ML052500328
| ML052500328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/2005 |
| From: | Crocker G North American Water Office |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-263-LR, ASLBP 05-841-02-LR, RAS 10418 | |
| Download: ML052500328 (5) | |
Text
-RA 5 16 411 DOCKETED UNITED STATED 'NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC
- - August 29, 2005 (4
- 12pm)
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matter of the Nuclear Management Companny, LLC Docket No. 50-263 Application for Re-licensing the Monticello Nucleair Generating Plant ASLBP No. 05-841-02-LR REPLY OF NORTH AMERICAN WATER OFFICE TO THE NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE COMMENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN WATER OFFICE In its Motion to Strike, the NRC Staff purports that the North American Water Office (NAWO) Reply Comment should be stricken'because it raises newvirguments and because it was late. Staff is wrong on both counts. There were no new arguments, and the filing wasn't late. And for the record,' NAWO is not "choosing to hide behind trite and insulting invective" (Staff Motion, p.7). NAWO could hardl be more open and up front. If invective it is, it is only "trite" in the eyes of parasitic bureaucrat lawyers who are willing to spew radiological contamina'tion across thousands'of square miles of the"'
nation's homeland while they suck, like lamprey sucking carp, from an bbsolete, demented, indigent industry incapable of paying its own insufferable freight. Those who judge the language insulting'would do better to examine consequences of their own behavior. -
In its July 9, 2005 filing, NAWO included a contention that aging management practices are not sufficient to detect degradation until too late (Contention 4). Staff T&'plate _-sCNC- (.J/ *ec Y- o
- lo-sought to dismiss this contention by claiming it lacked specificity and was out of scope.
The NAWO Reply Comment of August 9,2005 responded to those charges, establishing specificity mnd demonstrating that it is within the scope. It is not a new argument or a late filing. Staff's attempt to dismiss the Reply Comment on such grounds is preposterous. The substance of the Comment must be addressed if public health, safety and environmental interests matter in this proceeding.
Likewise with NAWO Contenticn 5, that drinking water supplies for the Twin Cities are not adequately safeguarded. The NAWO Reply Comment establishes specific potential failure modes within the scope that are not addressed by the re-license application but that do create the potential for unacceptable radiological contamination of the drinking water source for people in the Twin Cities. The NAWO Reply Comment contends that the suggested "stop drinking" option for managing such an event is not acceptable. This is not a new argument or a late filing. It is an appropriate response to an irresponsible attempt to avoid substantive review of a critical issue in a flawed re-license application. It is appalling that Staff is attempting to reduce this proceeding to such an abysmal level, rather than taking this and the other issues seriously.
A legitimate proceeding would recognize the failure of Staff regarding the present motion. 10 CFR § 2.323(b) requires the moving party to make "a sincere effort to ...
resolve the issue (s) raised in the motion." There was no such "sincere effort" here.
NAWO receive a phone call from Staff on August 17, 2005 during which Staff repeatedly stated that they were calling only because of a procedural requirement. But the only "resolution" acceptable to Staff was for NAWO to withdraw its Comment.
Staff agreed, repeatedly, that NAWO withdrawal would eliminate any possibility that the substance of the Comment would be preserved. If eliminating an issue is the only option that will be considered, and attempting to do so legally constitutes a "sincere effort" toward its resolution, jurisprudence in the good old USA has much in common with a bunch of Central Asian and African republics. The double standard of Staff, the ASLB, and the NRC is laid bare.
On one hand, NAWO, w hich lives and works in the region affected by nuclear operations at Monticello, which has repeatedly addressed a variety of nuclear issues in numerous forums for more than 20 years, and which has members who are adversely effected by those operations, has no standing, according to Staff, to raise issues created by re-licensing nuclear operations at Monticello. On that same hand, when NAWO attempts to raise issues, it must prove its point beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a jaundiced board, before it is even allowed to present testimony at an evidentiary hearing. On the other hand, however, Staff can satisfy legal requirements for
"'a sincere effort" to resolve an issue simply by calling up a party, and telling that party to go to hell. What a country.
NAWO has standing to raise the issues presented in its July 9, 2005 Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene. Each issue presented by NAWO in its July 9, 2005 filing, and its August 9, 2005 Reply Comment is within the scopeof issues that
IUI1.1 must be addressed by a re-licensing application. The August 9, 2005 Reply Comment does not present new argunents, nor is it late. Rather, it responds specifically and directly to issues raised by Staff and Applicant. If this proceeding is legitimate, Staff motion will be denied.
Most sincerely, f 2A George Crocker, Executive Director North American Water Office
I hereby certify that the enclosed Reply Comment of the North American Water Office has been sent this day, first class, via the US Postal Service to the following:
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Lawrence G. McDade, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael A. Woods, Esq. David R. Lewis, Esq.
Antonio Fernandez, Esq. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Office of the General Counsel 2300 N Street, N.W.
Mail Stop 15 D21 Washington, DC 20037-1128 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Jonathan Rogoff, Esq.
General Counsel Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 Gerge Cro rExecutive Director North American Water Office August 29, 2005