ML091550791
| ML091550791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/04/2009 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 06-848-02-LR, 06-849-03-LR, 50-271-LR, 50-293-LR, CLI-09-10, RAS J-191, RAS M-424 | |
| Download: ML091550791 (15) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman Peter B. Lyons Dale E. Klein Kristine L. Svinicki In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION )
COMPANY and ENTERGY NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-293-LR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
___________________________________ )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT )
YANKEE, LLC, and ENTERGY )
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-271-LR
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power )
Station) )
___________________________________ )
CLI-09-10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Commonwealth) has petitioned the Commission for review of LBP-08-22 and LBP-08-25, Partial Initial Decisions issued by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings.1 Applicants Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
1 See Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Review of LBP-08-22 (Nov. 12, 2008)(Pilgrim Petition); Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Review of LBP-08-25 and Request for Consolidated Ruling (Dec. 2, 2008)(Vermont Yankee Petition). To avoid duplicative argument, the Commonwealths Vermont Yankee Petition adopts and incorporates by reference its Pilgrim Petition. See Vermont Yankee Petition at 2 n.3.
(collectively, Entergy),2 and the NRC Staff oppose the petitions for review. Because the factual and legal issues the petitions raise are the same for both the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee proceedings, the Commonwealth requests that the Commission issue a single decision addressing both petitions. Our decision today consolidates and addresses both petitions for review.
For reasons outlined further below, we have construed the Commonwealths petitions as a request for Commission action, and not as actual petitions for review under 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.341. Although we deny the particular relief requested in the Commonwealths requests, our decision today acknowledges the Commonwealths concerns and explains how the Commission will handle them, thereby rendering further, formal relief unnecessary.
Earlier decisions bearing on the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal applications recount in some detail both the procedural background of this case and the NRCs regulatory process for license renewal.3 Below we provide a condensed case history.
I. Background The Commonwealth petitioned for a hearing and to intervene in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings, submitting in both proceedings a single and essentially identical contention.4 The contentions claimed that the applicants license renewal applications 2
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. are licensees for the Pilgrim nuclear reactor facility. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC are licensees for the Vermont Yankee facility. In this decision, we refer collectively to the license applicants as Entergy.
3 See, e.g., Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008); LBP-06-20, 64 NRC 131, 148-49, 152-61 (2006); LBP-06-23, 64 NRC 257, 274-300 (2006); CLI-07-3, 65 NRC 13 (2007).
4 See Massachusetts Attorney Generals Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene with Respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.s Application for Renewal of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant Operating License (May 26, 2006)(ML061630088)
(Contention/Pilgrim) at 21-47; Massachusetts Attorney Generals Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene with Respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.s Application for
failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and with NRC environmental regulations because the applications did not address new and significant information on the risks of potential spent fuel pool accidents in pools with high-density storage racks. This information, the Commonwealth claimed, was never previously considered by the NRC in any EIS, and show[ed] that the impact of high-density spent fuel pool storage would be significantly greater than contemplated in prior [NRC] EISs, including the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), issued in 1996.5 The contentions additionally claimed that the license renewal applications were deficient because they did not provide a NEPA analysis of the potential impacts of deliberate attacks on the spent fuel pool, and did not analyze alternatives to mitigate spent fuel pool accidents.
Separate Licensing Boards in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee proceedings found the Commonwealths contention beyond the scope of a license renewal proceeding and therefore inadmissible. Both Boards highlighted the NRCs regulatory review process for license renewal, in which the environmental review is divided into those NEPA issues deemed appropriate for generic analysis and those warranting a site-specific environmental impacts analysis. Issues found not to require a plant-specific environmental analysis are designated as Category 1 issues.6 For such issues, the NRCs GEIS for license renewal provides a generic environmental analysis - generally applicable to all plants or to a distinct subcategory of plants. Because Category 1 issues already have been reviewed on a generic basis for all plants, an applicants Environmental Report need not provide a site-specific analysis of these issues.7 In contrast, Renewal of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Operating License (May 26, 2006)(ML061640065)(Contention/Vermont Yankee) at 21-47.
5 See Contention/Vermont Yankee at 23; Contention/Pilgrim at 23.
6 See generally NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report, Vol. 1 (May 1996)(GEIS) at 1-5 to 1-11.
7 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(i).
applicants must provide a plant-specific analysis of all Category 2 issues.8 The GEISs conclusions on the environmental impacts of Category 1 issues are codified in Table B-1, 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A.
In rejecting the Commonwealths contention, the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Boards found that the potential environmental impacts of storing spent fuel in pools for an additional 20 years - including the risk of spent fuel pool accidents - already had been generically addressed in the GEIS as a Category 1 issue that does not require a site-specific impacts analysis. 9 The Boards went on to conclude that because Category 1 environmental impacts findings are codified in NRC regulations, such findings normally may not be attacked in individual NRC adjudicatory proceedings, unless the Commission waives the rule at issue for a particular proceeding, or the rule is changed or suspended due to a rulemaking review.10 The Boards noted, however, that new and significant information going to the validity of a generic Category 1 finding appropriately could be raised in a petition for rulemaking, and that the Commonwealth in fact had filed a rulemaking petition raising concerns similar to its spent fuel pool contention.11 In CLI-07-3, the Commission affirmed the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Board decisions, concurring that the Commonwealths contention impermissibly attacked the GEISs generic Category 1 finding on spent fuel pool storage impacts.12 We confirmed that [b]ecause the generic environmental analysis was incorporated into a regulation, the conclusions of that 8
See 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii).
9 See LBP-06-20, 64 NRC 131, 152-61 (2006); LBP-06-23, 64 NRC at 280-300. The current GEIS concludes that the environmental effects of onsite spent fuel pool storage during the license renewal term would not be significant. See GEIS at 6-85 to 6-86; see also id. at 6-70 to 6-75; 6-79 to 6-83.
10 LBP-06-20, 64 NRC at 155-61; LBP-06-23, 64 NRC at 288-99. See also 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.335(a).
11 LBP-06-20, 64 NRC at 161; LBP-06-23, 64 NRC at 299 (referencing Massachusetts Attorney Generals Petition for Rulemaking to Amend 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (Aug. 25, 2006)(ML062640409)).
12 See CLI-07-3, 65 NRC at 19-21.
analysis may not be challenged in litigation unless the rule is waived . . . for a particular proceeding or the rule itself is suspended or altered in a rulemaking proceeding.13 Like the Boards, we emphasized that the appropriate avenue for challenging a generic Category 1 environmental impacts conclusion was through the rulemaking petition that the Commonwealth had already filed. We further made clear that if the rulemaking review were not resolved before the licensing proceedings were completed, the Commonwealth could seek to have the licensing proceedings suspended pending an NRC decision on its rulemaking petition, if it participated in the proceedings as an interested State, under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c).14 The Commonwealth sought Commission reconsideration of CLI-07-3. We denied reconsideration, but again clarified that while the Commonwealth was not an admitted party to either licensing proceeding, it would be able to request that the proceedings be stayed -
pending a decision on the petition for rulemaking - if it sought to participate as an interested State.15 The Commonwealth sought judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court upheld the NRC decisions.16 To assure that the Commonwealth would have sufficient opportunity to request participation as an interested State, if it so chose, the court stayed the close of the then-ongoing hearing process in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee proceedings for 14 days from the date of issuance of courts mandate in the case.17 Soon thereafter, in May 2008, the Commonwealth filed a notice of intent to participate as an 13 Id. at 17-18. Where there are unusual circumstances that would render a Category 1 analysis inapplicable to a particular plant, a petitioner may seek a rule waiver; Commission approval of a rule waiver could allow litigation of a contention on a Category 1 issue. Id. at 20.
14 Id. at 22 & n.37.
15 CLI-07-13, 65 NRC 211, 214-15 & n.16 (2007).
16 Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008).
17 Id. at 130.
interested State in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee proceedings, enabling the Commonwealth to request that final decisions in those proceedings be stayed pending review of the rulemaking petition.18 In August 2008, the NRC denied the Commonwealths petition for rulemaking.19 After considering the Commonwealths arguments and cited studies, the NRC concluded that the spent fuel pool environmental impacts findings in the GEIS (NUREG-1437), codified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, Table B-1, remain valid, both for SFP [spent fuel pool] accidents and for potential terrorist attacks that could result in an SFP fire.20 The Commonwealth and two other states have sought judicial review of the rulemaking denial.21 II. The Commonwealths Petitions for Review Currently before the Commission are the Commonwealths petitions for review of LBP-08-22 (in the Pilgrim proceeding) and LBP-08-25 (in the Vermont Yankee proceeding). These are Partial Initial Decisions resolving issues litigated before the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Boards.22 The Commonwealth was not involved in litigating the admitted contentions addressed in the Boards decisions, and the petitions for review do not challenge any specific factual or legal finding made in LBP-08-22 or LBP-08-25. Indeed, the Commonwealth earlier made clear 18 See Commonwealth of Massachusetts Notice of Intent to Participate As An Interested State (May 6, 2008)(ML081350190 in Vermont Yankee proceeding; ML081500531 in Pilgrim proceeding).
19 See Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking, 73 Fed. Reg. 46,204 (Aug. 8, 2008)(the NRC also denied a petition for rulemaking filed by the Attorney General for the State of California, who had raised nearly identical spent fuel pool claims).
20 See id. at 46,206.
21 The three consolidated cases are pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See New York v. NRC, Nos. 08-3903-ag(L), 08-4833-ag(CON), 08-5571-ag(CON) (2d Cir.).
22 See LBP-08-22, 68 NRC __ (slip op. Oct. 30, 2008); LBP-08-25, 68 NRC __ (slip op. Nov. 24, 2008).
that it has no interest in the contentions of the admitted parties, which are unrelated to its spent fuel pool concerns.23 Instead, the Commonwealth seeks assurance that in the event . . . the Commonwealth prevails in its judicial challenge to the NRCs rulemaking denial, the judicial result will inform the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal actions.24 The Commonwealth claims that the NRC cannot, consistent with NEPA, reach final closure on the relicensing without applying or otherwise taking into account - in the individual renewal proceedings - the court of appeals ultimate decision regarding the rulemaking denial.25 Specifically, the Commonwealth states that
[w]hile the NRC has discretion to select a generic rulemaking process to resolve environmental issues in an individual proceeding, it must assure that the results of the generic rulemaking process will be plugged into the individual licensing decisions from which the rulemaking issues arose.26 In short, the Commonwealth claims that because the NRCs compliance with NEPA is still subject to pending litigation, it would be improper for the NRC to terminate the
[Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee] relicensing proceeding[s] without accounting for this litigation.27 The Commonwealth requests that the NRC either (1) defer a final decision in the license renewal actions until the rulemaking litigation is completed; or (2) expressly condition any 23 See CLI-08-9, 67 NRC 353, 356 n.16, citing Reply Brief for Petitioner Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 13 (Nov. 8, 2007)(ML073250351).
24 See Pilgrim Petition at 3.
25 See id.
26 See id. at 15-16 (citation omitted).
27 Id. at 15. The Commonwealth similarly argues that it would be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the NRC to remove the generic spent fuel pool impacts issue from the licensing proceedings, and then refuse to ensure it will in fact reconnect and plug in the final ruling from the Court on this issue. Id. at 16. It also claims the NRC would violate the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC regulations if it did not assure that the final judicial decision on the NRCs rulemaking process is taken into account in the licensing actions. Id. at 17.
Pilgrim or Vermont Yankee license renewal on compliance with the court ruling.28 It styles its request as petitions for review and seeks reversal of the Board decisions because they are not conditioned upon, or otherwise properly structured to take account of, the Commissions new and significant information regarding the risks of SFP accidents, as may be finally determined by the courts.29 Entergy and the NRC Staff oppose the petitions for review.30 Both argue that the petitions are not proper appeals because the Commonwealth did not participate on the contentions resolved in the Board decisions. Both further claim that the Commonwealths request in effect is a motion for a stay of the license renewal proceedings pending judicial review, but that the Commonwealth has made no effort to address the NRC standards for issuance of a stay, found in 10 C.F.R. § 2.342(e). Entergy urges that the Commonwealth not be permitted to circumvent [NRC] requirements by characterizing its requests as an appeal.31 We agree that the Commonwealths petitions are not proper petitions for review pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341. The Commonwealth did not participate on the contentions resolved in the Board decisions, and nowhere indicates that it ever even requested the Boards to stay or condition their final decisions. Nor do the petitions meet - or even address - the NRC standards for a motion for a stay, found in 10 C.F.R. § 2.342(e). The petitions for review in fact challenge nothing the Boards actually decided. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the Commonwealths petitions, construing them as, in effect, a request for direct Commission 28 Id. at 15.
29 Id. at 4.
30 See Entergys Answer to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Review of LBP-08-22 (Nov. 24, 2008)(Entergys Answer re: LBP-08-22); NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Review of LBP-08-22 (Nov. 24, 2008); Entergys Answer to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Review of LBP-08-25 and Request for Consolidated Ruling (Dec. 11, 2008); NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Petition for Review of LBP-08-25 (Dec. 10, 2008).
31 Id. at 6.
action. We address the merits of the Commonwealths request as an exercise of our ultimate supervisory control over our proceedings.32 Because NRC license renewal regulations codify environmental impacts conclusions for a number of generically reviewed issues, these issues normally fall outside the scope of individual license renewal proceedings. But our rules recognize the possibility of new and significant information calling into question prior generic findings, and our decisions have consistently pointed to the petition for rulemaking device as one means to alert the Commission to [new] information that may render a GEIS finding incorrect.33 Here, virtually from the outset of the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings, the Commonwealth consistently and timely raised its spent fuel pool impacts concerns. Not long after the license renewal proceedings began, the Commonwealth filed a petition for rulemaking challenging the NRCs generic spent fuel pool analysis, as well as adjudicatory contentions on the same issue.
In addition, the Commonwealth timely filed its intent to participate in the renewal proceedings as an interested State, and in fact has taken every conceivable procedural step to assure that the ultimate outcome of its rulemaking petition (now under judicial review) would inform the NEPA analysis for the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee licensing proceedings.
Moreover, while the First Circuit found that the NRC acted reasonably in using a generic method of conducting the required NEPA hard look at impacts, and in requiring the Commonwealth to raise its NEPA concerns in a rulemaking petition rather than in adjudicatory contentions, the court stressed that what ensures ultimate compliance with NEPA is judicial review.34 It was the courts clear expectation that the Commonwealth, by following the 32 See, e.g., Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-23, 56 NRC 230, 237 (2002).
33 See Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 12, 14-15 (2001).
34 See Massachusetts, 522 F.3d at 127, 130.
alternate path the NRC set forth, would still have a meaningful opportunity to seek judicial review of the results of the . . . rulemaking petition.35 We gave careful consideration to the Commonwealths petition for rulemaking, and we stand by the decision that no new rulemaking proceeding is warranted. But if, contrary to our expectation, the Commonwealth prevails on judicial review, we will respond accordingly, including taking any steps in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings called for to assure that the judicial review results are implemented in a meaningful way.
Entergy recognizes as much: [i]f the Commonwealth were to ultimately prevail . . . the Commission certainly has the authority to supplement its environmental analysis for Pilgrim [and Vermont Yankee] to comply or be consistent with such a decision.36 We cannot anticipate in advance of a judicial decision the precise NRC remedies that may be appropriate if the Commonwealths challenge prevails. But our commitment to effectuate the courts conclusion in a fashion respectful of the First Circuits views and mindful of the Commonwealths long-maintained interests and efforts renders unnecessary the relief the Commonwealth seeks.
If the Court of Appeals issues a decision in favor of the Commonwealth, the Commission will issue an order indicating whether any further steps in these proceedings are necessary.
For the Commission (NRC SEAL) /RA/
Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of June, 2009.
35 See id. at 130-31 (emphasis added).
36 See Entergys Answer re: LBP-08-22 at 6.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO. )
AND )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-09-10) in the above captioned proceeding have been served upon the following persons by electronic mail this date, followed by deposit of paper copies in the U.S. mail, first class, and NRC internal mail.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair E-mail: Susan.Uttall@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov David Roth, Esq.
E-mail: David.Roth@nrc.gov Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
Administrative Judge E-mail: Andrea.Jones@nrc.gov Richard F. Cole Brian Newell, Paralegal E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: Brian.Newell@nrc.gov Administrative Judge E-mail: OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov Paul B. Abramson E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMail.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
2 Docket No. 50-293-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-09-10)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2300 N. Street, N.W.
Mail Stop: O11-F1 Washington, DC 20037-1128 Washington, DC 20555-0001 David R. Lewis, Esq.
Perry H. Buckberg, Project Mgr, Plant Lic. E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Branch I-I, Operating Reactor Licensing Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
E-mail: Perry.Buckberg@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Jason B. Parker, Esq.
E-mail: jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com Entergy Nuclear Office of the Attorney General 1340 Echelon Parkway Environmental Protection Division Mail Stop M-ECH-62 One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Jackson, MS 39213 Boston, MA 02108 Terence A. Burke, Esq. Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General E-mail: tburke@entergy.com E-mail: matthew.brock@ago.state.ma.us Duxbury Emergency Management Agency Town of Plymouth MA 668 Tremont Street Town Managers Office Duxbury, MA 02332 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Kevin M. Nord, Fire Chief & Director E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Melissa Arrighi, ActingTown Manager E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Duane Morris, LLP Pilgrim Watch Town of Plymouth MA 148 Washington Street 505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Duxbury, MA 02332 Washington, DC 20004-2166 Mary E. Lampert, Director Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
E-mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day of June 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271-LR and ENTERGY NUCLEAR )
OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-09-10) have been served upon the following persons by e-mail and first class mail or through NRC internal distribution in this license renewal proceeding.
Office of Commission Appellate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Maxwell C. Smith.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Brian Newell, Paralegal Office of the General Counsel O15D21 Alex S. Karlin, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov E-mail: lbs3@nrc.gov; maxwell.smith@nrc.gov; susan.utall@nrc.gov; bpn@nrc.gov; Richard E. Wardwell Administrative Judge E-mail: rew@nrc.gov William H. Reed Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1819 Edgewood Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 E-mail: E-mail: whrcville@embarqmail.com Zachary Kahn, Law Clerk E-mail: Zachary.kahn@nrc.gov Lauren Bregman, Law Clerk E-mail: laren.bregman@nrc.gov
2 DOCKET NO. 50-271-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-09-10)
Sarah Hofmann, Esq. Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Director for Public Advocacy National Legal Scholars Law Firm Department of Public Service 84 East Thetford Rd.
112 State Street - Drawer 20 Lyme, NH 03768 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com E-mail: sarah.hoffman@state.vt.us Matthew Brock Dan MacArthur, Director Assistant Attorney General Town of Marlboro Environmental Protection Division Emergency Management Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 30 One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Marlboro, VT 05344 Boston, MA 02108 E-mail: dmacarthur@igc.org E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us Callie B. Newton, Chair Peter C. L. Roth, Esq.
Gail MacArthur Senior Assistant Attorney General Lucy Gratwick State of New Hampshire Town of Marlboro Office of the New Hampshire SelectBoard Attorney General P.O. Box 518 33 Capitol Street Marlboro, VT 05344 Concord, NH 03301 E-mail: cbnewton@sover.net E-mail: peter.roth@doj.nh.gov dmacarthur@igc.org David R. Lewis, Esq. Alan A. Pemberton, Esq.
Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq. Derron J. Blakely, Esq.
Elina Teplinsky, Esq. Covington & Burling, LLP Blake J. Nelson, Esq. Counsel for Electric Power Research Institute Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: apemberton@cov.com; E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com; dblakely@cov.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com; Elina.Teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com; Blake.Nelson@pillsburylaw.com
3 DOCKET NO. 50-271-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-09-10)
Robert L. Stewart Raymond Shadis New England Coalition 37 Shadis Road 229 Kibbee Ext. P.O. Box 98 Brookfield, Vermont 05036 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: Jakeskis@aol.com E-mail: shadis@prexar.com Raymond Shadis New England Coalition P.O. Box 545 Brattleboro, VT 05302 E-mail: necnp@necnp.org
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4th day of June 2009