ML12058A065

Watch Reply to Entergy'S Motion to Strike Pilgrim Watch'S Reply (February 23, 2012)

ML12058A065
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	02/27/2012
From:	Lampert M Pilgrim Watch
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21953, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR
Download: ML12058A065 (4)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket # 50-293-LR Entergy Corporation Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application February 27, 2012 PILGRIM WATCH REPLY TO ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCHS REPLY (FEBRUARY 23, 2012)

Pilgrim Watch (PW) respectfully requests leave to reply to Entergys Motion to Strike.

We could not anticipate Entergy's meritless claims that (1) PWs reply exceeded the Commissions page limitations; and (2) PW raised new issues for the first time on appeal.

1. PWs Reply complied with page requirements (10 C. F. R. § 2.341 (b)(3))

Fundamentally, it appears that Entergy is challenged mathematically. They do not seem to understand that five plus five equals ten (5+5=10). Entergy and the NRC Staff each filed an answer opposing PW's Petition for Review. 10 C.F.R. § 2.341 (b)(3) explicitly says that PW may file a reply to each: the petitioning party may file a reply brief not be longer than five (5) pages.

For the convenience of the Commission, and as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did in its Brief in Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy Oppositions to the Commonwealth's Appeal of LBP-11-35 (December 23, 2011), PW simply filed a combined 10 page response rather than two separate five page replies. Neither Entergy nor the NRC Staff complained about the Commonwealths combined filing, and Entergy has no reason to complain here. 10 C.F.R. §

2.341 (b)(3) put five pages in the bank for PW to reply to Entergy and another five pages in the bank to reply to NRC Staff; therefore basic math says that PW had ten pages in the bank to spend on a combined reply to Entergy and NRC Staff. Even Entergy does not say that it has been in any way prejudiced by having to read a ten page combined reply rather than two replies each having five pages.

If the Commission should for any reason support Entergy's literally simplistic and substantively meaningless position, PW will gladly take out the scissors and cut the filing in half, allocating five pages to NRC Staff and five pages to Entergy and resubmit the filing. PW finds this absurd and fully expect the Commission to share our sentiment.

2. Contrary to Entergys second meritless complaint (Motion at 2), the record clearly shows that PW raised the issues in previous filings.

a. Again Entergy demonstrates a difficulty with mathematics, compounded by a total lack of recall of what the record in fact said.

Entergys statement (Motion at 2) that "[n]either Pilgrim Watch nor its expert challenged Entergys experts assertion that "the Pilgrim SAMA analysis accounted for atmospheric radiological release far greater than the atmospheric and aqueous radiological releases that occurred in Fukushima for the three damaged reactors" is both inaccurate and ridiculous.

PW repeatedly showed that one, plus one, plus one is greater than one, (1+1+1) > 1. For example, PW's Request for Hearing, pgs., 9-12 (November 18, 2011) and PW Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers, pg., 20 (December 20, 2011) clearly said that in order to determine the total radioactive release that would impact offsite consequences/costs, it was necessary to add three sources, not one alone: atmospheric releases (1), plus liquid radioactive releases from runoff and contaminants in groundwater flowing into adjacent waters (1), plus the 2

volume of water added or fed into the reactor, as Fukushima, and subsequent contaminated water bleeding out into adjacent waters (1). The combined total ( 1+1+1) would necessarily be greater than one (atmospheric releases, alone) - basic math.

PW also repeatedly said that there is no rational basis on which Entergy can say that anything based its 2006 SAMA calculation (that admittedly took nothing that happened at Fukushima into account) can conceivably show a result that is greater than a quantity, the total Fukushima release, that remains unknown even today. PW showed this, for example, in the Request for Hearing (November 18, 2011); Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers to Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention Regarding Inadequacy of Environmental Report, Post Fukushima- Aqueous Discharges, December 20, 2011 (Reply);

PWs Petition for Review (January 26, 2012), and PWs Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers to Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review (February 13, 2012). All PW filings subsequent to the Request for Hearing fully cited the appropriate prior filings.

PW disputed Entergys absurd claim that Pilgrims SAMAs atmospheric releases would be greater than the atmospheric and liquid releases from Fukushimas three reactors in considerable detail in PWs December 20, 2011 (Reply), beginning at 17. For example, PW showed that:

(a) Neither Entergy nor for that matter anyone else knows exactly how much radioactive contamination has been, or will be, released in Fukushima;1 releases are ongoing and 1

Reply, December 20, 2011, pgs., 17-18, showed, for example, that We do not know exactly how much radioactive contamination was released into the Pacific in liquid discharges; but we know it was lots. PW then provided citations to support the statement referencing articles, TEPCO reports and reports from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution chemist Ken Buesseler and Japanese colleagues.

3

assessments of those releases to date are incomplete. Therefore it is mathematically impossible to show that Entergys 2006 SAMA is greater than an unknown quantity (Fukushimas releases); it makes no sense.

(b) PW showed (Ibid) that even if anyone knew the actual amount of contamination in Fukushima, which no one does, Entergys attempt to compare radioactive contamination in the Pacific Ocean to what would occur in Cape Cod Bay was laughable (Entergy Decl., ¶ 60-61).

Fukushima fronts directly on the Pacific Ocean, the largest ocean on Earth measured at 64.1 million square miles in area; whereas Pilgrim fronts on Cape Cod Bay that measures only 604 square miles and is enclosed by proximate land on three sides. Further Entergys comparison is not merely factually wrong but it is irrelevant because Entergys required SAMA is site specific to Pilgrim, not Fukushima. (c) PW showed what a significant difference modeling aqueous discharges would make in offsite costs.

Respectfully submitted, (Electronically signed)

Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 Tel. 781-934-0389 Email: mary.lampert@comcast.net February 27, 2012 4