ML061870166
| ML061870166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/03/2006 |
| From: | Hamrick S NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Hamrick C, OGC, 301-415-4106 | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 11927 | |
| Download: ML061870166 (13) | |
Text
1 NEC's proposed new contention asserted as follows:The failure of modeling, testing, and analysis, in support of extendedpower uprate (EPU), to detect or predict recent discovery of a 5 footcrack with multiple branches on the surface of the Quad Cities Unit 2dryer indicates that the technical basis for ascension power testing atthe Entergy Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, largely based onthe Quad Cities model and methodology, is flawed and cannot reliably(continued
...)July 3, 2006UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,)Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR) OPERATIONS, INC.)ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO "NEW ENGLAND COALITION'SREQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO[NEC'S] REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION"INTRODUCTIONPursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the NRC Staff ("Staff") hereby responds to the NewEngland Coalition's ("NEC") "Request for Leave to File a Supplement to [NEC's] Request for Leave to File a New Contention," filed on June 23, 2006 ("Supplemental Request"). In its Supplemental Request, NEC requests leave to supplement its "Request for Leave to File a New Contention" ("Request"), dated April 20, 2006. For the reasons discussed below, the Staffopposes NEC's Supplemental Request and recommends that it be denied. BACKGROUNDNEC's proposed new contention, filed on April 20, 2006, challenged the adequacy ofanalyses concerning the steam dryer at Vermont Yankee, bas ed on the discovery of cracks inthe steam dryer at Quad Cities Unit 2 ("Quad Cities").
1 On May 25, 2006, responses to NEC's 1(...conti nued)predict steam dryer durability or performance under EPU conditions.Because a cracked or fractured steam dryer can result in an accident,prevent mitigation of an accident, or increase the consequences of anaccident, with a major catastrophic effects on public health and safety,and because Vermont Yankee is proceeding in an unknown condition,the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, (ASLB) must not permitVermont Yankee to operate at the EPU conditions until such time as itcan be definitively demonstrated that the ascension power testingprogram at Vermont Yankee has not been invalidated by the experienceat Quad Cities. "New England Coalition's Request for Leave to File a New Contention," dated April 20, 2006("Request"), at 2-3.
2 See (1) "NRC Staff's Answer to [NEC's] Request for Leave to File a New Contention," datedMay 25, 2006 ("Staff Answer"); and (2) "Entergy's Response to [NEC's] Request for Leave to File a NewContention," dated May 25, 2006.
3 See "New England Coalition's Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy Answers to [NEC's] Requestfor Leave to File a New Contention," dated May 25, 2006 [sic] and filed June 1, 2006. Request were filed by the Staff and by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and EntergyNuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy" or "Applicant");
2 NEC replied to the Applicant'sand Staff's responses on June 1, 2006.
3 In its Supplemental Request, NEC seeks tosupplement the bases for its proposed new contention, based upon the written testimony ofVermont State Nuclear Engineer William Sherman filed in a proceeding before the VermontPublic Service Board on June 21, 2006 ("Sherman Testimony"), and the related declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld ("Hopenfeld Declaration"), dated June 23, 2006, in which Dr. Hopenfeld provides his assessment of Mr. Sherman's testimony. For the reasons set forth below, the Staff submits that NEC's Supplemental Request is untimely and fails to provide an admissible basis for NEC's proposed new contention.DISCUSSIONI.NEC's Supplemental Request Does Not Comply With 10 C.F.R. § 2.323.NEC's Supplemental Request seeks leave of the Licensing Board to supplement itsproposed new contention, based on the testimony and declaration attached thereto. NEC, 4 NEC's pro se representative is well aware of this provision, having raised this issue inopposing a motion for summary disposition filed by Entergy earlier in this proceeding. See "NewEngland Coalition's Answer to Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of [NEC] Contention 3," datedDecember 23, 2005, at 6-7.
5 To the extent that NEC's Supplemental Request may be viewed as an amendment to itsproposed contention, it is required to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), which states that "contentionsmay be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer,"upon a showing that the petitioner or intervenor satisfies three factors establishing the timeliness andmateriality of the new filing. See discussion infra at 3-4.however, fails to address the Commission's regulations governing the filing of motions, set forthin 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. Further, NEC does not address the provisions in § 2.323(b), which require a moving party to certify that it has made a sincere effort to contact other parties and resolve the issues raised in the motion. As indicated in the regulation, a motion that fails toinclude this certification "must be rejected." 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b).
4 Accordingly, to the extentthat NEC's Supplemental Request constitutes a motion under § 2.323, it must be rejected.
5 II.NEC's Supplemental Request Fails to Satisfy the Commission'sRequirements Governing the Admissibility of Late-Filed Contentions.As the Commission has recently stated, "[n]ew bases for a contention cannot beintroduced in a reply brief, or any other time after the date the original contentions are due, unless the petitioner meets the late-filing criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c), (f)(2)." Nuclear Management Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC __, slip op. at 6(June 23, 2006); accord, Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility),CLI-04-25, 60 NRC 223, 224-25, reconsideration denied, CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619 (2004). Asthe Commission has explained, were this not the case, "[t]here simply would be 'no end to NRC licensing proceedings if petitioners could disregard [the Commission's] timeliness requirements' and add new bases or new issues that 'simply did not occur to [them] at the outset.'"
LES ,60 NRC at 225, quoting Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; CatawbaNuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-03-17, 58 NRC 419, 428-29 (2003). Thus, in order to supplement the basis of its new contention, NEC must meet theCommission's standards for late-filed contentions in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). As the Licensing Board has previously ruled, this provision requires a showing that: (i) the information upon which the amended or newcontention is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon which the amended or newcontention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) the amended or new contention has been submitted in atimely fashion based on the availability of the subs equentinformation.See Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),LBP-06-14, 63 NRC ___, slip op. at 4 (May 25, 2006) (emphasis in original). It is NEC's burden to demonstrate that its supplement meets these standards. In thisregard, NEC claims that it meets these requirements, yet it states only that the information itseeks to add is new because it only became available two days before NEC's filing. SeeSupplemental Request at 3. To be sure, the written testimony filed by Vermont State NuclearEngineer Sherman is "new". However, the Commission's regulations do not allow for new or supplemented contentions to be admitted solely upon the appearance of new documents. Instead, new or supplemented contentions must be based on new information that is materiallydifferent from information that was previously available. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i), (ii). In otherwords, the Commission's regulations recognize a distinction between documents that are newand documents that contain new information. NEC does not indicate that any informationcontained in the Sherman testimony is new or materially different than information that was previously available; instead, it simply asserts that the Sherman testimony became available very recently. This is an insufficient showing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). Regardless of whether the Sherman testimony was submitted by NEC in a timely fashion pursuant to section 6 "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment No.229 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and EntergyNuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-271," issued March 2,2006 ("hereinafter referred to as "Final SE") (ADAMS Accession No. ML060050028) (non-proprietaryversion).7 NEC also fails to establish that the information cited in Mr. Sherman's testimony supports theadmission of its proposed new contention. Thus, Mr. Sherman's testimony concerning this portion of theFinal SE recited the conclusions in an NRC Staff audit report issued in September 2004, as summarizedin the Staff's Final SE - but it failed to disclose that in the following paragraph of the Final SE, the Staffindicated that Entergy had subsequently submitted a revised analysis of the steam dryer's integrity underEPU conditions, Final SE at 42 - and that the Staff found the revised steam dryer analysis to beacceptable, subject to certain license conditions. Id. at 43-51. 2.309(f)(2)(iii), NEC's failure to even address what information within the testimony is new ormaterially different from that which had previously been available demonstrates that its Supplemental Request should be denied as failing to establish that any information contained inthat testimony is materially different from other information that was available to it previously.Moreover, it is apparent that much, if not all, of the information contained within theSherman testimony is neither new nor materially different from information that was previously available. For example, Mr. Sherman questions Entergy's steam dryer analysis, on the grounds that "the NRC determined that excitation sources were not adequately identified, a technicallyjustifiable load definition was not provided, the analysis methodology was not justified as realistic, potential non-conservative assumptions were used and extrapolation of pressure peaks were not validated." Sherman Testimony at 8-9. However, this language was taken, almost verbatim, from the Staff's Final Safety Evaluation for the Vermont Yankee EPU application, issued on March 2, 2006.
6 See Final SE at 41-42. Thus, this information couldhave been included in NEC's initial filing of its steam dryer contention, in April 2006, if notsooner.7Similarly, Mr. Sherman's written testimony asserts that "the NRC Staff found significantuncertainties associated with the CFD [computational fluid dynamics] predictions," because "sensitivity studies were not performed and comparison to other plant data was not sufficient," 8 Again, Mr. Sherman (and NEC) failed to note that the Staff addressed these concerns byadding a license condition that "provides requirements for monitoring, evaluating, and taking promptaction in response to potential adverse flow effects as a result of operation at EPU conditions." Final SEat 43. Thus, NEC fails to establish that the information cited in Mr. Sherman's testimony supports theadmission of its proposed new contention.
9 Again, Mr. Sherman failed to note that the Staff addressed these issues by "focus[ing] on thelicensee's use of the pressure sensor data obtained from the Quad Cities Unit 2 instrumented steamdryer," and by imposing a license condition that "provides requirements for monitoring, evaluating andtaking prompt action in response to potential adverse flow effects as a result of operation at EPUconditions." Final SE at 44. Similarly, Mr. Sherman states that "the only basis for NRC acceptance ofthe steam dryers in power uprate conditions was the added instrumentation and the power ascensiontests." Sherman Testimony at 10. This statement is directly refuted by the Final SE, which describedother information (not addressed by Mr. Sherman) as being "an important part of the licensee's effort toprovide confidence that the structural integrity of the steam dryer will be maintained during EPUoperation." Final SE at 49.and because "CFD uncertainty was underestimated." Sherman Testimony at 9. This language, which pertains to Entergy's revised analysis, again comes directly from the Staff's Final SE.
See Final SE, at 43. Once again, this is information that was available to NEC when it filed itsinitial steam dryer contention in April 2006, and it is thus neither new nor materially different from the information available to NEC previously.
8Similarly, other information cited in Mr. Sherman's written testimony was available toNEC previously. For example, Mr. Sherman questioned the acoustic circuit model ("ACM")
validation by scale model testing, and stated that "[f]or ACM validation from the Quad CitiesUnit 2 instrumented steam dryer, NRC Staff concluded an assumption of even 100%uncertainty was an underprediction." Sherman Testimony at 9. Again, Mr. Sherman drew this language from the Staff's Final SE.
See Final SE at 44. Thus, this information was previouslyavailable to NEC at the time it filed its proposed steam dryer contention in April 2006, and the information therefore was not timely filed in NEC's Supplemental Request.
9In his written testimony, Mr. Sherman also summarized the results of Vermont Yankee'spower ascension testing. Sherman Testimony at 12-16. While NEC cites Mr. Sherman's opinion of that testing, Supplemental Request at 2, it fails to indicate that any of the informationdiscussed by Mr. Sherman is new or materially different from information that was previously 10 Information concerning power ascension testing was previously available to NEC, asindicated in its Supplemental Request. For example, NEC cited "NRC Staff's Technical Basis ForContinued Power Ascension Of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Up To 110% Original LicensedPower," dated April 5, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060970111), and "Vermont Yankee-Revision 1to Steam Dryer Monitoring Plan," dated March 26, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060930689). Request at 3. Power ascension testing information was also publicly available in other documents, suchas the "NRC Staff's Technical Basis For Continued Power Ascension Of Vermont Yankee NuclearPower Station Up To 115% Original Licensed Power," dated April 28, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No.ML061370708).available to it, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).
10 Accordingly, NEC has failed to establishthe timeliness of this information in support of its request for leave to supplement its proposed new contention. Further, as the Licensing Board has previously observed, under the Commission'sregulations an untimely contention may be admitted only upon the presiding officer'sdetermination that it should be admitted after balancing the following eight factors, all of whichmust be addressed in the petitioner's filing:(i) Good cause, if any, for the failure to file on time; (ii) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under theAct to be made a party to the proceeding;(iii) The nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner'sproperty, financial or other interest 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 therequestor's/petitioner's interest will be protected;(vi) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner's interestswill be represented by existing parties;(vii) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner'sparticipation will broaden the issues or delay theproceeding; and(viii) The extent to which the requestor's/petitioner'sparticipation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309( c)(1); Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. (Vermont Yankee NuclearPower Station), LBP-06-14, 63 NRC ___, slip op. at 7 (May 25, 2006). Of these eight criteria, NEC addresses only the first, in a footnote equating "good cause"with "new information." Supplemental Request at 3 n.1. However, as discussed above, NEC failed to demonstrate the information contained in Mr. Sherman's testimony was new or that it was materially different from information that had previously been available. Therefore, its cursory discussion of the good cause requirement is insufficient to demonstrate that its untimelySupplemental Request fulfills the criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309( c).III.NEC's Supplemental Request Fails to Satisfy the Commission'sStandards Governing the Admissibility of Contentions.In addition to fulfilling the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c) and (f)(2), a petitionermust show that a contention, late-filed contention, or any proposed amendment thereof meetsthe admissibility requirements for contentions set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi). As setforth therein, a petitioner seeking to have a contention admitted must:(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact tobe raised or controverted;(ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention iswithin the scope of the proceeding;(iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention ismaterial to the findings the NRC must make to support theaction that is involved in the proceeding;(v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expertopinions which support the requestor's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing . . . ; and(vi) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuinedispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including 11 The gist of Mr. Sherman's testimony is contained in his assertion that "Entergy has notconclusively demonstrated that steam dryer cracks resulting in power derates will not occur." ShermanTestimony at 16. The economic cost of a power derate, which is the central issue addressed byMr. Sherman's written testimony, is irrelevant in this proceeding.the applicant's environmental report and safety report) thatthe petitioner disputes . . . , or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reason for the petitioner's belief.10 C.F.R. § 2.309(fc)(1)(I)-(viii). These requirements must be met by all contentions, whetherfiled at the onset of a proceeding or at any time thereafter. Vermont Yankee, LBP-06-17, slip op. at 8; Id., LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548, 554-58 (2004).
NEC's Supplemental Request fails evento discuss these requirements, and it therefore must be rejected. NEC's proposed new contention, as filed in April 2006, asserts, in essence, thatEntergy's steam dryer analyses associated with the extended power uprate are flawed, and thatthis may lead to a cracked steam dryer, which could, in turn, result in an accident with significant adverse effects on public health and safety.
See Request at 2-3. NEC'sSupplemental Request seeks to supplement the bases for this contention by adding the writtentestimony of William Sherman to support its admission. However, instead of providing expertopinion in support of the assertions made in its proposed contention, the Sherman testimony actually contradicts the proposed contention. Thus, while Mr. Sherman questions the adequacyof Entergy's steam dryer analysis insofar as it may impact steam dryer reliability, he clearlystates his opinion that "catastrophic failure of the steam dryer is unlikely." Sherman Testimony at 16. Further, Mr. Sherman indicates that the Staff has concluded that the steam dryer doesnot present a safety issue for Vermont Yankee - a conclusion which he does not challenge -
and that the only issue his testimony addresses is the potential need for a derating of poweruntil any cracks which materialize can be evaluated and repaired.
Id. at 18.11 Thus, the Sherman testimony, upon which NEC and Dr. Hopenfeld rely, wholly fails to support NEC'sposition on the steam dryer safety issue raised in its contention. NEC attempts to bypass this inconsistency by providing Dr. Hopenfeld's Declaration, inwhich Dr. Hopenfeld states that he is "in general agreement with Mr. Sherman's observations,"
except with respect to Mr. Sherman's conclusion "that the steam dryer is not likely to failcatastrophically." Hopenfeld Declaration at 2. However, Dr. Hopenfeld provides no basis to support his conclusory statement that he disagrees with Mr. Sherman's views. Accordingly, NEC has failed to meet its obligation to provide a concise statement of the expert opinions that support its position or to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact with the Applicant.
See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v)-(vi).It is well established that an intervenor seeking leave to file a late contention has theburden of presenting "a minimal showing that material facts are in dispute, thereby demonstrating that an 'inquiry in depth' is appropriate." Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (YankeeNuclear Power Station), CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235, 249 (1996); Georgia Institute of Technology(Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 118 (1995); Gulf States UtilitiesCo. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43, 51 (1994); accord, NuclearManagement Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-06-10, 63 NRC ___, 2006 NRC LEXIS56 (March 7, 2006). As indicated above, NEC's proposed new contention, as filed on April 20, 2006,asserted, in essence, that the failure of modeling, testing, and analysis to detect or predict thecracking of the Quad Cities steam dryer calls into question the technical basis for ascension power testing at Vermont Yankee, which is largely based on the Quad Cities model and methodology. As the Staff stated in its May 25, 2006 response to NEC's proposed new contention, NEC failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the ACM modeling and methodology, and it failed to identify any dispute with the analysis described in the Region III staff's preliminary notification cited in its contention.
See Staff Answer at 14. NEC's proposed supplementation of its contention with the Sherman testimony is insufficient toremedy these failures, because it fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the Applicant concerning these matters. Rather, the Sherman testimony upon which NEC relies is based upon economic concerns related to a possible derating of the facility, and does not challengethe safety of the steam dryer. NEC does not address how this testimony is relevant to its contention, and it offers no additional information which would support the contention's admission. CONCLUSIONAs discussed above, NEC's Supplemental Request is untimely, fails to adequatelyaddress the Commission's criteria for the admission of late-filed contentions, and fails to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. For these and other reasonsset forth above, the Staff respectfully submits that NEC's Supplemental Request should be denied. Respectfully submitted,/RA/Steven C. HamrickSherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC StaffDated at Rockville, Marylandthis 3rd day of July, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE)Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR) OPERATIONS, INC.)ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO 'NEW ENGLAND COALITION'SREQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO [NEC'S] REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A NEW CONTENTION,'" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or as indicated by an asterisk (*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system; and by e-mail asindicated by a double asterisk (**), this 3 rd day of July, 2006.Alex S. Karlin, Chair**Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.govDr. Anthony J. Baratta**Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ajb5@nrc.govLester S. Rubenstein**Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1750 Avenida del Mundo, Apt. 1106 Coronado, CA 92118 E-mail: lesrrr@comcast.netOffice of the Secretary**ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.govOffice of Commission Appellate Adjudication*
Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.**Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: jmr3@nrc.gov
) Marcia Carpentier, Esq.**Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: MXC7@nrc.gov
)Terence A. Burke**Associate General Counsel Entergy Services, Inc.
1340 Echelon parkway Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.comJay E. Silberg, Esq.**Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.**
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N St., NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com, and matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.comRaymond Shadis**Staff Technical Advisor New England Coalition
P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com, shadis@ime.netJohn M. Fulton, Esq.Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601/RA/ Steven C. HamrickCounsel for NRC Staff