ML081690064
| ML081690064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Harris, Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/16/2008 |
| From: | James Adler, Baty M, Jessica Bielecki, Roth D, Marcia Simon NRC/OGC |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, 50-247-LT-2, 50-271-LT-2, 50-286-LT-2, 50-293-LT-2, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, FOIA/PA-2008-0306, RAS E-111, RAS H-43, RAS J-150, RAS M-86 | |
| Download: ML081690064 (20) | |
Text
June 16, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ) Docket No.
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) ) 50-219-LR
______________________________________)
In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos.
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating ) 50-247-LR Units 2 and 3) ) and 50-286-LR
______________________________________)
In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) 50-293-LR
______________________________________)
In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) 50-271-LR
______________________________________)
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES IN LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the Motion 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 [Petitioners] for Leave
to Reply to NRC Staffs Oppositions to Supplemental Petition for Additional Investigation and Correction of Deficiencies Regarding License Renewal Reviews for Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants (Motion for Leave to Reply), served June 4, 2008.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes the Motion for Leave to Reply.
BACKGROUND On May 15, 2008, Petitioners served a supplemental petition2 to their January 3, 2008 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.3 The Staff filed its answer to this Supplemental Petition on May 27, 2008.4 Subsequently, on June 4, 2008, Petitioners filed the instant motion seeking leave to reply to the Staff Answer.5 Petitioners note that the Commissions regulations do not provide a 1
Petitioners also submitted, with their Motion for Leave to Reply, a pleading entitled Reply by
[Petitioners] to NRC Staff Opposition to Supplemental Petition for Additional Investigation and Correction of Deficiencies Regarding License Renewal Reviews for Oyster Creek, Indian Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants (June 4, 2008) (Reply).
2 Supplemental Petition by [Petitioners] 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).
3 Petition by [Petitioners] 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) (January Petition). After receipt of Petitioners Supplemental Petition, the Commission postponed its scheduled May 16, 2008 affirmation session regarding Petitioners Initial Petition. See NRC Sunshine Federal Register Notice for Weeks of May 12, 19, 26, June 2, 9, 16, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 27,580 (May 13, 2008) (noticing the affirmation session).
4 NRC Staffs Answer to Supplemental Petition for Additional Investigation and Correction of Deficiencies in License Renewal Reviews (May 27, 2008) (Staff Answer).
5 The Staff notes that this is the second time in this joint proceeding that Petitioners have moved for leave to reply (and attached a reply) based on a claim of compelling circumstances, alleging each time that they could not reasonably have anticipated the arguments raised against them. See Motion by (continued. . .)
right to reply, and that permission to reply may be granted only in compelling circumstances.
Motion for Leave to Reply at 1 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c)6). Nonetheless, Petitioners argue that the requested leave to reply is warranted. Id. Petitioners assert that compelling circumstances are present because Petitioners could not have anticipated the arguments contained in the Staff Answer regarding 1) the legality of the Staffs destruction of audit-related documents; 2) interpretation of the privilege doctrine; and 3) the fact that there is sufficient documentation available to show that the relicensing reviews are adequate. See Motion for Leave to Reply at 1-2.
DISCUSSION Petitioners joint effort, which began with their January Petition and continued with their Supplemental Petition, attempts to obtain adjudicatory relief in four license renewal adjudications by challenging various aspects of the Staffs safety reviews of renewal applications.7 This is in spite of the fact that, according to well-settled Commission precedent, the quality of the Staffs safety reviews is not a material issue in NRC licensing proceedings, because what matters is the adequacy of the application itself, not the Staffs performance. See
(. . .continued)
[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); Reply by [Petitioners] to Opposition 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).
6 Regarding motions, answers, and replies, 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) states that the moving party has no right to reply, and permission to reply may be granted only in compelling circumstances, such as where the moving party demonstrates that it could not reasonably have anticipated the arguments to which it seeks leave to reply.
7 See generally January Petition; Supplemental Petition.
Changes to Adjudicatory Process, Final Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,202 (Jan. 14, 2004) (citing Commission case law); see also Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (Trump-S Project), CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 121-22 (1995), affd on motion for reconsid., CLI-95-8, 41 NRC 386, 396 (1995).
Therefore, Petitioners January Petition and Supplemental Petition were not viable to begin with, making it all the more improbable that there could be any compelling reason to allow Petitioners to submit yet another pleading. Nonetheless, the Staff will address the arguments Petitioners raise in their attempt to show that compelling circumstances warrant granting their Motion for Leave to Reply.
Petitioners8 claim that their inability to anticipate the Staffs arguments in response to their Supplemental Petition presents the sort of compelling circumstances that would permit the Commission to grant its Motion for Leave to Reply. The Staff disagrees.
First, the Staff notes that Petitioners have kept their Motion for Leave to Reply relatively brief, providing only skeletal arguments. In order to understand these skeletal arguments, the reader must review the Reply, which Petitioners have appended to their as-yet-ungranted Motion for Leave to Reply. Thus, Petitioners apparently hope to evade the Commissions regulation restricting the right to file replies by forcing the Commission to read the reply in order to decide whether to allow it. In the Staffs view, this defeats the purpose of the regulation.
Moreover, to file the actual reply requires permission. 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c). Absent such permission, the reply effectively does not exist, and so cannot be relied upon. To preserve the 8
Multiple Petitioners from four separate proceedings that are represented by counsel and experienced pro se representatives are essentially asserting to the Commission, in their Motion for Leave to Reply, that they could not have reasonably anticipated that the Staff would respond to the very points raised by their representatives.
integrity of the Commissions procedural rules, the Commission should therefore restrict its analysis of the Motion for Leave to Reply to the four corners of that motion.
Petitioners Motion for Leave to Reply makes three arguments in support of Petitioners alleged inability to anticipate the Staffs arguments. These arguments are both vague and unfounded. This response will address each of Petitioners arguments in turn.
I. Legality of Staff Actions First, Petitioners claim to be surprised at the Staffs position that the Staff did not violate any document retention laws, Motion for Leave to Reply at 1, even though this Staff position directly responds to the Supplemental Petitions claims that the Staffs actions were illegal, see Supplemental Petition at 6-15 (Section IV, entitled The Destruction of the Working Papers Violates NRC Policy and is Illegal). Petitioners sole allegation, quoted in full, in support of this facially unlikely claim is that the Staffs arguments are blatantly inconsistent with program plans that were developed by the Staff itself for license renewal reviews at the Oyster Creek and Indian Point plants and with NRCs general document retention policies. Motion for Leave to Reply at 1. Petitioners fail to explain what, precisely, these program plans or general document retention policies are or why the Staffs arguments are blatantly inconsistent with them. Thus, Petitioners have failed to provide any meaningful support for their compelling circumstances argument.
The Staff also notes that, while the Supplemental Petition did include an extensive discussion of the NRCs general document retention policies found in Management Directive (MD) 3.53,9 see Supplemental Petition at 7-14,10 there is no mention in the Supplemental 9
MD 3.53, NRC Records and Document Management Program (Mar. 15, 2007).
Petition of anything that might reasonably be termed a program plan. See generally Supplemental Petition. It is likely, though, the program plans to which Petitioners are referring are the Audit Plans for Indian Point and Oyster Creek.11 Petitioners do not, however, explain why they think these Audit Plans (or any other program plans) have any legal significance. In the Staffs view, these Audit Plans constitute merely the license renewal division staffs own internal guidance to itself and are intended to serve pragmatic managerial purposes rather than legal purposes. Moreover, the Audit Plans never claim to be setting forth or interpreting any laws or Commission policies on document retention. After all, the goal of instructing the Staff how to comply with laws and Commission policy regarding document retention is already being served by MD 3.53. Petitioners also do not indicate in their Motion for Leave to Reply what blatant inconsistency they think has occurred with respect to these Audit Plans (or any other program plans), leaving it to the Commission to guess what they might be talking about. Thus, Petitioners have not come close to meeting their burden of demonstrating the compelling circumstances necessary to justify granting their Motion for Leave to Reply.
(. . .continued) 10 The Staff responded to Petitioners arguments regarding MD 3.53 in the Staff Answer. See Staff Answer at 12.
11 See Audit and Review Plan for Plant Aging Management Reviews and Programs for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket No. 50-247, 50-286 (Sep. 27, 2007) (ADAMS Accession No. ML072290180) (Indian Point Audit Plan); Audit and Review Plan for Plant Aging Management Reviews and Programs, Oyster Creek Generating Station, Docket No. 50-219, Rev. 1 (Jan. 17, 2006) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060200084) (Oyster Creek Audit Plan).
II. Deliberative Process Privilege Second, Petitioners assert that they could not have predicted that the Staff would argue that audit-related documents are privileged because this argument is so far afield of NRCs ordinary interpretation of the privilege doctrine. Motion for Leave to Reply at 1. Petitioners claim that, as a result, they could not foresee the Staffs argument that the failure to retain working papers did not affect Petitioners right to participate in license renewal proceedings.
Id. at 2.12 The Commission has held that the deliberative process privilege may be invoked in NRC proceedings. Georgia Power Co., et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-94-5, 39 NRC 190, 197 (1994). Staff notes at the outset that Entergy recognized in its own response to the Supplemental Petition that the NRC could have invoked the deliberative process privilege with respect to these working papers,13 a fact that tends to undercut Petitioners assertion that they could not have anticipated such an argument. Indeed, the Staffs deliberative process argument was perfectly appropriate, and should have been 12 The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. § 2.337 show what evidence is required and anticipated at a hearing; working papers and notes are simply not among the evidence the Staff is expected to present. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.337. By contrast, the Staff's safety evaluation report is anticipated and contemplated as evidence. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.337(g)(2)(ii) & 2.337(g)(3)(ii) (stating that in proceedings involving applications, the NRC staff, at its discretion, offers into evidence the safety evaluation report). If there are environmental contentions, the Staff would also provide its supplemental environmental impact statement. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.337(g)(2)(iv) & 2.337(g)(3)(iv). Only relevant, material, and reliable evidence is admitted, 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a), and the absence of any regulatory requirement for the Staff to offer into evidence its working papers and notes further supports the argument that these non-record papers are not necessary for a complete record, and are not required to be preserved.
13 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing Supplemental Petition to Suspend License Renewal Proceedings (May 27, 2008) at 8 ([E]ven if [the documents in question] were retained as formal agency records, [they] would be considered predecisional in nature and subject to protection under the deliberative process privilege.).
predictable, given Petitioners claim that lack of access to the documents in question has harmed their ability to participate in their respective adjudications. See Supplemental Petition at 16-17. Such a claim necessarily presupposes that Petitioners would have had some right to obtain these documents, which in turn would implicate any potentially relevant privileges. Given that the OIG Memo14 describes the documents in question as working papers which Staff reviewers used to prepare their formal input for an audit report, which is then used as input to the SER, OIG Memo at 3, it is no surprise that the Staff would raise deliberative process privilege arguments to dispute Petitioners suggestion that they would have had some right to obtain these clearly pre-decisional (and likely deliberative15) documents in order to aid their adjudicatory participation.16 Petitioners also completely fail to explain their claim that the Staffs deliberative process arguments are so far afield of NRCs ordinary interpretation of the privilege doctrine that they 14 Memorandum from Inspector General Hubert T. Bell to Dale E. Klein, Chairman of the Commission, regarding NRC Staff Review of License Renewal Applications (May 2, 2008).
15 While the predecisional nature of Staff working papers appears beyond dispute given their role in the development of Staff SERs, the Motion for Leave to Reply also does not specifically allege that the working papers discussed in the OIG Memo were not deliberative. See Motion for Leave to Reply at 1-2. Nor can any apparent basis for making such a claim be found in the OIG Memos vague descriptions of these working papers. See OIG Memo at 3. Indeed, a Licensing Board recently recognized that there are several types of documents that can potentially qualify as deliberative, ranging from documents that expressly depict internal agency deliberations to fact summaries that are developed to assist in discretionary decisionmaking. See David Geisen, LBP-06-25, 64 NRC 367, 382 (2006). The Commission has likewise acknowledged the variety of ways in which documents can satisfy the deliberative prong of deliberative process analysis. Vogtle, CLI-94-5, 39 NRC at 198. Therefore, given the very limited detail given in the OIG Memo about the working papers in question, it is unclear how Petitioners could have concluded with any certainty that these working papers would not have been deliberative. This further confirms that Petitioners should have been able to anticipate the Staffs deliberative process privilege arguments.
16 Only documents that are both (1) predecisional and (2) deliberative are protected by the deliberative process privilege. Vogtle, CLI-94-5, 39 NRC at 197.
could not reasonably have been anticipated. This vague and unexplained assertion clearly does not demonstrate the compelling circumstances necessary to warrant permission to reply.
III. Commissions Ability to Make License Renewal Decisions Third, Petitioners argue that they meet the compelling circumstances requirement of
§ 2.323(c) because they could not have anticipated the Staffs argument that the Commission does have adequate information to make license renewal determinations. See Motion for Leave to Reply at 2. This assertion is not credible because the Staffs argument was in direct response to the Supplemental Petitions section entitled The Commission Has Insufficient Information to Form an Opinion on Adequate Protection for the Facilities.17 Petitioners claim, nonetheless, that the Staffs argument contradicts the core finding of the May 8, 2008 memorandum from the Inspector General . . . that it was very difficult to verify specific details of on-site review activities, because the NRC Staff did not preserve its working files. Motion for Leave to Reply at 4. This assertion, however, does not demonstrate that Petitioners could not have reasonably anticipated this argument. In fact, Petitioners argued in their Supplemental Petition that [t]he IG's major finding is that because the NRC Staff destroyed their audit working papers and did not retain copies of all applicant documents reviewed, it was difficult to verify specific details of on-site review activities (Supplemental Petition at 3) and that the IG Memo shows that the Staff have destroyed essential working papers without which the Commission cannot show that the quality of the relicensing reviews was adequate (id. at 16).
Thus, instead of demonstrating that they could not have anticipated the Staffs arguments, Petitioners have merely demonstrated a desire to repeat arguments they made in the first 17 Supplemental Petition at 15.
instance and rebut the Staffs perfectly foreseeable arguments. A mere desire to rebut an argument does not constitute compelling circumstances.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances in their Motion for Leave to Reply. Thus, the Staff respectfully requests that the Commission deny Petitioners Motion for Leave to Reply and not entertain the Petitioners Reply.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
James E. Adler Counsel for the NRC Staff
/RA/
Mary C. Baty Counsel for the NRC Staff
/RA/
David E. Roth Counsel for the NRC Staff
/RA/
Jessica A. Bielecki Counsel for the NRC Staff
/RA/
Marcia J. Simon Counsel for the NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of June, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ) Docket No. 50-219-LR
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES IN LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS for James E. Adler in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or, as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 16th day of June, 2008.
E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge ATTN: Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov E-mail: ERH@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Anthony J. Baratta Adjudication Administrative Judge Mail Stop: O-16G4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: OCAAMail@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: AJB5@nrc.gov Emily Krause Law Clerk Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge Mail Stop: T-3F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: EIK1@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: PBA@nrc.gov
Suzanne Leta Liou* J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.*
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group Exelon Corporation 11 N. Willow St. 4300 Warrenville Road Trenton, NJ 08608 Warrenville, IL 60555 E-mail: sliou@environmentnewjersey.org E-mail: bradley.fewell@exeloncorp.com Donald Silverman, Esq.* Richard Webster, Esq.*
Alex S. Polonsky, Esq. Julia LeMense, Esq.*
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq. 123 Washington Street Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Newark, NJ 07102-5695 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Email: rwebster@easternenvironmental.org Washington, DC 20004 jlemense@easternenvironmental.org E-mail: dsilverman@morganlewis.com apolonsky@morganlewis.com ksutton@morganlewis.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com Paul Gunter, Director*
Kevin Kamps Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information And Resource Service 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: paul@beyondnuclear.org kevin@beyondnuclear.orq
/RA/
James. E. Adler Counsel for the NRC Staff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES IN LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or, as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 16th day of June , 2008.
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Office of Commission Appellate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudication Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: lgm1@nrc.gov E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop* Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 190 Cedar Lane E. Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Ridgway, CO 81432 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: kdl2@nrc.gov (Via Internal Mail Only)
Zachary S. Kahn Marcia Carpentier Law Clerk Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: T-3 E2B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: zxl1@nrc.gov E-mail: marcia.carpentier@nrc.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.* Michael J. Delaney, Esq.*
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Vice President - Energy Department Martin J. ONeill, Esq. New York City Economic Development Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Corporation (NYCDEC) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 110 William Street Washington, D.C. 20004 New York, NY 10038 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: mdelaney@nycedc.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com William C. Dennis, Esq.* Susan H. Shapiro, Esq.*
Assistant General Counsel 21 Perlman Drive Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Spring Valley, NY 10977 440 Hamilton Avenue E-mail: mbs@ourrocklandoffice.com White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman* Justin D. Pruyne, Esq.*
New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Assistant County Attorney Alliance (AREA) Office of the Westchester County Attorney 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10016 White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: ajkremer@rmfpc.com E-mail: jdp3@westchestergov.com kremer@area-alliance.org Manna Jo Greene* John LeKay*
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. FUSE USA 112 Little Market Street 351 Dyckman Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Peekskill, NY 10566 E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org E-mail: fuse_usa@yahoo.com
Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor* John J. Sipos, Esq.*
James Seirmarco, M.S. Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Village of Buchanan Assistants Attorney General Municipal Building New York State Department of Law Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Environmental Protection Bureau E-mail: vob@bestweb.net The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 E-mail: john.sipos@oag.state.ny.us Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.* John Louis Parker, Esq.*
Senior Attorney for Special Projects Office of General Counsel, Region 3 New York State Department of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental conservation Office of the General Counsel 21 South Putt Corners Road 625 Broadway, 14th Floor New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us Robert Snook, Esq.* Daniel Riesel, Esq*
Office of the Attorney General Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
State of Connecticut Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.
55 Elm Street Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
P.O. Box 120 460 Park Avenue Hartford, CN 06141-0120 New York, NY 10022 E-mail: robert.snook@po.state.ct.us E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com jsteinberg@sprlaw.com Ms. Nancy Burton* Sarah L. Wagner, Esq.*
147 Cross Highway Legislative Office Building, Room 422 Redding Ridge, CT 06876 Albany, NY 12248 E-mail: nancyburtonct@aol.com E-mail: sarahwagneresq@gmail.com Victor Tafur, Esq.* Richard L. Brodsky, Esq.*
Phillip Musegaas, Esq. 5 West Main St.
Riverkeeper, Inc. Elmsford, NY 10523 828 South Broadway E-mail: brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us Tarrytown, NY 10591 richardbrodsky@msn.com E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org vtafur@riverkeeper.org Elise N. Zoli, Esq.* Diane Curran, Esq.*
Goodwin Procter, LLP Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP Exchange Place 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 53 State Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Boston, MA 02109 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com
Mylan L. Denerstein, Esq.*
Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Executive Deputy Attorney General, Social Justice Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 E-mail: mylan.denerstein@oag.state.ny.us janice.dean@oag.state.ny.us
/RA/
David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and )
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES IN LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail and by deposit in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system, or, as indicated by an asterisk (*), by electronic mail and by deposit in the U.S. Mail system this 27th day of March, 2008.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Ann Marshall Young, Chair Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: T-3F23 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY) Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov
Sheila Slocum Hollis* Terence A. Burke, Esq.*
Duane Morris LLP Entergy Nuclear 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 700 1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20006 Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com Mary Lampert* David R. Lewis, Esq*.
148 Washington Street Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Duxbury, MA 02332 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP E- mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1137 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Chief Kevin M. Nord* Town Manager*
Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency Town of Plymouth Management Agency 11 Lincoln St.
668 Tremont Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Duxbury, MA 02332 E-mail: msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Richard R. MacDonald* Matthew Brock, Esq.*
Town Manager Assistant Attorney General, Chief 878 Tremont Street Environmental Protection Division Duxbury, MA 02332 Office of the Attorney General E-mail: macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us Diane Curran*
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com
/RA/
James E. Adler Counsel for the NRC Staff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, ) Docket No. 50-271-LR LLC, and ENTERGY NUCLEAR )
OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES IN LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEWS in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or, as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, this 2nd day of June, 2008.
Alex S. Karlin, Chair Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov William H. Reed* Marcia Carpentier, Law Clerk Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 1819 Edgewood Lane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charlottesville, VA 22902 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: whrcville@embarqmail.com E-mail: mxc7@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Lauren Bregman, Law Clerk Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.gov E-mail: lauren.bregman@nrc.gov
Office of Commission Appellate Peter C.L. Roth, Esq*
Adjudication Office of the Attorney General Mail Stop: O-16G4 33 Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Concord, NH 3301 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: peter.roth@doj.nh.gov E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov Ronald A. Shems, Esq.* Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*
Karen Tyler, Esq. National Legal Scholars Law Firm Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 84 East Thetford Rd.
91 College Street Lyme, NH 03768 Burlington, VT 05401 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com E-mail: rshems@sdkslaw.com Ktyler@sdkslaw.com David R. Lewis, Esq.* Sarah Hofmann, Esq.*
Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq Director of Public Advocacy Elina Teplinsky, Esq Department of Public Service Blake J. Nelson, Esq 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 2300 N Street, NW E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com blake.nelson@pillsburylaw.com Diane Curran* Matthew Brock*
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, LLP Assistant Attorney General, Chief 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Environmental Protection Division Washington, D.C. 20036 Office of the Attorney General E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us
/RA/
Mary C. Baty Counsel for NRC Staff