ML11363A036

Watch Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs December 22, 2011 Answers Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Request to Supplement Petitions for Review of LBP-11-20 and LBP-11-23

ML11363A036
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	12/29/2011
From:	Lampert M Pilgrim Watch
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21659, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, LBP-11-20, LBP-11-23
Download: ML11363A036 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and )

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

)

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

December 29, 2011 Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs December 22, 2011 Answers Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Request to Supplement Petitions for Review of LBP-11-20 and LBP-11-23 INTRODUCTION Persuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.323(c), Pilgrim Watch respectfully requests leave to reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers to Pilgrim Watch Request to Supplement Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrims Watchs Request for Hearing on Certain New Contnertions, ASLBP NO/ 06-848-02-LR, August 11, 2011 (Filed August 26, 2011) and Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrim Watchs Requests for Hearing on New Contentions Relating to Fukushima Accident) September 8, 2011 (Filed September 23, 2011). 1 Pilgrim Watch makes this request because it could not have reasonably anticipated that Entergy and the NRC legal Staff would argue that nothing in Congressman Markey's December 1

Pilgrim Watch here replies to both Entergy and the Staff.

9, 2011 report "provides [any] new information or data" (Staff, 2) or is "relevant and material to Pilgrim Watch's" pending requests for review (Entergy, 2). 2 Entergys argument that PW "seeks to augment its pending petitions for review with supplemental (and immaterial) argument" (Entergy 2) was also unexpected, because it is factually wrong. PW simply submitted the Report and said it was relevant to the pending requests for review.

DISCUSSION Initially, Entergy and the Staff agree parties to adjudicatory proceedings are obliged to keep licensing boards appraised of relevant and material information in the course of the proceeding (Entergy, 1; See also Staff, 1, fn 2). They are wrong that Pilgrim Watch did not properly meet this obligation by moving to add Congressman Markeys Report, Regulatory Meltdown How Four Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners Conspired to Delay and Weaken Nuclear Reactor Safety in the Wake of Fukushima, to the record in PWs pending requests.

Congressman Markeys report cites, quotes and attaches copies of essentially all NRC documents 3 (including voting records, reports, emails, correspondence, memoranda, phone or meeting minutes or other materials) related to the events of Fukushima or the NRCs response thereto that were prepared or obtained by any Commissioner or any member of any Commissioners staff. Entergy and the Staff may have made a "cursory review of the Report" (Entergy, 2), but appears not to have considered any of underlying documentation.

2 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) provides: The moving party has no right to reply, except as permitted by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, or the presiding officer. Permission may be granted only in compelling circumstances, such as where the moving party demonstrates that it could not reasonably have anticipated the arguments to which it seeks leave to reply.

3 Congressman Markey obtained the documents from the NRC pursuant to his request under the Freedom of Information Act.

2

The Report and NRC documents are directly relevant to a number of issues raised by Pilgrim Watchs Petitions for Review, including the risk/benefit analysis required to determine whether additonal SAMAs are required, and the NRC's obligation under NEPA to look at the new and significant information raised by Pilgrim Watch that NRC is required to take before Pilgrims licensing decision is made. Marsh v Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 385 (1989) Pilgrim Watchs Petitions for Review showed that a major reason that the Boards decision was erroneous was because the Board failed to take a hard look at the proferred evidence; and the Markey Report and attached documents also show that the Commission has not completed its hard look.

The Markey Report clearly includes new and material information, i.e., evidence, that Commission should review and reverse the Boards Decision and either deny the license renewal application or remand the matters to the Board for further proceedings after the Commission has corrected the many legal and factual errors contained in the three decisions.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is a sister (indeed an essentially identical twin) to the failed Fukushima reactors. What the Commission has learned, and done or not done, in response to it is directly relevant and material to Pilgrim Watchs Petitions for Review.

Respectfully submitted, (Signed Electronically)

Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington Street Duxbury MA 02332 Tel 781-934-0389 Email: mary.lampert@comcast.net December 29, 2011 3

December 29, 2011 On December 22, 2011, Pilgrim Watch notified all parties of record via email of its intent to make this filing and requested that they respond if they objected. Paul Gaukler, representing Entergy, indicated that Entergy objects; and Susan Uttal, NRC, objects.

Respectfully submitted, (Signed Electronically)

Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington Street Duxbury MA 02332 Tel 781-934-0389 Email: mary.lampert@comcast.net December 29, 2011 4