ML12103A487
| ML12103A487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/2012 |
| From: | Roth D NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22255, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12103A487 (14) | |
Text
April 12, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/286-LR
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 2 and 3) )
NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO STATE OF NEW YORK'S AND RIVERKEEPER'S RESPONSE AND CROSS-MOTION TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S MARCH 16, 2012 ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the NRC Staff (Staff) hereby files this answer to the State of New York's ("NYS" or "New York") and Riverkeeper, Inc.'s ("Riverkeeper" or "RK")
(collectively, Intervenors) Cross-Motion of April 2, 2012.1 In their Cross-Motion, the Intervenors requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) delay the schedule for (a) initial filings on Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (License Renewal Commitments), and (b) further filings on Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue), until the Staff has completed its technical review of issues related to Contention NYS-25 (Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel ("RPV") and Internals).2 For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes the Intervenors Cross-Motion and recommends that it be denied.
1 State Of New Yorks and Riverkeeper's Response and Cross-Motion to NRC Staffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Boards March 16, 2012 Order (April 2, 2012) ("Cross-Motion").
2 The Staff estimates it will complete its review of this matter in August of 2012. See NRC Staff's April 2012 Monthly Report Regarding the Schedule for Review of the Indian Point Units 2 and 3 License Renewal Application (Apr. 2, 2012).
BACKGROUND By Order dated November 17, 2011, the Board granted the Intervenors request to extend the dates for submission of their evidentiary presentations on all contentions until December 22, 2011, and required that the Staff and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or Applicant) file their evidentiary presentations by February 29, 2012.3 By Order dated December 14, 2011, the Board deferred the schedule for filing evidentiary presentations on Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 pending further order by the Board, but indicated that the schedule for filing evidentiary presentations on all other contentions would remain in place.4 By Order dated February 16, 2012,5 the Board granted the Staffs request to extend the date for filing the Staffs and Applicants evidentiary presentations, until March 30, 2012.6 In addition, the Board deferred the schedule for litigation of Contention NYS-25 to the second hearing track, to coincide with the schedule for litigation of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 and one other contention, in light of the Staffs stated need to complete its review of new information it had received from the Applicant relating to its aging management program ("AMP") for reactor vessel internals (RVI), and the current dynamic nature of the Staffs safety review.7 On March 16, 2012, the Board ruled upon and resolved a motion to compel which had been filed by the Intervenors, seeking to compel the production of Staff documents pertaining to 3
Order (Granting Unopposed Motion by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. to Amend the Scheduling Order) (Nov. 17, 2011), at 1.
4 Order (Dec. 14, 2011), at 2.
5 Order (Granting NRC Staffs Unopposed Time Extension Motion and Directing Filing of Status Updates) (Feb. 16, 2012), at 1.
6 NRC Staffs Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for the Filing of Testimony, Exhibits and Statements of Position (Feb. 2, 2012).
7 Order of February 16, 2012, at 2.
Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5.8 Further, based upon its resolution of this dispute, the Board found there was no longer any reason to hold Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 in abeyance; accordingly, the Board directed (a) that evidentiary presentations on this contention shall be filed by the parties by April 30, 2012 (Intervenors), May 30, 2012 (Staff and Applicant), and June 11, 2012 (Intervenors rebuttal), and (b) that all subsequent litigation steps shall resume and follow the track for other pending contentions in the first round of evidentiary hearings.9 On March 22, 2012, the Staff filed a motion for partial reconsideration and/or clarification of the Boards Order of March 16, 2012, insofar as the Board had established a schedule for the litigation of one portion of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that relates to the Applicants program for reactor vessel internals.10 In this regard, the Staff pointed out, inter alia, that (a) the Board had previously deferred litigation of Contention NYS-25 in light of the Staffs stated need to complete its review before it can submit its evidentiary presentations on this matter; (b) the Staff plans to issue a request for additional information (RAI) to the Applicant concerning its AMP for reactor vessel internals in April 2012; (c) the Staff is unable to take a position on the related portion of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 until it has received and reviewed the Applicants response to the planned RAI; and (d) it is conceivable that other parties positions on this portion of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 could be affected by the Applicants expected filing, as well.11 The Staff therefore requested that this portion of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 be deferred along with Contention NYS-25, until it has completed its review of this matter - and the Staff represented 8
Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part State of New York and Riverkeepers Motion to Compel) (March 16, 2012).
9 Id. at 12.
10 NRC Staffs Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Boards Order of March 16, 2012 (Staff Motion) (March 22, 2012).
11 Id. at 3-4.
that Entergy, Riverkeeper and New York had each authorized the Staff to state that they do not oppose the Staffs request.12 On April 2, 2012, New York and Riverkeeper filed their response to the Staffs Motion along with a Cross-Motion, requesting that all testimony on NYS-38/RK-TC-5, as well as any additional filings on Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue), be delayed pending the Staff's completion of its review of the RVI program issues raised in Contention NYS-25. In support of this request, New York and Riverkeeper stated that their witness for Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 will be unavailable during portions of March and April;13 further, they asserted that these three contentions (NYS-25, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and NYS-38/ RK-TC-5) are interrelated, and must be briefed together for clarity and efficiency,14 and that the Board should "recognize the interrelation" between the three contentions.15 DISCUSSION I. The Issues Raised in Contentions NYS-25, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 The Intervenors' assertion that isolating portions of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that relate to the RPV internals will make testimony on the remainder of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 difficult, if not impossible16 is without basis, as is their claim regarding the interrelationship between NYS-25, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and NYS-38/RK-TC-5.17 The Board has already considered the overlap in the contentions, and explicitly found that it would be inappropriate to consolidate the 12 Staff Motion, at 5.
13 Cross-Motion, at 2.
14 Id. at 5.
15 Id. at 6.
16 Id. at 5.
17 Id. at 6.
contentions.18 In fact, contentions NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, and NYS-38/RK-TC-5, summarized below, generally address issues distinct from NYS-25 and Entergy's RVI program.
A. Contention NYS-25 (Embrittlement of RPV and Internals)
Contention NYS-25, as originally filed, states as follows:
Entergy's license renewal application does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) and the associated internals.19 In admitting this contention, the Board concluded that the issue of whether an AMP is necessary to manage the cumulative effects of embrittlement of the RPVs and associated internals is within the scope of the proceeding, and it found that New Yorks expert (Dr. Lahey) had provided sufficient support for the contention. Id. Subsequently, Entergy filed Amendment 9 to its license renewal application (LRA), in which it indicated that its AMP adheres to the guidance provided by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Materials Reliability Program ("MRP") 227 (MRP-227). 20 Thereafter, the Board admitted an additional basis for Contention NYS-25 challenging LRA Amendment 9, without altering or amending the contention as written. 21 Thus, NYS-25 raises a dispute regarding the adequacy of Entergys AMP concerning the potential embrittlement of the RPV and related internals, and includes issues related to MRP-227 and the RVI program.22 Subsequent to the admission of this contention, 18 See discussion infra, at 8.
19 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 129 (2008).
20 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Pending Motions for Leave to File New and Amended Contentions) (July 6, 2011), at 23.
21 See Order of July 6, 2011, at 27.
22 Id. at 28. As discussed above, by Order dated February 16, 2012, the Board placed Contention NYS-25 on the "second" hearing track, along with Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5.
Entergy provided additional information on the RVI program and stated that it complies with MPR-227-A;23 this information is currently being reviewed by the Staff.24 B. Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue)
Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, as admitted on November 4, 2010, challenges the adequacy of Entergys reanalysis of metal fatigue, which Entergy submitted on August 9, 2010.25 This contention asserts:
Entergys License Renewal Application does not include an adequate plan to monitor and manage the effects of aging due to metal fatigue on key reactor components in violation of 10 C.F.R.
§ 54.21(c)(1)(iii).
Id. Thus, Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B addresses Entergys reanalysis of metal fatigue;26 it does not address the subsequently submitted information in Entergys letter of February 17, 2012 (discussed in n. 23 below).
C. Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Commitments)
Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 asserts that:
[Entergy] is not in compliance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§§ 54.21(a)(3) and (c)(1)(iii) and the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
23 Entergy asserts that its Reactor Vessel Internals (RVI) Program is a new plant specific program to manage aging effects of reactor vessel internals that uses the guidance from MRP-227-A, "Materials Reliability Program: Pressurized Water Reactor Internals Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines." Letter from Fred Dacimo, Vice President, Operations License Renewal to NRC Document Control Desk,
Subject:
License Renewal Application - Revised Reactor Vessel Internals Program and Inspection Plan Compliant with MRP-227-A, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (NL 037) (Feb. 17, 2012) at attachment 1, page 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A312).
24 NRC Staffs Status Report in Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Order of February 16, 2012 (March 1, 2012), at 1-2.
25 See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of NYS-26/26A/
Riverkeeper TC-1/1A (Metal Fatigue of Reactor Components) and Motion for Leave to File New Contention NYS-26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B) (Nov. 4, 2010), at 7.
26 Id. at 28.
§§ 2133(b) and (d) and 2232(a) because Entergy does not demonstrate that it has a program that will manage the affects
[sic] of aging of several critical components or systems and thus NRC does not have a record and a rational basis upon which it can determine whether to grant a renewed license to Entergy as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.27 As filed, this contention presented four specific bases, claiming that Entergys commitments to take certain actions in the future render its LRA incomplete with respect to (a) identification of the most limiting locations for metal fatigue calculations, (b) use of the WESTEMS computer program for CUFen metal fatigue calculations, (c) use of a Steam Generator Management Program (then anticipated to be completed by EPRI in 2013) and an unspecified inspection program, to manage potential primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSSC) in the steam generator divider plates, and (d) use of a modified inspection plan for reactor vessel internals, to be issued by EPRI upon incorporating the Staffs proposed modifications of an earlier version of the EPRI guidance document (MRP-227) to which Entergy had committed.28 Thus, as clarified by the Board, NYS-38/RK-TC-5 challenges the adequacy of Entergys AMPs for several safety-related systems and components based on its commitments to the future development rather than presenting final programs for review.29 In sum, Contentions NYS-25 and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 both involve issues concerning reactor vessel internals and MRP-227; similarly, Contentions NYS-26-B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-38/RK-TC-5 both raise issues concerning metal fatigue. The Board has previously acknowledged that crossover may exist among these three contentions, but it nonetheless 27 Memorandum and Order (Admitting New Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) (Nov. 10, 2011), at 2.
28 See "State Of New York And Riverkeepers New Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5" (Sep. 30, 2011) at 1-3.
29 Order (Granting Entergy's Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Admitting Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5) (Dec. 6, 2011) at 1.
maintained these issues as separate contentions. Regarding the relationship of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 to the other contentions, the Board has stated as follows:
NYS-38/RK-TC-5 stands as an independent contention and has not been consolidated with NYS-25 or NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B.
While some of the issues raised across these contentions might overlap, many do not, and thus we find consolidation of these contentions inappropriate.30 II. The Deferral of All Issues Raised in NYS-38/RK-TC-5 Is Unwarranted The Board has previously deferred the litigation of Contention NYS-25 in light of the Staffs stated need to complete its review of the RVI program information submitted by Entergy in February 2012 and Entergys expected response to Staff RAIs, before the Staff can state its position on that contention. In contrast, the Staff is not currently seeking additional information with respect to the remaining three issues in NYS-38/RK-TC-5; further, in the Staffs view, none of the remaining issues relate to the RVI program or deferred Contention NYS-25.
Moreover, the Staff is prepared to address all of the issues raised in Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 other than those related to Contention NYS-25 (which is presently deferred),
in accordance with the schedule established in the Boards Order of March 16, 2012.
Finally, the Staffs review of issues related to Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) is complete, and all parties have filed their evidentiary presentations on that contention.31 With respect to delaying additional filings on Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B, New York and Riverkeeper already made their initial filings on December 22, 2011. There is 30 Id. at 5.
31 The Intervenors initial testimony was filed on December 22, 2011; their rebuttal testimony is due to be filed on May 30, 2012.
simply no basis, other than the convenience of their witness,32 to delay the Intervenors' rebuttal filings for metal fatigue (i.e. Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B) due to the Staffs ongoing review of the RVI program.33 The Intervenors present no new information that would invalidate the Board's previous observation that "[w]hile some of the issues . . . might overlap, many do not, and thus we find consolidation of these contentions inappropriate."34 Further, while the Intervenors cite efficiency as a reason for delay, it would in fact be more efficient to proceed with the current schedule, inasmuch as Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B is already briefed, and the majority of NYS-38/RK-TC-5 is unrelated to the RVI program.
III. The Cross-Motion Is Untimely Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a) motions are required to be filed no later than ten (10) days after the occurrence or circumstance from which the motion arises. The Intervenors Cross-Motion fails to meet this requirement.
In a nutshell, the Intervenors ask the Board to "recognize the interrelation between NYS-25, NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-38/RK-TC-5."35 Nothing has occurred in the recent past, however, to support the filing of their request at this time. The appropriate triggering event for the filing of a motion to link the contentions would have been the date on which the last of those contentions (NYS-38/RK-TC-5) was admitted (i.e., November 10, 2011), or shortly thereafter, upon the Boards clarification of its order admitting that contention (i.e., December 6, 32 While the Staff would be willing to consider a reasonable request for adjustment of the schedule for litigation on Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5, to accommodate Dr. Lahey's schedule, the Intervenors have not made any such request.
33 See Cross-Motion at 4 (describing Dr. Lahey's testimony and report in support of Contentions NYS-25 and NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B).
34 Clarification Order at 5.
35 Cross-Motion at 6. See also id. at 5 (stating that Dr. Lahey will be testifying on three interrelated contentions).
2011). Accordingly, the time for filing a motion to link or recognize the interrelationship of these contentions has passed.
Moreover, the Staff's filing of its motion for partial reconsideration and/or clarification of March 22, 2012, does not constitute an event that justifies the Intervenors filing of their Cross-Motion. Rather, the Staffs motion concerned a single issue in Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 that is intimately linked with Contention NYS-25 (now in abeyance), such that deferral of litigation of the related issue in Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 should also be deferred. In contrast, the Intervenors Cross-Motion seeks to defer the litigation and filing of further testimony on all issues raised in Contentions NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B and NYS-38/RK-TC-5, which are unrelated to anything contained in the Staff's Motion - and the Intervenors could have filed their motion even if the Staff had never filed its motion. The Intervenors attempt to link their request to the Staffs Motion lacks justification.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Intervenors Cross-Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-2749 E-mail: David.Roth@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of April 2012
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL Counsel for the Staff certifies that he has made a sincere effort to make himself available to listen and respond to the moving party, and the resolve the factual and legal issues raised in the motion, and that his efforts to resolve the issues have been unsuccessful.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-2749 E-mail: David.Roth@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of April 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR
)
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO STATE OF NEW YORK'S AND RIVERKEEPER'S RESPONSE AND CROSS-MOTION TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S MARCH 16, 2012 ORDER, dated April 12, 2012, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by Electronic Information Exchange, this 12th day of April, 2012.
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Office of Commission Appellate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudication Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Lawrence.McDade@nrc.gov E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resource@nrc.gov Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Josh Kirstein, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Anne Siarnacki, Esq.
Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U. S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: Josh.Kirstein@nrc.gov E-mail: Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant County Attorney Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Office of Robert F. Meehan, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Westchester County Attorney 148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 E-mail: MJR1@westchestergov.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. John J. Sipos, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Jonathan Rund, Esq. Assistants Attorney General Raphael Kuyler, Esq. New York State Department of Law Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Environmental Protection Bureau 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20004 Albany, NY 12224 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: John.Sipos@ag.ny.gov E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com E-mail: rkuyler@morganlewis.com Janice A. Dean, Esq.
Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Assistant Attorney General, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Office of the Attorney General 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 of the State of New York Houston, TX 77002 120 Broadway, 25th Floor E-mail: martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com New York, NY 10271 E-mail: Janice.Dean@ag.ny.gov Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Joan Leary Matthews, Esq.
Goodwin Procter, LLP Senior Attorney for Special Projects Exchange Place New York State Department of 53 State Street Environmental Conservation Boston, MA 02109 Office of the General Counsel E-mail: ezoli@goodwinprocter.com 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1500 E-mail: jlmatthe@gw.dec.state.ny.us William C. Dennis, Esq. John Louis Parker, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Office of General Counsel, Region 3 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. New York State Department of 440 Hamilton Avenue Environmental Conservation White Plains, NY 10601 21 South Putt Corners Road E-mail: wdennis@entergy.com New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 E-mail: jlparker@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Daniel E. ONeill, Mayor Manna Jo Greene James Seirmarco, M.S. Karla Raimundi Village of Buchanan Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Municipal Building 724 Wolcott Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-1298 Beacon, NY 12508 E-mail: vob@bestweb.net E-mail: mannajo@clearwater.org E-mail: smurray@villageofbuchanan.com E-mail: karla@clearwater.org Robert Snook, Esq. Daniel Riesel, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Thomas F. Wood, Esq.
State of Connecticut Victoria Shiah, Esq.
55 Elm Street Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
P.O. Box 120 460 Park Avenue Hartford, CT 06141-0120 New York, NY 10022 E-mail: robert.snook@ct.gov E-mail: driesel@sprlaw.com E-mail: vshiah@sprlaw.com Phillip Musegaas, Esq. Michael J. Delaney, Esq.
Deborah Brancato, Esq. Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs Riverkeeper, Inc. New York City Department of Environmental 20 Secor Road Protection Ossining, NY 10562 59-17 Junction Boulevard E-mail: phillip@riverkeeper.org Flushing, NY 11373 E-mail: dbrancato@riverkeeper.org E-mail: mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov
/Signed (electronically) by/
David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-2749 E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov