ML101450089
| ML101450089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/24/2010 |
| From: | Dreher M NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS J-237 | |
| Download: ML101450089 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSION BEFORE JUDGE PAUL BEFORE PAUL B. B. ABRAMSON ABRAMSON In the Matter of In )
)
Generation Co.
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, and and )
Operations, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket No.
Docket No. 50-293-LR 50-293-LR
)
) ASLBP No. NO.06-848-02-LR 06-848-02-LR (Pilgrim Nuclear (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE NRC RESPONSE TO PILGRIM PILGRIM WATCH'S WATCH'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MOTION DISQUALIFY JUDGE PAUL PAUL B.B. ABRAMSON ABRAMSON INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 Pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.323(c), the staff of the U.S.
C.F.R. § 2.323(c), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Commission Commission
("Staff") hereby responds
("Staff') responds to "Motion "Motion on Behalf of Pilgrim Pilgrim Watch for Disqualification Disqualification of Judge Paul Abramson in Paul Pilgrirr~Nuclear Power Station in the Pilgrim Station Re-Licensing Re-Licensing Proceeding" Proceeding" ("Motion"),
("Motion"), filed filed 14, 2010.
May 14, 2010. Because Because Pilgrim Pilgrim Watch's Motion Motion does not set forth sufficient facts to causecause an an objectively reasonable objectively reasonable person person to question question Judge Abramson's impartiality, impartiality, it fails to satisfy the standard for judicial disqualification Commission's standard disqualification and and should, should, therefore, therefore, be be denied.
denied.
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND proceeding concerns This proceeding concerns the application application by Entergy Nuclear Generation Generation Co.Co. and and Operations, Inc.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to renew renew the operating operating license license for the Pilgrim Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ("Pilgrim").
Station ("Pilgrim"). On On May 4, 4, 2010, 2010, the Atomic Safety and and Licensing Licensing Board Board ("Board")
("Board") held held a telephone conference with the participants telephone participants to discuss, discuss, among among other things, things, the scope of remanded Contention remanded Contention 3. 3. On On May 14,14, 2010, 2010, Pilgrim Pilgrim Watch ("PW")
("PW") filed its Motion Motion to disqualify Judge Abramson, Abramson, basedbased upon upon a statement statement he he made made during during the telephone telephone conference conference regarding regarding MACCS2 code.
prior involvement with the MACCS2 code.'1 See Motion Motion at 3-4.
3-4.
' MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (hereinafter "MACCS2 1 "MACCS2 code").
code").
During the telephone During telephone conference, conference, Judge Abramson Abramson made made several several statements statements referencing his referencing his prior involvement involvement with the MACCS2 MACCS2 code that are relevant relevant to PW's Motion.
Motion.
First, in First, in requesting requesting additional additional briefing briefing from from the participants, participants, he he stated stated that "[i]t
"[ilt would bebe very helpful to me helpful me if you you would, would, in in that response, response, outline outline how the code code does these computations computations.. . ."
Telephone Conference, Transcript of Telephone Conference, p. p. 598, 598, In.
In. 4-6 (May 4, 2010) ("Transcript").
("Transcript"). Later in in the conference, he conference, he said: "As "As I understand understand the code,code, and and I trust the experts will tell tell me me if I've I've got it wrong, calculations and wrong, we do thousands of calculations and then try to find mean." Id.
find the mean." Id. at 605, 605, In.
In. 14-17.
14-17. In In discussion regarding a discussion regarding expert witnesses witnesses who may testify in in this proceeding, proceeding, he he stated: "I'd like stated: I'd like to all the parties ask all parties to submit full credentials credentials on their experts, experts, please, please, because because I want to look at them." Id. Id. at 653, 653, In.
In. 14-17.
14-17. Finally, Finally, Judge Abramson stated: "Let me Abramson stated: me ask youyou to submit [PW's
[PW's proffered expert David proffered David Chanin's]
Chanin's] resume resume because because I don't believe believe he wrote the code. code. I was involved with a lot of that personally."
involved personally." Transcript at 665, 665, In.
In. 8-11.
8-1 1. It is this final statement statement that cites and PW cites and relies relies upon upon inin its its Motion. Motion at 3-4.
Motion. See Motion 3-4.
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION I.I. Applicable Applicable LegalLeqal Standard Standard Pursuant to the Commission's Pursuant Commission's rulesrules of practice, practice, a party may move move a Board Board member to himself. 10 disqualify himself. C.F.R. § 2.313(b).
10 C.F.R. 2.313(b). The motion motion "must be be supported supported by affidavits setting setting alleged grounds for disqualification."
forth the alleged disqualification." Id.Id. The relevant relevant statutory foundation for the NRC's rules NRC's rules on disqualification disqualification of a Board Board member is found found in in 28 U.S.C.
U.S.C. § 455.
455. See Public Elec. and Gas Co.
Service Elec. Co. (Hope (Hope Creek Generating Generating Station, Station, Unit 1 ),), ALAB-759, ALAB-759, 19 19 NRC NRC 13, 13, 20-21 (1984).
21 (1984). The statute provides, provides, inin part:
part:
a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate magistrate of the UnitedUnited States States shall shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in proceeding in in which impartiality might reasonably which his impartiality reasonably be be questioned.
questioned.
b) b) He shall also disqualify himself in He shall in the following following circumstances:
circumstances:
(1) Where he has (1) has a personal personal bias bias or prejudice prejudice concerning concerning a party, party, or personal personal knowledge of disputed knowledge disputed evidentiary evidentiary facts concerning concerning the proceeding.
proceeding.
standard for disqualification The standard disqualification under NRC NRC rules rules is one of objective objective reasonableness:
reasonableness:
"[Wlhat must be
"[W]hat be decided decided in in the application application of [28 U.S.C. § 455(a)]
[28 U.S.C. 455(a)] is whether [the [the specific facts presented] might presented] might lead lead a fully informed informed reasonable reasonable person person to question question [the[the judge's] impartiality impartiality in in present proceeding."
the present proceeding." HopeHope Creek, Creek, ALAB-759, ALAB-759, 19 19 NRC NRC at 22. 22. See also Long Long Island lsland Lighting Lighting (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Co. (Shoreham I ) , CLI-84-20, Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-20, 20 NRC NRC 1061, 1061, 1078 1078 n.n. 46 (1984).
(1984).
Further, the alleged Further, alleged partiality partiality must stem stem from from an an extrajudicial extrajudicial source source andand must result result in in an an opinion on opinion on the merits; merits; preliminary preliminary assessments, assessments, statements, statements, and and questions questions based based upon upon material material properly before properly before a judge in in a proceeding proceeding do not compel compel disqualification.
disqualification. Houston Houston Lighting and Power Co. Co. (South (South Texas Project, Project, Units Units 1 and and 2),2), CLI-82-9, CLI-82-9, 15 15 NRC NRC 1363,1365 1363, 1365 (1982).
(1982). A judge may be be subject to disqualification disqualification if, for example, example, he he "served "served in in a prosecutive prosecutive or investigative role investigative role with regard regard to the same facts [at issue], issue], prejudged prejudged factual factual issues, issues, or engaged engaged in conduct that gives in gives the appearance appearance of personal personal bias bias or prejudgment prejudgment of factual issues."issues." Long Long lsland Lighting Island Lighting Co.
Co. (Shoreham (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit Unit 1),
I ) , ALAB-777, ALAB-777, 20 NRC NRC 21,33-34 21, 33-34 (1984).
(1984).
A review review of prior Commission Commission casescases illustrates illustrates the facts which may or may not require which mayor require disqualification. For example, disqualification. example, in in Metropolitan Metropolitan Edison Edison Co.Co. (Three (Three MileMile Island lsland Nuclear Station, Station, I ) , CLI-85-5, Unit 1), CLI-85-5, 21 21 NRC NRC 566, 566, 568-69 568-69 (1985),
(1985), affd af7d sub nom.
nom. Three Three Mile Mile Island lsland Alert, Inc.
Inc. v.
v.
NRC, 771 NRC, 771 F.2d F.2d 720 720 (3d (3d Cir.
Cir. 1985) 1985) ("TMI"),
("TMI"), the Commission Commission held held that the judge correctly correctly denied denied several intervenors' motions several motions seeking seeking his disqualification, disqualification, saying sayivg that while parties parties have have a right to an impartial an impartial adjudicator, adjudicator, "they do not have have a right right to the judge of their choice." 21 21 NRC NRC at 568-
- 69. In
- 69. In that case, the intervenors intervenors argued argued that disqualification disqualification was warranted warranted based based on,on, inter alia, alia, the judge's treatment of intervenor's intervenor's counsel, counsel, its its witnesses, witnesses, andand comments comments regarding regarding a stipulation between stipulation between the licensee licensee andand one of the intervenors.
intervenors. Id. Id. at 568.
568. Rejecting Rejecting the intervenors' arguments, intervenors' arguments, the Commission Commission heldheld that the judge's actions and and statements statements did did not convey reasonreason to believe believe that he he was partial.
partial. Moreover, Moreover, the Commission Commission explained, explained, strong strong language or controversial language controversial actions actions are not sufficient sufficient grounds grounds for disqualification.
disqualification. Id.Id. at 569.
569.
In Philadelphia E/ee.
In Elec. Co. Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, Co. (Limerick Generating Station, ALAB-819, 22 (1985), the Atomic Safety and 681, 725 n.60 (1985),
NRC 681,725 and Licensing Appeal Board Board ("Appeal
("Appeal Board")
rejected anan intervenor's allegation allegation of bias based based on statements by the board board commenting on the intervenor's performance in adequacy of the intervenor's in the hearings, e.g., "the Board's reference hearings, e.g., reference to 'an
'an unfortunate apparent inability [by AWPP's representative] to understand the testimony.' LBP- LBP-84-31, 20 NRC at 459." Id.
84-31,20 721 (citing Id. at 721 (citiug board board decision below).
below). The Appeal Board Board held held that a "disqualifying bias must stem from an an extrajudicial source-that source-that is,is, it must be based based on something other than what the adjudicator has learned from participating in in the case."
case." Id.
Id. InIn a different part of the decision, the Appeal Board Board dismissed an an allegation of bias basedbased on the intervenor's contention.
board's conditional rejection of the intervenor's contention. Id.
Id. at 725-726. Noting that the board reversed board reversed its decision decision on reconsideration, the Appeal Board Board ruled ruled that expressions of pending matters, or inadvertent and possibly inaccurate statements, do not establish views on pending bias and are not grounds for disqualification. Id. Id.
In South In South Texas, Commission reversed Texas, the Commission reversed an an Appeal Board's ruling ruling that a judge should motion to disqualify himself.
have granted the intervenors' motion himself. South Texas, CLI-82-9, 15 Texas, CLI-82-9, 15 NRC at 1366 (reversing 1366 (reversing Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Co. (South Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-ALAB-15 NRC 677 (1982)).
672, 15 (1982)). The Commission Commission heldheld that the judge's statements -- including intervenors1motion characterizations of the intervenors' motion to disqualify as a "personal and unwarranted attack
[his] professional on [his] professional and moral moral integrity," and accusing the intervenors of "actively subvert[ing]
the stated objectives of this expedited proceeding by being being unduly contentious" --were were not bias. Finding sufficient evidence of bias. Finding that the judge's statements were based based solely on his in the case, participation in case, rather than stemming from an an extra-judicial source (including (including his prior employment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Laboratory, id. 1364), the Commission id. at 1364), Corr~missionnoted noted that "a judge is more than a passive passive observer in in a case involving involving a technical and complex field; posturing to decide the accuracy of their presentations.
he must penetrate through the parties' posturing
. . . occasional Thus ... occasional outbursts outbursts toward toward counsel counsel duringduring a long long trial do not provide provide any basis basis for finding judicial bias finding bias against the party ......"" Id.
party.. Id. at 1366.
1366.
standard that emerges The standard emerges from from the decisions decisions in in these cases cases is one of objective objective reasonableness, amplified reasonableness, amplified by deference to the complicatedcomplicated nature nature and and subject matter of NRC NRC adjudications. As the Commission adjudications. Commission states in South Texas, in South Texas, NRC NRC judges must sift through through complicated issues technically complicated issues and, and, in in order to do so, so, a great deal deal of latitude latitude exists exists for a judge's methods in methods in querying querying parties' parties' arguments.
arguments. Id. Id. at 1366.
1366. Indeed, Indeed, as the TMI TMI ruling ruling illustrates, illustrates, a judge is free to question the behavior and and agreements agreements of parties parties and and witnesses, even harshly, witnesses, even harshly, long as that questioning as long questioning does not give objectiveobjective reason reason to believe believe that the judge is biased.
biased.
Three Mile Island, Three Island, CLI-85-5, CLI-85-5, 21 21 NRC NRC at 569. 569. Further, Further, as the Commission Commission recognized recognized in in Limerick, judges should Limerick, should not bebe subject to disqualification disqualification for tentative, tentative, preliminary, preliminary, or even even erroneous statements.
erroneous Limerick, ALAB-819, statements. Limerick, ALAB-819, 22 NRC NRC at 726.726. Instead, Instead, to bebe subject to disqualification, it must be disqualification, be shown that the judge's decision merits was -- or may decision on the merits reasonably be reasonably perceived as -- a product of bias.
be perceived bias. See South Texas, Texas, CLI-82-9, CLI-82-9, 15 15 NRC at 1365.
1365.
II.
II. Motion Should PW's Motion Should BeBe Denied Denied Because Because It Does Does Not Allege Sufficient Facts Facts to Cause Cause a Reasonable Person Reasonable Person to Question Question Judge Judne Abramson's lmpartialitv Abramson's Impartiality alleged in The facts alleged in PW's PW's Motion Motion are inadequate inadequate to cause cause anan objectively reasonable reasonable person to question Judge Abramson's impartiality.
person impartiality. Judge Abramson's statements during Abramson's statements during the telephone conference, telephone conference, taken taken as a whole, whole, do not indicate indicate a final conclusion on the disputed final conclusion disputed MACCS2 code.
merits of the MACCS2 merits code. To the contrary, contrary, such such statements statements as "[ilt would be be helpful helpful to me me if you would you would .... . . outline how the code code does these computations,"
computations," and and "I "I trust the experts will tell tell me if I've me I've got it wrong," acknowledge acknowledge that the speaker requires requires more more information information on the topic before reaching before reaching a conclusion.
conclusion. Thus, Thus, the cited cited statements statements bear more more resemblance resemblance to the sort of active questioning active questioning advocated advocated by the Commission Commission in South Texas, in South Texas, than to a biased biased decision decision onon merits arising the merits arising from from an an extra-judicial extra-judicial source.
source. See id. id.
The Staff also notesnotes that the basisbasis for PW's PW's Motion, Motion, i.e.,
i.e., Judge Abramson's prior technical experience, technical experience, is not supported supported by NRC NRC precedent, precedent, whichwhich holds holds that mere experience experience constitute grounds with a particular topic does not constitute grounds for disqualification.
disqualification. See, e.g., Northern See, e.g., Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Generating Station, Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), 1), ALAB-76, ALAB-76, 5 AEC 312,313 312, 313 (1972) (holding (1972) (holding a judge's expertise, expertise, based based on on prior experience, experience, is not a basisbasis for disqualification). See disqualification). See also Long Island lsland Lighting Co. Co. (Shoreham (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Station, Unit No.No.
1), ALAB-12, 1), ALAB-12, 4 AEC 413,41441 3, 414 (1970)
(1970) ("While the [Commission]
[Commission] carefully carefully reviews reviews appointments appointments Board members]
[of Board members] for possible possible conflicts conflicts of interest .... . . [prior involvement]
involvement] inin the nuclear fieldfield has, with good reason, has, reason, not beenbeen considered considered a disabling disabling circumstance.").
circumstance."). The Commission Commission has has previously noted previously noted that Congress, Congress, in in providing providing for the creation creation of atomic safety and and licensing licensing boards, stated boards, stated that its intent was that the boards boards be be distinctively composed composed of bothboth legal legal and and technical judges. 2 Consequently, technical judges.' Consequently, the Commission Commission has has declined declined to disqualify judges whose extrajudicial involvement extrajudicial involvement does not create create an an appearance appearance of bias. bias. This point is well-illustrated well-illustrated in in Creek, a case Hope Creek, case relied relied upon upon by PW in in its Motion:
Motion:
[Tlhere is a marked
[T]here marked difference difference between between the present present casecase and and [Bailly].
[Bailly], in in which which recusal of a Licensing the recusal Licensing Board Board member was likewise likewise sought on the groundground that he had he had previously previously had had a consultant consultant relationship relationship with an an electric utility seeking seeking a license. In nuclear license. In affirming affirming the denialdenial of the recusalrecusal motion motion in in Bailly, Bailly, we emphasized, inter alia, emphasized, alia, that that relationship relationship hadhad been been with a different utility utility and, and, moreover, had moreover, had not involved involved its license license application.
application.
2 2 See, e.g.,
See, Bailly, ALAB-76, 5 AEC at 313 n.
e.g., Bailly, n. 8, 8, (quoting the report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Energy, which added Section 191 191 to the Atomic Energy Act: Act:
Board members could Board could be appointed appointed by the Commission from private life or designated from the staff of the Commission or another Federal Federal agency.
agency. It is expected expected that the two technically qualified members will be be persons of recognized recognized caliber and stature in in the field.
nuclear field.
Id. at 313 Id. 313 n.8 (quoting S.S. Rep.
Rep. No.
No. 1966, 1966, 87th Cong.,
Cong., 2d2d Sess., p.5, p.5, July 5, 1962, 1962, as cited cited by Long Island (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit No.1),
Co. (Shoreham Lighting Co. No. I), Docket No.No. 50-322, 50-322, Commission Commission Memorandum and Order dated Memorandum dated October 28, 28, 1970, 1970, at 4-5.}
4-5.)
ALAB-759, ALAB-759, 19 19 NRC NRC at 23 n.30. In In Hope Hope Creek, Creek, by contrast, contrast, not only had had the disqualified disqualified judge served as a consultant for the applicant's licensing served licensing efforts for the Hope Hope Creek facility, facility, but the judge's final final project project for the Hope Hope Creek license license application application resulted resulted inin a document that was cited cited licensing board by the licensing board in in its its decision decision in in favor of the application.
application. Id. Id. at 23.
- 23. Hope Hope Creek, Creek, therefore, is inapposite therefore, inapposite under the present present facts, facts, where there is no allegation allegation that Judge Abramson consulted with or did Abramson consulted did any work on Entergy's Entergy's renewal renewal application application for Pilgrim, Pilgrim, further challenging the basis challenging basis for PW's Motion.
Motion.
acknowledges that Judge Abramson's While the Staff acknowledges statements raise Abramson's statements raise questions regarding his involvement with the MACCS2 regarding MACCS2 code, code, nothing nothing inin the transcript indicates indicates that hehe remain impartial cannot remain impartial inin this proceeding.
proceeding. Moreover, Moreover, the Staff does not believe believe that PW has has alleged sufficient facts in alleged in its Motion Motion to cause cause "a reasonable reasonable man, man, cognizant cognizant of all all the circumstances [to]
circumstances [to] harbor doubts" doubts" about Judge Abramson's impartiality.
impartiality. See Shoreham Shoreham Nuclear CLI-84-20, 20 NRC Station, CLI-84-20, Power Station, NRC at 1078 1078 n. 46.46. Because Because it fails to allege facts sufficient to assertions, PW's support its assertions, PW's Motion Motion should should be be denied.
denied.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION Therefore, PW's Motion Therefore, Motion should should bebe denied, su,Ricient facts that would denied, as it fails to allege sufficient cause an cause an objective objective reasonable reasonable person person to question Judge Abramson's impartiality in in this proceeding, and proceeding, and thus cannot satisfy the Commission's Commission's standard standard for judicial disqualification.
disqualification.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
~Jt.g;J~
Michael G.
Michael G. Dreher
~'/eher Counsel for the NRC Counsel NRC Staff Rockville, Maryland Dated at Rockville, Dated Maryland 24th day of May, This 24th May, 2010
UNITED STATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BEFORE LICENSING BOARD BOARD In the Matter of In )1
))
ENTERGY NUCLEAR NUCLEAR GENERATION GENERATION )
COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR COMPANY NUCLEAR ) Docket No.
Docket No. 250-293-LR OPERATIONS, INC.
OPERATIONS, INC. )1
)1 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating (Pilgrim Generating Station)
Station) )1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that copies I hereby copies of "NRC "NRC STAFF'S STAFF'S RESPONSE RESPONSE TO PILGRIM PILGRIM WATCH'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MOTION DISQUALIFY JUDGE PAUL PAUL B.
B. ABRAMSON" ABRAMSON" in in the above-captioned above-captioned proceeding proceeding have been have been served served on on the following mail and following by electronic mail and by deposit inin the U.S.
U.S. Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Regulatory Commission's internal internal mail mail system, system, or, or, as indicated indicated by an electronic an asterisk (*), by electronic mail and mail and by deposit in in the U.S.
U.S. Mail Mail system 24'h day of May, system this 24th May, 2010.
Administrative Administrative Judge Administrative Administrative Judge Richard F.
Richard F. Cole Paul B.
Paul B. Abramson Abramson and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel Panel Atomic Safety and and Licensing Licensing Board Board Panel Panel Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Regulatory Commission Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC Washington, DC 20555-0001 20555-0001 Washington, DC Washington, DC 20555-0001 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: PauI.Abramson@nrc.gov E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of Commission Office Commission Appellate Appellate Ann Marshall Marshall Young, Young, Chair Adjudication Adjudication Atomic Safety and and Licensing Licensing Board Board Panel Panel Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: 0-16G4 Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Regulatow Commission Commission U.S. Nuclear U.S. IVuclear Regulatory Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC Washington, DC 20555-0001 20555-0001 Washington, DC Washington, DC-20555:0001 20555-0001 E-mail: ~
E-mail: ~~~~~~~.~esource@nrc.qo OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and and Licensing Licensing Board Board Office of the Secretary Office Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: T-3F23 Attn: Rulemakings Rulemakings andand Adjudications Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Regulatory Commission Commission Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: 0-16G4 Washington, DC Washington, DC 20555-0001 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Commission Commission INTERNAL MAIL (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY) Washington, DC Washington, DC 20555-0001 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearinn.Docket@nrc.gov E-mail: Hearing. Docket@nrc.gov
Sheila Sheila Slocum Slocum Hollis*
Hollis* Terence A. Burke, Burke, Esq.*
Duane Duane Morris Morris LLP LLP Entergy Nuclear Entergy 1667 1667 K Street, Street, NW, NW, Suite 700 700 1340 Echelon 1340 Echelon Parkway Parkway Washington, Washington, DC DC 20006 Mail Stop:
Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 M-ECH-62 E-mail:
E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com sshollis@,duanemorris.com Jackson, MS Jackson, MS 39213 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com E-mail: tburke@enterav.com Mary Mary Lampert*
Lampert* David R.
David R. Lewis, Lewis, Esq*.
Esq*.
148 148 Washington Washington Street Paul A.
Paul A. Gaukler, Gaukler, Esq.
Esq.
- Duxbury, Duxbury, MA MA 02332 02332 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Shaw, Pittman, Pittman, LLP LLP E-mail:
E- mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net marv.lampert@.comcast.net Street, NW 2300 N Street, Washington, DC Washington, DC 20037-1137 20037-1 137 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburvlaw.com paul.qaukler@pillsburylaw.com paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Kevin M.
Chief Kevin M. Nord*
Nord* Town Manager*
Town Manager*
Fire Fire Chief && Director Director Duxbury Duxbury Emergency Emergency Town of Plymouth Town Plymouth Management Management Agency Agency 11 Lincoln 11 Lincoln St.
St.
668 668 Tremont Tremont Street Street Plymouth, MA Plymouth, MA 02360 02360
- Duxbury, Duxbury, MA MA 02332 02332 E-mail:
E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us marrishi@townhall.pIvmouth.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxburv.ma.us Richard Richard R.R. MacDonald*
MacDonald* Matthew Brock, Matthew Brock, Esq.
Esq.**
Town Town Manager Manager Assistant Attorney Assistant Attorney General, General, Chief 878 878 Tremont Tremont Street Street Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Division Division
- Duxbury, Duxburv.a .
MA MA 02332 02332 Office of the Office the Attorney Attorney General General E-mail: macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us E-mail: macdonald@town.duxburv.ma.us One Ashburton One Ashburton Place, place, 18th 18th Floor Floor Boston. MA Boston, MA 02108021 08 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us E-mail: matthew.brock@.state.ma.us
~~
~ i c h a eG.
Michael G.
l Drether
~r6her Counsel for Counsel for the the NRC NRC Staff Staff