ML043240091
| ML043240091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/2004 |
| From: | Block J New England Coalition |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 8832 | |
| Download: ML043240091 (10) | |
Text
us JONATHAN M. BLOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT. 05346-0566 802-387-2646 (vox)
-2667 (fax)
JonbQDsover.net November 10, 2004 DOCKETED USNRC Secretary November 12, 2004 (7:40am)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 OFFICE OF SECRETARY AITh Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF RE:
In the Matterof Docket No. 50-27 1-OLA ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C.
and ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Vermnont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff:
Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter please find the original and two copies of New England Coalition's letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel re ENVY and NRC Staff Production of Documents. The same documents were filed electronicallywith your office on this date.
Thankyou foryour cooperation.
A~cerely,
-'Jonathan M. Block Attorney for New England Coalition cc:: Service List ilA()Ilie=- s4 ~cy-o43 5 sCc-V5 '~
JONATHAN M. BLOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT. 05346-0566 802-387-2646 (vox)
-2667 (fax)
Jonb~sover.net November 10, 2004 Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Administrative Judge AnthonyJ. Baratta Administrative Judge Lester S. Rubenstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nudear Regulatoiy Commission Mai Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 In the MattofEntergyNuclear Vermont Yankee LLC [ENVY] and EntergyNuclear Operations, Inc.
(Vermont Yankee Nudear Power Station) - Docket No. 50-271-OLA
Dear Chairman Karlin and Judges Baratta and Rubenstein:
This is to advise the Board that New England Coalition has received the letter from Mr. Silberg on behalf of ENVY in which his client agrees to provide Mr. Shadis and me with copies of docketed information regarding EPU (EPU Supplements 15 through 20 covering September 23, 2004, to the present) to which NEC has not currently had access due to the ADAMS access restrictions.
As our attached letter to Mr. Silberg (and similar letter to Brook Poole also attached hereto) explains, this commitment to provide sane of the necessary documents, while laudable, is in no way adequate.
New England Coalition hopes Mr. Silberg's client (and the NRC Staff-which has yet to make any such commitment) will reconsider and elect to provide New England Coalition with the requisite access to documents necessary to meet our prosecutorial burden under 10 CFR Part 2.
Sincerely,
/JonthanM. Block Attorney for New England Coalition Enclosures cc: Service List (with enclosures)
JONATHAN M. BLOCK AT7ORNEY AT LAW 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT. 05346-0566 802-387-2646 (vox)
-2667 (fax)
Jonbcsover.net November 10, 2004 Mr. Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 'N' St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 RE: Your letter to the ASLBP and your client's letter to Mr. Shadis and me on this date concerning the provision of some of the unavailable documents in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station EPU case
Dear Mr. Silberg:
New England Coalition [NEC] has just received your letter to the ASLBP. NEC appreciates your client's cooperation, but what ENVY agreed to provide is wholly inadequate. You, yourself, would object to any contention relying entirely on the proffered documents as being without adequate asis. Surely you must appreciate NEC's problem with the limited material your client has agreed to provide.
NEC's participation as a full party is frustrated by the obligation, on the one hand, to review all relevant documents in the public record to develop a basis for contentions and, on the other, the absolute inaccessibility of the sole public source of such documents due to the blanket closure of ADAMS. New England Coalition is considering certain documents posted to ADAMS on or after September 25, 2004 to inform potential late filed contentions. There is, unfortunately, no way to identify or search and analyze potential supporting information. For example, by letters dated October 13 and 15, 2004, NRC staff has indicated that it has had, and continues to have, meetings and teleconferences with your client to discuss certain technical reliability and safety concerns, and that your client is at work to address those concerns. There must be documentation both of and underlying all those communications--but it is not available to NEC at this time. Moreover, NEC is now in receipt of preliminary findings from an NRC team design-basis and engineering inspection at Vermont Yankee, but, likewise, has no access to your client's and NRC's attendant documentation of this NRC 700-person-hour effort.
Your clients must realize that a moving (and hidden) target presents greater challenges to NEC's meager resources than one fixed and in plain sight. While ADAMS remains unavailable to NEC,
JIazlxM.Blxk,,AtoiyforNEC, tojaySilhkgAtomJnyforENVY(November 10,2004) Page 2 of 3 failure to provide the necessary information to NEC on a timely basis practically guarantees time-consurning and costly attempts to collect and sort out that information later for use in contentions (after whatever motion practice may be necessary to obtain the information).
New England Coalition (or any other affected citizenry) may have had, as you recount it, "an ironclad obligation" to review information available prior to October 25, 2004, such an
'obligation' reasonably applies only to ushering in a basis for the initial Request for Hearing, Initial Contentions, and New England Coalition's Reply to Answers--all of which were filed kfm oral argument on the Contentions. NEC is now completely stymied in its efforts to conduct a proper review of public record information needed to pursue its case. I know that you have far too much experience in this field to actually mean to suggest that New England Coalition had "an ironclad obligation" to aniwe inadwx in its files ad public record information for use during the NRCs self-initiated dark ages.l Be that as it may, NEC's problem is that it cannot adequately prosecute its case in the manner required by 10 CFR Part 2 when ENVY and NRC staff communication and cooperative EPU-related endeavors continue both on and off an amsie 'public' record. (here is an inescapable irony in having to refer to the documents as 'public' and in the public domain when they are, in fact, not available to the public.) ENVY's responses to NEC's motion appear to confuse New England Coalition's requests in this regard with the discovery process. Such confusion is regrettable and perhaps led your client to agree to provide just a portion of the requisite documents. Let us be clear. NEC is requesting that your client provide all EPU-related information that would be normally be available as public records in the public document collection were it not for the closing of ADAMS. In other words, NEC is seeking access through your client to what would otherwise be the publicly available information necessary to participate in this NRC proceeding under 10 CFR 2.309. Although your client's agreement to provide the missing supplements is laudable, it falls quite a bit short of the standard you aver Part 2 requires NEC must meet to prepare and support contentions.
At the risk of further complicating ENVY's understanding, NEC also requests ENVY to provide all documentation of EPU related applications for fuel changes and alternate source term, all requests for exemptions, technical specification changes, exceptions, notices under §50.59, and all other correspondence or documents provided to NRC that are in any way related to or support of the proposed Extended Power Uprate. These, too, are necessary preparatory materials that would otherwise be available to NEC from ADAMS.
' ENVY, in its answer to NEC's Motion for Procedural Protection, optimistically predicted this information flat-lining would continue only "a few weeks". New England Coalition has already provided the ASLB with a letter from John Cordis, Solicitor General of the NRC, characterizing the night as at least "several weeks" from November 5th.
JA=I M Blak,AttomfyorNEC, tojay Sidqg Attmmyfor ENVY (ovember 10, 2004) Page 3 of 3 Similarly, NEC plans to request the NRC staff to provide all correspondence, documentation, requests for additional information, and any other related and relevant material that would reasonably attach to any of the topics in the preceding paragraphs that originate with NRC staff or NRC contractors--and which would ordinarily be available to the public through the public records accessible via ADAMS. Again, such requests should not be confused with discovery as they, too, are intended to remedy the absence of access to the materials that would normally be in the 'public document room' and, hence, available to NEC via ADAMS in order to conduct an efficient proceeding in this case.
Please let me know if your client is willing to cooperate in providing the requisite documents described above so that we may take the necessary steps to move the case along. In that spirit, NEC hopes that your client will agree to stipulate to providing the requested infomiation forthwith and on a continuing basis until such time as public access to ADAMS is fully restored.
Sincerely.
onathan M. Block Attomey for New England Coalition cc: Service List
JONATHAN M. BLOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT. 05346-0566 802-387-2646 (vox)
-2667 (fax) jonbasover.net November 10, 2004 Ms. Brooke Poole, Esq.
Office of General Counsel United States Nudear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Jay Silberg's letter to the ASLBP and ENVY's letter to Mr. Shadis and me on this date concerning the provision of some of the unavailable documents in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station EPU case
Dear Ms. Poole:
New England Coalition [NEC] has just received Mr. Silberg's letter to the ASLBP. NEC appreciates his client's cooperation, but what ENVY agreed to provide is wholly inadequate.
Lie Mr. Silberg, you and your clients would, no doubt, object to any contention relying entirely on the proffered documents as being without adequate basis. The NRC Staff must appreciate NEC's problem with the limited material ENVY agreed to provide. Naturally, ourproblem with the lack of material from the NRC Staff is also at issue.
NEC's participation as a full party is frustrated by the obligation, on the one hand, to review all relevant documents in the public record to develop a basis for contentions and, on the other, the absolute inaccessibility of the sole public source of such documents due to the blanket closure of ADAMS. New England Coalition is considering certain documents posted to ADAMS on or after September 25, 2004 to inform potential late filed contentions. There is, unfortunately, no way to identify or search and analyze potential supporting information. For example, by letters dated October 13 and 15, 2004, NRC staff has indicated that it has had, and continues to have, meetings and teleconferences with the licensee to discuss certain technical reliability and safety concerns, and that the licensee is at work to address those concerns. In addition to all of those communications, there must also be documentation underlying all of those communications--but none is available to NEC at this time. Moreover, NEC is now in receipt of preliminary findings from an NRC team design-basis and engineering inspection at.Vermont Yankee, but, likewise, has no access to the attendant licensee and NRC documentation of this NRC 700-person-hour effort.
Jcnau6= M Blkc, Attomyfor NEC, to Brooke J'd, AtumyforNRC Stf November 10, 2004) Page 2 of 3 As NEC told Mr. Silberg, a moving (and hidden) target presents greater challenges to NEC's meager resources than one fixed and in plain sight. While ADAMS remains unavailable to NECQ failure to provide the necessary information to NEC on a timely basis practically guarantees time-consuming and costly attempts to collect and sort out that information later for use in contentions after whatever motion practice is necessary to obtain the information.
New England Coalition (or any other affected citizenry) may have had, as Mr. Silberg recounts it, "an ironclad obligation" to review information available prior to October 25, 2004, such an
'obligation' reasonably applies only to ushering in a basis for the initial Request for Hearing, Initial Contentions, and New England Coalition's Reply to Answers--all of which were filed beoe oral argument on the Contentions. NEC is now completely stymied in its efforts to conduct a proper review of public record information needed to continue to pursue its case. Mr. Silberg has far too much experience in this field to actually mean to suggest that New England Coalition had "an ironclad obligation" to awifteinadwx in its files all public record information for use during the NRC's self-initiated dark ages.l Be that as it may, NEC's problem is that it cannot adequately prosecute its case when ENVY and NRC staff communication and cooperative EPU-related endeavors continue both on and off an i'xril'e'public' record. (There is an inescapable irony in having to refer to the documents as
'public' and in the public domain when they are, in fact, not available to the public.) ENVY's responses to NEC's motion appear to confuse New England Coalition's requests in this regard with the discovery process. Such confusion is regrettable and perhaps led them to provide less than the requisite documents. Let us be dear NEC is requesting that ENVY provide all EPU-related information that would be normally be available as public records in the public document collection were it not for the closing of ADAMS. In other words, NEC is seeking access to what would otherwise be the publicly available information necessary to participate in this NRC proceeding under the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309 et sal. ENVY's agreement to provide missing supplements, while laudable, falls short of the standard Mr. Silberg has described as the requisite standard for supporting contentions under 10 CFR 2.309.
NEC is also requesting ENVY to provide all documentation of EPU related applications for fuel changes and alternate source term, all requests for exemptions, technical specification changes, exceptions, notices under §50.59, and all other correspondence or documents provided to NRC that are in any way related to or support of the proposed Extended Power Uprate. These, too, are necessary preparatory materials that would otherwise be available to NEC from ADAMS.
' ENVY, in its answer to NEC's Motion for Procedural Protection, optimistically predicted this information flat-lining would continue only "a few weeks". New England Coalition has already provided the ASLB with a letter from John Cordis, Solicitor General of the NRC, characterizing the night as at least "several weeks" from November 5th.
JanAJ M. Blkc, AtumnLyforNEC, toBokePeAtyforNRCSt4f (November 10,2004) Page3 of 3 As for your clients, NEC requests the NRC staff to provide all correspondence, documentation, requests for additional information, and any other related and relevant material that. would reasonably attach to any of the topics in the preceding paragraphs that originate with NRC staff or NRC contractors--and which would ordinarily be available to the public through the public records accessible via ADAMS. These requests should not be confused with discovery as they, too, are intended to remedy the absence of access to the materials that would normally be in the
'public document room' and, hence, available to NEC via ADAMS in order to conduct an efficient proceeding in this case.
Please let me know if the NRC Staff is willing to cooperate in providing the requisite documents described above so that we may take the necessary steps to move the case along. In that spirit, NEC hopes that the NRC Staff will agree to stipulate to providing the requested information forthwith and on a continuing basis until such time as public access to ADAMS is fully restored.
Sincerely.
Jonathan M. Block Attorney forNew England Coalition Enclosures (Letter to Board with Silberg letter) cc: Service List
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Lester S. Rubenstein In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271 -OLA ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C.
and ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) November 10, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that paper copies of the within Letter to the ASLBP re ENVY and NRC Staff Production of Document to NRC were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, the 1 0 'h Day of November, 2004. In addition to the NRC Hearing Docket, persons served by electronic mail on this day are indicated below by an asterisk:
- Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Lester S. Rubenstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ask2(Rnrc.gov lesrrr~msn.com
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Anthony J. Baratta U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ajb5(&,nrc.gov
v t .I
- Secretary Office of Commission Appellate Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 hearingdocket(nrc.gov secy(nrc.gov
- Sarah Hoffman *Brooke Poole, Esq.
Special Counsel *Robert Weisman, Esq.
Department of Public Service *Marisa Higgins, Esq.
112 State Street - Drawer 20 Office of the General Counsel Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sarah.Hofmann(state.vt.us Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 bdp~nrc.gov, rmnvwnrc.gov, mch5Q&nrc.pov
- Anthony Z. Roisman *Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
National Legal Scholars Law Firm Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.
84 East Thetford Rd. Shaw Pittman Lyme, NH 03768 2300 N. Street, N.W.
aroismangvalley.net Washington, D.C. 20037 Jay.Silberg~shawpittman.com
- Raymond Shadis P.O. Box 76 Edgecomb, ME 04556-0076 shadis(prexar.com Jonathan M. Block 94 Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 (802) 387-2646 mailto:ionb(-),sover.net