing on March 9, 2011, the Board heard argument on the remanded SAMA contention and the admissibility of the 2010 contentions regarding the implementation of SAMAs and inaccessible cables.12 The Boards decision on the remanded SAMA contention and the admissibility of the two new contentions is pending. Subsequently, Pilgrim Watch filed two more SAMA contentions in this proceeding.13 On June 2, 2011, Massachusetts filed a new contention,14 a motion to admit the 9

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-08-22, 68 NRC 590 (2008).

10 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC ___ (Mar. 26, 2010) (slip op. at 39) (ADAMS Accession No ML100880136).

11 Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention (Nov. 29, 2010) (ADAMS Accession No. ML103420305); Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergys Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ) Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Dec. 13, 2010) (ADAMS Accession No. ML103500400).

12 Transcript of Hearing Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts on March 9, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110740699).

13 Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on Post Fukushima SAMA Contention (May 12, 2011)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML111320647); Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention Regarding Inadequacy of Environmental Report, Post Fukushima (June 1, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111530448).

14 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contention Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed by the Fukushima Radiological Accident (June 2, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111530343). The GEIS Contention reads: the environmental impact analysis and the SAMA analysis in Supp. 29 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal (1996) are inadequate to satisfy NEPA because they fail to address new and significant information revealed by the Fukushima accident that is likely to affect the outcome of those analyses. The new and significant information shows that both core-melt accidents and spent fuel pool accidents are significantly more likely than estimated or assumed in Supp. 29 of the License Renewal GEIS or the SAMA analysis for the (continued. . .)

new contention,15 a petition for waiver of the Commissions regulations to permit full consideration of the new contention or, in the alternative, a petition for rulemaking to rescind those regulations (Waiver Petition),16 and a conditional motion to suspend Pilgrims license renewal proceeding pending resolution of the petition for rulemaking. The Staff responded to Massachusetts conditional Motion to suspend license renewal proceedings on June 13, 2011.17 The Staff has respond to Massachusetts Waiver Petition in a separate pleading also filed on June 27, 2011.

I. Applicable Legal Standards 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 and/or technical bases for the movants claim that the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section [timeliness/exceptionally grave issue] have been satisfied and must be accompanied by one or more affidavits given by

(. . .continued)

Pilgrim NPP. As a result, the environmental impacts of re-licensing the Pilgrim NPP have been underestimated. In addition, the SAMA analysis is deficient because it ignores or rejects mitigative measures that may now prove to be cost-effective in light of this new understanding of the risks of re-licensing Pilgrim. GEIS Contention at 5-6.

15 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Admit Contention and, If Necessary, to Re-Open Record Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed by Fukushima Accident (June 2, 2011)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML111530340).

16 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B or, in the Alternative, Petition for Rulemaking to Rescind Regulations Excluding Consideration of Spent Fuel Storage Impacts from License Renewal Environmental Review (June 2, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111530342) (Waiver Petition).

17 NRC Staffs Answer In Opposition To Commonwealth of Massachusetts Conditional Motion To Suspend Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Proceeding Pending Resolution of Petition For Rule-Making To Rescind Spent Fuel Pool Regulations, (Jun. 13, 2011)(ADAMS Accession No. ML111640493).

"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-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).

Finally, Massachusetts GEIS Contention must meet the general admissibility requirements at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) applicable to all contentions; inter alia, it must fall within the scope of the proceeding, must be material and must raise a genuine dispute with the license applicant.18 18 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.

II. Massachusetts Motion Does Not Satisfy the Re-Opening Requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.326(a)(1)-(3) and (b)

A. The Contention Does Not Demonstrate that a Materially Different Result Would Have Been Likely Massachusetts does not demonstrate that a materially different result would be likely had additional evidence been considered initially, as required under 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(3).

Massachusetts relies on the Thompson Report, which raises six issues: 1) the probability of reactor core damage based on direct experience of FDNPP; 2) an operators ability to mitigate a spent fuel pool fire accident in light of the TEPCO employees response at FDNPP; 3) the secrecy of accident mitigation measures related to spent fuel pool in light of FDNPP; 4) hydrogen control; 5) the probability of spent fuel pool fire based on direct experience of Fukushima; and 6) filtered venting of reactor containment. Based on these factors, Dr.

Thompson claims a redone SAMA analysis should encompass (a) structural damage; and (b) station blackout, loss of service water, and/or fresh water supply, occurring for multiple days.

Thompson Report at 14-28 Though the events of Fukushima are new, the contention, as framed by Massachusetts, raises issues that either were previously considered and rejected by the Board and the Commission 19 or were found to not demonstrate that there would be a materially different result 19 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station & Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-07-3, 65 NRC 13, 21, reconsideration denied, CLI-07-13, 65 NRC 211 (2007), affd sub nom, Massachusetts v. NRC, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (It makes more sense for the NRC to study whether, as a technical matter, the agency should modify its requirements relating to spent fuel storage for all plants across the board than to litigate in particular adjudications whether generic findings in the GEIS are impeached by the Mass AG's claims of new information. Adjudicating category one issues site-by-site based merely on a claim of "new and significant information," would defeat the purpose of resolving generic issues in a GEIS.); Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-14, 71 NRC __, (June 17, 2010) (slip op. at 36) (ADAMS Accession No. ML101680369)

([W]e held that [a]djudicating Category 1 issues site by site based merely on a claim of new and significant information, would defeat the purpose of resolving generic issues in a GEIS.) (quoting CLI-07-3, 65 NRC at 21).

if the events of Fukushima are considered. The Staff has already considered spent fuel pool accidents20 similar to the events referenced in Massachusetts GEIS Contention, and those results have been represented in the GEIS.21 Nothing known about the FDNPP accident indicates a significant environmental impact not previously considered in the GEIS. Therefore, issues 2 (operator actions), 3 (secrecy), and 5 (spent fuel pool fires) are not subject to legal challenges under the re-opening and contention admissibility rules.

Massachusetts Motion does not demonstrate that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis would be materially altered if information related to events at Fukushima is considered. For example, the Thompson Report claims that direct experience from Fukushima reveals that the licensee has underestimated the baseline CDF [(core damage frequency)] of the Pilgrim plant by an order of magnitude. Thompson Report at 17. Using this new baseline CDF, Dr. Thompson argues that the NRC should redo the SAMA analysis encompassing station blackout and loss of power scenarios. Thompson Report at 17. The attached affidavit (Ghosh Affidavit) from Dr. Tina Ghosh of the NRC Staff demonstrates otherwise.

As Dr. Ghosh explains, Dr. Thompson makes a number of improper assumptions 20 Recent information regarding damage of the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 was released by the Japanese government. According to the report, Unit 4 spent fuel pool remained nearly undamaged.

Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety- The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations.

(http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html, last visited on June 27, 2011) Page IV-90 states: As shown in Table IV-5-4 of the analysis result of nuclides in the water extracted from the spent fuel pool using a concrete pump truck, it is assumed no extensive damage in the fuel rods occurred. No damage to the pool, including water leaks and cracks, was found from visual inspections of the pools condition. Page IV-91 states: As mentioned above, the results of analyzing nuclides from the spent fuel pool and visual inspections have revealed that Unit 4s spent fuel pool remains nearly undamaged. This contradicts Dr. Thompsons unsupported suppositions regarding SFP damage at Fukushima. See Thompson Report at 14-28.

21 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. B, Table B-1; GEIS at 5-114 to 5-115; 6-75 and 6-91 to 6-92.

based on an approach of computing the core damage frequency (CDF) for a particular plant (in this case, Pilgrim) by taking the historical number of all core-damage events that have occurred at all commercial nuclear plants, regardless of plant design and site conditions, and dividing that number by the total number of years of operation of all commercial nuclear plants worldwide.

Ghosh Affidavit at 2-3. Dr. Thompsons approach does not consider that each power plant has different risks that are based on the design of the plant, the site location, and site geography among other things. Ghosh Affidavit at 2. And, Dr. Thompson lacks any in-depth discussion regarding that information. In contrast, the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station FSEIS includes extensive site-specific and plant specific information.

In light of Dr. Ghoshs affidavit, Dr. Thompsons speculative conclusory statements clearly do 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). Therefore, Massachusetts Motion cannot meet the criterion of 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(3).

Next, the Thompson Report asserts that generation of hydrogen during a reactor accident is a problem and discusses the flaws associated with Mark I reactor containments.

Though Dr. Thompson attempts to draw comparisons that the Pilgrim NPP and the NPPs involved in the Fukushima accident each have a low-volume, pressure-suppression containment, the analysis stops short of analyzing how this general design observation would materially alter the current Pilgrim SAMA analysis. Thompson Report at 28.

The report lacks any detailed discussion of how the Mark I reactor containment design at Fukushima is similar or different from the design at the Pilgrim plant, the site-specific risks and

hazards at the Pilgrim plant, or how the operation at Fukushima and Pilgrim might differ.22 In addition, while Dr. Thompson concludes in the report that filtered venting of containment should be considered in a re-done SAMA analysis for Pilgrim, the report ignores the FSEIS discussion identifying filtered vents as one of the candidate SAMAs. See NUREG-1437, Supplement 29, Vol. 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, at G-28 (Jul. 2007) (ADAMS Accession No. ML071990027) (FSEIS).

In summary, none of the issues raised by the Thompson Report support Massachusetts claim that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis would be materially altered if information related to events at Fukushima are considered. Massachusetts provides little or no support based on sound, technical reasoning that demonstrates the likelihood that additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs could be identified. Therefore, the Motion should be denied for failing to satisfy 10 C.F.R. §2.326(a)(3).

B. The GEIS Contention Does Not Raise A Significant Environmental Issue.

Massachusetts has not demonstrated that the GEIS contention raises a significant environmental issue. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2), a motion to reopen and the accompanying affidavit must demonstrate a significant safety or environmental issue. Because Massachusetts claims challenge the GEIS and the SAMA analysis, which is a part of the NRCs environmental review, the GEIS Contention raises an environmental issue. The Commission does not appear to have defined what type of environmental issue it would consider significant for the purposes of 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2). Nonetheless, the Atomic Safety and Licensing 22 The NRC issued GL-89-16 recommending improvements of hardened vents at operating reactors with the Mark I design including the Pilgrim plant. Enhancements were pursued on a plant-specific basis to account for unique design differences between nuclear plants.

Appeal Board has stated that to demonstrate a significant safety issue, petitioners must establish either that uncorrected ... errors endanger safe plant operation, or that there has been a breakdown of the quality assurance program sufficient to raise legitimate doubt as to the plant's capability of being operated safely. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-940, 32 NRC 225, 243 (1990). In responding to a petition to waive an NRC regulation, the Commission observed that its agenda is crowded with significant regulatory matters. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-10, 28 NRC 573, 597 (1988). Thus, the Commission found, It would not be consistent with the Commission's statutorily mandated responsibilities to spend time and resources on matters that are of no substantive regulatory significance. Id.

As stated above, NRC case law does not explicitly state what level of significance a motion to reopen the record to consider an environmental issue must demonstrate to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2). In another context, the Commission has explained that challenges seeking to litigate issues beyond the normal scope of NRC adjudications must show significance to justify expending agency resources on further pursuing those topics. Seabrook, CLI-88-10, 28 NRC at 597. Moreover, a motion to reopen the record to address a safety issue must essentially challenge a plants capacity to operate safely. Seabrook, ALAB-940, 32 NRC at 243. Therefore, to demonstrate that further pursuit of the GEIS Contention is warranted, Massachusetts must demonstrate that it raises a significant environmental issue, one that is akin to a safety issue questioning a plants safe operation.

Neither Massachusetts nor the Thompson Report establishes that additional environmental impacts, not previously considered, related to the Pilgrim plant exist. The events of Fukushima have no unique application to Pilgrim. Dr. Thompsons proposal to increase the CDFs for Pilgrims SAMA analysis relies on a generic assumption that all operating reactors worldwide are the same. See Ghosh Affidavit at 2-3. As a result, Dr. Thompsons conclusions,

if accepted as valid, could apply to all U.S. plants and have no special applicability to Pilgrim.

The Thompson Report discusses none of the site specific risks at Pilgrim that are discussed in the FSEIS and lacks sound, technical analyses that compare the site characteristics of the Pilgrim and Fukushima plants. See Ghosh Affidavit at 2-3. Consequently, Massachusetts cannot claim, based on the events at Fukushima, that the Pilgrim plant presents a unique threat to public health and safety.

Massachusetts also has not shown that the issue it seeks to raise constitutes a significant environmental issue that requires the Board to make an exception and re-open a closed record. Massachusetts seeks to ensure compliance with NEPA. But, the courts have often observed that NEPA is a procedural statute that does not mandate any particular results.

E.g. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). While the NRC takes its obligations under NEPA seriously, any postulated errors in the Staffs environmental documents, if they exist, do not demonstrate a significant safety or environmental issue as required by 10 C.F.R. §2.326(a)(2).23 In fact, Dr. Ghosh and Dr. Nathan Bixler recently explained in a June 6, 2011 affidavit, in response to Pilgrim Watchs request for hearing on a new SAMA contention, 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.24 Thus, the SAMA analysis has no direct safety or environmental significance. The SAMA analysis merely augments existing programs to identify mitigation alternatives that could further reduce the risk 23 The NRC Staff does not concede that there are any errors in its FSEIS.

24 Affidavit of Dr. Nathan 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 Ghosh Affidavit), ¶ 8 (Jun.6, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111570502).

at a plant that ha[s] no identified safety vulnerabilities.25 Accordingly, it does not raise a significant safety or environmental issue. 26 Therefore, the Motion should be denied for failing to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2).

C. Massachusetts Motion Is Not Timely Massachusetts claims that the Motion is timely because: (1) information is still being released about the accident, (2) it is within the same time frame as the NRCs initial study of the implications of the Fukushima accident (4) Massachusetts had to file its contention, given the imminence of a licensing decision for the Pilgrim nuclear plant, and (4) the Commissions failure so far to respond to the Massachusettss request to suspend the decision and establish a schedule for raising Fukushima-related concerns in the licensing proceeding. Motion at 3-5, 6.

None of the reasons provided by Massachusetts, however, satisfies the timeliness criterion in 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(1); Massachusetts GEIS contention, as framed, is premature.

25 Id.

26 Consistent with the Supreme Courts views as expressed in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989), an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 392. Such a requirement would render agency decision making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information outdated by the time a decision is made. Id. at 373.

The D.C. Circuit further explained that if new information shows that the remaining action will affect the quality of the environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental EIS must be prepared. Natl Comm. for the New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323, 1330 (D.C.

Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). However, a supplemental EIS is only required where new information provides a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape. Id. (quoting City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). The Commission additionally adopted this standard in Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-01-04, 53 NRC 31, 52 (2001), stating [t]he new circumstance must reveal a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project. Because Massachusetts has not demonstrated that reopening the record is necessary to reach a significant environmental issue, Massachusetts has certainly not demonstrated that the information in the GEIS Contention provides a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of relicensing. Id.

Typically, the focus of the inquiry under this criterion is whether Massachusetts could have raised this challenge to the GEIS and Pilgrim SAMA analysis previously.

The Staff concedes that the events of Fukushima are new, and obviously, the NRC did not have that information when it issued the GEIS or reviewed the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.

However, the GEIS Contention itself, challenging the GEISs findings regarding spent fuel pool accidents, has already been raised by Massachusetts in the Pilgrim license renewal proceeding and rejected by the Commission. Therefore, to the extent that Massachusetts raises claims challenging spent fuel pool accidents, the GEIS Contention is moot.

Aside from the rejected spent fuel pool claims, Massachusetts GEIS Contention largely relies on the events at Fukushima to support its motion and contention. However, as Massachusetts itself points out, information is still emerging about FDNPP; therefore, Massachusetts own information about Fukushima is incomplete and undeveloped.

Massachusetts must raise issues that are based on more than mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-775, 19 NRC 1361, 1366 (1984), to overcome the strict requirements for reopening a closed record. Private Fuel Storage, CLI-05-12, 61 NRC at 350. The events at Fukushima, as immense and tragic as those events are, do not excuse Massachusetts from complying with those standards. Thus, Massachusetts attempts to litigate the impact of the events of Fukushima are untimely because their concerns could have been raised previously.

The claims are untimely not because the information on which the GEIS Contention largely relies (Fukushima) is, according to Massachusetts, incomplete and undeveloped; and, it is therefore, premature.

The impact to U.S. commercial power reactors from the Fukushima accident are currently under intense study and investigation by the NRC Task Force, and an initial report is expected in July 2011.27 Any effort to determine the nature and extent of the U.S. impact of the Fukushima accident in the context of the Pilgrim license renewal proceeding would be premature, and could reach a result that is ultimately inconsistent with the Commissions response to Fukushima. Also, litigation focused on these events could potentially undercut the NRC Task Forces efforts to develop industry-wide recommendations. Cf. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3), CLI-10-19, 72 NRC __ (Jul. 8, 2010) (slip op.)(ADAMS Accession No. ML101890873) (under long-standing NRC policy, licensing boards should not accept in individual license proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rule-making by the Commission (citing Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2 and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 345 (1999)

(quoting Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974)).

As a general matter, the NRC recently issued an update of its continual effort to address concerns regarding pending reviews of license applications by the Staff. In response to a question on how the events in Japan will affect license renewal of U.S. commercial power plants, the NRC stated [t]he events in Japan, based on whats known at this time, appear to be unrelated to license renewal. The NRCs long-term review of its regulations will determine 27 The Task Force will evaluate all technical and policy issues related to the event to identify potential research, generic issues, changes to the reactor oversight process, rulemakings, and adjustments to regulatory framework that should be conducted by the NRC. SRM-COMGBJ11-0002 (March 21, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110800456). Also, see Briefing on the Progress of the Task Force Review of NRC Processes and Regulations Following the Events in Japan, Bill Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations (Jun.15, 2011) at 22, explaining next Task Force update. ADAMS Accession No. ML11167A034.

whether any revisions to license renewal reviews are necessary. Expanded NRC Questions and Answers related to the March 11, 2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami at 58. (June 14, 2011) (FAQ) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111650021).

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). Massachusetts reliance on the events of Fukushima is premature; the contention is not susceptible to resolution in a license renewal hearing, and it should, therefore, be dismissed.

III. Massachusetts Can Not Meet the Late-Filing Standards Under 10 C.F.R. §2.309(c)

As discussed above, Massachusetts raises spent fuel pool accident claims that have been considered and rejected by this Board and the Commission in the Pilgrim license renewal proceeding. To the extent that they arguably raise these issues in the context of Fukushima, however, the GEIS Contention raises issues not previously in controversy and must satisfy the requirements at 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) that govern the admissibility of nontimely contentions.28 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(d).

To consider a late contention under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, the Board must balance the following factors: (i) good cause for failure to file on time; (ii) the right to be made a party to the 28 The Staff recognizes that the Fukushima events raise questions that may not be dispositive of the Motion entirely under the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii), particularly in light of the fact that those events are currently under study by the NRC Task Force. Given those circumstances, the Staff will only address those factors the Staff believes the Motion has not satisfied. The Staff does not contest, 10 C.F.R. §2.309(c)(1)(i)-(v) requirements. The State of Massachusetts meets the requirements under 10 C.F.R. §2.309(d) of a State with an interest in a facility located within its borders (e.g., standing, nature of the requestor/petitioner's affected interest). Consistent with this approach, the Staff will also not address the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii).

proceeding; (iii) the nature and extent of petitioners interest in the proceeding; (iv) the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on that interest; (v) the availability of other means to protect the interest; (vi) the extent to which the interests will be represented by existing parties; (vii) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding; and (viii) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).

Even if a petitioner is able to demonstrate good cause, the Motion must still satisfy the other requirements to be admitted. The seventh and eighth factors weigh heavily against admitting Massachusetts GEIS Contention. In balancing the remaining late-filed contention factors, the Commission grants considerable weight to factors seven and eight.

We regard as highly important the intervenor's ability to contribute to the development of a sound record on a particular contention. We also are giving significant weight to the potential delay, if any, which might ensue from admitting a particular contention.

Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-82-63, 16 NRC 571, 577 (1982)

(citations omitted), citing South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 887-91 (1981). See also Commonwealth Edison Co.

(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 246-47 (1986).

Regarding the seventh factor, though the Commission does not afford 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(vii) the same amount of weight as the good cause factor, the Commission has placed a significant amount of weight on this factor due to the policy of expediting the handling of license renewal applications - which rests on the lengthy lead time necessary to plan available sources of electricity. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC 551, 566-67 (2005). Granting a petition to reopen the record and adding a new contention would necessarily broaden the issues . . . and delay the proceeding thus requiring the reopening [of] a closed administrative adjudicatory record. The Commission found § 2.309(c)(1)(vii) to weigh against the petitioner. Id. at 566. Further, the Board presiding

over the hearing on Vermont Yankees extended power uprate license amendment expanded on this idea when it declined to admit a new, late-filed contention even before the hearing had begun, stating:

Among the remaining factors, NEC's greatest stumbling block is 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(vii) - the fact that admission of this nontimely contention at this late date will substantially broaden and delay this proceeding. If NEC Contention 5 were admitted, the Board either would be forced to significantly delay the litigation and hearing on the admitted contentions, or would need to set a second, later schedule for the litigation of Contention 5. NEC's suggestion that the new contentions could be admitted without substantially disrupting the existing schedule is plainly wrong.

Energy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-14, 63 NRC 568, 581 (2006) (internal citations omitted).

Massachusetts admits that the Commonwealths participation may broaden or delay this proceeding. Motion at 8. But, the assertion that this factor should not be relied on to exclude Massachusetts because the information presented is new and significant is inapposite to the Commissions policy of expeditiously handling license renewal applications. Id. As discussed above, the information relied on by Massachusetts GEIS Contention is incomplete and raises spent fuel pool accident claims that have already been rejected. The impact of the events at Fukushima on the Commissions policies, procedures and regulations are unknown at this time and a full report by the NRC Task Force addressing this question is imminent. These issues are not susceptible to resolution in an individual license renewal proceeding and could reach a result that is ultimately inconsistent with the Commissions response to Fukushima.

Assuming Massachusetts was allowed to litigate the GEIS Contention, the Board would be forced to significantly delay the close of this proceeding and set a second, later schedule for litigation of this new contention that would need to address broad policy and legal issues.

Without adequate justification, this scenario runs afoul of the Commissions policy of expediency in these types of proceedings. Thus, the addition of the GEIS Contention would broaden the

issues and unjustifiably delay the proceeding.

Regarding the eighth factor, Massachusetts could not contribute to the development of a sound record for the same reasons that it could not satisfy the seventh factor. And, contrary to Massachusetts arguments on this factor, Dr. Thompsons report does not demonstrate with sufficient detail how the events at Fukushima would materially alter the current Pilgrim SAMA analysis nor has the report identified additional cost-beneficial SAMAs. See Motion at 9.

Therefore, Massachusetts participation would not contribute to the development of a sound record.

Therefore, by failing to present a compelling showing on the seventh and eighth factor, Massachusetts has not satisfactorily met the eight factor balancing test; the Motion should be denied.

IV. Massachusetts GEIS Contention Does Not 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.29 29 In order to be admitted, a contention must satisfy the following requirements:

(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; (continued. . .)

Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-00-01, 51 NRC 1, 5 (2000); Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station),

LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200, 205-07 (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 Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 (1974).

Because the record in this proceeding is closed, Massachusetts must set forth the basis of its GEIS Contention with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b) [now § 2.309(f)(1)] for admissible contentions.

Diablo Canyon, ALAB-775, 19 NRC at 1366. See also Oyster Creek I, CLI-08-28, 68 NRC at 668 (Commission practice holds that the standard for admitting a new contention after the

(. . .continued)

(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).

record is closed is higher than for an ordinary late-filed contention.). Support for Massachusetts GEIS Contention must be more than mere allegations; it must be tantamount to evidence. Diablo Canyon, ALAB-775, 19 NRC at 1366. In other words, the evidence must comport with the requirements for admissible evidence at hearing in § 2.337it must be relevant, material, and reliable. See id. at 1366-67.

A. Massachusetts GEIS Contention Raises Issues That Are Out of Scope And Immaterial To meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §2.309(f)(1)(iii) and (iv), the GEIS Contention must demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding and material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action. A petitioners failure to do so is grounds for denying admission of a proposed contention.30 Massachusetts relies on the Thompson Report to challenge the Commissions previous findings excluding issues related to on-site storage of spent fuel under 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. As discussed above, claims raised in relation to on-site storage of spent fuel are outside the scope of license renewal. Until, and unless, Massachusetts pending Waiver Petition is granted, Massachusetts claims are not litigable. Accordingly, secrecy, operator actions, and spent fuel pool fires claims should be dismissed for falling outside of the scope of license renewal. Because the claims are also immaterial to the findings that the Staff must make, the GEIS Contention should be dismissed for failing to satisfy 10 C.F.R.

§2.309(f)(1)(iv).

30 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-05-24, 62 NRC at 567.

B. Massachusetts Has Not Raised A Genuine Dispute With the Applicant To meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §2.309(f)(1)(vi), the GEIS Contention must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. The Commission has indicated that the limited purpose of the SAMA analysis is to identify potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 529, 533 (2009); Pilgrim, CLI-10-11, 71 NRC __ (slip op. at 39). Thus, to raise a material issue, Massachusetts must demonstrate that its challenges to the SAMA analysis would be likely to result in identification of an additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMA.

Massachusetts 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. The Thompson Report proposes that a SAMA analysis be re-done based on the Fukushima events, because

[o]ne can reasonably find that the licensee has under-estimated the baseline CDF of the Pilgrim plant by an order of magnitude based on the occurrence of five core-damage events over a world-wide experience base Thompson Report at page 17. However, there is no discussion of how the increased CDF factors, based on all the plant experience throughout the world, would generically apply to an individual plant such as Pilgrim. And, the Thompson Report provides no technical analyses that refute the extensive study of plant-specific hazards and risks at Pilgrim and discussed in its FSEIS. As a result, Dr. Thompson has not shown that an increased CDF would materially alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis.

The Thompson Report proposes that a SAMA analysis that considers station blackout and loss of power scenarios should be done, but as Dr. Ghosh explained in the affidavit five of the seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs 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.31 The Thompson Report does not refute the specific findings or make a demonstration of how an increased CDF baseline using his approach would likely result in identification of an additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMA analysis or that additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs will result. Thompson Report at 17. Therefore, there is no genuine issue in dispute with the license applicant.

The Thompson Report also asserts that filtered venting should be considered in a redone SAMA analysis for Pilgrim. However, the Pilgrim FSEIS did consider filtered venting as a candidate SAMA and it was determined not to be cost-beneficial. See NUREG-1437, Supplement 29, Vol. 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, at G-28 (Jul. 2007) (ADAMS Accession No. ML071990027). And, the Thompson Report does not refute these findings. As discussed above, the Thompson Report does not demonstrate that the issues raised constitute the heightened showing of admissibility needed to reopen the record. Diablo Canyon, ALAB-775, 19 NRC at 1366. Because Massachusetts cannot demonstrate a genuine dispute with the applicant, the contention is inadmissible.

31 Id.

CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, Massachusetts has failed to meet the requirements for reopening the record and its GEIS Contention fails to meet the requirements for admissibility.

Accordingly, the record should not be reopened to admit Massachusetts GEIS Contention and, because the contention itself is inadmissible, it should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed Electronically By/

Andrea Z. Jones 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: Andrea.Jones@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of June 2011

June 27, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION )

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

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. S. TINA GHOSH IN SUPPORT OF THE NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO MASSACHUSETTS MOTIONS TO ADMIT NEW CONTENTION AND REOPEN TO ADMIT NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION S. Tina Ghosh, does hereby state as follows:

1. I am a senior program manager employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I have been employed by the NRC for over six years. My current primary responsibility is as the NRC lead for the State of the Art Reactor Consequence Analysiss (SOARCA) uncertainty analysis. In my previous position as a reactor engineer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRR) Division of Risk Assessment, one of my primary responsibilities was to review SAMA analyses submitted in support of nuclear power plant license renewal applications and write the corresponding portions of the NRCs supplemental environmental impact statements. I also reviewed risk-informed licensing applications that used level 2 and level 3 PRA results (i.e., analyses of accidents that involve potential radioactive releases outside the reactor containment). In my first position at the NRC in the Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, my primary responsibility was to review different aspects of the Department of Energys total-system performance assessment (TSPA) and preclosure safety analysis (PCSA) for the Yucca Mountain repository license application. The TSPA is analogous to a level 3 PRA applied

to a geologic waste disposal system, and the PCSA is analogous to a PRA for the waste-handling facilities in the operational phase in the Yucca Mountain license application. For my doctoral thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I developed a sensitivity analysis method to generate risk information that would be useful for making decisions about high-level nuclear waste repositories given the uncertainty in the risk analyses. I demonstrated the application of the method using the proposed Yucca Mountain repository as an example, and subsequently published a paper on the method in the journal, Nuclear Technology. My statement of qualifications is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML110030972.

2. This affidavit responds to a report titled, New and Significant Information from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident in the Context of Future Operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (Thompson Report) by Gordon R. Thompson in support of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts new contention. I have reviewed Dr. Thompsons report and the new contention.

3. The analysis Dr. Thompson advances for estimating the likelihood of core damage frequency based on accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima contains a number of inappropriate assumptions for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. These inappropriate assumptions undermine the reliability of his conclusions. As discussed in the paragraphs below, Dr. Thompsons inappropriate assumptions include: (1) generically applying his analysis of CDF to all plants without consideration of their site-specific and design-specific situations, and (2) failing to address the Pilgrim SAMA analysis consideration of likely seismic events at the Pilgrim site and station black-out, among other accident scenarios.

4. On page (pg) 17 of the Thompson Report, Dr. Thompson states, One can reasonably find that the licensee has under-estimated the baseline CDF of the Pilgrim plant by an order of magnitude. Thompsons claim is based on an approach of computing the core damage frequency (CDF) for a particular plant (in this case, Pilgrim) by taking the historical number of all core-damage events that have occurred at all commercial nuclear plants,

regardless of plant design and site conditions, and dividing that number by the total number of years of operation of all commercial nuclear plants worldwide. This is not an appropriate way to assess the risk at a particular plant where a plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) exists, as explained below and in previous submissions to the Board. NRC Staffs Initial Statement of Position on Remanded Contention 3 (Jan. 3, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110030970); Affidavit of Dr. Nathan 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 (Jun. 6, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML111570502)

5. The baseline CDF for Pilgrim used in the Pilgrim severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) analyses is calculated by using the baseline PRA for Pilgrim. As explained in paragraph A11 of 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, January 3, 2011 (January 3, 2011 Bixler and Ghosh Testimony), a PRA assesses the risk from operating nuclear power plants by answering three basic questions: (1) what can go wrong, (2) how likely is it, and (3) what are the consequences. As explained in paragraph 9 of Affidavit of Dr. Nathan 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, June 6, 2011 (June 6, 2011 Bixler and Ghosh Affidavit), Pilgrims baseline PRA is a site-specific, plant-specific analysis that answers these three basic questions. The site-specific, plant-specific PRA takes into account site-specific hazards, design of the plant, and plant-specific operational practices that affect how the plant responds to potential challenges. This Pilgrim-specific PRA is expected to yield a much more accurate estimate of risk (including CDF) than a historical rate calculation using an extremely limited set of data points that aggregates all different plant designs, operational practices, and site conditions around the world.

6. Furthermore, as noted in paragraph 9 of the June 6, 2011 Bixler and Ghosh Affidavit, the Pilgrim SAMA analysis accounts for seismic events and already captures the remote possibility that a seismic event could affect the plant and induce a station blackout, and loss-of-power scenarios both dominate the Pilgrim CDF and account for 5 of the 7 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified.

Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d).

S. Tina Ghosh Senior Program Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: C-3A07M Washington, DC 20555 Phone: 301-251-7984 Tina.Ghosh@nrc.gov

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 Response to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Admit Contention and, If Necessary, Re-Open Record Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed by Fukushima Accident and Affidavit of Dr. S. Tina Ghosh In Support of The NRC Staffs Response To Massachusetts Motions To Admit New Contention And Reopen To Admit New And Significant Information has been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 27th 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/

Andrea Z. Jones Counsel for the NRC Staff

.