ML102871133

2010/10/08-Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergy'S & NRC Staff'S Briefs Regarding Timeliness of Pilgrim Watch'S Raising Averaging Practice Concerns

ML102871133
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	10/08/2010
From:	Lampert M Pilgrim Watch
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS J-284, ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR, Docket No. 50-293-LR
Download: ML102871133 (6)

Text

/ýk-s 1i -A 1ý ý DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA October 8, 2010 (4:56p.m.)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket # 50-293 Entergy Corporation Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application October 8, 2010 PILGRIM WATCH REPLY TO ENTERGY'S AND NRC STAFF'S BRIEFS REGARDING TIMELINESS OF PILGRIM WATCH'S RAISING AVERAGING PRACTICE CONCERNS INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board's Order (September 23, 2010) Pilgrim Watch replies to both Entergy's and NRC Staff's briefs, filed October 1, 2010 in this response.

Entergy and NRC made the same argument. Both focused simply on (1) probabilistic modeling; and (2) whether Pilgrim Watch met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.309. Both overlooked that Pilgrim Watch's original Contention 3 did "assure that other parties are sufficiently put on notice so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Practice and Procedure Digest -

Commission, Appeal Board, and Licensing Board Decisions, July 1972 - August 2009, Prehearing Matters 101)

~JRl~AA&& ~u~o~7

DISCUSSION

1. Probabilistic Modeling The NRC and Entergy briefs spend pages discussing "probabilistic modeling," apparently arguing that probabilistic modeling does not include "averaging practice concerns." 1 It is clear that they misunderstand the issue. What Entergy and NRC Staff effectively ignore is that Contention 3 as originally proffered had two prongs. One was probabilistic modeling; the other was the incorrect inputting of certain parameters into the modeling software. 2 The Board "removed that portion objecting to the use of probabilistic monitoring (Entergy at 5, NRC. staff at 2); but it accepted Pilgrim Watch's challenge to "the inputs to the MACCS2 code." (Staff 11)

Pilgrim Watch does not here say that its challenge to probabilistic modeling encompassed "averaging practice concerns." It does say that such concerns were clearly part of the second branch of contention 3: "the incorrect inputting of certain parameters into the modeling software."

The Board ruled that Pilgrim Watch's challenge to probabilistic modeling was inadmissible; but it did not exclude "the incorrect inputting of certain parameters [including averages and means into the modeling software." Neither did it exclude that averaging practice concerns in general "could bring into question the reasonableness of this practice and affect the Board's conclusions on the meteorological modeling issues."

1 Entergy Brief, Pgs., 5-7; NRC Staff Brief, Pgs., 7-8, 11 2 Entergy ignores its own words, at 5, they say, "...as pled, Contention 3 sought to raise two issues: (1) that probabilistic modeling should not be used; and (2) that 'Entergy may also have minimized consequences by using incorrect input parameters for the computer consequences model."'

2

2. Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.309 Once past "probabilistic modeling," both the NRC staff and Entergy spent most of the rest of their time arguing that Pilgrim Watch did not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.309.

They overlook that the issue here is really not whether Pilgrim Watch timely raised a new contention; rather it is whether the second branch of contention, the. original contention 3, gave Entergy and the Staff fair notice of what the Board now refers to as "averaging practice concerns."

The fact of the matter is that it did; and that is all that the NRC's pleading rules require. It could not be clearer that the important "parameters [input] into the modeling software" include "mean values." Entergy's and the NRC staff s briefs admit this is so (See Entergy, 8-9; and Staff, 2,7,10, 11, 12, 16); and both Entergy and the Staff admitted years ago that they recognized that the issues raised by contention 3 included a challenge to "averaging" and "mean values." The proof is in the pudding.

CONCLUSION Pilgrim Watch contends that, in original Contention 3, "parties (were) sufficiently put on notice (and demonstrated that they had been put on notice) as to what (had) to be defended against." "Averaging issues" - alternative statistical treatment of the data in Pilgrim's SAMA analysis - are important parameters input into the modeling software, and an examination of this "NRC practice" could significantly change the cost-benefit conclusions and affect what safety enhancements are cost-effective to implement.

The Applicant's use of "mean" inputs was intended to insure that the data input would be diluted - and save Entergy money. Pilgrim Watch respectfully requests that now the Board is 3

reminded that averaging issues are a part of this discussion and received notice that its consideration impacts health and safety, it is the Board's obligation under the Atomic Energy Act to take up the issue and not dodge it as Entergy and NRC Staff desire.

Respectfully submitted, Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket # 50-293-LR Entergy Corporation Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application October 8, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergy's and NRC Staffs Briefs Regarding Timeliness of Pilgrim Watch's Raising Averaging Practice Concerns was served October 8, 2010 in the above captioned proceeding to the following persons by electronic mail this date, followed by deposit of paper copies in the U.S. mail, first class.

Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Richard F. Cole Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 C l Mail Stop -T-3-F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory US NRC Commission [2 copies] Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Ann Marshall Young, Chair Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory US NRC Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Paul B. Abramson Mail Stop T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Mail Stop T-3 F23 Commission US NRC Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Martha Coakley, Attorney General Office of Commission Appellate Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney Adjudication General Commonwealth of Mail Stop: 0-16C1 Massachusetts Washington, DC 20555-0001 Office of Attorney General One Ashburton Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02108 Office of General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Mark Stankiewicz Washington DC 20555-0001 Town Manager, Town of Plymouth Susan L. Uttal, Esq. 11 Lincoln Street Marcia Simon, Esq. Plymouth MA 02360 Andrea Jones, Esq.

Brian Harris, Esq. Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.

Michael Dreher, Esq. Town of Plymouth MA Brian Newell, Paralegal Duane Morris, LLP 505 9th Street,D.C.

N.W. 1000 20004-2166 Washington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop: 01 -Fl Richard R. MacDonald Washington, DC 20555-0001 Town Manager, Town of Duxbury 878 Tremont Street Lisa Regner, Project Mgr. Plant Lic. Duxbury, MA 02332 Branch 1-1, Operator Reactor Licensing Washington, DC 20555-0001 Fire Chief & Director DEMA, Town of Duxbury Paul A. Gaukler, Esq. 688 Tremont Street David R. Lewis, Esq. P..O. Box 2824 Jason B. Parker, Esq. Duxbury, MA 02331 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP - 2300 N Street, N.W. Terence A. Burke, Esq.

Washington, DC 20037-1128 Entergy Nuclear Mail Stop M-ECH-62 Katherine Tucker Jackson, MS 39213 ASLB, Law Clerk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3-E2a Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington St.

Duxbury, MA 023332 October 8, 2010 2