ML062140437
| ML062140437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/2006 |
| From: | Shems R, Tyler K New England Coalition, Shems, Dunkiel, Kassel, & Saunders, PLLC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, FOIA/PA-2007-0313, RAS 12060 | |
| Download: ML062140437 (8) | |
Text
Rq~A5 /P2? c DOCKETED
. USNRC UNITED STATES July 24, 2006 (8:00am)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board ADJUDICATIONS STAFF In the matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC) Docket No. 50-271-LR and ENTERY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLB No.06-849-03-LR Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station )
License Renewal Application NEC'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF ANSWER TO ENTERGY'S MOTION TO STRIKE The NRC Staffs astonishing response (7/20/06) in support of Entergy's Motion to Strike Portions of NEC's Reply is unfounded.'
I. CONTENTION 1 Entergy's Opposition to NEC's Contention 1 (water quality) attached, for the first time, a Clean Water Act document. Entergy claimed that this document (an.expired NPDES permit) fulfilled its NEPA obligations. NEC's reply demonstrated that the expired permit does not fulfill that obligation, and pointed out what Entergy might have instead attached - a §401 water quality certification. In doing so, NEC is not raising new issues, but responding directly to new facts and argument (the permit and arguments based thereon) Entergy presented in its opposition. Pointing out what is missing from Entergy's Answer assists the Board, Staff and all other parties, and is evidence in support of NEC's contention that Entergy has not taken NRC procedural rules do not appear to address responses to initial NRC Staff filings such as the one replied to here. If leave is required, NEC respectfully requests that this be treated as a motion for leave to reply to the Staff's Response to Entergy's Motion to Strike. NEC apologizes for cluttering the record, but the Staff response was surprising and vigorous representation of NEC and its members warrants this reply.
Te pI&-te =scc V-o 41 SEVO e CV- 001,
the requisite "hard look" at the cumulative impacts of its thermal discharge.
NRC Staffs hyper-technical and unwarranted belief that this raises a new issue: (1) would preclude a comprehensive reply to new facts and argument raised in Entergy's opposition, (2) effectively allows an impermissible sur-reply, (3) demonstrates Staffs fundamental misunderstanding of the Clean Water Act, (4) drives this matter towards violation of NEPA and the Clean Water Act, and (5) fails to serve the public interest that the NRC Staff is charged with protecting.
II. CONTENTION 2 The NRC Staff splits hairs to a nonsensical degree in arguing that NEC's challenge to Entergy's plan to "refine" its analysis of environmentally assisted metal fatigue does not encompass a challenge to Entergy's existing analysis. Obviously, NEC cannot evaluate the validity of refinement without evaluating the validity of the analysis subject to refinement.
NEC emphasizes that Contention 2 is not merely a "contention of omission." That is, Entergy cannot fully address Contention 2 merely by providing more information about how it will refine its analysis, and manage vulnerable components. Rather, Contention 2 challenges Entergy's plan to manage components its Application identifies as vulnerable to environmentally assisted metal fatigue. Once Entergy proposes a specific plan, which it has not done to date, Contention 2 contemplates NEC's evaluation of that plan's legitimacy.
- ,r III. CONTENTION 3 NEC's Reply does not "expand" Contention 3. NEC addresses elements of the short-term steam dryer monitoring program Entergy developed in connection with its application for extended power uprate at Vermont Yankee only because Entergy's Answer suggested that Entergy now proposes to amend its Application to adopt some similar program as an aging management tool. If the Board strikes NEC's Reply regarding this program, it should also strike all references to this program from Entergy's Answer.
See, Entergy's Answer to New England Coalition's Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions at 26-30.
The Testimony of William Sherman was not available to NEC until June 21, 2006, nearly a month after the deadline for filing NEC's Petition to Intervene.
IV. CONTENTIONS 4 AND 5 As explained in detail in NEC's Opposition to Entergy's Motion to Strike, NEC's Reply neither "reformulates" nor "transforms" Contentions 4 and 5. Rather, NEC directly responds to arguments raised in Entergy and the NRC Staff Answers, addressing issues with the scope of Contentions 4 and 5 as initially stated.
V. CONCLUSION Entergy's Motion to Strike should be denied.
July 21, 2006 New England Coalition, Inc.
by: &-- AtqIWA Ronald A. Shems 1' 0 Karen Tyler (on the brief)
SHEMS DUNKIEL KASSEL & SAUNDERS PLLC For the firm Attorneys for NEC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ))
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ) Docket No. 50-271 -LR and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Shems, hereby certify that copies of the NEW ENGLAND COALITION, INC'S REPLY TO NRC STAFF ANSWER TO ENTERGY'S MOTION TO STRIKE in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the persons listed below, by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid; by Fed Ex overnight to Judge Elleman; and, where indicated by an e-mail address below, by electronic mail, on the 21st day of July, 2006.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Esq., Chair Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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: ask2(,nrc.gov E-mail: rew(anrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Thomas S. Elleman Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: 0-16C1 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27612 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: elleman(eos.ncsu.edu E-mail: hearingdocket(@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Sarah Hofmann, Esq.
Mail Stop: O-16C1 Director of Public Advocacy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Public Service Washington, DC 20555-0001 112 State Street, Drawer 20 E-mail: OCAAmail(anre.gov Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmnannastate.vt.us
I-P Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Steven C. Hamrick, Esq. National Legal Scholars Law Firm Office of the General Counsel 84 East Thetford Road Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Lyme, NH 03768 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: aroisman(cnationallegalscholars.com Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: may@nrc.gov; schl (@nre.gov Matthew Brock, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Diane Curran, Esq. Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP Environmental Protection Division 1726 M Street NW, Suite 600 One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Washington, DC 20036 Boston, MA 02108-1598 E-mail: dcurran(bharmoncurran.com E-mail: matthew.brock(@ago.state.ma.us Callie B. Newton, Chair Dan MacArthur, Director Gail MacArthur Town of Marlboro Lucy Gratwick Emergency Management Marcia Hamilton P.O. Box 30 Town of Marlboro Selectboard Marlboro, VT 05344 P.O. Box 518 E-mail: dmacarthur(@igc.org Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: cbnewton@sover.net; David R. Lewis, Esq.
marcialynn~evl .net Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Marcia Carpentier, Esq. 2300 N Street NW Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. Washington, DC 20037-1128 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel E-mail: david.lewisapillsburvlaw.com Mail Stop T-3 F23 matias.travieso-diaznt~illsburvlaw.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail mxc70nrc.gov; Jmr3Onrc.gov
SHEMS DUNKIEL KASSEL & SAUNDERS, PLLC by:
Ronald A. Shems Karen Tyler (admission pending) 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 802 860 1003 802 860 1208 (fax) rshems(@sdkslaw.com ktyler(asdkslaw.com for the firm Attorneys for New England Coalition, Inc.
SHEMS DUNKIEL KASSEL & SAUNDERS P LL C RONALD A. SHEMS GEOFFREY H. HAND KAREN L. TYLER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS BRIAN S. DUNKIEL*
ANDREW N. RAUBVOGEL JOHN B. KASSEL EILEEN I. ELLIOTT OF COUNSEL MARK A. SAUNDERS July 21, 2006 Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: In the Matter of Energy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),
Docket No. 50-271-LR, ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please find enclosed for filing in the above stated matter New England Coalition, Inc.'s Reply to NRC Staff Answer to Entergy's Motion to Strike.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
{aAJ~z~
Karen Tyler SHEMS DUNKIEL KASSEL & SAUNDERS PLLC Cc: attached service list Enclosures (3) 9 I COLLEGE STREET - BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL 802 / 860 1 003
- FAX 802 / 860 1208
- www.sdkslaw .com
- Also admitted in the District of Columbia