Information Notice 2010-26, New England Coalition'S Motion for Leave to Reply to NRC Staff'S Objection to Nec'S Notification of Information Notice 2010-26 and Entergy'S Response to the Supplement to Nec'S Petition for Commission Review of LBP-10-
| ML110120195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/2010 |
| From: | Shadis R New England Coalition, Friends of the Coast |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LR, RAS M-458, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, LBP-10-19 | |
| Download: ML110120195 (15) | |
DOCKETED December 30, 2010 (10:37p.m.)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS
AND ADJUDICATIONS
STAFF'2.AS ~qs~-V December 30, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING
BOARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-LR Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO V, NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION
TO NEC'S NOTIFICATION
OF INFORMATION
NOTICE 2010-26 AND ENTERGY'S
RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENT
TO NEC'S PETITION FOR COMMISSION
REVIEW OF LBP-10-19 Submitted
by: Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative
Friends of the Coast New England Coalition J"V#ý4Z4-eý
-0 q/
4.December 30, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-LR Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION
TO NEC'S NOTIFICATION
OF INFORMATION
NOTICE 2010-26 AND ENTERGY'S
RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENT
TO NEC'S PETITION FOR COMMISSION
REVIEW OF LBP-10-19 New England Coalition
("NEC") hereby respectfully
moves for (requests)
leave to reply to the NRC Staffs Objection
to NEC's Notification
of Information
Notice 2010-26 and Entergy's
Rsponse to the Supplement
to NEC's Petition for Commission
Review of LBP-10-19.
I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY IS NECESSARY.
This Motion for Leave to Reply is necessary
because the Board's permission (leave) to file a reply is required.The Commission's
regulations
do not contemplate
the filing of replies under the present circumstances, that is, in reply to objections.
Even if, for the sake of argument, NEC's Petition Supplement, transmitting
material new information, were taken as a petition amendment, there is no provision
for reply without the permission
of the Commission, as under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c).2 r,-9 II. REPLY IS WARRANTED
BY UNFORESEEABLE
AND COMPELLING
CIRCUMSTANCES
-NEC respectfully
submits that Leave to Reply should be granted because this situation
presents the type of "unforeseeable" and "compelling
circumstances" which warrant a reply.A. NEC could not have anticipated
NRC Staff and NextEra's
baseless and erroneous
assertions
that the information
cited by NEC in NRC Information
Notice 2010-26 "Submergence
of Electrical
Cables" (IN) is irrelevant
and immaterial
when, in fact, it is clear that the IN is relevant because it speaks directly to aging management
of below grade and inaccessible
electrical
cables, a requisite
element of all License Renewal applications.
Further, the IN is material because it serves to inform the requested
Commission
review regarding
the"materially-different" outcome threshold
criterion
for late contention
acceptance
(10 CFR § 2.326(a)(3)
). Conclusions
in the IN are in agreement
with concerns raised by NEC in its late-filed
contention
and thus support the likelihood
that NEC would prevail at hearing, the consequence
of which would mean, with close to certainty, a materially
different
outcome.B. NEC could not have foreseen the NRC Staff counsel's
claim that the IN, published
December 12, 2010, is not new information
when NRC Staff conclusions
regarding
the efficacy of certain testing procedures (for degradation
or aging of electrical
insulation)
are to found in no preceding
Generic Letter or Information
Notice that NEC can discover.C. NEC could not have foreseen NRC Staff counsel's
brazen assertion, based on the foregoing
false claims, that it was under no obligation, legal, ethical, or 3 otherwise, to lay the newly generated
on-topic staff report before the Commission.
III. CONCLUSION
-NEC respectfully
submits, for all of the good reasons above, that the Commission
should allow a reply.In keeping with ordinary practice, and with respect for NRC's goals of orderly and timely adjudication, NEC has attached its proposed Reply for the Commission
to consider without delay if it grants the Motion or reject if it does not.4 IV. CERTIFICATE
OF COUNSEL Pro Se Representative
for NEC hereby certifies
that in conformance
with 10 C.F.R.§2.323, NEC made a sincere attempt to obtain the consent of Entergy and NRC Staff to the filing of the foregoing
Motion for Leave to Relay and by extension
the attached Reply, but consent was denied.Respectfully
submitted, R Ad Shadis Pro se representative
New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 Shadis@prexar.com
5
/December 30, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING
BOARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-LR Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S
REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION
TO NEC'S NOTIFICATION
OF INFORMATION
NOTICE 2010-26 AND ENTERGY'S
RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENT
TO NEC'S PETITION FOR COMMISSION
REVIEW OF LBP-10-19 Submitted
by: Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative
New England Coalition
December 30, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-LR Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S
REPLY TO NRC STAFF'S OBJECTION
TO NEC'S NOTIFICATION
OF INFORMATION
NOTICE 2010-26 AND ENTERGY'S
RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENT
TO NEC'S PETITION FOR COMMISSION
REVIEW OF LBP-10-19 I. INTRODUCTION
New England Coalition
("NEC ") hereby replies to NRC Staffs Objection
to NEC's Notification
of Information
Notice 2010-26 and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s ("Entergy")
Response to the Supplement
to NEC's Petition for Commission
Review of LBP-10-19.
NRC Staffs "Objection" was filed on December 21, 2010 and Entergy's "Response" was filed on December 23, 2010.II.
BACKGROUND
Pending before the Commission
is NEC's November 12, 2010 Petition for Commission
Review of ASLBP Memorandum
and Order (LBP-10-19) (October 28, 2010) denying NEC's Motion to reopen the record in the Entergy Vermont Yankee license renewal proceeding
and add a new contention
of electric 2 cables not qualified
for service in the environments
to which they are subjected, namely prolonged
wetting and submergence.
The Board held that NEC's proposed contention
failed on two threshold acceptance
criteria to reopen the proceeding
and (3); the timeliness
and "materially-different" outcome. The Board also considered
whether the issue raised in the proposed contention
was a safety concern of such sufficient
gravity as to allow by-pass of the timeliness
criterion
and decided it was not.On December 2, 2010, the NRC Staff issued Information
Notice 2010-26;'Submergence
of Electrical
Cables" ("IN").On December 13, 2010, NEC filed a "Supplement
to New England Coalition's
Petition for Commission
Review of ASLBP Memorandum
and Order." On December 21, 2010, NRC Staff filed its "Objection." On December 23, 2010, Entergy filed its "Response." III.
DISCUSSION
A. NRC Staff claims that the IN contains no new or material information.
NRC Staff is in error. The IN contains information
that is both new and material to the Petition for Review now before the Commission.
1. The IN contains information
that is new in every respect. NEC could nowhere in a search of the preceding
Generic Letters or Information
Notices on cable issues (that NRC Staff cited) find the following
quote (or anything in paraphrase)
from the IN at Page 61: NRC Staff did not discuss this quote in its Objection.
3 Cables are not typically
designed or qualified
for submergence
u nless they are procured as submarine
cables. Demonstration
that a cable is designed or qualified
for long-term submergence (i.e., submerged
in water continuously
or for extended periods of time) requires a qualification
test report or certification
from the cable vendor. The industry's
previously
conducted
post-loss-of-coolant
accident cable submergence
tests do not demonstrate
qualification
for long-term
cable submergence, and the use of the Arrhenius methodology
by some licensees
to demonstrate
qualification
for long-term
cable submergence
is invalid. For areas in which cables could be submerged, the licensee should identify and demonstrate
that these cables are designed or qualified
by documented
testing for the required duration. (emphasis
added)The quoted paragraph
goes to the heart of NEC's Contention.
The license renewal application's
aging-management
plan of dewatering
and surveillance, proposed by the Entergy Vermont Yankee and demonstrated
by Entergy Vermont Yankee (as first reported in the May 10, 2012 NRC Inspection
report), is largely ineffective
at addressing
either aging management
or compliance
with design criteria.As former NRC Chairman Shirley Jackson once famously said (in NEC's presence) "Safety is compliance;
compliance
is safety." Something
similar might be said, as a kind of corollary, of aging management
and compliance
with design criteria.
should not be a workaround
for non-compliance
with design criteria.2. If NRC Staff Counsel, the Commission, the Intervenors
and the public did not know what NRC Staff would write in their IN, then it matters not whether it is cut and pasted, or lifted verbatim from earlier letters and notices; it is new to us as a statement
of NRC's position and perspectives
as of December 2, 2010. That fact, of itself, is "new'information.
The Commission
is entitled to be informed, for purposes of their deliberations
regarding
the possibility
of a "materially-different" outcome, that NRC Staff has, following
NEC's Motion to Reopen and its Petition for Review, reiterated
supporting
or complimenting
positions
and perspectives.
4 B. Both NRC Staff and Entergy argue that the information
in Information
Notice 2010-26 "Submergence
of Electrical
Cables" (IN) is neither relevant nor material.
They are in error. It is both.1. As discussed
above, information
contained
in the IN is material to the Commission's
review of the criterion
regarding
potential
for a "materially
different" outcome because, as in the quotation
from IN Page 6, the new information
goes straight to the heart of NEC's proposed contention, and more pointedly
to the question of whether or not, given a hearing, NEC is likely to prevail.2. NRC Staff and Entergy say that the IN is irrelevant
and not material because it concerns itself with current operations
and the current licensing
basis; and not with license renewal. This argument is both inaccurate
and specious.The IN speaks directly to "managing
the effects of age-related
degradation" (NRC Staff at 4). Further, all should recognize
that, though the regulations
regarding
may change, the physics of aging management
does not; if anything, what may or may not work now is even less likely to work as aging progresses
during the period of extended operation
("PEO").Therefore, the NRC's observations
regarding
aging-phenomena
at operating plants are totally relevant to considerations
of how to effectively
manage these phenomena
during the PEO. It is, in NEC's view, terminally
obtuse to suggest, as NRC Staff and Entergy seem to, that lessons-learned
while ambulatory
should not be carried into life-support.
5 More to the matter before the Commission, comparison
of NRC Staff's observations
with those of NEC in bringing its contention
is ready, relevant and material grist for deliberation
regarding
the gravity of submergence
of unqualified
cables as a safety issue; and the likelihood
that hearing on NEC's cable contention
would likely result in a materially
different
outcome.IV. CONCLUSION
-The Commission
should take notice of Information
Notice 2010-26 "Submergence
of Electrical
Cables" as well as NUREG/CR-7000, Generic Letter 2007-01 and the 2007-01 Summary Report 2 and include consideration
of their contents and applicability
when deliberating
on NEC's Petition for Review.NRC Staff says at 4 that "the issue before the Commission
is whether the Board properly denied NEC's Motion for failure to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(I)
and (3), not whether NEC's proposed new contention
satisfied
the contention
admissibility
requirements
of § 2.309." NEC agrees with this statement.
However, for all of the good reasons stated above, NEC affirms that the information
in the IN is timely and both relevant and material to the issue before the Commission.(IV) CERTIFICATE
OF COUNSEL Pro Se Representative
for NEC hereby certifies
that in conformance
with 10 C.F.R.§2.323, NEC made a sincere attempt to obtain the consent of Entergy and NRC Staff to 2 Generic Letter 2007-01 "Inaccessible
or Underground
Power Cable Failures That Disable Accident Mitigation
Systems or Cause Plant Transients," (Feb. 7, 2007) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML07360665);
GL 2007-01 "Inaccessible
or Underground
Power Cable Failures That Disable Accident Mitigation
Systems or Cause Plant Transient:
Summary Report" (Nov. 12, 2008) (ADAMS Accession
No.ML082760385);
NUREG/CR 7000 "Essential
Elements of an Electric Cable Monitoring
Program (January 2010) (available
At www.nrc/electronicreading
room/doc.collect/nuregs/contractiNuregCR7000.
6 the filing of the foregoing
Motion for Leave to Reply and by extension
the attached Reply, but consent was denied.Respectfully
submitted,/s/" Raymo Shadis-Pro se representative
New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 Shadis@prexar.com
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))December 30, 2010 Docket No. 50-271-LR ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of New England Coalition's
Motion For Leave To Reply and Reply To NRC Staff s Objection
To NEC's Notification
of Information
Notice 2010-26 And Entergy's
Response to The Supplement
to NEC's Petition For Commission
Review of LI3P- 10-19 in the above-captioned
proceeding
have been served on the following
as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic
mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 30th day of December 2010, Alex S. Karlin, Chair Administrative
Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov
Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemakings
and Adjudications
Staff Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
William H. Reed*Administrative
Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board 1819 Edgewood Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 E-mail: whrcville@embarqmail.com
Ann Hove, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ann.hove@nrc.gov
Office of Commission
Appellate Adjudication
Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov
Peter C.L. Roth, Esq*Office of the Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 3301 E-mail: peter.roth@doj.nh.gov
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com
Sarah Hofmann, Esq.*Director of Public Advocacy Department
of Public Service 112 State Street -Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us
David R. Lewis, Esq.*Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq Elina Teplinsky, Esq Blake J. Nelson, Esq Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com
matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw .com elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com
blake.nelson@pillsburylaw.com
Matthew Brock*Assistant
Attorney General, Chief Environmental
Protection
Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton
Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us
Mary B. Spencer Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Maly. Spencer@nrc.gov
Ramond Shadis New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 shadis@prexar.com
New England Coalition VT NH ME MA RI CT NY POST OFFICE BOX 545, BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT o5302 December 30 , 2010 Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking
and Adjudications
Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Docket No. 50-271-LR, ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Petition
for Commission
Review)Dear rulemaking
and Adjudications
Staff, Please find attached for filing in the above captioned
matter, New England Coalition's
Motion For Leave To Reply and Reply To NRC Staffs Objection
To NEC's Notification
of Information
Notice 2010-26 And Entergy's
Response to The Supplement
to NEC's Petition For Commission
Review of LBP- 10-19.Thank you for your help with.this
filing,/RS-Coalition, Inc.Raymond Shadis Pro Se Representative
Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 shadis@prexar.com