NRC Rejects Another Pilgrim Watch Contention

The NRC has rejected another Pilgrim Watch contention claiming that studies ignored the Endangered Species Act in the relicensing process of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

The five-member, presidentially appointed Commission that oversees the NRC has upheld an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel ruling rejecting a Pilgrim license renewal contention. The contention was filed by the Pilgrim Watch organization and deals with Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives analysis for the plant as part of its license renewal application.

Petitioners proffer evidence of procedural and substantive violations of the ESA with regard to the roseate tern by showing:

(1) that the NRC staff was required to conduct a biological assessment and it did not,

(2) that Entergy’s license application is inaccurate and incomplete in material aspects regarding the roseate tern,

(3) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) unlawfully ignored the requirement for a biological assessment and without a scientific basis declared the roseate tern to be “probably transient,” contrary to widely known and available data,

(4) that there is significant potential for adverse effects on roseate terns during the relicensing period,

(5) that the NRC staff environmental impact statement [EIS] contradicts the USFWS finding that the roseate tern is present at PNPS but is “probably transitory,” rendering the statement inadequate, and

(6) that therefore, the NRC staff should be ordered to conduct a biological assessment on the Roseate tern and to supplement the environmental impact statement with this data.

Pilgrim Watch of Duxbury and the Jones River Watershed Association of Kingston claim that the NRC never prepared a biological assessement for the roseate tern. Petitioners allege that the NRC Staff incorrectly relied on a letter from USFWS, sent prior to the NRC’s own assessment, in which USFWS concluded that the renewed license was “not likely to adversely affect” the roseate tern. 

The NRC claims that Pilgrim Watch's new contention is inadmissible "primarily because it has not been timely presented, nor has it been shown that it should nonetheless be admitted under any other relevant criteria. With certain exceptions discussed further herein....Although NRC regulations do not provide a precise definition of “timely,” licensing boards have often found a new contention to be timely if it has been filed within thirty days of the
availability of information on which the contention is based.