ML081550423

Citizens' Response to Board Order and Motion to Supplement the Basis of Their Contention, Preliminary Statement

ML081550423
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/27/2008
From:	Webster R Eastern Environmental Law Ctr, Grandmothers, Mothers & More for Energy Safety, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter
To:	Abramson P, Anthony Baratta, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, FOIA/PA-2008-0306, RAS H-32
Download: ML081550423 (21)

Text

!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY USNRC May 27, 2008 (4:30 pm)

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Before Administrative Judges: ADJUDICATIONS STAFF E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ) "

) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) ) May 27, 2008 CITIZENS' RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER AND MOTION'TO SUPPLEMENT THE BASIS OF THEIR CONTENTION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This brief is filed on behalf of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc., Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively "Citizens"). On May 21, 2008, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the "Board") ordered the parties to brief the legal effect of a letter dated May 5, 2008 from counsel for AmerGen Energy Co. LLC ("AmerGen") to the Commission enclosing AmerGen's May 1, 2008 response to the NRC Staff's request for additional information (the "Response").

Because pleading by letter is not permitted in NRC proceedings, the letter can have no direct effect upon this proceeding. AmerGen affirmatively decided not to make a motion based upon the revised analysis that is summarized in the Response. Therefore, if AmerGen suggests in its response to the Board's most recent Order that the Response shows that the pending rr--ýL

ý7e,a-S E ý -032 ýS(03

contention should not be admitted, the Board should then allow Citizens a full and fair opportunity to respond. In addition, the Response has the secondary effect of supplementing the basis of Citizens' contention, confirming that there is an ongoing material dispute to be adjudicated, and confirming that the contention raises a significant safety issue. Thus, the Board should admit the contention and allow the adjudicatory process to determine whether the original fatigue analysis for the recirculation outlet nozzle at Oyster Creek, upon which AmerGen seeks to rely, is sufficiently conservative.

• ARGUMENT I. Response To The Boalrd's Question A. AmerGen Shopld Derive No Benefit From The Letter In This Proceeding In general, if a party wishes an adjudicatory body to take action it must file a motion.

Outside of motions, authorized pleadings are limited to petitions and responding to other parties.

As the Board has observed, the May 5, 2008 letter from AmerGen to the Commission (the "Letter") "neglected to explain the relevance" of the enclosed Response. Board Order, dated May 21, 2008. Motions are required to state with particularity the grounds and relief sought. 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b). In addition, counsel must consult with opposing parties before making a motion. Id Thus, the Letter was not a motion.

AmerGen filed its answer to Citizens' motion to reopen and petition to add a contention on April 28, 2006, one week before the Letter was submitted. Thus, the Letter was not a late-filed answer. By a process of elimination, Citizens therefore conclude that the Letter was not an authorized pleading and therefore AmerGen should not be permitted to gain any advantage from it. AmerGen is represented by very experienced practitioners before the Board and the Commission who have amply demonstrated their ability to make affirmative motions during this 2

proceeding. Thus, if AmerGen is to gain any advantage from the new information, it should be required to follow the pleading rules and file a timely motion, which would then allow Citizens an opportunity to respond. The Board should therefore not allow AmerGen to gain an advantage by mere submission of the Letter.

The Board should also note that the Response is an unsworn statement by AmerGen that has not been reviewed by the NRC Staff. Furthermore, Citizens' ability to litigate about the effect of the statements contained in the Response is severely limited by their vagueness and AmerGen's refusal to provide Citizens with copies of the underlying analyses and the documents that support the analyses.l The Board may not, therefore, assume that the assertions in the Response that benefit AmerGen are correct. Furthermore, because AmerGen has deliberately limited Citizens' knowledge of the matter under adjudication, the Board should not allow AmerGen to exploit that informational asymmetry to its advantage.

B. The Board Should Preserve Citizens' Right To Be Heard Citizens' right to be heard would be unreasonably curtailed if the Board allows AmerGen to gain an advantage from the Letter or the briefing concerning the Letter. Citizens did not respond to the Letter because any response Would have been procedurally irregular. Citizens assumed, erroneously, that the Commission and the Board would ignore such a procedurally deficient submission. A deprivation of Citizens' right to be heard could now occur if AmerGen uses its response to the Board's May 21, 2008 Order to bolster its position. For example, if AmerGen has an expert swear to and further explain the Response, Citizens could not reply Citizens' request for the first fatigue calculations was rejected by AmerGen on April 11, 2008. E-mail from A. Polonsky to R. Webster, dated April 11, 2008. Citizens requested the revised analysis on May 21, 2008. E-mail from R. Webster to A. Polonsky, dated May 21,2008. AmerGen rejected that request on May 22, 2008. E-mail from A. Polonsky to R. Webster, dated May 22, 2008.

2 The assertions that are against AmerGen's interests may be accorded greater significance, because a party is highly unlikely to submit incorrect statements that are detrimental to its interest directly to the Commission.

3

meaningfully both because AmerGen has not granted them access to any underlying documents that may support the facts in the Response, and the Board has not made provision for replies to the pleadings it has requested. It would be manifestly unfair to allow AmerGen to derive benefit from the results of the new analysis, without allowing Citizens an opportunity to respond meaningfully. As the NRC practice guide states, the cardinal rule of fairness in pre-hearing matters requires that both parties have a full and fair opportunity to respond to the other:

Prior to entertaining any suggestion that a contention not be admitted, the proponent of the contention must be given some chance to be heard in response. The p etitioners cannot be required to have anticipated in the contentions themselves the possible arguments their opponents might raise as grounds for denying admission of those proffered contentions.. Houston Lighting & Poi,'er Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-565, 1OjNRC 521, 525 (1979); Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61, 83 n. 17 (1996);

rev'd in part on other grounds, CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235.

Although the Rules of Practice do not explicitly provide for the filing of either objections to contentions or motions to dismiss them, each presiding board must fashion a fair procedure for dealing with such objections to contentions as are filed. The cardinal rule of fairness is that each side must be heard. Allens Creek, supra, 10 NRC at 524.

NRC Staff Practice and Procedure Digest at Pre 89.

Thus, if AmerGen suggests in its response to the Board's May 21, 2008 order that the pending contention should not be admitted because of the outcome of the new analysis, the Board should then allow Citizens a full and fair opportunity to respond. In such circumstances; Citizens could only respond fully if they are able to review the fatigue analyses at issue and any documents that were referenced by those analyses to support their assumptions. Thus, if necessary, prior to allowing Citizens to respond, the Board should order AmerGen to provide the critical documents to Citizens and allow Citizens a reasonable time to review the documents.

4

C. Even If The Board Considers The Letter It Fails To Undermine The Pending Contention AmerGen's experienced counsel has had ample time to make a motion based upon the Response, but has failed to do so. This may be because the Letter fails to undermine the basis of the current contention. The Response states that AmerGen continues to rely upon the original analysis to show that fatigue will be managed in accordance with the regulations. Response at 4.

In addition, the Response is merely an unsworn submission to the NRC Staff and should not be given similar weight to sworn testimony. The Response also. fails to clearly state the effect of changing from the simplified analysis to the ASME-compliant analysis. Response at 3.

Although it states that the "CUF [cumulative use factor] is lower," it fails to state the basis of that comparison. Id In particular, it fails to state whether this comparison is based on two simulations where the only difference was the change in the calculation method with no other changes in assumptions. Thus, the Response does not refute the original basis of the contention, which was based upon the NRC Board notification and the experience at Vermont Yankee that the simplified calculations were not conservative.

In fact, far from refuting the contention, the Response adds to its basis. To be certain that an analysis is conservative, the analyst should ensure that each assumption going into the analysis is justified by the actual conditions. Second Declaration by Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, dated May 23, 2008 ("Second Hopenfeld Decl.") at ¶ 4, attached as Exhibit MFC-2. The Response confirms that the original analysis, on which AmerGen seeks to rely, Response at 4, is not conservative with respect to the correction factor used for each transient, which is related to the overall environmental correction factor ("Fen"). The originally predicted environmentally corrected CUF ("CUFEN") was 0.9781 with an overall Fen of 5.34. Response at Table 1. The reanalysis increased the overall Fen from 5.34 to 6.60, indicating that the original analysis did 5

not use conservative environmental correction factors for each transient. As AmerGen acknowledged, this overall increase occurred because the environmental correction factors for

.each transient were calculated more conservatively in the revised analysis. Response at 3.

In addition, the revised analysis was made more conservative with regard to the treatment of emergency condenser transients. Id. This was to "assure that peak stress is captured after the downward shock and address all possible scenarios of event severity for future plant operation."

Id. Unsurprisingly, this change resulted in an increase in the CUF. Id Thus, the reanalysis shows the original analysis was not sufficiently conservative in two additional respects.

Overall, in an attempt to show that the original calculation was conservative, the Response presents an analysis that is more conservative in terms of the environmental correction factors and the emergency condenser transients but less conservative in another critical aspect and gets a lower result for the CUFEN. Although AmerGen claims that this shows that the original calculation was conservative, Response at 4, that conclusion is based on a logical fallacy. The reanalysis actually shows that the metal fatigue calculation is highly sensitive to the assumptions used by the analyst. It also shows that AmerGen has been inconsistent about which assumptions are appropriate, but has failed to show which assumptions are actually justified by the operating experience and design of this specific reactor. See Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 10 (no reactor-specific justification for the less conservative assumption).

In particular, in the original analysis, the nozzle cladding was taken into account, Response at 3, while in the reanalysis it was neglected. Id. This change appears to be the main cause of the decrease in the calculated CUF. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 8. The revised analysis would have been much easier to compare to the original if the nozzle cladding had been treated the same in both. It is therefore highly likely that the analyst changed this critical assumption because without such a change, the recalculated CUFEN would exceed 1.0. Second 6

Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 9. At minimum, the Response acknowledges that this change in assumption caused a significant contribution to the reduction in the predicted CUF. Response at

3. Thus, even if AmerGen were seeking to replace the original analysis with the reanalysis, one critical issue would be whether this change in assumption is justified. The justification for this change in assumption is particularly critical because this is an area where the judgment of the analyst plays a large role. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 7. The key assumptions must therefore be carefully justified to prevent the CUFEN analysis becoming an outcome-driven exercise. Id.

Unfortunately, the Response fails to address this issue adequately. The original analyst obviously decided that to be conservative the nozzle cladding should not be neglected. The Response merely states that the change in assumption regarding nozzle cladding is permitted by the ASME Code under certain circumstances, Response at 3, but fails to address whether the operating experience with the recirculation outlet nozzle at Oyster Creek would permit such a change. Because the Response contains no reactor-specific justification for the use of the less conservative assumption in the reanalysis, it fails to show that the reanalysis is conservative.

Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 10. Logically, therefore, the result of the reanalysis cannot show that the original analysis was sufficiently conservative.

II. Briefing In Support Of Motion To Supplement Citizens contacted both AmerGen and the NRC Staff to consult about this Motion on May 23, 2008. AmerGen and Citizens discussed the change in assumptions regarding the environmental factors, but had different views on its significance. Citizens therefore expect AmerGen to oppose this Motion. NRC Staff stated that they will formulate their response to this Motion after it is filed.

7

A. The Letter Confirms That The Original Fatigue Calculation Was Not Conservative In Two Further Respects The original calculation resulted in an overall environmental factor of 5.34. Response at Table 1. The reanalysis increased this factor to 6.60. Id. This increase was a result of the use of a more conservative approach to estimating the environmental correction factors for each transient pair. Id. at 3. The reanalysis therefore confirms that the original analysis was not conservative in terms of calculation of the environmental correction factors. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at¶T6.

Similarly, the revised analysis was made more conservative with regard to the treatment of emergency condenser transients. Response at 3. This was to "assure that peak stress is captured after the downward shock and address all possible scenarios of event severity for future plant operation." Id. Unsurprisingly, this change resulted in an increase in the CUE. Id. The reanalysis therefore shows that the original analysis was also not sufficiently conservative in terms of the treatment of emergency condenser transients.

Thus, in addition to the issue Citizens raised with the simplified calculation, Citizens' are now supplementing the basis of their contention to include AmerGen' s tacit admissions that the environmental correction factors used by the original calculation and the treatment of emergency condenser transients in that calculation were not conservative.

B. The Letter Confirms That The Contention Raises A Material Dispute The reanalysis was designed to show that the original analysis was conservative.

AmerGen suggests that it succeeds in doing that and can continue to rely upon the original analysis to support its license renewal application. Response at 4. However, as discussed above, the logic behind this suggestion is fatally flawed. The reason that the reanalysis gets a lower CUF is because its assumptions regarding the nozzle cladding is less conservative than the 8

original analysis and this change has a major effect on the result. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at T 8.

Thus, all the reanalysis shows is that certain assumptions are critical and the analysis will yield a lower CUF if those assumptions are made less conservative, as would be expected. However, the Response says nothing at all about whether the original analysis was sufficiently conservative or whether changing the assumption about the nozzle cladding in the reanalysis was justified. Id.

at ¶ 10-11. The Response therefore confirms that Citizens' contention raises a material dispute.

Namely, AmerGen believes that it is has shown that the original analysis was conservative, but Citizens' expert has concluded that it has not. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 11. In particular, to ensure the analysis of record is conservative, it should not contain non-conservative assumptions or use analytical methods that do not comply with the ASME Code. Id. at TT 4-5. Moreover, AmerGen has failed to justify the critical assumption in the reanalysis that the nozzle cladding may be neglected. Id. at ¶ 10.

C. The Letter Confirms That The Contention Raises A Significant Safety Issue The regulations allow AmerGen various options with regard to time limited aging analysis ("TLAA"). To meet the requirements for TLAA, AmerGen attempted to show the CUFEN would meet the CLB throughout any period of extended operation. See 10 C.F.R. 54.21(c)(1)(ii). The Current Licensing Basis("CLB") is that the CUFEN should be less than 1.0.

Oyster Creek SER at 3-170 to 3-172; Oyster Creek LRA at 4-45 to 4-36. At present AmerGen is seeking to rely upon the original analysis to show compliance with the CLB and the regulations.

Response at 4. This is not permissible because that analysis is known to be non-conservative in some respects and non-compliant with the ASME code.

As far as Citizens can tell, the reanalysis shows that if the nozzle cladding is not neglected, an appropriately conservative analysis would show that the CUFEN would be greater 9

than allowable by the CLB at some point during any extended period of operation. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 9. This shows that the problems with the metal fatigue calculations raise significant safety issues, because if they go uncorrected, a violation of the CLB could occur and the regulations regarding TLAA would be violated.

Furthermore, AmerGen may not rely on the revised analysis to suggest that the issue is of minor safety significance. AmerGen is currently relying on the original analysis, not the revised analysis, to support its license renewal application. Response at 4. Furthermore, AmerGen has not shown that the revised analysis is conservative given the conditions at Oyster Creek. Second Hopenfeld Decl. at ¶ 10. Thus, the existence of the revised analysis can have no detrimental effect on the pending contention unless and until AmerGen makes a reactor-specific showing that the revised analysis is sufficiently conservative, seeks to replace the flawed original analysis with the revised analysis for the purposes of the NRC Staff's safety evaluation, and then makes a motion for the appropriate relief.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should not permit AmerGen to gain any advantage from its failure to submit an authorized pleading concerning the revised analysis. In addition, the Board should admit the pending condition with the supplementary basis provided with this Motion.

Respectfully submitted, Richard Webster, Esq Eastern Environmental Law Center Attorneys for Citizens Dated: May 27, 2008 10

EXHIBIT MFC-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E. Roy Hawkens Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of )

)

AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ) Docket No. 50-219-LR (Oyster CreekNuclear Generating Station) )

) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR

)

)

SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. JORAM HOPENFELD

1. My name is Dr. Joram Hopenfeld. Grandmothers Mothers and More for Energy Safety has retained me as an expert witness in proceedings concerning the application of AmerGen Energy Company LLC to renew its operating license for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ("Oyster Creek") for twenty years beyond the current expiration date of April 9, 2009.

2. As discussed in my previous declaration dated April 15, 2008, I am expert on material coolant interactions in power plants.

3. In addition to the documents I reviewed prior to my April 15, 2008 declaration, I have also reviewed AmerGen's response, dated May 1, 2008, to an NRC request for additional information (the "Response").

4. The Response provides a brief summary of a requested reanalysis of the environmentally adjusted cumulative use factor ("CUFEN") for the recirculation outlet

nozzle. Response. According to the License Renewal Application, and consistent with the ASME code, the upper allowable limit is one. Oyster Creek LRA at 4-36.

Unfortunately, the reported results do not allow the disaggregation of the various assumptions that go into the fatigue analysis. To be certain that an analysis is conservative; the analyst should ensure that each assumption going into the analysis is justified by the actual conditions. The Response confirms that the original analysis, on which AmerGen seeks to rely, Response at 4, is not conservative with respect to the environmental correction factor. It also fails to clearly state the effect of eliminating the simplifications in the previous analysis. Thus, the Response does not provide a basis to conclude that the original analysis is actually conservative.

5. The NRC Staff asked for the reanalysis because the simplification used in the original analysis had a potential for not meeting the requirements of Section 111 of the ASME Code. It was my understanding that the intent of the NRC analysis was to replace the simplified Green's function analysis with the NRC approved ASME Section 111 NB-3200 methodology. The Response indicated that did more than replace the Green's Function analysis, it also introduced several new changes in the assumptions of the original analysis which were unrelated to Green's Function. These changes are material to the outcome of the fatigue analysis and if accepted by the NRC they would represent a material change to the Final Safety Evaluation Report, FSER which was used as the basis for the approval of the Oyster Creek LRA.

6. With regard to the environmental correction factor ("Fen"), the originally predicted CUFEN was 0.9781, using a Fen of 5.34. Response at Table 1. The reanalysis increased the Fen from 5.34 to 6.60 clearly indicating that the previous calculations were 2

not conservative in determining the Fen. Furthermore, if the reanalysis had predicted the same cumulative use factor ("CUE"), the allowable limit would have been exceeded, because of the increase in the Fen. As I pointed out in my April 18, 2008 declaration this was a likely potential outcome. Finally, the Response fails to establish that even the revised Fen actually takes proper account of several uncertainties which are known to exist in the calculations of the Fen

7. The determination of the CUFens is not an exact science. Because the current state of the technology is still a work in progress, it lacks in specificity and gives the analyst plenty of wiggle room in the determination of the final outcome. There are no standards for many of the key assumptions that must be made to obtain the final CUlFens.

Thus, in order to prevent the CUEFEN analysis being reduced to an, outcome-driven exercise, the key assumptions must be carefully examined and justified to ensure that they are consistent with what is known about the actual conditions.

8. According to the Response the recalculated CUIFEN was 0. 1366. Response at Table 1. The main cause of the decrease appears to be the analyst's decision to neglect the nozzle cladding for the fatigue calculation, although the wording of the Response is not very clear. Response at 3. In particular, the Response is vague on the effects of eliminating the simplification using Green's function and provides no numerical comparison of the CUE calculated with and without that simplification with all other assumptions being held constant. Although the Response suggests that "the CUE is lower" without the Green's function, there is no assurance that this comparison is based on two simulations where the only difference was the change in this one assumption. Id.

3

9. The revised analysis would have been much easier to compare to the original if the nozzle cladding had been treated the same in both. It is therefore highly likely that the analyst changed this critical assumption because without such a change, the recalculated CUFEN would exceed one. At minimum, the Response acknowledges that this change in assumption caused a significant contribution to the reduction in the predicted CUE. One critical issue is therefore whether this change in assumption is justified.

10. Unfortunately, the Response merely states that the change in assumption regarding nozzle cladding is permitted by the ASME Code under certain circumstances, but fails to address whether the operating experience with the recirculation outlet nozzle at Oyster Creek would permit such a change. Because the Response contains no reactor-specific justification for the use of the less conservative assumption in the reanalysis, it fails to show that the reanalysis is conservative.

11. The original analyst obviously decided that to be conservative the nozzle cladding should not be neglected. The reanalysis is designed to show that the original analysis was conservative. AmerGen suggests that it succeeds in doing that. Response at

4. However, the logic behind this suggestion is fatally flawed. The reason that the reanalysis gets a lower CUF is because its assumptions are less conservative than the original analysis. Thus, all the reanalysis shows is that a less conservative analysis yields a lower CUF. It says nothing at all about whether the original analysis was sufficiently conservative. In fact, to justify changing the assumption about the nozzle cladding, AmerGen must now make the case that the old analysis was overly conservative, by showing why the nozzle cladding may be neglected.

4

V

12. The information provided by AmerGen was not presented clearly and is lacking in transparency.

13. I will be pleased to form a complete opinion about the issues raised by the reanalysis when I have the chance to review complete copies of both analyses and any references that are cited to justify the assumptions used. Until then, the very limited summaries provided limit me to pointing out the inconsistencies between the original analysis and the reanalysis, the data gaps left by the Response, and the flaws in AmerGen's logic.

5

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this j day of May, 2008 at Rockville, Maryland.

Joram Hopenfeld, PhD 6

P-L0c4 c~~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

E. Roy Hawkins, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )

) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek )

Nuclear Generating Station) ) May 27, 2008

.)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard Webster, of full age, certify as follows:

I hereby certify that on May 27, 2008, I caused Citizens' Response to Board Order and Motion to Supplement the Basis of Their Contention to be served via email and U.S. Postal Service (as indicated) on the following:

Secretary of the Commission (Email and original and 2 copies via U.S Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff E-mail: OCAAMailgnrc.gov Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: erhca nrc.gov 1

<-I Administrative Judge Dr. Paul B. Abramson (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: pbagnrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov Law Clerk Emily Krause (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: DAW 1@nrc. g0v?

Office of General Counsel (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OGCMAILCENTER@NRC.GOV James E. Adler (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: jeal@nrc.gov Mary C. Baty (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mcb 1@nrc.gov Alex S. Polonsky, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, &Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: apolonsky(morganlewis.com 2

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: ksutton(?morganlewis.coin Donald Silverman, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: dsilverman@morganlewis.com J. Bradley Fewell (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way, Suite 200 Kennett Square, PA 19348 E-mail: bradley.fewell @exceloncorp. corn John Covino, DAG (Email and U.S. Postal Service)

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: john.corvinoa,,dol.lps. state.nj.us Valerie Gray (Email)

State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: valerie.gray@doI.lps.state.nj.us.

Paul Gunter (Email and U.S. Postal Service) c/o Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912-4446 E-mail: oaulabevondnuclear.org 3

°

• Edith Gbur (Email)

Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc.

364 Costa Mesa Drive. Toms River, New Jersey 08757 E-mail: gburl@comcast.net Paula Gotsch (Email)

GRAMMIES 205 6th Avenue Normandy Beach, New Jersey 08723 E-mail: paulagotsch Qaverizon.net Jeff Tittel (Email)

New Jersey Sierra Club 139 West Hanover Street Trenton New Jersey 08618 E-mail: Jeff.Tittelo(sierraclub.org Peggy Sturmfels (Email)

New Jersey Environmental Federation 1002 Ocean Avenue Belmar, New Jersey 07319 E-mail: psturmfelsgcleanwater.org Michele Donato, Esq. (Email)

PO Box 145 Lavalette, NJ 08735 E-mail: mdonatogimicheledonatoe sq.comn

/s Signed:

Richýrd Webster Dated: May 27, 2008 4