ML060330660: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1  LBP-05-31, 62 NRC __, slip op. Nov. 1, 2005.2  See Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene by the North AmericanWater Office (July 9, 2005), at 1.                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                           RAS 11137NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONDOCKETED  02/02/06COMMISSIONERSSERVED  02/02/06Nils J. Diaz, ChairmanEdward McGaffigan, Jr.
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAS 11137                  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED 02/02/06 COMMISSIONERS SERVED 02/02/06 Nils J. Diaz, Chairman Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
Jeffrey S. Merrifield Gregory B. Jackzo Peter B. Lyons In the Matter ofNuclear Management Company, LLC (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant)Docket No. 50-263-LRCLI-06-06MEMORANDUM AND ORDERBefore the Commission is an "appeal" by petitioner North American Water Office("NAWO"), of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("Board") ruling on standing and contention admissibility.
Jeffrey S. Merrifield Gregory B. Jackzo Peter B. Lyons In the Matter of Docket No. 50-263-LR Nuclear Management Company, LLC (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant)
1 That ruling denied NAWO's petition to intervene in the application ofthe Nuclear Management Company, LLC ("NMC") to renew the operating license for its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ("MNGP") in Monticello, Minnesota. NAWO describesitself as an organization formed to educate people about environmental concerns, notably electric utility waste.
CLI-06-06 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Commission is an appeal by petitioner North American Water Office (NAWO), of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) ruling on standing and contention admissibility.1 That ruling denied NAWOs petition to intervene in the application of the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) to renew the operating license for its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) in Monticello, Minnesota. NAWO describes itself as an organization formed to educate people about environmental concerns, notably electric utility waste.2 On November 11, 2005, NAWO submitted a document to the Board entitled Appeal of the North American Water Office to the November 1, 2005 Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Denying Standing and Rejecting Contentions of the North American Water Office in the Above Captioned Matter (Appeal). In the document, less than two pages long, 1
2 On November 11, 2005, NAWO submitted a document to the Board entitled "Appeal ofthe North American Water Office to the November 1, 2005 Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Denying Standing and Rejecting Contentions of the North American Water Office in the Above Captioned Matter" ("Appeal"). In the document, less than two pages long, 3 Status Report (Dec. 14, 2005), at 1.
LBP-05-31, 62 NRC __, slip op. Nov. 1, 2005.
4 Id.5 Id. at 2.6 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(a). We conclude that no further pleading is forthcoming fromNAWO. The time for filing an appeal of LBP-05-31 expired on November 14, 2005. Even if NAWO's "appeal" were intended as a motion for reconsideration, NAWO would have had 10 days from the Board's ruling on its motion (e.g., the "status report") to file an appeal. Thatdeadline has also passed.
2 See Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene by the North American Water Office (July 9, 2005), at 1.
7 Both the NRC Staff and NMC declined to submit any substantive response to thearguments in NAWO's "appeal."
See Letter of David R. Lewis to Administrative Judgesinforming them that NMC does not intend to respond further (Nov. 22, 2005); Letter of Michael A. Woods to Administrative Judges informing them that the NRC staff does not intend torespond further (Nov. 22, 2005).NAWO stated that it "appealed" the Board's November 1, 2005 order, but addressed the Boardand asked it to "reconsider."  Thus, it was not clear whether the document was intended as a motion for reconsideration by the Board or an appeal to the Commission.On December 14, 2005, the Board issued a "Status Report" noting that NRC rulesrequire that a petitioner must first obtain leave from the presiding officer to file a motion for reconsideration.
3 The Board stated that in its view the document must be considered, "ifanything," an appeal of the Board's decision.
4  The Board referred the matter to theCommission for whatever action we deemed appropriate.
5  The Board's underlying ruling found that NAWO had no standing and that it had notoffered an admissible contention. Thus, an appeal would have to convince us that NAWO both has standing and has presented at least one litigable contention. We conclude that the appealstates no grounds for the Commission to overrule the Board, for the following reasons:
: 1. NAWO's document does not conform to our procedural regulations governingappeals, which provide that a notice of appeal be accompanied by a brief.
6  NAWO's "appeal" isdevoid of legal argument and includes no citation to the record.
7  The lack of a brief is sufficient  8 See Texas Utils. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 192, 198 (1993), citing Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units1 & 2), CLI-92-3, 35 NRC 63, 66 (1992). 9 Appeal at 2.
10 See, e.g., U.S. Dep't. of Energy (Plutonium Export License), CLI-04-17, 59 NRC 357,363 (2004); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-92-2,35 NRC 47, 56 (1992).11 See LBP-05-31, 62 NRC __, slip op. at 6-8.
12 NAWO has evidently abandoned the remainder of its proposed contentions, whichrelated to: the no-action alternative, radiation monitoring, security, drinking water safety, the effects of global warming on reactor operations, and severe accident mitigation analysis. reason, without more, to reject NAWO's "appeal."
: 82. NAWO's "appeal" does not contend that the Board misapplied NRC rules relating tostanding. Instead, it argues that the standards the Board used were "rules designed to denystanding and disenfranchise those with legitimate interests."
9 The NRC generally follows judicial concepts of standing in its own proceedings.
10  TheBoard found that NAWO had not shown that it, or any of its members, would suffer any concrete or particularized harm from the proposed license renewal. A review of the Board's decision shows that its standing analysis was based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent and was consistent with this agency's practice with respect to standing.
11  Nothing in NAWO's "appeal"suggests that the Board misapplied applicable law relating to standing. 3. Similarly, the "appeal" does not provide the Commission any reason to question theBoard's ruling on NAWO's proposed contentions. NAWO does not specify which of its proposed contentions it is pursuing on appeal, but it appears that only proposed Contention 4(Reactor Aging Problems Will Escape Detection Until Too Late) relates to its argument.
12  The"appeal" states in conclusory fashion that "NAWO brought forward a whole new category of  13 Appeal at 2.
14 Id. 15  LBP-05-31, 62 NRC at __, slip op. at 23. See also  10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).
16  LBP-05-31, 62 NRC at __, slip op. at 23.
17 See, e.g., Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11,49 NRC 328, 336-37 (1999).
18  It should be noted that the use of intemperate and disrespectful rhetoric such as thatin NAWO's "appeal" has no place in filings before the Commission or its Boards.
See, e.g.,Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746,748-49 (1978); La. Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) ALAB-121, 6AEC 319, 320 (1973). Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance the petitioner's interests orthe orderly administration of the Commission's adjudicatory processes, and will not betolerated. reactor components that had escaped scrutiny in [the] aging management program."
13  It furtherargues that the fact that the NRC staff issued a Request for Additional Information ("RAI") tothe applicant concerning some of these components is "irrefutable evidence" of a genuine contention.
14  The Board reasonably held that the proposed contention was "vague and speculative,and lack[ed] expert opinion, documents, or sources to support it;" that it "present[ed] nothingmore than an unsupported conclusion;"
15 and that insofar as the contention related to routineinspections, it fell outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding.
16  Furthermore, we haveheld repeatedly that the mere issuance of a staff RAI does not establish grounds for a litigablecontention.
17  NAWO offers no other argument in defense of its contention, while the Board'sreasoning appears correct on its face.
18    For the foregoing reasons, NAWO's "appeal" is rejected, and the Board's decision isaffirmed.IT IS SO ORDERED. For the Commission/RA/                                                              Annette L. Vietti-CookSecretary of the CommissionDated at Rockville, Maryl and                                                                                                          This  2 nd  day of February, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONIn the Matter of  )  )NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC)Docket No. 50-263-LR  )
  )(Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant))CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-06) 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, or through NRC internal distribution. Office of Commission Appellate    Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.govAdministrative JudgeLawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: lgm1@nrc.govAdministrative JudgeWilliam M. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: wmurphy@csuchico.eduAdministrative JudgeRichard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.govMichael A. Woods, Esq.Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: maw2@nrc.gov David R. Lewis, Esq.Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com 2Docket No. 50-263-LRCOMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-06) George CrockerExecutive Director North American Water Office


P.O. Box 174 Lake Elmo, MN  55042 E-mail: gwillc@nawo.orgJonathan Rogoff, Esq.General Counsel Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016 E-mail: jonathan.rogoff@nmcco.com[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
NAWO stated that it appealed the Boards November 1, 2005 order, but addressed the Board and asked it to reconsider. Thus, it was not clear whether the document was intended as a motion for reconsideration by the Board or an appeal to the Commission.
Office of the Secretary of the CommissionDated at Rockville, Marylandthis 2 nd day of February 2006}}
On December 14, 2005, the Board issued a Status Report noting that NRC rules require that a petitioner must first obtain leave from the presiding officer to file a motion for reconsideration.3 The Board stated that in its view the document must be considered, if anything, an appeal of the Boards decision.4 The Board referred the matter to the Commission for whatever action we deemed appropriate.5 The Boards underlying ruling found that NAWO had no standing and that it had not offered an admissible contention. Thus, an appeal would have to convince us that NAWO both has standing and has presented at least one litigable contention. We conclude that the appeal states no grounds for the Commission to overrule the Board, for the following reasons:
: 1. NAWOs document does not conform to our procedural regulations governing appeals, which provide that a notice of appeal be accompanied by a brief.6 NAWOs appeal is devoid of legal argument and includes no citation to the record.7 The lack of a brief is sufficient 3
Status Report (Dec. 14, 2005), at 1.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 2.
6 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(a). We conclude that no further pleading is forthcoming from NAWO. The time for filing an appeal of LBP-05-31 expired on November 14, 2005. Even if NAWOs appeal were intended as a motion for reconsideration, NAWO would have had 10 days from the Boards ruling on its motion (e.g., the status report) to file an appeal. That deadline has also passed.
7 Both the NRC Staff and NMC declined to submit any substantive response to the arguments in NAWOs appeal. See Letter of David R. Lewis to Administrative Judges informing them that NMC does not intend to respond further (Nov. 22, 2005); Letter of Michael A. Woods to Administrative Judges informing them that the NRC staff does not intend to respond further (Nov. 22, 2005).
 
reason, without more, to reject NAWOs appeal.8
: 2. NAWOs appeal does not contend that the Board misapplied NRC rules relating to standing. Instead, it argues that the standards the Board used were rules designed to deny standing and disenfranchise those with legitimate interests. 9 The NRC generally follows judicial concepts of standing in its own proceedings.10 The Board found that NAWO had not shown that it, or any of its members, would suffer any concrete or particularized harm from the proposed license renewal. A review of the Boards decision shows that its standing analysis was based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent and was consistent with this agencys practice with respect to standing.11 Nothing in NAWOs appeal suggests that the Board misapplied applicable law relating to standing.
: 3. Similarly, the appeal does not provide the Commission any reason to question the Boards ruling on NAWOs proposed contentions. NAWO does not specify which of its proposed contentions it is pursuing on appeal, but it appears that only proposed Contention 4 (Reactor Aging Problems Will Escape Detection Until Too Late) relates to its argument.12 The appeal states in conclusory fashion that NAWO brought forward a whole new category of 8
See Texas Utils. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI 10, 37 NRC 192, 198 (1993), citing Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-92-3, 35 NRC 63, 66 (1992).
9 Appeal at 2.
10 See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Energy (Plutonium Export License), CLI-04-17, 59 NRC 357, 363 (2004); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 (1992).
11 See LBP-05-31, 62 NRC __, slip op. at 6-8.
12 NAWO has evidently abandoned the remainder of its proposed contentions, which related to: the no-action alternative, radiation monitoring, security, drinking water safety, the effects of global warming on reactor operations, and severe accident mitigation analysis.
 
reactor components that had escaped scrutiny in [the] aging management program.13 It further argues that the fact that the NRC staff issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) to the applicant concerning some of these components is irrefutable evidence of a genuine contention.14 The Board reasonably held that the proposed contention was vague and speculative, and lack[ed] expert opinion, documents, or sources to support it; that it present[ed] nothing more than an unsupported conclusion;15 and that insofar as the contention related to routine inspections, it fell outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding.16 Furthermore, we have held repeatedly that the mere issuance of a staff RAI does not establish grounds for a litigable contention.17 NAWO offers no other argument in defense of its contention, while the Boards reasoning appears correct on its face.18 13 Appeal at 2.
14 Id.
15 LBP-05-31, 62 NRC at __, slip op. at 23. See also 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).
16 LBP-05-31, 62 NRC at __, slip op. at 23.
17 See, e.g., Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 336-37 (1999).
18 It should be noted that the use of intemperate and disrespectful rhetoric such as that in NAWOs appeal has no place in filings before the Commission or its Boards. See, e.g.,
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, 748-49 (1978); La. Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) ALAB-121, 6 AEC 319, 320 (1973). Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance the petitioners interests or the orderly administration of the Commissions adjudicatory processes, and will not be tolerated.
 
For the foregoing reasons, NAWOs appeal is rejected, and the Boards decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the Commission
                                                        /RA/
Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 2nd day of February, 2006
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                      )
                                                      )
NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC                        )            Docket No. 50-263-LR
                                                      )
                                                      )
(Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant)                  )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-06) 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, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate                    Administrative Judge Adjudication                                    Lawrence G. McDade, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001                        Mail Stop - T-3 F23 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov                          U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: lgm1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                              Administrative Judge William M. Murphy                                Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23                              Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                        Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wmurphy@csuchico.edu                      E-mail: rew@nrc.gov Michael A. Woods, Esq.                            David R. Lewis, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel                    Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Mail Stop - O-15 D21                              2300 N Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                Washington, DC 20037-1128 Washington, DC 20555-0001                        E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: maw2@nrc.gov
 
2 Docket No. 50-263-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-06)
George Crocker                    Jonathan Rogoff, Esq.
Executive Director                General Counsel North American Water Office      Nuclear Management Company, LLC P.O. Box 174                      700 First Street Lake Elmo, MN 55042              Hudson, WI 54016 E-mail: gwillc@nawo.org          E-mail: jonathan.rogoff@nmcco.com
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of February 2006}}

Revision as of 23:41, 23 November 2019

2006/02/02-Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-06-06)
ML060330660
Person / Time
Site: Monticello Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 02/02/2006
From: Annette Vietti-Cook
NRC/SECY
To:
Byrdsong A T
References
50-263-LR, ASLBP 05-841-02-LR, CLI-06-06, RAS 11137
Download: ML060330660 (7)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAS 11137 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED 02/02/06 COMMISSIONERS SERVED 02/02/06 Nils J. Diaz, Chairman Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

Jeffrey S. Merrifield Gregory B. Jackzo Peter B. Lyons In the Matter of Docket No. 50-263-LR Nuclear Management Company, LLC (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant)

CLI-06-06 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Commission is an appeal by petitioner North American Water Office (NAWO), of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) ruling on standing and contention admissibility.1 That ruling denied NAWOs petition to intervene in the application of the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) to renew the operating license for its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) in Monticello, Minnesota. NAWO describes itself as an organization formed to educate people about environmental concerns, notably electric utility waste.2 On November 11, 2005, NAWO submitted a document to the Board entitled Appeal of the North American Water Office to the November 1, 2005 Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Denying Standing and Rejecting Contentions of the North American Water Office in the Above Captioned Matter (Appeal). In the document, less than two pages long, 1

LBP-05-31, 62 NRC __, slip op. Nov. 1, 2005.

2 See Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene by the North American Water Office (July 9, 2005), at 1.

NAWO stated that it appealed the Boards November 1, 2005 order, but addressed the Board and asked it to reconsider. Thus, it was not clear whether the document was intended as a motion for reconsideration by the Board or an appeal to the Commission.

On December 14, 2005, the Board issued a Status Report noting that NRC rules require that a petitioner must first obtain leave from the presiding officer to file a motion for reconsideration.3 The Board stated that in its view the document must be considered, if anything, an appeal of the Boards decision.4 The Board referred the matter to the Commission for whatever action we deemed appropriate.5 The Boards underlying ruling found that NAWO had no standing and that it had not offered an admissible contention. Thus, an appeal would have to convince us that NAWO both has standing and has presented at least one litigable contention. We conclude that the appeal states no grounds for the Commission to overrule the Board, for the following reasons:

1. NAWOs document does not conform to our procedural regulations governing appeals, which provide that a notice of appeal be accompanied by a brief.6 NAWOs appeal is devoid of legal argument and includes no citation to the record.7 The lack of a brief is sufficient 3

Status Report (Dec. 14, 2005), at 1.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 2.

6 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(a). We conclude that no further pleading is forthcoming from NAWO. The time for filing an appeal of LBP-05-31 expired on November 14, 2005. Even if NAWOs appeal were intended as a motion for reconsideration, NAWO would have had 10 days from the Boards ruling on its motion (e.g., the status report) to file an appeal. That deadline has also passed.

7 Both the NRC Staff and NMC declined to submit any substantive response to the arguments in NAWOs appeal. See Letter of David R. Lewis to Administrative Judges informing them that NMC does not intend to respond further (Nov. 22, 2005); Letter of Michael A. Woods to Administrative Judges informing them that the NRC staff does not intend to respond further (Nov. 22, 2005).

reason, without more, to reject NAWOs appeal.8

2. NAWOs appeal does not contend that the Board misapplied NRC rules relating to standing. Instead, it argues that the standards the Board used were rules designed to deny standing and disenfranchise those with legitimate interests. 9 The NRC generally follows judicial concepts of standing in its own proceedings.10 The Board found that NAWO had not shown that it, or any of its members, would suffer any concrete or particularized harm from the proposed license renewal. A review of the Boards decision shows that its standing analysis was based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent and was consistent with this agencys practice with respect to standing.11 Nothing in NAWOs appeal suggests that the Board misapplied applicable law relating to standing.
3. Similarly, the appeal does not provide the Commission any reason to question the Boards ruling on NAWOs proposed contentions. NAWO does not specify which of its proposed contentions it is pursuing on appeal, but it appears that only proposed Contention 4 (Reactor Aging Problems Will Escape Detection Until Too Late) relates to its argument.12 The appeal states in conclusory fashion that NAWO brought forward a whole new category of 8

See Texas Utils. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI 10, 37 NRC 192, 198 (1993), citing Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-92-3, 35 NRC 63, 66 (1992).

9 Appeal at 2.

10 See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Energy (Plutonium Export License), CLI-04-17, 59 NRC 357, 363 (2004); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 (1992).

11 See LBP-05-31, 62 NRC __, slip op. at 6-8.

12 NAWO has evidently abandoned the remainder of its proposed contentions, which related to: the no-action alternative, radiation monitoring, security, drinking water safety, the effects of global warming on reactor operations, and severe accident mitigation analysis.

reactor components that had escaped scrutiny in [the] aging management program.13 It further argues that the fact that the NRC staff issued a Request for Additional Information (RAI) to the applicant concerning some of these components is irrefutable evidence of a genuine contention.14 The Board reasonably held that the proposed contention was vague and speculative, and lack[ed] expert opinion, documents, or sources to support it; that it present[ed] nothing more than an unsupported conclusion;15 and that insofar as the contention related to routine inspections, it fell outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding.16 Furthermore, we have held repeatedly that the mere issuance of a staff RAI does not establish grounds for a litigable contention.17 NAWO offers no other argument in defense of its contention, while the Boards reasoning appears correct on its face.18 13 Appeal at 2.

14 Id.

15 LBP-05-31, 62 NRC at __, slip op. at 23. See also 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

16 LBP-05-31, 62 NRC at __, slip op. at 23.

17 See, e.g., Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 336-37 (1999).

18 It should be noted that the use of intemperate and disrespectful rhetoric such as that in NAWOs appeal has no place in filings before the Commission or its Boards. See, e.g.,

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, 748-49 (1978); La. Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) ALAB-121, 6 AEC 319, 320 (1973). Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance the petitioners interests or the orderly administration of the Commissions adjudicatory processes, and will not be tolerated.

For the foregoing reasons, NAWOs appeal is rejected, and the Boards decision is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

For the Commission

/RA/

Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 2nd day of February, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC ) Docket No. 50-263-LR

)

)

(Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-06) 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, or through NRC internal distribution.

Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Lawrence G. McDade, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: lgm1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Administrative Judge William M. Murphy Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wmurphy@csuchico.edu E-mail: rew@nrc.gov Michael A. Woods, Esq. David R. Lewis, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Mail Stop - O-15 D21 2300 N Street, N.W.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20037-1128 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: maw2@nrc.gov

2 Docket No. 50-263-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-06-06)

George Crocker Jonathan Rogoff, Esq.

Executive Director General Counsel North American Water Office Nuclear Management Company, LLC P.O. Box 174 700 First Street Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Hudson, WI 54016 E-mail: gwillc@nawo.org E-mail: jonathan.rogoff@nmcco.com

[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of February 2006

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML060330660&oldid=2196670"