ML082770813

2008/10/03-FPL Energy Seabrook, Llc'S Motion to Strike Saporito'S Reply and for Sanctions

ML082770813
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/03/2008
From:	Hamrick S C NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-443-LA, ASLBP 08-872-02-LA-BD01, RAS 1276
Download: ML082770813 (21)

Text

October 3, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443-LA (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) ) ) FPL ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC'S MOTION TO STRIKE SAPORITO'S REPLY AND FOR SANCTIONS INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC ("FPLE") hereby moves to strike "Petitioner's Response to Answers by th e Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff and by the Florida Power and Light Company" ("Saporito's Reply") filed by Petitioners Thomas Saporito ("Saporito") and Saporito Energy Consultants ("SEC")

1 on September 24, 2008. Saporito's Reply impermissibly raises entirely new allegations and provides a new unsworn affidavit with testimony not found in his initial August 29, 2008 "Request for Hearing and Leave

to Intervene" ("Saporito's Hearing Request"). Saporito has not sought leave to amend his contentions after his initial filing, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). The amended contentions in Saporito's Reply and the new arguments and affida vit in support thereof should be stricken.

1 While the Hearing Request and Reply were os tensibly filed by Saporito Energy Consultants, the relief FPLE seeks in this Motion directly involves Saporito and so we refer to Saporito throughout.

2 This case is one of four NRC actions involving reactors owned by subsidiaries of FPL Group, Inc., on which Saporito has requested a he aring during the past few months (other requests were made in proceedings involving FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC ("FPLE-PB") and Florida Power & Light Company

("FPL"); FPL is a direct subsidiary of FPL Group; FPLE and FPLE-PB are indirect subsidiari es of FPL Group). These hear ing requests are vexatious and amount to harassment and an abuse of the administrative process. For this reason, FPLE also moves, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(l) and 2.323(f)(2), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") to certify to the Commission the question whether to impose sanctions against Saporito and SEC, including but not limited to, barring him from filing further meritless hearing requests against FPL Group entities.

See 10 C.F.R. § 2.314(c).

Saporito's conduct cannot and should not be condoned.

2PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This proceeding arises out of a license amendment request submitted by FPLE requesting the NRC's approval to a revision to a Seabrook Station ("Seabrook") technical specification.

Specifically, the proposed change would "delete Surveillance Requirement 4.6.3.1, which specifies post-maintenance testing requirements for containment isolation valves" ("CIV").

See Letter from Gene F. St. Pierre to NRC, "Seabrook Station License Amendment Request 07-04, 'Application for Amendment to Delete Post-Maintenance Testing Surveillance Requirements for Containment Isolation Valves" (Febru ary 8, 2008) (hereinafter LAR).

2 In an effort to resolve the issues addressed herein, Counsel for FPLE left two voicemail messages for Saporito, which he has not returned. Counsel did contact Saporito in the Turkey Point proceeding described below in an unsuccessful effort to resolve a similar motion. FPLE also contacted the NRC Staff. The NRC Staff authorized FPLE to represent that it supports the motion to strike Saporito's reply and does not oppose FPLE's motion for certification.

3 FPLE's LAR follows NRC approval of the deletion of surveillance requirements for post-maintenance testing of CIVs by the licensees for Millstone Unit 2 and Salem Units 1 and 2.

See LAR Enclosure, "FPL Energy-Seabrook's Evaluation of the Proposed Change" (LAR Enclosure) at 5. SR 4.6.3.1 currently requires testing following any maintenance, repair, or replacement work. Id. at 1. Certain maintenance work, however, "has no potential to either render a CIV inoperable or adversely affect the CIV's ab ility to function," (e.g. "a maintenance activity that applies lubricant to a valve stem").

Id. The proposed change would eliminate SR 4.6.3.1 "because a stroke test and verification of isolation time following maintenance on a CIV is not always warranted."

Id. Instead, plant procedures will govern post-maintenance testing, based upon the extent of the maintenance performed.

Id. at 2-3. Senior Reactor Operators ("SRO") will be responsible for implementation of this plant procedure.

Id. at 3. In response to FPLE's LAR, the NRC Staff issu ed a "Notice of Consid eration of Issuance of Amendments to a Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing."

See 73 Fed. Reg. 50,356, 50,361 (Aug. 26, 2008). In the notice, the NRC provided an opportunity for persons that could be adversely affected by the license amendment to re quest a hearing within 60 days of the Notice.

Id. at 50,357. On August 29, 2008, Saporito filed a timely Hearing Request. On September 22, 2008 FPLE filed its "Answer of [FPLE] to Reque st for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene of Saporito Energy Consultants" ("FPLE's Answer"). The NRC Staff filed its "Answer to Saporito Energy Consultants' Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing" ("Staff Answer") on September 23.

Both FPLE and the N RC Staff argued that Saporito failed to demonstrate standing or plead any admissible conten tions. In response, Saporito filed his Reply. Saporito's Reply "collectively amend[s]" (emphasis in original) the 4 three inadmissible contentions he initially filed by providing additional detail and an affidavit in support of his new amended contention.

See Saporito's Reply at 6. This, he claims to do "in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings at 10 C.F.R. 2.309".

Id. Notwithstanding Saporito's claim that his actions are consistent with Part 2, his Reply impermissibly raises new issues without leave from the Board and should be stricken. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FPLE is reluctantly filing this Motion with the Board following 20 years of abusive, vexatious, and meritless litigation against FPL Group's subsidiaries by Saporito (and more recently, SEC, the apparent alter ego of Saporito). A history of these proceedings is helpful to put this Motion into context. Because of the great length of that history, FPLE hereby incorporates by reference th e "Historical Background" section of FPL's September 26, 2008 "Motion to Strike Saporito's Re ply and for Sanctions" filed in the pending Turkey Point license amendment proceeding ("Turkey Point Motion"), which details Saporito's twenty-year campaign of harassing and vexatious litigation. DISCUSSION I. The Board Should Strike Saporito's Reply Saporito's Reply fails to comply with th e NRC's Rules of Practice. Instead of responding to FPLE and the NRC Staff, Saporito filed amended contentions in an impermissible attempt to cure his clearly inadmissible initial contentions. Saporito, however, failed to seek leave of the Board to file new or amended c ontentions. Requesting leave of the Board is a requirement for filing new or amended contentions after a petitioner's initial filing. 10 C.F.R. 5 § 2.309(f)(2). Accordingly, Saporito's new contentions and the arguments and affidavit in support thereof should be stricken. A. Saporito's Newly Provided Information Saporito's Reply offers an expanded standing argument that goes far beyond the extremely limited scope of his init ial Hearing Request. Saporito's initial Hearing Request barely addressed the NRC's standing requirement: Thomas Saporito and SEC have real property and personal property and financial interests through their prosp ective business partners and clients of which can be adversely affected should operations at the Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") [

sic] or licensee's, Seabrook Nuclear Plant cause a release of radioactive particles into the environment. Moreover, such and

[sic] event could render the Petitioners' prospective business partners and clients' homes and property unavailable for human contact or use for many years or forever. Additionally, such and [

sic] event could forever compromise the environment where the Petitioners prospective business

partners and clients reside, live, and do business and therefore economically harm Petitioners.

Saporito Hearing Request at 2. Now, in his Reply, Saporito raises the completely new specious argument that, even though he lives well over 1,000 miles from Seab rook, his "business involves the geographical area well within the NRC's 50-mile zone of interest," and that, as "P resident" of SEC, he "requires physical access to SEC's potential customer base located within" that area. Saporito's Reply at 3-4 (emphasis in original). He also mentions an SEC "business plan" for the first time.

Id. This alleged "business plan" involves Saporito "travel[ing] to the greater area near and within 50-miles of the SNP to ascertain a client base and to ascertain partnerships with existing businesses."

Id. (citing Saporito's Affidavit). Notw ithstanding the hypothetical nature of ascertaining a potential client base, these attempts to bolster his initial standing argument are impermissible in a reply.

6 Saporito's Reply provides an overview of nuclear reactor containment, in an apparent attempt to burnish his credentials. Saporit o's Reply at 6-8. But Saporito's overview was transparently taken without attribution from a Westinghouse Electric Company patent.

3 See Patent No. 5,684,846 "Nuclear reactor plant having containment isolation" (Sep. 21, 1995) (Available via U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Number Search website: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.ht m). This overview was not included in Saporito's Hearing Request and is a further example of his improper attempts to bolster his thinly supported contentions.

Saporito announces that "Petitioners hereby collectively amend their contentions previously submitted in the instant matter." Saporito's Reply at 6 (emphasis in original). Saporito argues that the proposed amendment "makes assumptions with respect to the inspection and testing of CIVs which are less conservative and will result in operation the SNP with less of a degree of a margin of safety and therefore c ould result in an accident involving leakage of fission products from inside of the containmen t building into the environment in and around the area where Petitioners conduct business."

Id. at 8 (citing Saporito's Affidavit). Saporito's new contentions rely on an "affidavit" that claims to be signed befo re a notary, but is not actually

3 Compare Saporito's Reply at 6 ("A nuclear plant such as the SNP, has a nuclear reactor vessel in a containment building. Air ducts, sump disc harge lines, service wate r lines and other non-process non-critical lines extendi ng through the wall of the containm ent building can be isolated passively (i.e. without instrumentation and control systems or power) should a postulated event occur which raises the atmospheric temperature within the containment building.")

with the CRDM Patent ("A nuclear reactor plant has a nuclear reactor vessel in a containment vessel. Air ducts, sump discharge lines, service water lines and other non-process non-critical lines extending through the wall of the containmen t vessel can be isolated passively (i.e., without instrumentation and control systems or power) should a postulated event which raises the atmospheric temperature within the containment vessel occur.").

7 notarized. See Saporito's Affidavit at 1, 3. Saporito's unsworn Affidavit simply repeats his new standing argument and the arguments made in support of his six new contentions.

Id. at 1-2. Saporito's Reply includes a total of four new contentions, each of which appears to be an attempt to provide support for his initial unsupported margin reduction contention. As was the case with his original margin reduction contention, Saporito's new contentions are beyond the scope of this proceeding to the extent that they challenge the "no significant reduction in the margin of safety" finding included in the NRC Staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

See FPLE Answer at 8 (citi ng 10 C.F.R. § 50.58(b)(6);

Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Un it 1), LBP-91-7, 33 N.R.C. 179, 183 (1991)).

In his new Contention 3.1, Saporito argues that, with respect to maintenance activities involving the applic ation of lubricant to the CIVs, FPLE "

assumes that the correct lubricant was used during the CIV maintenance activity and that all of the CIV operational components (i.e.

actuator, control, or power circuit) along with prior verification of isolation time remain unchanged since the date of the last CIV cycling performance testing was completed." Saporito's Reply at 9 (emphases in original). This assumption, according to Saporito, "

reduces the degree of the margin of safety which otherwise existed prior to the LAR", which "could result in an accident involving the release of fission products" from containment "into the environment where SEC and its president could suffer an injury-in-fact during SEC business operations."

Id. at 9-10 (citing Saporito affidavit).

Saporito provides no technical or evidentiary support for his contention that testing should be performed after any CIV maintenance, only his own allegation that the wrong lubricant may be used during the maintenance activity. See id. New Contention 3.1 fails to provide a basis for its allegations; is not supported by any alleged 8 facts or expert opinions; and, does not demonstrat e that there is a genuine dispute with FPLE on an issue material to this proceeding. Therefore, new Contention 3.1 is inadmissible.

In his new Contention 3.2, Saporito argues that the proposed change would "permit the [SRO] to authorize commencement of work to CIVs and at the conclusion of the work activity, determine post-maintenance testing requirements."

Id. at 10. According to Saporito, replacing the "rigors of TS SR 4.6.3.1 with SRO subjective judgment" would not ensure compliance with unspecified "10 C.F.R. 100 guidelines" that require CIVs to "actuate to the close position with valve stroke times that ensure any radioactive release to the environment during a design basis accident is within the limits of 10 C.F.R. 100."

Id. at 10-11. Saporito neither identifies the specific 10 C.F.R. Part 100 guidelines to which he refers nor explains how compliance with such "guidelines" is "require[d]".

Id. Likely this is due to Saporito's tactic of simply relying on descriptive language from the LAR as a basis for a contention. See "Description of the Containment Isolation System," LAR Enclosure at 2 ("The [containment isolation] system establishes and maintains isolation of the containment from the outside environment to prevent the release of fission products and to ensure the public is protected in accordance with 10 CFR 100 guidelines.").

4 Saporito provides no technical or evidentiary support for his concluso ry assertion that reliance on Seabrook's plant proced ures is insufficient to "ensur e the public is protected."

Id. Nor does he allege that the proposed change wo uld cause Seabrook to become out of compliance with any specific NRC regulation.

Id. New Contention 3.2 fails to provide a basis for its allegations; is not supported by a ny alleged facts or expert opinions; and, does not demonstrate

4 Under 10 C.F.R. § 100.11, the expected containment leak rate following an accident is used as an aid in developing the exclusion area, lo w population zone, and popul ation center distance.

9 that there is a genuine dispute with FPLE on an issue material to this proceeding. Therefore, new Contention 3.2 is inadmissible.

In his new Contention 3.3, Saporito argues that FPLE "makes assumptions base [

sic] on supposed plant procedure" and that this pr ocedure was not incl uded in the LAR.

Id. at 11. This argument challenges FPLE's reliance on its plant procedure controlling post-maintenance testing, which "states that the scope of such testing should be based on the extent of the maintenance performed." LAR Enclosure at 2. As an initial matter, Saporito fails to point to any regulatory requirement that the plant pr ocedures be included in the LAR.

See Saporito's Reply at 11-12.

Much like his new Contention 3.2, new Cont ention 3.3 challenges the plant procedure for relying on "subjective opinion."

Saporito's Reply at 11. Speci fically, Saporito argues that reliance on Seabrook's plant proc edure "resolve[s] the need for CIV testing to a subjective opinion related to the degree of maintenance activity rather than required CIV performance testing required [

sic] by 10 C.F.R. 100."

Id As discussed above, Part 100 does not require CIV testing, it relies on CIV leak rate information to determine a reactor's exclusion area, low population zone, and populat ion center distance.

See 10 C.F.R. § 100.11. Further, Saporito provides no technical or evidentiary support for his conclusory assertion that allowing this "subjective" decision would lessen the degree of margin of safety and could result in an accidental release of fission products.

Id. New Contention 3.3 fails to provide a basis for its allegations; is not supported by a ny alleged facts or expert opinions; and, does not demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute with FPLE on an issue material to this proceeding. Therefore, new Contention 3.3 is inadmissible.

10 Finally, in his new Contenti on 3.4, Saporito argues that the LAR fails to address how FPLE "would comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(b)(2)(vii) with respect to CIV performance testing."

Id. at 13. Under this requirement, Saporito claims, "CIVs must be individually analyzed in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2.3(e) of OM Part 10 and corrective actions for those valves must be made in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2.3(f) of OM Part 10."

Id. at 12. According to Saporito, under paragraph 4.2.2.3(f), valves must be "declared inoperable when the leakage rates exceed the Owner limits."

Id. Saporito provide s no technical or evidentiary support to explain how the deletion of a post-maintena nce testing requirement would affect FPLE's ability to comply with an ob ligation to declare va lves inoperable. More importantly, the NRC deleted th e regulation upon which Saporito relies in 1999. See "Final Rule: Industry Codes and Standards; Amended Requirements," 64 Fed. Reg. 51,370, 51,389 (Sep. 22, 1999).

5 In approving that amendment, the Commission explained that "the ASME OM Committee has performed a comprehensive review of OM Part 10 CIV testing requirements and acceptance standards, and has developed a basis document supporting removal of the requirements for analysis of leakage rates and corrective actions in Part 10 for those CIVs that do not provide a reactor coolant system pressure isolation function."

Id. The NRC reviewed that document and "determined that the modification addressing CIVs could be removed from the regulation[,]" because "[t]he requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, ensure adequate identification analysis, and corrective actions for leakage monitoring of CIVs."

Id. For this

Footnote continued on next page 5 That rule read: "Inservice testing of containment isolation valves. When using subsection IWV in the 1988 Addenda or the 1989 Edition of section XI, Division 1, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, leakage rates for Category A containment isolati on valves that do not provide a reactor coolant system pressure isolati on function must be analyzed in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2.3(e) of part 10, and corrective actions for these valves must be made in 11 reason, Saporito has failed to demonstrate that the issue raised is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv).

Saporito then cites to a 1977 NRC Circular that documented "several incidents where licensees have reported difficulty in satisfying leakage test requirements on [CIVs] with resilient valve seats."

Id. (citing IE Circular 77-11 "Leakage of Containment Isolation Valves with Resilient Seats") (Sep. 6, 1977) (ADAMS Accession No. ML031220477). The Circular describes these difficulties as occurring in "either a 36-inch or 42-inch butterfly valve manufactured by the Henry Pratt Company with neoprene seats or a 24-inch butterfly valve manufactured by the Allis Chalmers Company w ith ethylene propylene seat s." IE Circular 77-11 at 1. Saporito does not allege that Seabrook uses either of these valves.

See Saporito's Reply at 12-13. Nor does he identify any specific valve seat problem at Seabrook.

Id. He simply states that "LAR-04-07 fails to address the concerns identified" in the Circular, which is not a binding NRC requirement, "or how the LAR would comply" with the deleted NRC CIV performance testing requirements. Saporito provides no technical or evidentiary support for his conclusory assertion that the proposed change "could result in an accidental release of fission products."

Id. at 13.

New Contention 3.4 relies upon a deleted re gulation and a 31-year-old non-binding Circular that Saporito does not ev en allege to be applicable to Seabrook. It fails to provide a basis for its allegations; is not supported by any alleged facts or expert opinions; and, does not demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute with FPLE on an issue material to this proceeding. Therefore, new Contention 3.4 is inadmissible.

Footnote continued on next page accordance with paragraph 4.2.2.3(f) of part 10 of ASME/ANSI OMa-1988 Addenda to 12 In sum, each of Saporito's newly amended contentions is baseless. Saporito repeatedly distorts and takes out of context statements from the LAR in an attempt to generate a dispute with FPLE. In doing so, Saporito fails to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(9(f)(1)(vi). None of his contentions is admissible.

Notably, Saporito raised none of these arguments in his initial margin reduction contention, reproduced below in its entirety:

The proposed change involves a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change appears to alter the initial conditions or results of any accident analyses. The operability requirements, performance, and design of the CIVs may not remain unchanged with this proposed change. The CIVs may not continue to meet the design bases for the containment isolation system as described in the Seabrook Station [updated final safety analysis report]. The proposed amendment will not minimize unnecessary testing of CIVs because the testing should continue unabated. Therefore, the proposed change involves a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Saporito's Hearing Request at 3. B. Petitioners May Not Raise New Arguments in Replies In any event, the Board need not examine the admissibility of Saporito's six new contentions because his Reply improperly raises issues beyond the scope of the Answers to his original petition and Saporito failed to follow established Commission procedures for amending or filing new contentions. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2), a petitioner may file a reply to any answer within seven days of se rvice of that answer. The Statement of Considerations published with the NRC's 2004 revisions to its procedural regulations and Commission precedent make clear that replies should "be narrowly focused on the legal or logical arguments presented in the

ASME/ANSI OM-1987." 10 C.F.R. § 50.55a(b)(vii) (1999).

13 applicant/licensee or NRC staff answer." Final Rule: "Changes to Adjudicatory Process," 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,203 (Jan.14, 2004);

see also Louisiana Energy Services (National Enrichment Facility) CLI-04-25, 60 NRC 223, 225 (2004) ("LES I");

Nuclear Management Company (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727, 732 (2006) ("Replies must focus narrowly on the legal or factual arguments first presented in the original petition or raised in the answers to it."). It is "well established" in NRC practice that a reply cannot expand the scope of the arguments set forth in a petiti oner's original hearing request.

Palisades , 63 NRC at 732.

In CLI-04-35, the Commission denied recons ideration of its holding in CLI-04-25. Louisiana Energy Services, CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619, 623 (2004) ("LES II"). The Commission affirmed its reasons for not allowing petitioners to add new argument in replies: Allowing contentions to be added, amended, or supplemented at any time would defeat the purpose of the specific contention requirements," as the NRC Staff explains, "by permitting the intervenor to initially file vague, unsupported, and generalized allegations and simply recast, support, or cure them later." The Commission has made numerous efforts over the years to avoid unnecessary delays and increase the efficiency of NRC adjudication and our contention standards are a cornerstone of that effort. We believe that the 60-day period provided unde r 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(b)(3) for filing hearing requests, petitions, and contentions is "more than ample time for a

potential requestor/intervenor to revi ew the application, prepare a filing on standing, and develop proposed contentions and references to materials in

support of the contentions."

Under our contention ru le, Intervenors are not being asked to prove their case, or to provide an exhaustive list of possible bases, but simply to provide sufficient alleged factual or legal bases to support the contention, and to do so at the outset.

Id. at 622-23 (footnotes omitted). Further, attempts to raise "new claims in a reply . . . unfairly deprive other participants of an opportunity to rebut the new claims."

Palisades , CLI-06-17, 63 NRC at 732. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h), the licensee and NRC Staff are allowed to file an answer to a petition to intervene, the petitioner is allowed a reply, and "[n]o other written answers or replies will be entertained."

14 Saporito filed his hearing request a mere th ree days after the NRC noticed the opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register. As a result, his Reply and its amended contentions were filed within the sixty-day timeframe for requesting a hearing. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), however, "contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer . . ." (emphasis added). Thus, the requirement to seek Board permission to file new or amended contentions is not limited to untimely contentions, but extends to any new or amended contention filed after the petitioner's initial f iling. Prior to the 2004 amendment of NRC's procedural rules, peti tioners were free to amend their petitions without prior approval of the presiding officer at any time up to fifteen days prior to the first prehearing conference.

See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(a)(3) (2004). Only after the prehearing conference did petitioners need leave of the presiding officer to amend their petitions.

Id. The new Part 2 regulations amended that previous adjudicatory structur

e. The plain language of the new provision requires approval of the presiding officer for any new or amended contention (other than certain specific environmental contentions) filed after the initial filing. 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(2). C. Saporito's New Arguments and Contentions Should be Stricken Even though the time for reques ting a hearing had yet to pass, Saporito's September 20 contention amendment was procedurally defective because he failed to seek leave of the Board to file a new or amended contention. In order to amend his contentions after his initial filing, Saporito must seek leave of the pr esiding officer upon a showing that- (i) The information upon which the am ended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the ame nded or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and 15 (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). Ignoring this requirement, Saporito failed to even attempt such a showing.

See Saporito's Reply at 6. Consequently, Saporito's new standing argument, amended contentions, and new affida vit should be stricken. The Commission "does not look with favor on amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing." Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 636 (2004) (internal citations omitted). Petitioners, Saporito included, have an "ironclad obligation" to examine publicly available material with sufficient care to uncover any information in support of their contentions.

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 N RC 460, 468 (1982). In this proceeding (and in the Turkey Point and Point Beach license amendment proceedings), Saporito chose not to assume this responsibility, but instead chose to submit a string of he aring requests with no support. The Commission, however, "demand[s]

a level of discipline and preparedness on the part of petitioners [who must] set forth their claims and the support for their claims at the outset."

LES I, 60 NRC at 225 (internal quotations omitted). By contrast, Saporito's initial filing was nothing but "vague, unsupported and generalized allegations."

See LES II , 60 NRC at 622. The Commission's "60-day period provided under 10 C.F.R.§ 2.309(b)(3) is ample time for potential intervenors to review an application and deve lop contentions." USEC, Inc., (American Centrifuge Plant) CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 458 (2006). But Sa porito chose not to avail himself of that full time period and inst ead chose to quickly file an unsupported petition.

The Board must not reward Saporit o's pattern of baseless, rapid-fire intervention petitions by allowing him to attempt to cure his unsupported in itial contentions, after both the licensee and 16 the NRC Staff have had to file answers. The 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) requirement that petitioners seek leave to amend contentions after their initial filing provides for just this scenario. "Supporting information," the Commission has held, "is to be provided at the time the contention is filed, not at a later date . . ."

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (License Amendment Request for Decommissioning of the Newfield, New Jersey Facility) CLI-07-20, 67 NRC 499, 504 (2007). Allowing Saporito to amend his initial filing without leave of the Board would only serve to undermine the Commission's attempts to increase the efficiency of its adjudicatory

process.

See LES II, 60 NRC at 625. If Sapor ito wishes to file c ontentions early without providing the requisite support, he must abide by the procedural cons equences of that decision. Saporito's submittal of a Reply containing new contentions, a new affidavit, and new standing arguments is not permitted by Commission procedural regulations and precedent.

Accordingly, Saporito's new contentions (including all arguments in support thereof in his Reply and in his new affidavit, as well as the new standing argument) should be stricken. II. The Board Should Certify to the Commission the Question of Whether to Sanction Saporito for His Abuse of the NRC Adjudicatory Process Saporito's failure to abide by the Commissi on's rules governing replies and contention amendment is hardly his first procedural violati on. It is only the latest example of Saporito's disregard of procedural rules.

6 For this reason, FPLE also incorporates by reference its motion for certification from FPL's Turkey Point Moti on. FPLE specifically requests the Board to certify to the Commission the question whether the Commission should direct the Office of the

6 FPLE affirms its position outlined in its Answer in this proceeding, as well as the Answers of FPL and FPLE-PB, that Saporito failed to es tablish standing or proffer any admissible contentions.

17 Secretary to summarily reject any non-conforming pleadings under the authority granted by 10 C.F.R. § 2.346(h) and not refer them to either the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel or the Commission.

See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3) CLI-06-04, slip op. at 7, 2006 WL 1704521 (2006). Such a sanction is authorized and appropriate under the circumstances, as the Office of the Secretary has already been delegated the aut hority to deny any hearing request that fails to comply with the Commission's pleading requirements and fails to set forth an arguable basis for further proceedings.

See 10 C.F.R. § 2.346(h). The NRC Staff expressed a similar idea with respect to Saporito's pleadings recently in this proceeding, noting that "[t]his continuing disregard for the Commission's regulatory and case law pleading requirements should warrant summary rejection. In fact, the Secretary, pursuan t to 10 C.F.R. § 2.346(h), has the authority to deny requests for failing 'to comply with the Commission's pleading requirements . . . and fail[ing] to set forth an arguable basis for further proceedings.' The resources and efficiencies of the Staff, the Board, and Applicant should not be continuously tested by clearly deficient petitions." NRC Staff's Answer to [Saporito's] Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing at 2 n.3 (Sept. 23, 2008).

Based on the foregoing, FPLE moves the Bo ard, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(l) and 2.323(f)(2), to certify to the Commission the question of whether to employ a solution similar to that utilized in Millstone.7 The Office of the Secretary's review of Saporito's filings should also extend to any of his various al ter ego organizations, such as SEC, the National Environmental

7 The Commission "encourage[s boards] to certify novel legal or policy questions related to admitted issues to the Commission as early as possible in the proceeding." Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 22 (1998). While this motion does not involve admitted issues, it certainly raises an important Commission policy issue.

18 Protection Center, 8 the National Litigation Consultants, 9 or any other group 10 Saporito creates to pursue his objectives. FPLE is mindful that this request for relief could be viewed by some as an attempt to prevent a stakeholder from participating in NRC proceedings. However, the record with respect to Saporito's actions, as was painstakingly outlined in FPL's Turkey Point Motion, clearly demonstrates that extraordinary measures are appropriate with respect to Saporito based on his 20-year campaign of meritless litigation and regulatory filings against the FPL Group companies.

8 See, e.g., Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), unpublished Licensing Board Order, 2002 WL 31688821 (Nov. 22, 2002); see also Fax from Thomas Saporito, "Executive Director," National Environmental Protection Center, to William Travers, Executive Director fo r Operations, NRC, forwarding "Petitioners' Supplemental Petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206" (June 30, 2004).

9 See, e.g., Florida Power & Light, DD-98-10, 48 NRC 245.

10 See, e.g., Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Gene rating Station), DD-96-8, 43 NRC 344 (1996) (Saporito participati ng as "Florida Energy Consultants").

19 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with Commission policy, rules, and precedent, FPLE respectfully requests the Board to strike Saporito's Reply. Further, FPLE moves the Board to certify to the Commi ssion the question whether it should direct the Office of the Secretary to screen Saporito's filings to ensure compliance with procedur al rules and not accept for filing or docketing any pleading signed by Saporito that does not conform to the NRC's Rules of Practice. Respectfully Submitted, Signed (electronically) by, ____________________________________ Steven Hamrick Counsel for FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 220

Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: 202-347-7082 Facsimile: 202-347-7076 E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

______________________________________ Mitchell S. Ross Counsel for FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC Law Department 700 Universe Blvd.

Juno Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: 561-691-7126 Facsimile: 561-691-7135 Email: mitch.ross@fpl.com Dated: October 3, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket Nos. 50-443-LA (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) ) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MOTION TO STRIKE SAPORITO'S REPLY AND FOR SANCTIONS, dated October 3, 2008, have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 William J. Froehlich, Chair Marcia Simon, Esq. Administrative Judge E-mail: marcia.simon@nrc.gov E-mail: wjf1@nrc.gov Lloyd Subin, Esq. E-mail: lloyd.subin@nrc.gov E. Roy Hawkens OGC Mail Center Administrative Judge E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov E-mail: erh@nrc.gov Thomas S. Elleman Administrative Judge E-Mail: tse@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov 2 Saporito Energy Consultants Post Office Box 8413 Jupiter, Florida 33468-8413 Thomas Saporito E-mail: saporito3@gmail.com Signed (electronically) by, ________________________________

Steven Hamrick Dated at Juno Beach, Florida this 3rd day of October 2008