ML090080024
| ML090080024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/2009 |
| From: | Baty M NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, LBP-08-25 | |
| Download: ML090080024 (13) | |
Text
January 7, 2009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
NRC STAFFS ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO NEC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LPB-08-25 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b),1 the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to New England Coalitions [NEC] Motion for Reconsideration of the Licensing Boards Partial Initial Decision (Motion) filed December 17 and 19, 2008.2 For the reasons set forth below, NECs Motion has not, as required by § 2.345(b), demonstrated compelling circumstances that could not have been anticipated that render invalid the Atomic 1
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.345, motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of a decision, and responses to motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of service. In this proceeding, NEC requested, and the Board granted, extensions of time both for NEC to file its motion for reconsideration and for parties to respond to NECs motion. See [NEC]s Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Reconsideration (Dec. 3, 2008); Order (Granting NECs Motion to Extend Time) (Dec. 4, 2008); [NEC]s Motion for a Second Extension of Time in Which to File Motion for Reconsideration (Dec. 15, 2008); Order (Granting NECs [Second] Motion to Extend Time) (Dec. 15, 2008).
2 NEC filed an errata to its December 17, 2008 filing on December 19, 2008. The errata transmission included a revised version of the Motion itself as well as new versions of several exhibits and added a declaration from NEC witness, Ulrich K. Witte dated December 2, 2008. On December 30, 2008, the Staff received a copy of NECs filing by US Mail. This copy contained an additional declaration from NEC witness Ulrich K. Witte, dated December 18, 2008. NEC did not provide a certificate of service for its Motion. The certificate of service provided by e-mail and US Mail provides proof of service of New England Coalition, Inc.s (NEC) Motion to Extend Time to File P[e]tition For Review not the instant Motion. These deficiencies alone would justify denial of NECs Motion. Cf, Entergy Nuclear Power Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), CLI-08-29, 68 NRC __, __ (Dec. 9, 2008)
(affirming licensing board order dismissing a party from proceeding for repeatedly submitting multiple, non-identical versions of the same pleading and failing to provide proof of service).
Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) Partial Initial Decision (Ruling on Contentions 2A, 2B, 3 and 4), LBP-08-25, 68 NRC ___ (Nov. 24, 2008) (slip op.) (Decision or LBP-08-25).
Consequently, NECs Motion and the relief requested therein should be denied.
BACKGROUND On January 25, 2006, Entergy filed an application to renew the operating license for Vermont Yankee.3 On May 26, 2006, NEC filed a petition for leave to intervene, request for hearing, and contentions.4 During the week of July 21, 2008, the Board held an evidentiary hearing on NEC Contentions 2A, 2B, 3, and 4.5 Prior to the hearing, and in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207 and the Boards Initial Scheduling Order (Nov. 17, 2006) (unpublished)
(Scheduling Order) at 9-12, the parties submitted pre-filed testimony, exhibits, and proposed questions for the Board, in its discretion, to ask witnesses.6 The parties also had the opportunity to file motions in limine and to strike.7 Following the hearing, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1209 and the Scheduling Order, the parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.8 3
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application (Jan. 25, 2006) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060300085). Entergy has since supplemented and amended its application several times.
4 Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions (May 26, 2006). For complete background on NECs contentions, see LBP-08-25 68 NRC __, slip op. at 1-7.
5 See LBP-08-25, 68 NRC ___, slip op. at 1-2, 4-5 (setting forth NECs contentions and noting that while the Board admitted four of NECs proposed contentions, Contention 2 is being held in abeyance and the Commission reversed the Boards decision admitting NEC Contention 1 in CLI-07-16, 65 NRC 371, 375 (2007)).
6 See id. at 6-7; Memorandum (Submission of Proposed Questions into the Official Record)
(Dec. 3, 2008) (unpublished). See also § 2.1207.
7 See id. at 7 (referencing the parties motions and the Boards Order ruling on those motions).
8 See New England Coalition, Inc.s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Aug. 25, 2008) (NEC Proposed Findings); Entergys Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on New (continued. . .)
On November 24, 2008, the Board issued a partial initial decision, LBP-08-25. In LBP-08-25 the Board: 1) resolved contentions 2A and 2B in favor of NEC;9 2) held open the record on contentions 2A and 2B until 45 days after Entergy discloses environmentally adjusted cumulative usage factor calculations for the core spray and reactor recirculation nozzles to the parties in order provide an opportunity for contentions challenging the those calculations;10 and
- 3) resolved contentions 3 and 4 in favor of the Entergy.11 On December 17, 2008, NEC filed the instant Motion asserting: 1) LBP-08-25 rests on clearly erroneous findings of fact that could not be anticipated and conclusions based on the erroneous findings of fact that therefore could also not be anticipated; 2) the Board unfairly favored unsupported verbal opinions of less qualified witnesses over written testimony of much more highly qualified witnesses; and 3) the Board deprived NEC of a reasonable opportunity to review and controvert opposing witness testimony. Motion at 1-2. In support of its assertions, NECs Motion attaches and summarizes declarations submitted by the three individuals who testified for NEC at the evidentiary hearing (Dr. Joram Hopenfled; Dr. Rudolf Hausler, and Ulrich K. Witte) and exhibits.12 NECs Motion requests that the Board suspend,
(. . .continued)
England Coalition Contentions (Aug. 25, 2008); NRC Staffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order in the Form of an Initial Decision (Aug. 25, 2008).
9 LBP-08-25, 68 NRC at ___, slip op. at 153.
10 Id. at 151-52; 67-68 (stating that in the event Entergy chooses to proceed under the [Aging Management Program] route NEC may revitalize dormant Contention 2).
11 Id. at 153.
12 Attached to the Motion sent by US Mail were the following declarations and exhibits: Exhibit (Exh.) A, Letter from Ted A. Sullivan, Vermont Yankee Site Vice President to USNRC Re: Deviation from BWRVIP-130 (Mar. 31, 2008); Exh. B, Operating Data Report (Apr. 2008); Exh. C: Operating Data Report (June 2008); Exh. D, Susan Smallheer, Yankee Set to Return to Full Power, RUTLAND HERALD, Apr. 4, 2008; Exh JH MR1, Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld In Support of New England Coalitions Motion for Reconsideration (Dec. 15, 2008) (attaching Exh. JH MR2, Letter from Gary L. Stevens, (continued. . .)
reverse, or modify [its] decision with respect to NEC Contentions 2, 2A, and 2B. Alternatively, NEC requests that the Board submit its decision and the evidentiary record on Contentions 2, 2A, and 2B for review by competent, knowledgeable experts. Id. at 4-5. Further, with respect to Contention 4, NEC requests that the Board amend its decision to require precise benchmarking of CHECWORKS. Id at 5, 11.13 DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard Governing Motions for Reconsideration The Commissions regulations require motions for reconsideration to demonstrate a compelling circumstance, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have been reasonably anticipated, which renders the decision invalid.14 In the 2004 revisions to its rules of practice, the Commission decided that the compelling circumstances standard, which is a higher standard than the existing case law should apply
(. . .continued)
Structural Integrity Associates, to Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, USNRC Re: Comments on Proposed Generic Communication, Fatigue Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Components (June 16, 2008)); Exh. RH MR1, Discussion of the ASLB Decision with Regards to Contention 4 the Distinction Between Flow Assisted Corrosion and Erosion Corrosion (Dec. 3, 2008);
Exh. RH MR 2 Declaration of Rudolf H. Hausler In Response to ASLB Partial Initial Decision Dated November 24, 2008 (Ruling on Contention 2A, 2B, 3 and 4); Declaration of Ulrich K. Witte In Response to ASLB Partial Initial Decision, Dated November 24, 2008 (Ruling on Contentions 2A, 2B, 3, and 4)
(Dec. 18, 2008); Memorandum of Ulrich K. Witte (undated) (Witte Memo); Declaration of Ulrich K. Witte In Response to ASLB Partial Initial Decision, Dated November 24, 2008 (Ruling on Contentions 2A, 2B, 3, and 4) (Dec. 2, 2008); NEC Motion for Reconsideration-No 1 (NEC MR1), Slide Presentation by Steve Gosselin, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Fatigue in Operating Nuclear Power Plants Components After 60 Years (Feb. 2008); NEC-Motion for Reconsideration-No. 2 (NEC MR2),
Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST) (no author) (no date); NEC-Motion for Reconsideration-No. 3 (NEC MR3) Vermont Yankee Cornerstone Rollup of Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program (July 7, 2008).
13 NEC has not requested reconsideration of LBP-08-25 with respect to Contention 3. See Motion at 5, 10-11 (requesting relief only with regard to Contentions 2, 2A, 2B, and 4).
14 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b) (emphasis added). See also Consumers Energy Co. (Big Rock Point Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-07-21, 65 NRC 519, 520-21 (2007); Consumers Energy Co, Nuclear Management Co, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-07-22, 65 NRC 525, 527 (2007).
to motions for reconsideration.15 This compelling circumstances standard is a high bar,16 and is intended to permit reconsideration only where manifest injustice would occur in the absence of reconsideration, and the claim could not have been raised earlier.17 In explaining this standard, the Commission stated that reconsideration should be an extraordinary action and should not be used as an opportunity to reargue facts and rationales which were (or should have been) discussed earlier.18 This standard applies to reconsideration pursuant to both 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e) and § 2.354(b).19 A party seeking reconsideration should bring decisive new information or demonstrate a fundamental . . . misunderstanding of a key point.20 Petitions for reconsideration should address the correction of an erroneous decision that resulted from a misapprehension or disregard of a critical factor or controlling legal principle or decision.21 Motions for reconsideration are not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence, or a new thesis, unless, as provided in the rule, the moving party can demonstrate that the new materials 15 Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. at 2182, 2207 (Jan. 14, 2004).
16 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 636 (2004). See also Big Rock Point, CLI-07-21, 65 NRC at 522.
17 69 Fed. Reg. at 2207 (emphasis added).
18 Id. See also Palisades, CLI-07-22, 65 NRC at 527 (internal citation omitted); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI-03-18, 58 NRC 433, 434 (2003) (stating that reconsideration petitions cannot be used to re-argue matters that have already been considered and rejected) (internal citations omitted).
19 69 Fed. Reg. at 2224.
20 See Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619, 622 (2004) (emphasis added) 21 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), LBP-04-22, 60 NRC 379, 380 (2004), affd CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 641 (2004) (affirming the decision to deny the motion for reconsideration for the reasons given by the board in LBP-04-22).
availability could not reasonably have been anticipated and its consideration demonstrates compelling circumstances . . . .22 Motions for reconsideration should demonstrate that any new information could not have been provided sooner.23 A motion for reconsideration that fails to satisfy the compelling circumstances standard set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b) should be denied.24 B. NEC Fails to Meet the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b)
NECs Motion and the accompanying declarations and exhibits fail to make the demonstration required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b). The Motion and the accompanying declarations and exhibits fail to demonstrate that LBP-08-25 is invalid by identifying a clear material error which could not have been reasonably anticipated, providing decisive new information or argument that could not have been raised earlier, or identifying an overlooked controlling principle of law or a misapprehension of a critical fact. As discussed below, NECs Motion and the accompanying declarations and exhibits fail to satisfy the high bar set by the Commission for motions for reconsideration.
First, NEC alleges that the Board made a number of clearly erroneous findings with regard to the nature and importance of many physical phenomena and informed engineering considerations necessary to adequately manage aging of reactor components and high energy piping systems. Motion at 2. NEC also alleges that LBP-08-25 contains clearly erroneous findings that are unsupportable in light of the record viewed in its entirety. Motion at 2. The standard for a motion for reconsideration, however, is not whether the Boards findings are 22 Millstone, LBP-04-22, 60 NRC at 380-81 (emphasis added).
23 Id. at 383.
24 See e.g., Millstone, CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631 at 641.
clearly erroneous or whether they are unsupported in light of the record viewed in its entirely, but unanticipated compelling circumstances that render the decision invalid. See 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.345(b). Thus, allegations of clearly erroneous factual findings and of findings not supported by the record in its entirety in NECs Motion, are insufficient to satisfy the high bar established by 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b). Furthermore, the Motion and the declarations of NECs witnesses reargue facts and rationales which were25 (or should have been26) discussed earlier rather than demonstrate that the Board ignored/misapprehended a key fact or overlooked a controlling decision or principle of law.27 Neither the Motion nor the attached declarations even assert that the Board ignored or misapprehended a critical fact that renders the decision invalid.
Thus, the Motion and the attached declarations are insufficient to demonstrate unanticipated compelling circumstances that render LBP-08-25 invalid as required by § 2.345(b).
Second, NEC alleges that the Boards findings unfairly favored, as more credible, the verbal opinions of less qualified witnesses unsupported by any documents or data, over the document and data supported written and oral testimony of much more highly qualified witnesses. Motion at 2. This too is insufficient to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.345(b).28 Rather than 25 For example, compare Exhibit (Exh.) NEC JH_63 (Pre-filed Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld Regarding Contentions 2A, 2B, 3, and 4) at A16 and NEC Proposed Findings at 20-23 with Exh. JH MR1 at 2, all attacking Entergys assumption of fully developed flow. Also, compare New England Coalition, Initial Statement of Position (Apr. 28, 2008) at 23-30 and New England Coalition, Inc.
Rebuttal Statement of Position (June 3, 2008) at 21-25 with Exh. RH MR1 and the Witte Memo, all challenging the definition of flow-accelerated corrosion, asserting the need to recalibrate CHECWORKS, and alleging inadequacies in Entergys implementation of its flow-accelerated corrosion program.
26 See e.g. Exh. RH MR1 at Appendix A, providing additional opinions on Vermont Yankee FAC data that was available to NEC prior to the hearing.
27 See Millstone, LBP-04-22, 60 NRC at 380 (affd CLI-04-36, 60 NRC at 641).
28 Subpart L proceedings (such as this one), it is the responsibility of the presiding officer, not the parties, to develop an adequate record at hearing and it is the presiding officer who decides whether the record requires further clarification or explanation. See 69 Fed. Reg. at 2196. See also 10 C.F.R.
(continued. . .)
explain how and why the alleged unfairness in the Boards examination of witnesses and weighing of evidence constitutes compelling circumstances that render LBP-08-25 invalid, NECs Motion and the declarations simply catalog NECs grievances with the Boards examination of the witnesses and weighing of the evidence. See e.g. Motion at 6 (stating that Dr. Hopenfelds declaration offers criticism of the Boards examination of witnesses during the hearing not from a legal standpoint, but from the standpoint of scientific inquiry).
Third, NEC alleges that it did not have a reasonable opportunity to review and controvert opposing witnesses oral and written testimony. See Motion at 3. These allegations are not supported either by the record or the new evidence" attached to NECs Motion.29 In accordance with Commission regulations at 10 C.F.R.§ 2.1207, as well as the Boards Scheduling Order, NEC had the opportunity to provide initial and rebuttal testimony, exhibits, and propose questions for the Board to ask witnesses both prior to and during the hearing.30 After the hearing, in accordance with § 2.1209, NEC submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See NEC Proposed Findings. These were all opportunities for NEC to controvert the testimony and evidence provided by opposing witnesses. NECs disagreement with the Boards conduct of the hearing and weighing of the evidence does not render the Boards decision invalid.
(. . .continued)
§ 2.1207(b)(6) Thus, no party has the right to have its witnesses examined in a manner or to a degree of its own choosing at hearing.
29 See supra note 12 (listing attachments to NECs Motion).
30 See LBP-08-25, 68 NRC at__ ,slip op. at 6 (noting submission of prefiled testimony and exhibits); Memorandum (Submission of Proposed Questions into the Official Record) (Dec. 3, 2008)
(unpublished) (Dec. 3 Board Memorandum) at 3-22 of 114 (pre-filed proposed questions); 90-93 of 114 (NECs follow-up question on Contentions 2A & 2B); 94-95 of 114 (NECs follow-up questions on Contention 3); 96-99 of 114 (NECs follow-up questions on Contention 4, including Yankee Workers Cant Find Leak, RUTLAND HERALD (Apr. 3, 2008)).
One instance of unfairness alleged by NEC was the Boards decision to permit introduction of Dr. Kenneth Changs affidavit into evidence even though Dr. Chang was not available for examination at the hearing. Motion at 3. NECs assertion of unfairness is unsupported. The Staff made an oral motion at the commencement of the evidentiary hearing to withdraw Dr. Changs testimony for the very reason NEC now claims it was prejudiced by Dr.
Changs testimony--because he was unavailable for examination by the Board. See Tr. 721-722. NEC, however, opposed the Staffs motion because its witness wanted to be able to refer to Dr. Changs affidavit. See Tr. 722-23, 727-28. Thus, Dr. Changs affidavit was included in the record as an exhibit at NECs request and the Boards consideration of his affidavit as evidence could have been anticipated.31 Finally, NEC asserts that the Boards ruling is based on false and misleading testimony.
Motion at 4. The new evidence NEC now provides to support its claim that testimony provided was false and misleading was available prior to the hearing.32 Thus, NECs evidence does not meet the standard for consideration of new evidence on reconsideration.33 In addition, neither the evidence nor the Motion demonstrates that testimony regarding a 2004 service water leak was false or misleading thus rendering the Boards Decision invalid.34 31 See Tr. at 1176, 1465 (ruling that Dr. Changs affidavit would be considered as an exhibit).
See also NEC Proposed Findings at 25 ¶67 (citing Dr. Changs testimony as supporting NECs position).
32 Exhibits JH MR2, A-D, NEC MR1, and NEC MR3, are dated before the July 21-24, 2008 Hearing. Exhibit NEC MR2 is undated.
33 See Millstone, LBP-04-22, 60 NRC at 380-81.
34 See Motion at 7-9.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, NEC has not met the standard for a motion for reconsideration and therefore the Motion and the requested relief should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA by Mary C. Baty/
Lloyd B. Subin Mary C. Baty Jessica A. Bielecki Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of January, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL Notice is hereby given that effective January 7, 2009, the undersigned counsel withdraws her appearance in the captioned proceeding. All mail and service lists in this proceeding should be amended appropriately.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Jessica A. Bielecki Counsel for the NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of January, 2009
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 ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO NEC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LPB-08-25 and NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of NRC Staff Counsel Jessica A. Bielecki 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 7th day of January, 2009.
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* Zachary Kahn, 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: zachary.kahn@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 Raymond Shadis* Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*
37 Shadis Road National Legal Scholars Law Firm PO Box 98 84 East Thetford Rd.
Edgecomb, ME 04556 Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.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 Matthew Brock*
Assistant Attorney General, Chief Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us
/RA/
Mary C. Baty Counsel for NRC Staff