ML12118A573
| ML12118A573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Grand Gulf, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Waterford, EA-12050, EA-12051 |
| Issue date: | 04/27/2012 |
| From: | Sullivan M A Entergy Nuclear Operations, Hogan Lovells, US, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22354, ASLBP 12-918-01-EA-BD01, EA-12-050, EA-12-051 | |
| Download: ML12118A573 (17) | |
Text
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 1 April 27, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. EA-12-051All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders )
of Construction Permits in Active or
Deferred Status ) ) ASLBP No. 12-918-01-EA-BD01 ENTERGY'S ANSWER TO BEYOND NUCLEAR PLEADING TO CO-PETITI ON IN THE MATTER OF PILGRIM WATCH REQUEST FOR HEARING REGARDING INSUFFICIENCY OF ORDER MODIFYING LICENSES WITH REGARD TO SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATIONS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), Entergy Nuclear Operating Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively "Entergy") hereby provide this answer to "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 Pool Modifications" ("Co-Petition Request"), filed by Beyond Nuclear ("BN") on April 3, 2012. BN seeks to become a Co-Petitioner to the "Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing Regarding Insufficiency of Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Spent [sic] Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation," filed by Pilgrim Watch ("PW") on April 2, 2012 ("PW Hearing Request"). The PW Hearing Request seeks a hearing on an immediately effective order issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status, including Entergy. "Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Effective Immediately)," EA-12-051 (Mar. 12, 2012) (ADAMS ML12054A679) ("Order"). As more fully discussed below, the Co-Petition Request
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 2should be denied for several distinct reasons, each of which is legally sufficient on its own:
- the Co-Petition Request is untimely and fails to provide good cause for late filing;
- the Co-Petition Request fails to establish stan ding in this proceeding; and
- the Co-Petition Request fails because it attempts to rely on the PW Hearing Request, and therefore is fatally deficient for the same reasons discussed in Entergy's Answer to the PW Hearing Request, filed on April 27, 20 12, which include:
o PW is attempting to raise issues that are beyond the limited scope of this proceeding as defined in the Commission's Order; o PW lacks standing in this proceeding; and o PW fails to propose at least one admissible contention.
In short, the Co-Petition Request has fatal deficiencies that cannot be remedied by a mere "incorporation by reference" of the PW Hearing Request. Additionally, BN seeks to piggyback on a petition that should be denied in its own right. Accordingly, the Co-Petition Reques t should be denied.
I. Background On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of the Japanese island of Honshu. Order at 1. The earthquake resulted in a large tsunami that caused extensive damage to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant site and a prolonged station blackout.
Id. at 2-3. Eventually, operators lost the ability to cool the reactor core in some of the Fukushima Dai-ichi units, which resulted in core damage, high radiation levels, hydrogen production and containment failure at some of the units.
Id. at 3. During the event, concern grew that the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool for one
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 3of the units was overheating and evaporating the water in the pool, exposing the fuel and causing a high-temperature reaction of steam and zirconium fuel cladding generating hydrogen gas.
Id. at 2-3. However, subsequent analysis determined that the water level in the spent fuel pool did not drop below the top of the stored fuel and no significant fuel damage occurred.
Id. at 3. In the Order the NRC explained that "[t]he lack of information on the condition of the spent fuel pools contributed to a poor understanding of possible radiation releases and adversely impacted effective prioritization of emergency response actions by decision makers."
Id. Following the events at Fukushima, the N RC established a senior-level agency task force referred to as the Near-Term Task Force ("NTTF") to evaluate the NRC's regulations and processes and make recommendations regarding whether the NRC should make any changes to the Commission's regulatory requirements. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations that were provided to the NRC on July 12, 2011. "Near Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan" (ADAMS ML111861807). Among other things, the NTTF recommended that licensees install instrumentation that would allow them to monitor the water level of spent fuel pools. Id. at 46. The NTTF also recommended that licensees be required to have seismically qualified means to spray water into spent fuel pools.
Id. These recommendations were refined and prioritized by the NRC Staff following interactions with stakeholders, as documented in "Recommended Actions To Be Taken Without Delay From the Near-Term Task Force Report," SECY-11-0125 (Sept. 9, 2011) (ADAMS ML11245A127) and "Prioritization of Recommended Actions To Be Taken in
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 4Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned," SECY-11-0137 (Oct. 3, 2011) (ADAMS ML11272A203). On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued the Order to the affected licensees requiring reliable spent fuel pool instrumentation as a license condition. Order at 12. The Order required the affected licensees to comply with the new requirements described in Attachment 2 and to submit an answer to the Order within twenty days informing the NRC, inter alia , whether the licensee consented to the Order. Order at 11. Entergy submitted answers consenting to the Order with respect to each of its affected plants on March 30, 2012.
1 On April 2, PW filed its Hearing Request, which it supplemented on April 12. On April 3, 2012, BN submitted its Co-Petition Request.
II. Argument In order to be admitted into a proceeding, the petitioner must demonstrate "an interest affected by the proceeding" - i.e., standing - and submit at least one admissible contention. State of Alaska Dep't of Transp. and Pub. Facilities (Confirmatory Order Modifying License), CLI-04-26, 60 NRC 399, 405 (2004) ("ADOT"); 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). The Co-Petition Request is fatally flawed because it: (1) is untimely and fails to provide good cause for late filing; (2) fails to establish standing; and (3) attempts to
piggyback on a petition that should also be denied because it attempts to raise issues that are beyond the limited scope of this proceeding as defined in the Commission's Order, fails to establish standing, and fails to present at least one admissible contention.
1 See, e.g., "Entergy's Answer to the March 12, 2012, Commission Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Order Number EA-12-051) Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," Docket No. 50-293, License No. DPR-35 (Mar. 30, 2012) (ADAMS ML12093A343).
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 5 A. The Co-Petition Request is Untimely and Fails to Provide Good Cause for Late Filing
The Co-Petition Request must be denied because it is untimely and fails to provide good cause for late filing.
- 1. The Co-Petition is Untimely The Order provided that "any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order." Order at 11. The Order was dated March 12, 2012. Order at 15. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.306(a), requests for a hearing on the Order were due April 2, 2012 (the next business day following the last day of the twenty-day period). Because the Co-Petition Request was not filed until April 3, 2012, it was out-of-time. BN claims "the Final Order and package did not become a public document until March 14, 2012, thereby providing the public with less than twenty (20) days to provide the agency with comment."
2 Co-Petition Request at 2.
3 However, as shown in Attachment A hereto, which is a screenshot of the Order on ADAMS, the Order was added to ADAMS on March 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM EDT. Even if the Licensing Board were to allow BN to file the Co-Petition Request twenty days after the Order became available on ADAMS, rather than the date of the Order, the Co-Petition Request is still untimely. Under
§ 2.306(a), the hearing request still would have been due on Monday, April 2, 2012 (because twenty days after March 13, 2012 is Sunday, March 31, 2012). NRC case law is clear that a Licensing Board should
2 It is unclear what BN means by "package." The Order and all attachments to the Order were issued on March 12, 2012, and available on ADAMS on March 13, 2012.
3 The Co-Petition Request does not represent that the Order was posted on ADAMS on March 14, 2012 (which it was not), but merely that at the time of a certain email correspondence it had with NRC Staff, which was on March 14, 2012, the Order was available.
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 6not accept a petitioner's claim of excuse for late intervention where the petitioner failed to uncover and apply publicly available information in a timely manner. See, e.g., Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-17, 19 NRC 878, 886 (1984), citing Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-42, 18 NRC 112, 117, aff'd, ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387 (1983);
Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-90-5, 31 NRC 73, 79 (1990), aff'd , ALAB-950, 33 NRC 492, 495-96 (1991). Accordingly, the Co-Petition Request should be denied as untimely.
- 2. The Co-Petition Request Fails to Provide Good Cause for Late Filing BN fails to provide good cause for late filing, and thus the Co-Petition Request should be denied. The Commission's regulations provide clear requirements for a nontimely petition, identifying seven specific factors that an untimely petitioner is required to address: (1) Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the request and/or petition and contentions that the request and/or petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based upon a balancing of the following factors to the extent that they apply to the particular nontimely filing: (i) Good cause, if any, for the failure to file on time; (ii) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (iii) The nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial or other intere st in the proceeding; (iv) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest; (v) The availability of other means whereby the requestor's/petitioner's inte rest will be protected; (vi) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's interests will be represented by existing parties;
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 7(vii) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding; and (viii) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assi st in developing a sound record. (2) The requestor/petitioner shall address the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) of this section in its nontimely filing.
10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) (emphasis added). Contrary to the requirements contained in § 2.309(c)(2), BN does not appear to address any of the factors in § 2.309(c)(1) in its Co-Petition Request, but to the extent that the Co-Petition Request may be read to argue that "good cause" exists for the late-filing because of BN's misconception that the Order was issued on March 14, 2012, as explained herein BN clearly fails to es tablish that such good cause exists. This is a particularly inappropriate case to grant relief from the filing deadline given that the NRC made clear on numerous oc casions that it intended to issue the Orders by the one-year anniversary of the Fukushima event, which was Sunday, March 11, 2012, and provided substantial advance notice of the contents of the Order.
E.g., SECY-12-0025, "Proposed Orders and Requests for Information in Response to Lessons Learned from Earthquake and Tsunami" at 3 (emphasis added) (also providing the draft Order in Attachment 6); NRC Press Release No.12-023, "NRC to Issue Orders, Information Request, as Part of Implementing Fukushima-Related Recommendations" (ADAMS ML120690627) (Mar. 9, 2012) ("[t]he Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized its staff to issue immediately effective Orders to U.S. commercial nuclear reactors."); SRM-SECY-12-0025 (Mar. 9, 2012) (Commission author izing the issuance of the Orders).
Because the Co-Petition Request fails to provide good cause for an untimely filing, the request must be denied.
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 8 B. BN Lacks Standing BN appears to base its claim that it has standing in this proceeding on the ground that it: is a not-for-profit organization located at 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400, Takoma Park, MD 20912 [and] has members who live, work, and recreate within the 50-mile Emergency Planning Zone for all General Electric Mark I and Mark II Boiling Reactors subject to EA-12-050 who feel that their health and safety is adversely impacted by EA-12-050 as currently written and that their interest in public health and safety are not adequately represented without the part icipation of Beyond Nuclear.
Co-Petition Request at 1. As explained in more detail below, these assertions fail to establish standing in this proceeding because they do not allege any specific harm resulting from the Order. Moreover, BN does not have presumptive, representational, or organizational standing in this proceeding, nor does it acquire standing by virtue of adopting PW's standing arguments (as explained in Section C below). Accordingly, BN's Co-Petition Request should be denied.
- 1. BN Fails to Allege Any Injury Suffered from the Order BN fails to allege an injury caused by the Order, as required under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). In evaluating whether a petitioner has satisf ied the general standing requirements of § 2.309(d), the Commission has stated that: To demonstrate such a "personal stake," the Commission applies contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. Accordingly, a petitioner must (1) allege an "injury in fact" that is (2) "fairly traceable to the challenged action" and (3) is "likely" to be "redressed by a favorable decision."
Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 72 (1994) (citations omitted). Additionally, the injury must be "concrete and particularized," and not "conjectural" or "hypothetical." Crowe Butte Resources, Inc.
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 9(North Trend Expansion Project License Amendment), LBP-08-6, 67 NRC 241, 271 (2008); see also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 92 (1993). The injury BN appears to allege is that it has members "who feel that their health and safety is adversely impacted by EA-12-051 as currently written." Co-Petition Request at 1-2. This assertion does not support standing because it does not set forth an actual alleged harm, just a vague allegation that certain unidentified individuals feel they are adversely impacted by the Order. BN thus fails to allege an injury in fact resulting from the Order. In addition, the alleged harm is not "traceable" to the Order because BN does not explain how it will be adversely impacted by the Order. When the Commission issues an Order, the Order "presumably enhance[s] rather than diminish[es] public safety" because it places additional safety restrictions upon licensees.
ADOT, 60 NRC at 406 n.28. Thus, the Order at issue here presumably enhances safety at affected plants, and BN does not rebut this presumption with an allegation of an injury in fact caused by the Order. Additionally, BN's harm cannot be redressed by a favorable decision because BN fails to explain how it will be harmed by the Order. To the extent that BN is asserting a general concern for public health and safety, this concern is also insufficient to establish standing. As the Commission has held, "a mere academic interest in a matter, without any real impact on the person asserting it, will not confer standing." Portland Gen. Elec. Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976). Thus, BN's general concern for public health and safety is likewise not sufficient to establish standing. Because BN fails to
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 10allege an "injury in fact" that is fairly "traceable" to the Order, the Co-Petition Request should be denied.
- 2. BN Does Not Have Presumptive Standing In claiming that its members "live, work, and recreate within the 50-mile Emergency Planning Zone for nuclear power plants with spent fuel pools subject to EA-12-051," it appears that BN is trying to establish that it has presumptive standing. This claim should be rejected because proximity alone is insufficient to establish standing in a hearing on the Order. Commission case law makes clear that, outside of the context of a construction permit or operating licensing proceeding, mere proximity to a plant is not sufficient to confer standing in every proceeding involving the plant.
See, e.g., Consumers Energy Co., (Palisades Nuclear Power Pl ant), CLI-07-18, 65 NRC 399, 409 (2007); Oyster Creek, LBP-06-07, 63 NRC at 195 (2006), citing GPU Nuclear Inc., (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC 193, 202 (2000). In proceedings with a limited scope, such as a hearing on an order, a petitioner must show that an outcome of the proceeding itself, as distinct from the general operation of the plant, will adversely affect the petitioner's interests. GPU Nuclear Inc., 51 NRC at 213. "General references to members' proximity" to a facility, which is what BN asserts here, are "too imprecise to meet [the Commission's] requirements for proximity-based standing." Consumers Energy Co. (Palisades Nuclear Powe r Plant), CLI-07-22, 65 NRC 525, 526 (2007). For example, in a proceeding on an exemption request, the Commission held that a bare claim that petitioners resided within 50 miles of the plant and that operation would impact their health and safety, was not sufficient to establish standing; the petitioners were required to show a causal link between the particular
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 11proceeding and harm to their interests. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-00-5, 51 NRC 90, 98 (2000). Similarly, in a license amendment proceeding, the Commission held that petitioner's residence approximately 10 miles from a nuclear power plant could no t establish standing, because the petitioner could not show that the license amendment would adversely affect his interests. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 188-93 (1999). Thus, BN's alleged proximity to affected plants, absent a demonstration of a harm caused by the Order it seeks to challenge, is insufficient to establish standing.
- 3. BN Does Not Have Representational Standing By virtue of BN's failure to meet the requirements for presumptive standing based on proximity of one of its members, BN also fails the first prong of the test for representational standing, i.e., that at least one member fulfills the standing requirements. An organization may establish standing to intervene based on orga nizational standing (proof that its own organizational interests could be adversely affected by the proceeding, as discussed in more detail below) or representational standing (based on the standing of its members). When an organization seeks to establish representational standing, it must (1) show that at least one of its members may be affected by the proceeding, (2) identify that member by name and address, and (3) show that the member "has authorized the organization to represent him or her and to request a hearing on his or her behalf." Consumers Energy Co. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-07-18, 65 NRC at 409. BN has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate representational standing.
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 12The Co-Petition Request includes a vague statement that it has members who "live, work, and recreate" within 50 miles of the plants affected by the NRC's Order. Co-Petition Request at 1. However, it does not demonstrate that at least one of its members may be adversely affected by the Order. Moreover, it does not identify any member by name and address, nor submit an affidavit or declaration that the organization is authorized to request a hearing on that member's behalf. BN merely asserts that that it has members who feel that "their interest in public health and safety are not adequately represented without the participation of Beyond Nuclear." Consequently, BN does not meet the requirements for representational standing in this proceeding.
- 4. BN Does Not Have Organizational Standing BN also fails to provide sufficient information to establish standing as an organization. Organizations may intervene in their own right as long as they satisfy the same standing requirements as individuals seeking to intervene. Consumers Energy Co., 65 NRC at 411 (citing Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), ALAB-052, 33 NRC 521, 528 (1991)). However, "a mere 'interest in a problem,' no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient, by itself, to render the organization 'adversely affected' or 'aggrieved'" to confer standing. Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 (1972). BN's alleged interest in the Order and its mandates, without more, is insufficient to establish organizational standing.
See e.g., Florida Power and Light Co., 33 NRC at 529 (stating "an organization's asserted purposes and interests, whether national or local in scope, do not, without more, es tablish independent organizational standing"); Consumers Energy Co., 65 NRC at 411 (concluding that the
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 13"promotion of 'the public interest, environmental protection, and consumer protection' are broad interests shared with many others and too general to constitute a protected interest" under the AEA or NEPA).
C. The Co-Petition Should Be Denied for the Same Reasons the PW Hearing Request Should be Denied BN "seeks to become a co-petitioner with the filing as submitted by Pilgrim Watch on April 2, 2012, verbatim and with all submitted supportive exhibits." (Co-Petition at 1; emphasis added). Accordingly, without repeating all the arguments set forth therein, Entergy incorporates its April 27, 2012 Answer to the PW Hearing Request verbatim into the present answer. In summary, the PW Hearing Request
should be denied for the following reasons:
- PW is attempting to raise issues that are beyond the limited scope of this proceeding as defined in the Commission's Order;
- PW lacks standing in this proceeding; and
- PW fails to propose at least one admissible contention.
Thus, the Co-Petition Request adopting the PW Hearing Request in its entirety should also be denied.
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 14 III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, BN's Co-Petition Request should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed electronically by Mary Anne Sullivan/ Mary Anne Sullivan
Daniel F. Stenger Amy C. Roma
Ruth M. Porter HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 637-5600 ATTORNEYS FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
Dated in Washington, D.C. this
27 th Day of April 2012
\\
\DC - 099811/000007 - 33996 0 0 5 v1 A t t tachment A
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. EA-12-051All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders )
of Construction Permits in Active or
Deferred Status ) ) ASLBP No. 12-918-01-EA-BD01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Entergy's Answer to 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 Pool Modifications," dated April 27, 2012, have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information
Exchange (EIE) on this 27th day of April 2012.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Administrative Judge
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair E-mail: alan.rosenthal@nrc.gov
Administrative Judge
E. Roy Hawkens E-mail: roy.hawkens@nrc.gov
Administrative Judge
Dr. Anthony J. Baratta E-mail: Anthony.baratta@nrc.gov
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Carrie Safford, Esq.
E-mail: carrie.safford@nrc.gov
Christopher Hair, Esq.
E-mail: Christopher.hair@nrc.gov Mauri Lemoncelli, Esq.
E-mail: Mauri.lemoncelli@nrc.gov Catherine Scott, Esq.
E-mail: clm@nrc.gov
Brian Newell, Paralegal E-mail: Brian.Newell@nrc.gov Lauren Woodall, Paralegal E-mail: lauren.woodall@nrc.gov E-mail:
OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov
\\DC - 099811/000007 - 3399605 v1 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
Mary E. Lampert, Director E-mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania, Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com
Stephen J. Burdick, Esq.
E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com
6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912
Tel. 301 270 2209 x3
Paul Gunter, Director Reactor Oversight Project
paul@beyondnuclear.org
Respectfully submitted, /Signed electronically by Mary Anne Sullivan/ Mary Anne Sullivan ATTORNEY FOR ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.