ML082100589
| ML082100589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/2008 |
| From: | Sexton K NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-335-CO, 50-389-CO, ASLBP 08-866-01-CO-BD01, RAS 932 | |
| Download: ML082100589 (17) | |
Text
July 28, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-335-CO
) 50-389-CO (St. Lucie Nuclear Plant) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SEC REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) hereby responds to the July 2, 2008, Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene (Request) filed by Saporito Energy Consultants (SEC), through its President, Thomas Saporito.1 As discussed below, SECs Request should be denied because it has failed to establish standing, is seeking to litigate concerns that are outside the scope of the issues which may be raised in a hearing on the Order it challenges,2 and fails to meet the contention admissibility requirements.
BACKGROUND Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) owns and operates the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (St. Lucie) located in Jensen Beach, Florida, under a license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). On or about March 10, 2005, two contractors documented a work order to indicate that they had used the torque wrench specified in the work order when, in fact, they 1
It should be noted that although Mr. Saporito generally refers to his company as either SEC or Saporito Energy Consultants, the signature block shows that Mr. Saporito signed as the President of Florida Energy Consultants.
2 On June 13, 2008, a Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately) was issued to Florida Power and Light Company regarding St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (Order). ADAMS Accession No. ML081650261.
had used a different torque wrench.3 This was apparently done to conceal their over-torquing of a valve.4 On April 2, 2008, the NRC sent FPL a letter detailing the results of an NRC Office of Investigations (OI) investigation into that matter.5 The Letter documented two apparent violations associated with FPLs initial review and investigation into the matter.6 The first apparent violation involved the Mechanical Maintenance Senior Plant Supervisors deliberate creation of an incomplete condition report.7 In an apparent violation of 10 C.F.R. § 50.9, which states in pertinent part that information provided to the Commission or required to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects, the condition report did not document the falsified work order.8 The Staff found this to be material because it concealed the violation of a work procedure and the questionable trustworthiness of the two contract maintenance workers.9 For instance, had the condition report been complete and accurate, FPLs procedures would have required an evaluation of the two contract workers suitability for continued unescorted access and possible entry into the Personnel Access Data System (PADS).10 3
Order at 2.
4 Id.
5 Letter from Kriss M. Kennedy, Director, NRC Division of Reactor Safety to J.A. Stall, Senior Vice President, FPL, Apr. 2, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080930372) (Letter).
6 Id. at 1.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. PADS is a computer-based system for recording background information on employees who have worked with temporary access authorization at one or more nuclear power facilities. PADS provides a corps of pre-approved nuclear employees whose unescorted access authorization can be granted by successive licensee employers who subscribe to PADS and who access it for a record of the applicant's history in the industry. SECY-98-110, Report on Inspection and Programmatic Findings Relating to the Carl C. Drega Incident, attach. 1, at 4 (May 20, 1998) (ADAMS Accession No.
(continued. . .)
The second apparent violation involved the Mechanical Maintenance Senior Plant Supervisors deliberate failure to contact the appropriate site security manager in order to initiate the assessment of the trustworthiness and reliability of the two contract technicians.11 By failing to contact the site security manager, FPL did not meet the Access Authorization program objective in 10 C.F.R. § 73.56(b)(1), which provides high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are trustworthy and reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety, including a potential to commit radiological sabotage.12 Had the supervisor contacted the site security manager, the information would have been considered in evaluating the two contract workers suitability for continued unescorted access and possible entry into PADS.13 The NRC and FPL entered into an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) session on May 16, 2008, mediated by a professional, independent mediator. An agreement was reached between the NRC and FPL at the ADR session, and a confirmatory order was issued pursuant to that agreement. The Order requires FPL to perform eleven corrective actions and enhancements it committed to during the ADR session (Commitments) within six months of the date of issuance of the Order.14 The Staff asserts in the Order that the agreed-upon Commitments are necessary to ensure that, in the future, corrective actions and a
(. . .continued)
11 Letter at 2.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Order at 6. The eleven commitments encompass multiple types of training, procedure revision, and reviews.
trustworthiness and reliability assessment will be performed.15 The NRC Staff concluded that with these commitments, the public health and safety are reasonably assured.16 The Order states that [a]ny person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than the Licensee, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance.17 The Order further specifies the issue to be considered at hearing, stating if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.18 The Order states that a person requesting the hearing must set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309 (d) and (f).19 On July 2, 2008, SEC filed its Request, which set forth three contentions. First, SEC claims that the root-cause of the licensees 10 CFR 2.309(d)(1), violation of 10 CFR 73.56(b)(1) . . . have not been adequately determined for corrective action.20 Second, SEC claims that [t]he NRCs failure to take enforcement action by imposing a significant civil penalty 15 Id. at 3-4.
16 Id. at 7.
17 Id. at 10.
18 Id. at 10.
19 Id. at 10. Further, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(1), general requirements for standing, requires that a petitioner state:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner, (ii) The nature of the petitioners right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding, (iii) The nature and extent of the requestors/petitioners property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; and (iv) The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioners interest.
10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) addresses contention admissibility requirements, which are addressed further below.
20 Request at 2 (emphasis in original).
to the licensee does nothing to protect public health and safety because the licensee will not be adequately deterred for recurrence of this violation in the future.21 Third, SEC claims that [t]he NRC does not have requisite jurisdiction and/or authority to adjudicate or resolve licensee violations through utilization of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program.22 For the reasons set forth below, SECs Request should be denied.
DISCUSSION A. SEC Fails to Establish Standing to Intervene To obtain a hearing, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she has standing and has proffered at least one admissible contention.23 To establish standing, a petitioner must show:
(1) an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.24 In license renewal proceedings, standing to intervene has been found to exist based upon a proximity presumption.25 The proximity presumption establishes standing without the need to establish the elements of injury, causation, or redressability.26 In reactor licensing proceedings, licensing boards have typically applied the proximity presumption to persons who reside or frequent the area within a 50-mile radius of 21 Id. (emphasis in original).
22 Id.
23 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).
24 Alaska Dept. of Transp. & Pub. Facilities (Confirmatory Order Modifying License), CLI-04-26, 60 NRC 399, 405 (2004) (ADOT), quoting Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), CLI-04-5, 59 NRC 52, 57 n.16 (2004).
25 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23, 64 NRC 257, 271 (2006); AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-06-07, 63 NRC 188, 196-197 (2006); Florida Power and Light Co.
(Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4), LBP-01-06, 53 NRC 138, 150 (2001), aff'd on other grounds, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001).
26 Turkey Point, LBP-01-06, 53 NRC at 150 (2001).
the plant in question.27 However, although the proximity presumption may be sufficient to establish standing in reactor licensing proceedings, in challenges to enforcement orders, petitioners must address and demonstrate all three elements of standing.28 In Davis-Besse,29 a case concerning challenges to a confirmatory order, petitioners attempted to demonstrate standing based on their living within 30 miles of the nuclear power plant, their general concerns for personal and public health and safety, and the effects of operation of the nuclear power plant on the surrounding environment.30 The Davis-Besse Licensing Board found that although such proximity to a nuclear power plant might be sufficient to establish standing in a reactor operating license proceeding, they failed to demonstrate the requisite injury-in-fact to establish standing in the much narrower context of the confirmatory order.31 SEC states that: (1) its president, Thomas Saporito, is a U.S. citizen, therefore SEC has an inherent right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding, (2) its real and personal property can be adversely affected in the event of a radiological release, which could forever compromise the environment where the requestors/petitioners reside, live, and do business, and finally (3) that a decision in SECs favor could substantially protect the interests of the requestors/petitioners environmental, property, and economic viability.32 27 See e.g., Turkey Point, LBP-01-06, 53 NRC at 148.
28 See FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 11, 59 NRC 379, 385 (2004), affd CLI-04-23, 60 NRC 154 (2004); ADOT, CLI-04-26, 60 NRC at 405.
29 Davis-Besse, LBP-04-11, 59 NRC 379.
30 Objections to Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Mar. 30, 2004) (ADAMS Accession No.
31 Davis-Besse, LBP-04-11, 59 NRC at 385.
32 Request at 1-2.
SECs assertions fail to establish standing. While SEC does refer to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(1), SEC does not demonstrate how its interests can be affected by the issues before the Commission.33 Instead, SECs statements attempt to show that by its location relative to St. Lucie, any problem at the plant could adversely affect SECs interests.34 To the extent that SEC attempts to base its standing on proximity, however, SEC has not demonstrated any nexus between the subject of the Order and potential radiological-release.35 Analogous to the Davis-Besse case, SEC here has failed to demonstrate any redressable injury-in-fact; therefore, SEC has not demonstrated standing to intervene and the Request should be denied.
B. SEC Fails to Proffer an Admissible Contention SEC does not proffer an admissible contention because it challenges issues that are outside the scope of this proceeding and fails to meet the contention admissibility requirements.
- 1. SECs Contentions are Outside the Scope of the Proceeding Intertwined within the standing and contention admissibility requirements is the threshold question . . . [of] whether the hearing request is within the scope of the proceeding 33 Davis-Besse, LBP-04-11, 59 NRC at 385.
34 It should be noted that the address SEC provides in its Request appears to be a post office box located at the Jupiter, Florida post office. See United States Postal Service, http://www.switchboard.com/
usps.1355/dir/detail.htm?&&ypcobrand=1355&sd=100&S=FL&T=jupiter&sortOrder=&sortBy=Distance&c ntLongitude=-80.102094&listingPagination=0&CID=1222&zoom=0&cntLatitude=26.920831&navigator Choices=&where=jupiter%2C+FL&recordid=Businessl19437999&frompage=CategoryID&showsection=1 (last visited Jul. 28, 2008). A licensing board has previously found that writing from a post office box and failing to provide a residential home address constituted part of the basis to deny standing in a petition to intervene. Intl Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill; Alternate Feed Material), LBP 97-12, 46 N.R.C. 1, 8 (1997), affd CLI-98-6, 47 NRC 116 (1998).
35 As the Licensing Board in NFS stated, [p]roximity undoubtedly would be a pertinent consideration if a petitioner asserted that the activities contemplated in the challenged order would result in circumstances that would generate particular off-site impacts (e.g., radiation releases) at the relevant distance. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., (Special Nuclear Facility (Confirmatory Order)), LBP-07-16, 66 NRC 277, 294 n.91, 300-01 (2007) (NFS).
outlined in the enforcement order itself.36 The Commission has the authority to define the scope of a hearing,37 including limiting a proceeding regarding an enforcement order narrowly to the issue of whether the order should be sustained,38 as is the case here. Issues that address sustainability of an order are whether the issuance of the order is unwarranted, thus requiring relaxation of the order, or whether the order is affirmatively detrimental to the public health and safety, thus requiring rescission, not supplementation.39 Therefore, petitioners may not challenge enforcement orders on the grounds that the order is too weak or otherwise insufficient, because Boards are not to consider whether [enforcement] orders need strengthening.40 Further, as stated in the Order, only persons adversely affected by the Order have the right to request a hearing.41 Thus, petitioners are:
required to show that his or her request is within the scope of the proceeding by demonstrating that he or she will be adversely affected by the actual terms of the enforcement order as they exist, rather than as a consequence of the Order lacking certain provisions the petitioner claims are necessary.42 36 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-04-23, 60 NRC 154, 157 (2004).
37 See Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380, 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1983), affg Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-16, 16 NRC 44 (1982); Davis-Besse, CLI-04-23, 60 NRC at 157-58; Maine Yankee, CLI-04-5, 59 NRC at 56; Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438, 441-42 (1980).
38 Davis-Besse, LBP-04-11, 59 NRC at 384.
39 Davis-Besse, CLI-04-23, 60 NRC at 158, quoting LBP-04-11, 59 NRC at 385.
40 ADOT, CLI-04-26, 60 NRC at 404.
41 Order at 10 (emphasis added).
42 NFS, LBP-07-16, 66 NRC at 293.
To put it another way, petitioners:
must show that he, she, or it would be adversely affected by the enforcement order as it exists, rather than being adversely affected by the existing order as it might be compared to a hypothetical order that the petitioner asserts would be an improvement.43 SECs first contention states that the NRC did not adequately determine[] the root-cause of FPLs violation for corrective action.44 This amounts to a challenge either to the Staffs analysis of the facts, or the enforcement action chosen to address the facts. In either instance, they are outside the scope of permissible challenges to enforcement actions. In ADOT, the Commission reversed a licensing board decision granting a hearing on a contention that challenged the Staffs assessment and analysis of the facts underlying the issuance of the Confirmatory Order.45 In overruling the licensing board, the Commission stated that allowing a petitioner to attack a confirmatory order under the guise of a factual dispute would effectively permit an end run around Bellotti.46 The Commission went on to state that [t]he NRC Staff has considerable latitude in choosing enforcement weapons, and [a petitioners] (or the Boards) disapproval of the remedy the Staff selected does not justify reopening an enforcement proceeding.47 The Commission also made clear that [t]he precise enforcement sanction to impose is within the Staffs sound discretion and licensing boards are not to try to supervise 43 Id. at 285.
44 Request at 2.
45 ADOT, CLI-04-26, 60 NRC at 408.
46 Id.
47 Id. at 409.
the Staffs actions.48 Thus, SECs Contention 1 is clearly outside the scope of permissible challenges to enforcement orders and must be rejected.
SECs second contention states that the NRC should have imposed a significant civil penalty.49 In NFS, one of the six petitioners challenged the confirmatory order on the basis that the NRC should have issued a civil penalty along with the confirmatory order.50 The NFS Licensing Board dismissed the contention as calling for the enforcement order to be strengthened.51 The same logic applies here. SECs claim that the Order is inadequate to protect public health and safety because only a monetary penalty will provide adequate deterrence for future violations is a clear request to supplement the Order because it is not robust enough as is. Therefore, Contention 2 falls outside the scope of permissible challenges to enforcement orders and must be rejected.
SECs third contention states that the NRC does not have the jurisdiction and/or authority to adjudicate or resolve licensee violations through utilization of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program.52 The NRCs general policy statement regarding the use of ADR states that [t]he Commission supports and encourages the use of ADR where appropriate.53 In 2004, the NRC implemented a pilot program for the voluntary use of ADR in enforcement cases regarding wrongdoing.54 The NRCs Enforcement Policy contains the Interim 48 Id. at 410.
49 Request at 2.
50 NFS, LBP-07-16, 66 NRC at 306.
51 Id. at 285.
52 Request at 2.
53 Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution; Policy Statement, 57 Fed. Reg. 36,678, 33,679 (Aug.
14, 1992).
54 NRC Enforcement Policy; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Policy Statement, 69 Fed. Reg.
(continued. . .)
Enforcement Policy Regarding the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which details the current scope of ADR.55 The Commission has stated that contentions are to be rejected if, as is the case here, a petitioner seeks an adjudicatory hearing to express generalized grievances about NRC policies.56 The Commission has further stated that any contention that merely attempts to advance a petitioners view of what a particular NRC policy ought to be is inadmissible.57 Thus, contention three is an impermissible generalized grievance regarding NRC policy and does not address the sustainability of the Order. Therefore, it must be rejected.
- 2. SECs Contentions Do Not Meet the Requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)
SEC, along with failing to demonstrate standing or proffer a contention within the permissible scope of proceedings on confirmatory orders, has failed to offer a contention meeting the contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). To have an admissible contention, petitioners must demonstrate and set forth with particularity six separate criteria:
(1) provide a specific statement of the legal or factual issue sought to be raised; (2) "provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention";
(3) demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding;
(. . .continued) 50,219 (Aug. 13, 2004).
55 NRC Enforcement Policy at 72-80, available at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/
enforcement/enforc-pol.pdf.
56 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI-03-14, 58 NRC 207, 218 (2003), citing Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999).
57 PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-07-25, 66 NRC 101, 106 (2007); see also Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 n.33 (1974).
(4) "[d]emonstrate that the issue raised . . . is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding";
(5) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions, including references to specific sources and documents, that support the petitioner's position and upon which the petitioner intends to rely at the hearing; and (6) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with regard to a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application that the petitioner disputes, or in the case when the application is alleged to be deficient, the identification of such deficiencies and supporting reasons for this belief.58 A [f]ailure to comply with any of these requirements is grounds for the dismissal of a contention.59 SECs contentions meet the first criteria, the concise statement of issue to be raised; however, the three contentions fail to meet any of the other five criteria. Therefore, any one of the reasons below support rejection of SECs three contentions.
The Commission has stated that mere notice pleading is insufficient to support an admissible contention.60 As such, [g]eneral assertions or conclusions will not suffice.61 SEC provides a brief statement of its contentions, but sets forth no supporting facts or expert opinion necessary to support the contentions; it also fails to provide even a brief explanation of the basis for the contentions. Therefore, SECs contentions fail to meet criteria two and five.
Further, as demonstrated above, SECs contentions fall outside the scope of permissible 58 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1); see also Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., (Special Nuclear Facility (Confirmatory Order)), LBP-07-16, 66 NRC 277, 285 (2007).
59 NFS, LBP-07-16, 66 NRC at 286.
60 Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 203 (2003) (citing GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC 193, 208 (2000)).
61 Power Authority of the State of New York and Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant and Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3), CLI-00-22, 52 NRC 266, 295 (2000).
challenges to confirmatory orders; therefore, SEC fails to meet the third criterion of contention admissibility. To meet the requirements of the fourth criterion, a petitioner must be able to show some significant link between the claimed deficiency and either the health and safety of the public, or the environment.62 SEC states in each contention that the NRCs Order or other actions do not protect public health and safety. However, by failing to provide any support for those claims, SEC cannot show the required significant link; thus, SECs three contentions fail to meet the fourth criterion. Finally, because SEC has failed to show how any of its three contentions addresses the sustainability of the Order, SEC also fails to meet the sixth criterion.
Therefore, because SECs three contentions each fail five out of the six criteria for an admissible contention, all must be rejected and the Request denied.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, SEC has failed to establish standing, seeks to litigate concerns that are outside the scope of the issues which may be raised in a hearing on the Order it challenges, and failed to meet the contention admissibility requirements. Therefore, SECs Request should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/signed (electronically) by/
Kimberly A. Sexton Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1151 Kimberly.Sexton@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, MD this 28th day of July, 2008 62 NFS, LBP-07-16, 66 NRC at 287.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-335-CO
) 50-389-CO (St. Lucie Nuclear Plant) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.314(b), the following information is provided:
Name: Kimberly A. Sexton Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15 D-21 Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone Number: (301) 415-1151 E-mail Address: Kimberly.Sexton@nrc.gov Facsimile Number: (301) 415-3725 Admissions: State of Florida Name of Party: NRC Staff Respectfully submitted,
/signed (electronically) by/
Kimberly A. Sexton Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1151 Kimberly.Sexton@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of July 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-335-CO
) 50-389-CO (St. Lucie Nuclear Plant) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.314(b), the following information is provided:
Name: Brett Michael Patrick Klukan Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15 D-21 Washington, D.C. 20555 Telephone Number: (301) 415-3629 E-mail Address: Brett.Klukan@nrc.gov Facsimile Number: (301) 415-3725 Admissions: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Name of Party: NRC Staff Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
Brett Michael Patrick Klukan Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-3629 Brett.Klukan@nrc.gov Executed in Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of July 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-335-CO
) 50-389-CO (St. Lucie Nuclear Plant) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SEC REQUEST FOR HEARING AND LEAVE TO INTERVENE, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF KIMBERLY A. SEXTON and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF BRETT MICHAEL PATRICK KLUKAN in the above captioned proceeding have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange this 28th day of July, 2008:
William J. Froehlich Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Mike.Farrar@nrc.gov E-mail: Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov Thomas S. Moore Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16 G4 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov E-mail: Nicholas.Trikouros@nrc.gov Office of Commission Saporito Energy Consultants Appellate Adjudication Thomas Saporito, President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1095 Military Trail, #8413 Mail Stop: O-16 G4 Jupiter, FL 33468-8413 Washington, D.C. 20555 E-mail: saporito3@gmail.com Email: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov Mitchell S. Ross Antonio Fernández Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Blvd.
Mail Stop: LAW/JB Juno Beach, FL 33408 mitch.ross@fpl.com antonio.fernandez@fpl.com
/signed (electronically) by/
Kimberly A. Sexton Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1151 Kimberly.Sexton@nrc.gov