ML081620456
| ML081620456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/2008 |
| From: | Dennis W, Doris Lewis, O'Neill M Entergy Nuclear Operations, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, State of MA, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-271-LR, 50-286-LR, 50-293-LR, RAS E-108, RAS J-130, RAS M-73 | |
| Download: ML081620456 (19) | |
Text
R,4~5 EO (Jda Jk7)
,DQCKETED "USNRO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NILICLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION May.27, 2008 3:45,pm OFFICE ;OFSECRETARY BEFORE THE COMMISSION RULEMAKINGSAND:
ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and
,) 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
.(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-271-LR
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
))
- ) May 27, 2008 ANSWER OF ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. OPPOSING SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO SUSPEND LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDINGS I. INTRODUCTION Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") hereby files its Answer opposing the Supplemental Petition filed on May 15, 2008, by various organizations, including Riverkeeper, Pilgrim Watch, and New England Coalition (collectively, "Petitioners").! The Supplemental See "Supplemental Petition by 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; NewJersey Environmental Federation; Riverkeeper, Inc.; Pilgrim Watch and New England Environmental Coalition for Additional Investigation and Correction of Deficiencies Regarding License Renewal Reviews for Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants" (May 15, 2008)
("Supplemental Petition").
74m SZ/lC
Petition reiterates Petitioners' requests in their January 3, 2008 Initial Petition,2 and further requests that the Commission, among other things,,pro~vide.them with:the. opportunity to engage in discovery against the NRC Staff, reopen the record "if necessary," following such:discovery and, based on such discovery, allow them the opportunity to. file. unspecified late contentions in four pending license renewal proceedings. Three of those proceedings involve license'renewal applications
("LRAs") for Entergy-owned facilities: Indian Point Energy Center, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.3 The fourth proceeding concerns renewal of the operating license for AmerGen's Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
For .the reasons set forth below, the Commission should summarily reject the Supplemental Petition. In short, like its January 3 precursor, the Supplemental Petition is procedurally-defective, is riddled with factual inaccuracies and erroneous legal arguments, and is simply an embellishment upon Petitioners' previous challenge to the sufficiency of the NRC's license renewal review process. As such, it raises generic (and unfounded) concerns that should, to the extent necessary, be addressed outside of the adjudicatory process. Petitioners, moreover, again fail to identify any particular substantive deficiency in the NRC Staff's review of the LRAs at issue. There is no reason-and none has been proffered by the Petitioners-to believe that the NRC Staff lacks an "Petition By 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; New Jersey Environmental Federation; Riverkeeper, Inc.; Pilgrim Watch And New England Coalition To Suspend License Renewal Reviews For Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Pilgrim, And Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants Pending Investigation Of NRC Staff Review Process And Correction Of Deficiencies"(Jan. 3, 2008) ("Initial Petition").
The three Entergy-related proceedings that Petitioners seek to suspend are at different stages of license renewal application review and adjudicatory processes. Final Safety Evaluation Reports ("SERs") have been issued in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings. An evidentiary hearing was held on the remaining admitted contention in the Pilgrim proceeding in April 2008. Last week, the Commission directed the Licensing Board to close the evidentiary record in that proceeding and to proceed with its new schedule for the-submission of proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),. CLI-08-09, slip op. at 5 (May 16, 2008). In the Vermont Yankee.proceeding,an evidentiary hearing on the three remaining admitted contentionsis scheduled for the week of July 21, 2008, with the possibility of a second week of hearing in September. With respect to the Indian Point proceeding, the NRC Staff is in the process of completing its reviews and plans to issue a draft SER in September of this year. A Licensing Board ruling on the standing of the petitioners and admissibility of their proposed contentions is forthcoming.
2
adequate basis to determine whether the aging management programs for Indian, Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee provide adequate protectionof the public health and safety.
II. BACKGROUND On January 3, 2008, Petitioners filed.theirInitial Petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, which governs motions in NRC adjudications. Petitioners requested: (1) the suspension of all aspects of the Oyster Creek, Pilgrim,-Vermont.Yankee, and Indian Point-license renewal-proceedings, including Staff technical reviews;. (2) a "comprehensive overhaul" ofthe manner in- which the Staff carries out license renewal reviews; and. (3) reopening of the record in the Oyster Creek proceeding and in any other proceeding in which-the record closes before final Commission resolution of the Initial Petition.- In support of these requests, Petitioners cited, among other things, a, September 6, 2007, report prepared by the NRC Office of Inspector General ("OIG") concerning its audit of the NRC's license renewal program.-
.Entergy and the NRC Staff responded in opposition to.the Initial Petition on January 18, 2008, noting Petitioners' clear failure to provide any legitimate justification for the extraordinary relief sought.- On January 25, 2008, Petitioners moved for leave to file a reply to answers filed in opposition to their January 3, 2008, Initial Petition, and filed an associated reply.' The NRC Staff opposed Petitioners' motion for leave to file a reply.-8 4 Initial Petition at 1-2.
5 See Audit of NRC's License Renewal Program (OIG-07-A-15) (Sept. 6, 2007) ("OIG Report"), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML072490486.
See "Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing Petition to Suspend License Renewal Reviews and Proceedings" (Jan. 18, 2008) ("Entergy Answer"); "NRC Staff Answer to Petition for Suspension of License Renewal Reviews Pending Investigation of NRC Staff License Renewal Process" (Jan. 18, 2008) ("NRC Staff Answer"). AmerGen Energy Company, LLC similarly opposed the Initial Petition. See "AmerGen's Answer Opposing Petition for Stay and to Reopen The Record" (Jan. 15, 2008).
- See "Motion by [Petitioners] For Leave to Reply to Oppositions to Petition to Suspend License Renewal Reviews for Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants Pending Investigation of NRC Staff Review Process and Correction of Deficiencies" (Jan. 25, 2008).
See "NRC Staff's Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to Reply" (Feb. 4, 2008); see also "AmerGen's Answer Opposing Citizens' Motion for Leave to Reply" (Feb. 4, 2008).
3
On May 2, 2008, the NRC Inspector General ("IG") issued a memorandum to Chairman Klein summarizing:the IG' s additional reviews of Staff documentation of license renewal reviews of eight aging managementprograms ("AMPs") at four plants. 2 Notably, the four plants included Browns Ferry, Brunswick, DC Cook, and Oyster Creek-not any of the captioned Entergy facilities.
The IG Memo concluded that license renewal reviews had taken "significant numbers of hours," but noted that it was "difficult to.verify specific details of staff on-sitereview activities" because it is apparently not Staff practice to preserve copies of all applicant documents reviewed during on-site audits or Staff audit working papers.-L On May 8, 2008, the NRC served copies of the IG Memo on all ofthe participants in the Indian Point, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, and Oyster Creek proceedings.
One week later, on May 15, 2008-on the eve of the Commission's scheduled Affirmation Session on theInitial Petition-Petitioners filed the instant Supplemental Petition. The Commission temporarily postponed the Affirmation Session, rescheduling it for Wednesday, May 28, 2008. Entergyherein responds to Petitioners' May 15 Supplemental Petition.
IH. ARGUMENT A. The Requested Relief is Not Appropriately Sought in this Forum, and Petitioners, in Any Case, Have Failed to Comply with Applicable Procedural Requirements Petitioners allege that the IG Memo and the purported "facts" provided in the Supplemental Petition "reinforce the request in the initial Petition for the Commission to suspend relicensing proceedings for the Facilities while it investigates and attempts to remedy the deficiencies in the relicensing process."1' The Supplemental Petition then requests additional remedies, including that the Commission order the "release [of] all the non-public documents upon which NRC Staff relied See Memorandum from Hubert T. Bell, Inspector General, NRC, to Chairman Dale E. Klein, NRC, "NRC Staff Review of License Renewal Applications" (May 2, 2008) ("IG Memo"), available at ADAMS Accession No.
L Id. at 4-5.
Supplemental Petition at 16.
4
during the safety review, reopen the record if necessary, and allow Petitioners an opportunity to file new contentions based upon... the documents."L It further demands generic changes in the Commission's document retention and publication practices. 3 As Entergy andthe Staff previously explained, Petitioners' sweeping demands include elements of multiple procedural devices, including a motion to suspend the proceeding, a stay request, and a motion to reopen the record (in the case of Oyster Creek).- The Initial Petition did not address, much less satisfy, any of the requirements for any of those types of relief.1 The Supplemental Petition also -fails to do so, thereby rendering it defective for the same reasons set forth in Entergy's and the NRC Staffs January 18 Answers. In brief, Petitioners have not demonstrated that "moving forward with the adjudication will jeopardize the public health and safety, prove an obstacle to fair and efficient decisionmaking, or prevent appropriate implementation of any pertinent rule or policy changes."'6 Nor have Petitioners shown "imminent irreparable harm" or a genuine "significant safety issue. -'
The foregoing assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Supplemental Petition constitutes a colorable motion (under the NRC's Rules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2) which seeks relief that can be granted within the context'of a license renewal adjudication. Plainly, it is not. For example, Petitioners implore the Commission to investigate the NRC Staff's alleged "illegal" document destruction practices, to investigate and remedy asserted "deficiencies in the relicensing process,"
-L2 Id. at 18 (internal footnote omitted).
IId.
-4 See Entergy Answer at 3-5;,Staff Answer at 4-11.
-L5 See Entergy Answer at 3-5; Staff Answer at 4-11.
-6 Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I & 2), CLI-01-27, 54 NRC 385, 389.-90,(2001) (citations omitted).
-L7 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.342(e) (criteria for issuance of a stay); 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a)(2) (criteria for reopening the evidentiary record); see also Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations,Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-06-8, 63 NRC 235, 237 (2006).
5
and to "probe the culture of NRC management." Petitioners' real complaint, therefore, unquestionably lies with the internal, processes by .which the NRC Staff performs, and documents its license renewal reviews-not with the adequacy of thespecific!Entergy LRAs under review.
Clearly, such concerns are generic in nature and not. suitable for resolution in~individual adjudications.19 As the Staff succinctly put it, "generic assessments of the agency's review practices must be left to other agency processes and avenues;"'o such as rulemaking or policy formulation.
No more cognizable in this forum is Petitioners' request that the Commission order the NRC Staff to publicly release all of the non-public documents upon, whichthe Staff reliedduring the safety review (and reopen the record if necessary), so that Petitioners can proffer new contentions based on those documents. Petitioners' audacious request is tantamount to an unauthorized request for discovery, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336(f), which -provides that mandatory disclosures are the "sole discovery permitted for NRC proceedings ... " Moreover, "longstanding agency precedent precludes an intervenor from obtaining, discovery to assist it in framing contentions. '"L Yet this is precisely what Petitioners now request: the release of additional documents, followed by the
-L8 Supplemental Petition at 14-19.
-L9 See Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Stations, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999) (stating that "a petitioner may not demand an adjudicatory hearing to attack generic NRC requirements or regulations or express generalized grievances about NRC policies"); see also 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a).
20 NRC Staff Answer at 12& n.13.
Baltimore Gas &Elec. Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325, 351 (1998) (denying motion to postpone deadline for contention submittal until after intervenor could conduct discovery against the staff) (citing N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,192, reconsid. den., ALAB-110, 6 AEC 247, aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241); see also Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg.
33,168, 33,170-71 (Aug. 11, 1989) (explaining that the requirement to submit contentions at the start of a proceeding is intended to "preclude a contention from being admitted where an intervenor has no facts to support its position and... contemplates using discovery... as a fishing expedition which might produce relevant supporting facts.").
6
opportunity to file new contentions based on those documents.22 The Supplemental Petition should be denied for these reasons alone.
B. The Supplemental Petition is.Based on the Erroneous Assumption that Petitioners May Challenge the Adequacy of the NRC Staff's Review More fundamentally, the relief sought in the Supplemental Petition rests on, a patently erroneous premise; i.e., that Petitioners are entitled to file any number of late-filed contentions in these proceedings (in the case of the Pilgrimproceeding, even after the close of the evidentiary record) solely.concerning the adequacy of the Staff s review and the propriety of the Staff's actions.2 It is well established, however, that contentions concerning the adequacy of the Staff s review of a license application (as opposed to the application itself) are inadmissible in licensing hearings.-4 Petitioners conceded as much in their Initial Petition:
The Commission has made it clear that '[t]he adequacy of the applicant's license application, not the NRC staff's safety evaluation, is the safety issue in any licensing proceeding, and under longstanding decisions of the agency; contentions on the adequacy of the [content of the] SER are not cognizable in a proceeding' 22 SupplementalPetition at 18.
L3 For example, Petitioners state: (1) "The most important question left unanswered by the IG Memo is whether the quality of the relicensing reviews was actually sufficient" (Supplemental Petition at 2); (2) "Petitioners reserve the right to file a more comprehensive motion concerningthe adequacy ofNRC relicensingreviews at a later date" (id.
at 2 n. 1) (emphasis supplied); (3) Petitioners have now shown that the NRC Staff broke the law"(id. at 14); (4)
"the Commission should... allow Petitioners an opportunity to file new contentions based upon.... information in the documents [upon which NRC Staff relied during the safety review]" (id. at 18); and (5) "it is important for the Commission to probe the culture of NRC management." id.
L4 Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings-Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,171 ("With the exception of NEPA issues, the sole focus of the hearing is on whether the application satisfies NRC regulatory requirements, rather than the adequacy of the NRC staff performance."); see also Curators of the Univ. ofMo., CLI-95-8, 41 NRC. 386, 396 (1995) ("[I]n adjudications, the issue for decision is not whether the Staff performed well, but whether the license application raises health and safety concerns."); see also Curatorsof the Univ. ofMo., CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 121-22, 121 n.67 (1995) (citing reactor cases in which this principle has been applied).
Ls' Initial Petition at 7-8 (quoting U.S. Army (Jefferson Proving Ground Site), LBP-06-26, 64 NRC 438, 456 (2007);,
see also Calvert Cliffs, CLI-98-25, 48 NRC at 352 ("our requirement that contentions rest on the license application rather than on the NRC Staff s review has not prevented innumerable petitioners.., from framing admissible contentions and moving forward toward a hearing").
7
Thus, the central premise underpinning the Supplemental Petition is fundamentally flawed.
Petitioners.' stated intent is, in fact, to identify and file new. contentions based on documents related to the Staff s review of the LRAs.L26 The Commission's Rules of Practice and adjudicatory precedent preclude such a practice. Additionally, Petitioners appear-to assume that they are entitled to unfettered access to the Staff s so-called "working papers." This assumption has no merit, given that such documents, even if they were retained as formal agency records, wouldbe considered predecisional in nature, and subject to protection under the deliberative processprivilege incorporated within Exemption-5 of the Freedom of Information Act.-27 Accordingly, for these reasons, the Commission should summarily deny the Supplemental Petition.
C. The Supplemental Petition Grossly Mischaracterizes the Findings of the Inspector
'General's Memorandum andis Rife with Conclusory Assertions In addition to the foregoing procedural infirmities, the Supplemental Petition is-replete with factual mischaracterizations and other baseless assertions. At the outset of their pleading, Petitioners decry the adequacy of thelIG Memo-the very document upon which they rely-stating that: "it falls far short of the investigation envisaged by Petitioners"; it is "vague," "not exhaustive,"
and "raises more questions that [sic] it answers." Nonetheless, Petitioners seek to remedy the self-identified shortfalls in the IG Memo by spinning a fanciful and convoluted web of allegations against the NRC Staff. Petitioners accuse the NRC Staff, including its management, of "illegal" L6 A significant portion of the Supplemental Petition is devoted to the NRC's alleged failure to comply with internal agency procedures (contained in Management Directive 3153) and federal recordkeeping requirements. See Supplemental Petition at 6-15. Entergy does not opine on whether the NRC's internal document retention and destruction policies comply with "NRC policy and federal regulations," as this is a matter best left to the NRC itself. That being said, the IG Memo provides no indication that any documents (including audit-related "working papers") associated with the pending Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, and Indian Point license renewal proceedings have been discarded by the NRC Staff. As noted above,-the review documented in the IG memo did not encompass any of those three Entergy facilities.
L7 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 2.390(a)(5); see also Chem. Mfrs. Ass 'n v. Consumer Prod.Safety Comm 'n, 600 F. Supp. 114, 117 (D.D.C. 1984) (finding that ongoing regulatory process would be subject to "delay and disrupt[ion]" if preliminary analyses were prematurely disclosed).
L- Supplemental Petition at 2.
8
document spoliation and other devious machinations: "NRC managers have deliberately shielded from the public licensee documents upon which the agency has relied,,and NRC managers have ordered the destruction of working papers that would allow the quality of the reviews to be fully audited." 29 In reality, the IG Memo lends no support for Petitioners' allegations of Staff misconduct.
While the IG Memo details the process bywhich the Staff prepares SERs, it expresses no ultimate opinions on. the adequacy of the Staff's license renewal -reviews. Nor does it alter any of the*
conclusions of the original IG Report.2- At most, it observes that because "SERs are summary in nature as are the NRC audit reports ... the failure toxretain applicant documents and NRC working papers made it difficult [for the OIG] to verify the specific details of Staff on-site review activities.'"3+ Petitioners distort the IG's narrow observation beyond all recognition, claiming that
"[t]he IG Memo confirms that the NRC Staff cannot document that it carried out license renewal.
reviews adequately and suggests that the Staff has destroyed essential records.2 Such factual mischaracterizations and rank speculation do not "reinforce" the. Initial Petition or otherwise support the additional relief requested by Petitioners.
2- Id. at 17.
30 Office'of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report OIG-07-A-15, Sept. 6, 2007.
Lt IG Memo at 4-5.
L2 Supplemental Petition at 1-2. Petitioners' mischaracterization of the IG Memo is undeniable. The IG Memo states that "the staff does not preserve their own audit working papers as permanent records." IG Memo at 4.
Petitioners restate this as "the NRC Staff destroyed their audit working.papers..-,.." Supplemental Petition at 3.
Similarly, the IG Memo'states that Staff document retention practices "made it difficult to verify specific details of staff on-site review activities." IG Memo at 5. Petitioners translate this into "[t]he IG Memo confirms that the NRC Staff cannot document that it carried out license renewal reviews adequately...." Supplemental Petition at
- 1. Finally, while the IG Memo documents that Staff technical reviewers spent, on average, over 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on the license renewal review for each unit (IG Memo at 4), Petitioners blatantly misstate this as,"the investigation only attempted to examine the volume of work.., and made no attempt to examine the quality of the work."
Supplemental Petition at 3. This statement is based on Petitioners' characterization of their purported discussion with an IG representative.
9
D. Petitioners' Assertion that the NRC StafPs License Renewal Reviews Are Not Adequately Documented is Unfounded Petitioners, in discussing the Oyster Creek LRA, state:.that "there is a complete lack of documentation showing that the application has beenproperly reviewed."L3 It is safe to assumethat Petitioners already hold, or will hold, similar views relative to the Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, and Indian Point LRAs. Such a position, however, is untenable, and reflects a misinformed view of the manner in which the Staff reviews a LRA and documents that review.
Having Submitted numerous LRAs (both previously approved and'pending approval by the NRC), Entergy is well acquainted with the robustness of the NRC Staff s license renewal framework and rigorous nature of the Staff s review of individual renewal applications. The NRC Staffs LRA reviews are extensive, typically taking approximately two years, and involving on the order of 19,000 persori-hours of Staff effort per application.3 Indeed, the IG Memo expressly acknowledges the "significant number of hours" expended by the Staff in reviewing LRAs.35 The Staff s reviews include the issuance of numerous Requests for Additional Information
("RAIs"); performing on-site audits of the applicant's process for the scoping and screening of components, the aging management reviews, and :aging management programs; and additional inspections by regional Staff to verify the effectiveness of those programs.-6 The inspections include reviews of the structures, systems and components to verify that any observable aging L3 Supplemental Petition at 5.
4 Financial Information Requirements for Applications to Renew or Extend the Term of an Operating License for a Power Reactor, 69 Fed. Reg. 4439, 4445 (Jan. 30, 2004).
L5 IG Memo at 4. As Entergy previously has noted, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS") also reviews each license renewal application and associated NRC Staff SER and provides a written report. See 10 C.F.R. § 54.25. The ACRS. routinely questions the applicant and the NRC Staff about their reviews.
36 For a detailed discussion of the on-site audit and review processes, see, e.g., "Audit and Review Plan for Plant Aging Management Reviews and Programs," Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML072290180. Detailed information on the NRC's reactor license renewal inspection process, including links to the relevant procedures, is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/introduction/inspections.html.
10
effects have been identified and that aging management programs will provide sufficient opportunity to detect, monitor, trend, and correct age-related degradation through performance and condition monitoring, technical specification surveillances, and other aging management activities.--7 The Staff also conducts post-renewal inspections "to verify that license :conditions added aspart of the renewed license, license renewal commitments, selected aging management programs, and license renewal commitments revised after the renewed license was granted, are implemented in accordance with [10 C.F.R. Part 54]*?'-
The principal documents. memorializing, the results* of the Staff s review of a licensee's renewal application are the audit and review report for the on-site audits and review, the inspection reports prepared by regional inspectors, and the SER. These documents record the bases for the NRC's various findings and conclusions on a given license renewal application. Indeed, the SER, while summarizing the bases for the Staff s required findings and conclusions, is a substantial document that contains detailed information about the application and the Staffs review thereof.39 Moreover, substantial additional information relating to the Staff s review can be retrieved readily from theelectronic dockets contained in ADAMS. Notable examples include licensee responses to RAIs and AMR and AMP audit database reports.-° Petitioners' claim of a "complete lack of documentation" is thus without merit.
-7 NRC Inspection Procedure 71002 (Feb. 18, 2005) at 3.
L8 NRC Inspection Manual, Inspection Procedure 71003, "Post-Approval Site Inspection for License Renewal" (Feb.
15, 2008) at 1, available at ADAMS Accession No. ML073530536.
For example, the SERs issued for the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal applications exceed 700 pages in length. See, e.g., NUREG-1891, Safety Evaluation ReportRelated to the License Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-293 (Nov. 2007).
40 See, e.g., AMP Audit Database Report, Att. 3 to NL-07-153, Letter from Fred R. Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, "
Subject:
Amendment I to License Renewal Application (LRA)" (Dec. 18, 2007),
available at ADAMS Accession No. ML073650195; TLAA Audit Database Report, Att. 4 to NL-08-057, Letter from Fred R. Dacimo, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk, "
Subject:
Amendment 3 to License Renewal Application (LRA)" (Mar. 24,2008), availableat ADAMS Accession No. ML081070255.
11
E. Petitioners' Participation in the License Renewal Process Has Not Been "Impaired" Petitioners assert that the Staff s alleged "concealment" of licensee documentshas "impaired" their participation in the adjudicatory-process:.- This assertion is frivolous. Petitioners' extensive participation in the three:pending proceedings on Entergy's LRAs belies their complaint.
Pilgrim Watch and New England Coalition have intervened in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee proceedings, respectively. That process has allowed:them to proffer numerous proposed contentions, to obtain discovery through the mandatory disclosure process, and to make evidentiary presentations toAtomic Safety and.Licensing Boards. Riverkeeper, for its part, is similarly seeking to intervene in the Indian Point proceeding, and already has made voluminous submissions in support of its proposed contentions (including expert reports and affidavits and an amended contention). Clearly, the NRC has not deprived Petitioners of the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the adjudicatory process. Furthermore, Petitioners' assertion rests on the misguided notions that they are entitled to (i) contest .the adequacy of the Staff's safety review per se and (ii) obtain unfettered access to predecisional Staff review documents. As explained above, neither premise is valid.
Supplemental Petition at 16-17.
12
IV. CONCLUSION As.demonstrated above, the Supplemental Petition provides no basis for the:extraordinary relief-suspension of several pending license renewal proceedings and defacto discovery on pre-decisional Staff documents-sought by Petitioners. At its core, it is a badly disguised attempt to delay the adjudicatory process for no good reason, principally by casting aspersions on. the NRC Staff and the license renewal process. Accordingly, the Commission should deny the Supplemental Petition ,in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted, Kathryn M. SKutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5738 E-mail: ksutton Omanorganlewis.com William C. Dennis, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 272-3202 Fax: (914) 272-3205 E-mail: wdennis(a),entergy.com David R. Lewis, Esq.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Phone: (202) 663-8000 E-mail: david.Iewis(apillsburylaw. com Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this 27th day of May 2008.
13
UNITED. STATES. OF*AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- BEFORE. THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )) Docket;Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) )
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
. . )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
.)
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-271-LR
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
))
May 27, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing Supplemental Petition to Suspend License Renewal Proceedings" were served this 27th day of May, 2008, upon the persons listed below, by electronic mail and first class mail, unless otherwise noted. Persons who are in more than one proceeding have been served only once.
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Administrative. Judgeý U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Mail Stop: 0-16 G4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: ocaamail(qnrc.gov) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: lgml (anrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 190 Cedar Lane E.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ridgway, CO 81432 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: kdl2Qnrc.gov)
(E-mail:, rew(anrc.gov)
Office of the Secretary
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David'E. Roth; Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Jessica A. Bielecki, Esq.
(E-mail: hearingdocket(inrc.-gov) Marcia J. SimonhEsq.
Office of the General Counsel MailtStop: O-15.D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: set(@,,nrc. gov)
(E-mail: bnml (nrc. gov)
(E-mail: david.roth(anrc.gov)
(E-mail: jessica.bielecki(,nrc.gov)
(E-mail: marcia.simonQ~nrc. goV)
Zachary S. Kahn Nancy Burton Law Clerk 147 Cross Highway Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Redding Ridge, CT 06876 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 (E-mail: NancyBurtonCT(0,aol.com)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: zxkl (Znrc.gov)
Manna Jo Greene Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.
Environmental Director Assistant County Attorney, Litigation Bureau Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. of Counsel to Charlene M. Indelicato, Esq.
112 Little Market Street Westchester County Attorney Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 148 Martine Avehue, 6th Floor (E-mail: mannaio(iclearwater.org) White Plains, NY 10601 (E-mail: jdp3( westchestergov.com)
Stephen C. Filler, Board Member Diane Curran, Esq.
Hudson RiVer Sloop Clearwater, Inc. Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
303 South Broadway, Suite 222 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Tarrytown, NY 10591 Washington, D.C. 20036 (E-mail: sfiller(Znvlawline.com) (E-mail: dcurran(@harmoncurran.com) 2
Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
Victor M. Tafur, Esq. Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Riverkeeper; Inc. Ms.. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.
828. South Broadway Sive, Paget & Riesel,, P.C.
Tarrytown, NY 10591 460 Park Avenue (Eý-mail: phillip(oriverkeeper.org) New York, NY 10022 (E-mail: vtafur(ariverkeeper.org) (E-mail: driesel('sprlaw.com)
(E-mail:. jsteinberg(asprlaw.com)
Robert D. Snook, Esq. Susan H. Shapiro, Esq.
Office of:the Attorney General 21 Perlman Drive State of Connecticut Spring.Valley, NY 10977 Assistant Attorney General (E-mail: Palisadesart(aaol.com 55 Elm Street mbseourrocklandoffice.com)
P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 (E-mail: Robert.Snook(apo:state.ct.us)
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq. Richard L. Brodsky Attorney General of the State of New York 5 West,Main St.
John J. Sipos, Esq. Elmsford,.NY 10523 Charlie Donanldson Esq. (E-mail: brodskr(aassembly.state.ny.us Assistants Attorney General richardbrodsky(amsn.com)
The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 (E-mail: iohn.siposaoag.statemny.us)
Joan Leary Matthews, Esq. Janice A. Dean Senior Attorney for Special Projects Office of the Attorney General Office of the General Counsel of the State of New York New York State Department of Assistant Attorney General Environmental Conservation 120 Broadway, 26th Floor 625 Broadway, 14th Floor New York, New York 10271 Albany, NY 12207 (E-mail: Janice.Dean(ioag.state.ny.us)
(E-mail: ilmatthe(cgw.dec.state.ny.us)
Sarah L. Wagner, Esq. John Louis Parker, Esq.
- Legislative Office Building, Room 422 Regional Attorney Albany, New York 12248 Office of General Counsel, Region 3 (E-mail: sarahwaganeresq(@gmail.coM) NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 21 S. Putt Comers Road New Paltz, New York 12561-1620 (E-mail: ilparker(igw.dec. state.ny.us) 3
Mylan L. Denerstein,. Esq. Marcia Carpentier, Law Clerk Executive Deputy Attorney General, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Social:Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office-of the Attorney General Mailstop 3 E2B ofthe State of New York Two White FlintNorth 120 Broadway, 2 5 th Floor 11545 Rockville Pike New York, New York 10271 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 (E-mail: Mylan.Denerstein(aoag.state.ny.us) (E-mail: Marcia.Carpentier(onrc. gov)
Pilgrim Nuclear, Power Station Secretary of the Commission* Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: 0-16 G4 One White Flint North Washington,,DC 20555-0001 11555 Rockville Pike (Email: ocaamailanrc.gov)
Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 (Email; secy(¥nrc. gov, hearingdocket(ah)nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Chair Paul B. Abramson 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 (Email: amyanrc. gov) (Email: pba(anrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Richard F. Cole James E. Adler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory .Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (Email: rfcl (@nrc.gov) (Email: slu(anrc.gov)
(Email: jeal (anrc.gov)
Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq. Mary E. Lampert Duane Morris, LLP Director of Pilgrim Watch 505 9th Street, N.W. 148 Washington Street Suite 1000 Duxbury, MA 02332 Washington, DC 20006 (Email: mary.lampertacomcast.net)
(Email: sshollis(iduanemorris.com) 4
James R. Milkey Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General, Chief Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, Environmental ProtectionDivision L.L.P.
Office: of the Attorney General 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 One Ashburton Place Washington, D.C.,20036 Boston, MA 02108 (E-niail: dcurran @,harmoncurran: com)
(Email: Jim.milkey(@state.ma.us)
Mark D. Sylvia Chief Kevin M.- Nord Town Manager Fire Chief and Director, Duxbury Emergency Town of Plymouth Management Agency 11 Lincoln Street 668 Tremont Street Plymouth, MA .02360 Duxbury,,MA 02331 (Email:. msylvia(ctownhall.plyMouth.ma.us) (Email: -nord(town.duxburi.ma.us)
Richard R. MacDonald Atomic Safety and Licensing Board**
Town Manager' Mail Stop T-3 F23 878 Tremont Street U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Duxbury, MA 02332 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (Email: macdonald(itown.duxbury.ma.us)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Secretary of the Commission* Office of Commission-Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop:,O- 16 G4 One White Flint North Washington, DC 20555-0001 11555 Rockville Pike (Email: ocaamail(anrc.gov)
Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 (Email: secyanrc.gov, hearingdocketanrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Thomas S. Elleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23. 5207 Creedmoor Rd., #101 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27612 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (Email: tse(anrc.gov; elleman(eos.ncsu.edu)
(Email: ask2anrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Richard E. Wardwell National Legal Scholars Law Firm Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 84 East Thetford Rd.
Mail Stop,: T-3 F23 Lyme, NH 03768 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Email: aroisman(,nationallegalscholars.com)
Washington, DC 20555-0001 (Email: rew(nrc.gov) 5
Ronald A. Shems, Esq. Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
Karen Tyler, Esq. David E. Roth, Esq.
Shems Dunkiel:Kassel &:Saunders, PLLC Mary C. .Baty,.Esq.
91 'College .Street Jessica A.. Bielecki,.Esq.
Burlington, VT 05401 Office -ofthe General Counsel (Email: rshems(,sdkslaw.com) Mail Stop -O-15 D21 (Email:. kty1er(sdkslaw.com) U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission
- Washington,..DC 20555-0001 (Email:. lbs3 6ýnrc.gov)
(Email: deranrc.gov)
(Email: mcb.1 @nrc.gov)
(Email.. jessica.biele ki(nrc. gov)
Peter C. L. Roth,,Esq. Sarah Hofmnann,, Esq.
Senior Assistant.Attomey General Director for. Public Advocacy Environmental Protection Bureau Department of Public Service
- 33. Capitol Street 112 State Street Drawer 20
-
Concord, NH 03301 Montpelier, VT .05620-2601 (Email: peter.rothqdoJ.nh. gov) (Email: sarah.hofmfiann(dhstate.vt.us)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board** Marcia Carpentier, Law Clerk Mail Stop T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Mailstop 3 E2B Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852!2738 (E-mail:. mxc7anrc.gov)
- Original and 2 copies
- First Class Mail only Martin J. O'NeillV 1-WA/2979863.1 6