ML12118A549
| ML12118A549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi, EA-12050, EA-12051 |
| Issue date: | 04/27/2012 |
| From: | Irwin D P Detroit Edison, Co, Hunton & Williams |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22351, ASLBP 12-918-01-EA-BD01, EA-12-050, EA-12-051 | |
| Download: ML12118A549 (19) | |
Text
April 27, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matters of
) ) EA-12-050 ) Docket Nos. EA 050 and EA 051 ) (All Operating Boiling Water Licensees With Mark I and Mark II Containments: Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents)
) ) ) ) ) April 27, 2012 And ) ) EA-12-051 ) ) (All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status: Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation)
) ) ) ) ) ANSWER OF DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO REQUESTS OF PILGRIM WATCH AND BEYOND NUCLEAR FOR HEARING REGARDING ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF NRC ORDERS MODIFYING LICENSES WITH REGARD TO HARDENED CONTAINMENT VENTS AND SPENT FUEL POOL INSTRUMENTATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.309(a) and (h), Detroit Edison Company files this Answer opposing the Petitions filed by Pilgrim Watch and Beyond Nuclear, requesting hearings on the Commission's Orders EA 050 and EA 0 51. Detroit Edison is the owner and NRC-licensed operator of the Fermi Unit 2 nuclear reactor, and a recipient of each of these Orders.
2 I. Introduction and Summary
On March 12, 2012, after a year of detailed study of th e events that began at the Fukushima Dai
-ichi reactors in Japan on March 11, 2011, the NRC issued a related set of three orders affecting all currently and prospectively operating plants in the United States. Those orders were issued in generic issue
-specific dockets, denominated o EA-12-049: Order Modifying Licenses With Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond
-Design-Basis External Events (Effective Immediately) o EA-12-050: Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened Containment Vents (Effective Immediately) o EA-12-051: Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Effective Immediately)
Each of these Orders was issued by the Commission under its Atomic Energy Act responsibilities to protect public health and safety, as implemented by its regulations in 10 CFR § 2.202. The containment
-vent order (EA-12-050) applies only to Boiling Water Reactors ("BWRs") with Mark I and Mark II containments. The other two Orders apply to all reactors holding operating licenses and construction permits.
Each of these Orders imposes additional requirements on existing licenses, and triggers a process in the nature of an enforcement proceeding. The Orders each require written responses by affected licensees within 20 days, and permit the licensee, or "any other person adversely affected by this Order," to request a hearing on the Order within 20 days. The scope of any such hearing, under each of the Orders, is limited to the issue of "whether this Order should be sustained." Design Basis Events Order, EA 049 , 77 Fed. Reg 16091, 16093 (March 19, 2012
); Reliable Hardened Containment Vent Order, 3 EA-12-050 , 77 Fed. Reg 16098, 16101 (March 19, 2012)
- Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Order, EA 051 , 77 Fed. Reg 16082,16085 (March 19, 2012)
. Pilgrim Watch ("PW"), a nuclear interest group, filed papers with the Commission on April 2, 2012, requesting a hearing on two of these Orders -- EA-12-050, relating to reliable hardened containment vents, and EA-12-0 5 1 , relating to spent fuel pool instrumentation.
1 A day later, another nuclear interest group, Beyond Nuclear ("BN"), filed cognate "co-petitions" for hearing, seeking to adopt PW's proposed contentions verbatim on these two Orders
.2 The Pilgrim Watch petitions propose contentions that are predicated entirely on their view that the Orders are insufficient to protect public health and safety adequately. PW asserts, with respect to the Order concerning BWR containment venting, EA 050, that the order is "insufficient to protect public health, safety and property" in two respects: 1. Based on new and significant information from Fukushima, the Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened
1 Pilgrim Watch Request For Hearing Regarding Insufficiency Of Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened Containment Vents (E A-12-050). April 2, 2012, Adams # Ml 12093 A89; Pilgrim Watch Request For Hearing Regarding Insufficiency Of Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Spent Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (EA-12-051), April 2, 2012, ADAMS # ML 12093A89.
PW also filed a request for leave to supplement its request for a hearing in docket EA-12-050; that request was dated April 2 and entered into the ADAMS database on April 4. ADAMS #
2 Beyond Nuclear Pleading To Co
-Petition In The Matter Of Pilgrim Watch Request For Hearing Regarding Insufficiency Of Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened Containment Vents, April 3, 2012, Adams # Ml 12094A336; Beyond Nuclear Pleading To Co
-Petition In The Matter Of Pilgrim Watch Request For Hearing Regarding Insufficiency Of Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Spent Fuel Modifications, April 3, 2012, Adams # Ml 12094A338
. Because the papers of Beyond Nuclear simply adopt, wholesale, the content of the papers filed Pilgrim Watch, there is no need to analyze them separately in this Response. The infirmities of the Pilgrim Watch papers apply equally to those of Beyond Nuclear.
4 Containment Vents issued March 12, 2012 (EA 050) is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it lacks a requirement for licensees to install filters in the direct torus vents (DTVs)
- 2. Based on new and significant information from Fukushima, the Order Modifying Licenses With Regard To Reliable Hardened Containment Vents issued March 12, 2012 (EA 050) is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it does not require the hardened DTV to be passively actuated by means of a rupture disc, so that neither water nor electrical supply is needed and operator intervention is not necessary to actuate the system. PW Petition re Hardened Containment Vents, EA 050, at 3.
The Petition does not request that the Order be vacated and the status quo ante be restored. Rather, it insists that the process and remedies required by it are inadequate, and must be extended.
Similarly, the Pilgrim Watch petition with respect to the Order concerning Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation, EA 051, argues that the process and measures required by it are inadequate to protect public health, safety and property:
Based on new and significant information from Fukushima, the Order To Modify Licenses With Regard To Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation issued March 12, 2012 (EA 051) is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it lacks a requirement for licensees to re
-equip their spent fuel pools to low-density, open
-frame design and storage of assemblies >5 years removed from the reactor core placed in dry casks.
PW Petition re Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation, EA-12-05 1, at 1. The petition does not seek vacatur of the Spent Fuel Pool Order and restoration of the status quo ante. Rather, it seeks further modification of spent fuel pool design and density requirements on the ground that the Order's requirements are inadequate.
5 Detroit Edison, as owner and NRC
-licensed operator of Fermi 2 , consented to the issuance of each of the Orders by timely letters dated April 2, 2012
.3 It is DTE counsel's understanding that all licensee recipients of these Orders likewise accepted them.
Detroit Edison submits that each of the petitions should be dismissed in entirety, for the following reasons:
o Neither petitioner has established standing. Each petitioner alleges only organizational interest, not representative interest, and its pleadings fail to establish its standing under applicable tests.
o Neither petition raises a valid contention. The Orders are issued under 10 CFR § 2.202, and their review is in the nature of an enforcement proceeding. Neither petitioner has raised contentions that can be litigated in an enforcement proceeding where, as here, the issue defined by the Commission for hearing in each case is whether the Order "should be sustained," or rather, whether the situation prior to issuance of the Orders should be restored. Contentions proposing changes beyond those established by the pertinent Order, as all the contentions proposed by PW (and mimicked by BN) do, are outside the scope of the proceeding.
II. Petitioners Have Not Established Standing to Request a Hearing Th is proceeding, having been initiated by Orders issued under 10 CFR § 2.202, is in the nature of an enforcement proceeding. The Commission's regulations permit Licensees or other persons adversely affected by the issuance of an Order to request a
3 Detroit Edison to NRC re EA 049, April 2, 2012, NRC 0022, ADAMS # ML12094A050; Detroit Edison to NRC re EA 050, April 2, 2012, NRC 0021, ADAMS # ML12094A049: Detroit Edison to NRC re E A-12-051, April 2, 2012, NRC 0023, ADAMS # ML 12094A051.
6 hearing with respect to it.
4 The scope of any proceeding initiated by an Order issued under 10 CFR § 2.202 is limited to the scope of the Commission's Order.
Here, as is typical under § 2.202, that scope is whether the order at issue "should be sustained
." For an enforcement order, the threshold question, intertwined with both standing and contention admissibility issues, is whether the hearing request is within the scope of the proceeding outlined in the enforcement order itself, i.e., whether the - order should be sustained.
The Commission has the authority to define the scope of the hearing, including narrowly limiting the proceeding. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI 23, 60 NRC 154, 157
-58 (2004).
Petitioners have failed, as shown immediately below, to allege facts consistent with establishing standing to initiate or participate in a proceeding within the scope of the Orders complained of, and thus are not entitled to a hearing on them.
PW argues that it has standing on both an organizational and a representative basis to seek a hearing. However, its proffers of representational standing fail to meet minimum formal tests.
5 And its arguments supporting organizational standing also fail because they do not allege an adversely affected interest that can be effectively addressed
4 The Orders were all issued under 10 CFR § 2.202, in the exercise of the Commission's authority to protect public health and safety. The right of an adversely affected party to request a hearing is set out at § 2.202(c)(2)(i). Petitioners seek, inappositely, a hearing under § 2.309, but the test of the nature of the Petitioner's interest and the effect of the proceeding on it is equivalent.
5 Pilgrim Watch avers that its principal, Mary Lampert, lives within the Pilgrim 10
-mile EPZ, but proffers no further documentation, nor any affidavit or other attestation of reliability. Even if Ms. Lampert's credentials were established as to Pilgrim, her residential location clearly cannot provide a basis for representational standing with respect to the other affected plants, all of which are located well beyond any zone of effect for her.
7 by a hearing for which opportunity has been provided under either of the Orders complained of.
The concept of standing in NRC proceedings is based on judicial notions of standing, which, in sum, require that a petitioner have a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of a potential proceeding, demonstrate an adverse effect on that interest from an action within the scope of the proceeding, and demonstrate that the proposed proceeding can provide an effective remedy for that adverse effect.
E.g., Georgia Inst. of Tech. (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CLI 12, 42 NRC 111, 115 (1995); Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
(Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), CLI 5, 59 NRC 52, 57 n.16 (2004);
Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-08-18, 68 NRC 533, 538 (2008).
PW's allegations of adverse effect on its interests under each of the Orders at issue fail because they fail to allege that the Orders being complained of adversely affect them, relative to the pre
-existing situation. Rather, they depend totally on the argument that while the Orders may be a step in the right direction, the requirements imposed by the them are, in their view, inadequate. In short, Petitioners do not argue that the Orders themselves affect them adversely, but rather that the Orders do not have as great a beneficial effect, in their view, as further measures they would advocate. Since Petitioners do not allege any harm from the Orders themselves, they cannot (and do not) show any respect in which a proceeding to determine whether the Orders "should be sustained" (versus being vacate d) could remedy the harm of which they complain.
PW's standing arguments are thus premised solely on issues that are totally outside the scope of 8 the proceeding as constituted by the Commission, and cannot provide a basis for standing. This conclusion is confirmed by federal court and Commission case law. The authority of the Commission to establish the scope of its own proceedings under its organic statute, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, has been recognized and approved judicially, with specific application to enforcement
-type proceedings like the current one.
Bellotti v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1983). See also State of Alaska Dep't of Transp. and Pub. Facilities, CLI-04-26, 60 NRC 399, 405 (2004), reconsid. denied, CLI-04-38, 60 NRC 652 (2004).
Thus the definition of the scope of potential proceedings on either of the Orders at issue , as being limited to whether an order "should be sustained
," is within the Commission's authority. Similarly, the inquiry into whether an order "should be sustained" has been consistently construed to mean an inquiry as to whether the Order should be left in place, rather than being vacated and the status quo ante restored. Bellotti, supra. As the Court noted in Bellotti, intervention under this test is precluded when, but only when, as here, the Commission is acting to make a facility's operation safer, and not when it is proposing to relax safety requirements. Id. at 1383. The Bellotti Court noted that interested parties wishing to make an order more stringent always have access to the license
-modification petition process under 10 CFR
§ 2.206. ld. Bellotti has been consistently applied in subsequent Commission proceedings.
E.g., State of Alaska, supra; Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), CLI 5, 59 NRC 52 (2004)
- Detroit Edison Company (Fermi Power 9 Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 03, 71 NRC 49 (2010).
As the Commission noted in Fermi: In Bellotti v. NRC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld an NRC decision to limit the scope of an enforcement adjudication to the question of whether the order should be sustained. In subsequent enforcement cases, like the present one, we have consistently followed the Bellotti approach. Under Bellotti, Petitioners must provide factual support for their claim that injury could be redressed by a favorable Board ruling; that is, that they would be better off if the order were vacated.
71 NRC at 5 3 (citations omitted).
Thus an inquiry as to whether an order could be "improved" by the imposition of different or additional requirements is definitionally beyond the scope of the proceeding. Maine Yankee, supra, 58 NRC at 58; State of Alaska, supra, at 406 n.28.
It follows that a petitioner's allegations of adverse effect predicated solely on the alleged insufficiency of an Order to avoid the harm complained of, and the alleged need for different or additional requirements, fail to make the necessary baseline assertio n of adverse effect from the Order itself, as written, relative to the pre
-existing situation, and are thus not sufficient to establish standing. Thus the standing allegations of Pilgrim Watch, being based solely in support of proposed contentions that are outside the defined scope of the proceeding for which opportunity was provided by the Commission in the Orders, do not provide a basis for PW's standing to participate in such a hearing. The same is definitionally true of Beyond Nuclear, which merely seeks to "co
-petition" with Pilgrim Watch, adopting PW's proposed contentions verbatim.
10 III. Neither Petition Raises a Valid Issue for Hearing
- a. No Valid Issues Under 10 CFR § 2.202 The contentions proposed by Pilgrim Watch do not raise litigable issues under the Orders at issue. Section 2.202, under which the Orders were issued, does not speak in terms of conventional contentions, but rather requires that an adversely affected Petitioner set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person relies, and, if the order is not consented to, the reasons as to why the order should not have been issued.
10 CFR § 2.202(b). That provision also provides an opportunity for interim relief from immediately effective Orders:
A petition may request relief from immediately effective orders with a showing that the order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
10 CFR § 2.202 (c)(2)(i). It is thus clear that the scope of issues in a proceeding under § 2.202 is limited to arguments as to why an order should not have been issued at all. Petitioners' proposed contentions, which would accept the Orders as issued and seek to add further requirements to them, are beyond the scope of any proceeding permitted under § 2.202. Thus , none of the issue s sought to be raised in the Pilgrim Watch or Beyond Nuclear petitions can be brought up in a hearing, given that they are directed squarely and solely
to issues beyond that of whether the Orders should be sustained or vacated. They thus do not provide basis for a hearing.
11 b. No Valid issues under 10 CFR § 2.309 Petitioners seek to initiate a hearing with the argument that their contentions meet the requirements of 10 CFR § 2.309, which contains standards for intervention and states the requirements for admissible contentions in licensing proceedings. To the extent that § 2.309 applies also in enforcement proceedings, none of the contentions proposed by Pilgrim watch and "co-petitioned" by Beyond Nuclear is admissible. A sufficient and dispositive reason is that since they are all are concerned solely with extending the requirements of the Orders at issue, rather than with whether the Orders, as issued, should be sustained (rather than being vacated), they are all beyond the scope of this proceeding and thus inadmissible.
The pertinent section of the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR § 2.309, sets forth, in subsection (f), numerous criteria for the admissibility of contentions. One of these criteria is a "[demonstration] that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding-." § 2.309(f)(1)(iii). The contention rule is "strict by design," Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (Amendment Request for Decommissioning of the Newfield, New Jersey Facility), LBP 5, 65 NRC 341, 352 (2007). Failure of a proposed contention to meet any one of the requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), or (vi) is grounds for dismissal. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI 24, 62 NRC 551, 567
-68 (2005).
As has been shown above, all of Petitioners' contentions are focused solely on an alleged need to extend the Orders, not on whether they should be sustained or vacated. As a matter of logic, then, all of the contentions are outside the scope of the opportunity for hearing offered under the Orders
, and are inadmissible.
12 Petitioners go through the motions of arguing that their contentions are within the scope of the hearing offered by the Orders. These efforts only illustrate their problem, rather than address it.
EA-12-050 (BWR Containment Vents)
- o Pilgrim Watch asserts baldly that its first contention concerning BWR containment vents -- that the Order in EA 050 "is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it lacks a requirement for licensees to install filters in the direct torus vents (DTVs)
" -- is "within [the] scope of these proceedings." [Pilgrim Watch BWR Containment Vent Petition at 3, 6]. In support of that assertion, PW argues that the lack of a filter requirement in the face of the Order constitutes a "defect" in the Order, id., and then provides several pages of semi-technical argument as to why filters should be required.
Id. at 9-15. Filters being beyond the scope of the requirements of the Order, this argument illustrates only that the contention is focused on matters beyond the Order, rather than on whether it should be sustained. Shifting gears somewhat, Pilgrim Watch then argues that information from Fukushima constitutes "new and significant information" which, under NEPA, must be evaluated before the Commission takes final action. This argument also fails, for two reasons. First, as Petitioners' citations illustrate, it is relevant only to inquiry under the National Environmental Policy Act, whereas the Orders at issue all involve findings under the Atomic Energy Act, which rests on a different standard, that of protection of public health and safety. Second, the Commission has already considered this argument in at least eight recent matters
. In them, it has repeatedly noted the comprehensive nature of its ongoing review of Fukushima
-related informa tion has affirmed its intent to take 13 any "new and significant information" into account in setting requirements, and has noted that the information evaluated to date has not risen to a level requiring re
-examination of its licensing actions beyond those already being undertaken
.6 o Pilgrim Watch argues likewise that its second contention concerning BWR containment vents
-- that the Order in EA 050 "is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it does not require the hardened DTV Direct Torus Valve] to be passively actuated by means of a rupture disc, so that neither water nor electrical supply is needed and operator intervention is not necessary to actuate the system" -- is "within scope." [Pilgrim Watch BWR Containment Vent Petition at 3, 16]. PW attaches several pages of semi-technical argument, id.. at 16-23, and maintains that these materials establish the relevance of this proposed contention, "for reasons described above [in support of] Contention 1." There is no dispute that passively activated rupture discs are beyond the requirements of the NRC's Order EA 050. Thus PW's argument s in support of its second BWR Containment Valve
6 Union Electric Company D/B/A Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2) [and all other plants in licensing proceedings], CLI-11-05, ___ NRC __ (September 9, 2011), slip op. at 30, 36; Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 11, __ NRC __ (October 12, 2011), at 3, 25, 28; Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 02, __ NRC __ (February 9, 2012), slip op. at 66
-67, 73-74, 76-79, 81; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI 03, __ NRC ___ (February 22, 2012), slip op. at 5, 9, 12, 19, 21; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI 06, __ NRC ___ (March 8, 2012), slip op. at 2, 6, 12
-13, 16-17, 19, 32; Luminant Generation Company LLC (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4) et al., CLI 07, ___ NRC ___ (March 16, 2012), slip op. at 8
-12, 14 n.49; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI 10, __ NRC ___ (March 30, 2012), slip op. at 29; Southern Nuclear Operating Co.
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 11, __ NRC __ (April 15, 2012), slip op. at 11
-14.
14 contention fail for the same reasons as those in support of its first BWR containment valve contention.
EA-12-051 (Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation) o Pilgrim Watch avers, without more, that its contention concerning Spent Fuel Pool instrumentation
-- that the Order in EA 051 "is insufficient to protect public health, safety and property because it lacks a requirement for licensees to re-equip their spent fuel pools to low
-density, open
-frame design and storage of assemblies >5 years removed from the reactor core placed in dry casks"
-- is "within [the] scope of the proceeding." PW SFP Instrumentation Petition, at 1, 3.] This statement is followed by several pages of semi
-technical discussion (id. at 3-19). The only argument, however, purporting to support the proposition that this contention is within the scope of any proceeding on the Order is set forth in three paragraphs that mimic, almost verbatim, PW's argument in support of its first contention on BWR containment vents. Id. at 3, cf. Pilgrim Watch BWR Containment Vent Petition at 6
-7. Thus PW's argument in support of this contention's admissibility fails for exactly the same reason as its argument in support of its first BWR containment venting argument.
IV. CONCLUSION Because Petitioners have not demonstrated their standing to challenge the Orders at issue -- and cannot, given the nature of their desired relief
-- and because their contentions seek to raise only issues that are outside the scope of this proceeding and are therefore inadmissible, their petitions must be dismissed.
15 Respectfully submitted,
Electronically Signed by Donald P. Irwin Donald P. Irwin
Hunton & Williams LLP Riverfront Plaza East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219
-4074 tel.: 804.788.8357 email: dirwin@hunton.com
COUNSEL FOR DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
Of Counsel:
Bruce G. Maters, Esq.
Jon P. Christinidis, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Detroit Edison Company
One Energy Plaza Detroit, MI 48226-1279 DATED: April 27, 2012 Richmond, Virginia
16 April 27, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Before the Licensing Board Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair E. Roy Hawkens Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matters of
) ) EA-12-050 ) Docket Nos. EA 050 and EA 051 ) (All Operating Boiling Water Licensees With Mark I and Mark II Containments: Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents)
) ) ) ) ) April 27, 2012 And ) ) EA-12-051 ) ) (All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status: Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation)
) ) ) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ANSWER OF DETROIT EDISON COMPANY TO REQUESTS OF PILGRIM WATCH AND BEYOND NUCLEAR FOR HEARING REGARDING ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF NRC ORDERS MODIFYING LICENSES WITH REGARD TO HARDENED CONTAINMENT VENTS AND SPENT FUEL POOL INSTRUMENTATION have been served upon the following persons electronically by Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), on this 27th day of April, 2012.
17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop
- T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555
-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O
-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555
-0001 Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair E-mail: alan.rosenthal@nrc.gov Carrie Safford, Esq.
E-mail: carrie.safford@nrc.gov Christopher Hair, Esq.
E-mail: Christopher.hair@nrc.gov Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens E-mail: roy.hawkens@nrc.gov Mauri Lemoncelli, Esq.
E-mail: Mauri.lemoncelli@nrc.gov Catherine Scott, Esq
. E-mail: clm@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta E-mail: Anthony.baratta@nrc.gov Brian Newell, Paralegal E-mail: Brian.Newell@nrc.gov Lauren Woodall, Paralegal E-mail: lauren.woodall@nrc.gov E-mail: OGCMainCenter.Resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555
-0001 E-mail: OCAAMail.Resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O
-16C1 Washington, DC 20555
-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Pilgrim Watch 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania, Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Mary E. Lampert, Director E-mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Tel. 301 270 2209 x3 Stephen J. Burdick, Esq.
E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Paul Gunter, Director Reactor Oversight Project
paul@beyondnuclear.org Hogan Lovells, US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
Jennifer Mansh, Esq.
E-mail: Jennifer.mansh@hoganlovells.com
18 Amy C. Roma, Esq.
E-mail: amy.roma@hoganlovells.com Ruth M. Porter, Esq.*
E-mail: ruth.porter@hoganlovells.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Mail Stop: O15
-D21 Washington, D.C. 20555
-0001 Christopher Hair Tel: 301-415-2174 E-mail: Christopher.Hair@nrc.gov
Carrie Safford Tel: 301-415-2995 E-mail: Carrie.Safford@nrc.gov
Mauri T. Lemoncelli Tel. 301-415-1338 E-mail: Mauri.Lemoncelli@nrc.gov Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037
-1122 Stephen L. Markus Tel. 202-663-8384 Email: stephen.markus@pillsburylaw.com
Jay E. Silberg
Tel. 202-663-8063 Email: jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com David R. Lewis Tel. 202-663-8474 Email: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Counsel for PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Indiana Michigan Power Co.; Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Virginia Electric and Power Co., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., an Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (collectively "Dominion")
Lillian M. Cuoco Senior Counsel Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
120 Tredegar Street, RS
-2 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel 804-819-2684 Email Lillian.Cuoco@dom.com David A. Repka Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K. St. NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel 202-282-5726 E-Mail: drepka@winston.com Counsel for Pacific Gas & Electric Company Mitchell S. Ross Florida Power & Light Co, 700 Universe Blvd.
Mail Stop: LAW/JB Juno Beach, FL 33408
Tel: 561-7126 Email: mitch.ross@fpl.com Tyson R. Smith Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-591-687 4 tsmith@winston.com
William A. Horin Rachel Miras
-Wilson Winston & Strawn LLP
19 1700 K. St. NW Washington, D.C. 20006 whorin@winston.com rwilson.winston.com Counsel for Energy Northwest DETROIT EDISON COMPANY Electronically Signed by Stephanie E. Mehar g Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams LLP Riverfront Plaza East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219
-4074 Bruce G. Maters, Esq.
Jon P. Christinidis, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Detroit Edison Company
One Energy Plaza Detroit, MI 48226-1279 COUNSEL FOR DETROIT EDISON COMPANY 55608.000021 EMF_US 39981166v1