DOCSLIB.ORG

Vermont Motion to Intervene Request on VY License Transfer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vermont Motion to Intervene Request on VY License Transfer UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT ) YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY ) Docket No. 50-271-LT-2 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.; ) CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL ) June 13, 2017 OF TRANSFER OF LICENSE AND ) CONFORMING AMENDMENT ) ) (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) STATE OF VERMONT’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND HEARING REQUEST Stephanie Hoffman Kyle H. Landis-Marinello Special Counsel Assistant Attorney General Vermont Department of Public Service Vermont Attorney General’s Office 112 State Street – Drawer 20 Environmental Protection Division Montpelier, VT 05620 109 State Street (802) 828-5543 Montpelier, VT 05609 [email protected] (802) 828-1361 [email protected] Counsel for the State of Vermont TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STANDING .................................................................................................................................... 4 THE STATE PRESENTS TWO CONTENTIONS THAT MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) AND ARE ADMISSIBLE ...................................... 4 CONTENTION I ............................................................................................................................ 7 THE LICENSE TRANSFER AND AMENDMENT REQUEST INVOLVES A POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD; DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.54(bb), 50.75(h)(1)(iv), AND 50.82(8)(i)(A), (B), AND (C); AND DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT, IF APPROVED, THERE WILL BE REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 182(a) OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT (42 U.S.C. § 2232(a)). ...................................................................... 7 BASES ........................................................................................................................................ 7 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ..................................................................................................... 24 CONTENTION II ......................................................................................................................... 32 THE LICENSE TRANSFER AND AMENDMENT REQUEST DO NOT INCLUDE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REQUIRED BY 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(d), AND HAVE NOT UNDERGONE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.20, 51.70 AND 51.101. ............. 32 BASES ...................................................................................................................................... 32 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ..................................................................................................... 40 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 46 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Advocates for Transportation Alternatives, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 453 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D. Mass 2006) ........................................................................ 38 Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) .................................................................................................... 33 Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 34, 36, 46 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) .............................................................................. 39 Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971). ............................................................................... 33 Citizens Against Toxic Sprays, Inc. v. Bergland, 428 F. Supp. 908 (D. Or. 1977) ................................................................................ 34 Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................... 44 Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) CLI-74-3, 7 AEC 7 (1974) ......................................................................................... 20 Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 45 In re Duke Energy Corporation (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units and 2), CLI-02-17, 56 N.R.C. 1 (2002) .......................................................................... 39, 46 In re Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271-LA-3, LBP-15-24 (Aug. 31, 2015) ................................................... 7, 8, 9, 24, 26, 28, 42, 43 In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., CLI-16-12, 2016 WL 3476306 (2016) ............................ 20 ii In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271-LA-2, LBP-15-18 (May 18, 2015) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15138A270) .................................................................... 4 Found. for North Am. Wild Sheep v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 681 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................. 38 Found. on Econ. Trends v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 143 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ..................... 35, 36 Friends of Back Bay v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 681 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2012) .... 38 Friends of the Ompompanoosuc v. FERC, 968 F.2d 1549 (2d. Cir. 1992) ................. 38 In the Matter of Honeywell Int’l, Inc. (Metropolis Works Uranium Conversion Facility), CLI-13-01, 77 NRC 1 (2013). .............................................................. 19, 20 Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677 (9th Cir.1974) ....................................................... 40 Lower Alloways Creek Tp. v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732 (3d. Cir. 1982) ..................................................................................... 38 Marsh v. Or. Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) .................................. 33 Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. U.S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ................................................................................ 34 National Audubon Soc. v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d. Cir. 1997) .................... 36, 37, 40 New York v. NRC I, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012). ............................................. 33, 35 NRDC v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1975) .......................................................... 45 In the Matter of Northern States Pwr. Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Island Nuclear Generating Plant), 76 N.R.C. 503 (2012) ....................................... 39 Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 38 In the Matter of Private Fuel Storage, LLC, CLI-01-12, 53 NRC 459 (2001) ...... 19, 38 Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434 (9th Cir. 1996 ............................................................ 45 Ross v. Fed. Highway Admin., 162 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1998) ................................. 44 iii San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 35, 36, 42, 45 Scientists’ Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ................................................................................ 33 Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 772 F.2d 1043 (2d. Cir. 1985)) ................................................................................. 40 Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 843 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................ 38 Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 661 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................... 38 Statutes and Regulations 5 U.S.C. § 551(7) ............................................................................................................ 6 5 U.S.C. § 551(13) ........................................................................................................ 44 42 U.S.C. § 2232(a) ........................................................................................................ 7 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(A) ............................................................................................... 6 42 U.S.C. § 4332(1)(C)(i) .............................................................................................. 43 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) ........................................................................................... 33, 36 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. ............................................................................................. 43 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) ....................................................................................................... 4 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) .................................................................................................. 5, 46 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii) ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Radiation Sample Plan
    2018 PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE IN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF Health and Human Services Division of Health and Service Regulation, Radiation Protection Section 5505 Creedmor road Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Telephone: (919) 814-2250 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION Purpose of Plan. 1 Present Objectives of Program . 1-2 2018-PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE Summary. 3-4 Statewide Surveillance. 5-7 Nuclear Facility Surveillance. 8-10 Site and Sample Maps. 11 Introduction The 2018 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program will continue monitoring the radioactivity levels in the North Carolina environment. The purpose of this plan and the program’s objectives are included in this brief introduction. Purpose of Plan The purpose of this plan is to present the environmental radiological sampling program in North Carolina. This plan will assist the program’s sample collection staff in scheduling their sampling frequencies and time of sampling. Program staff document information concerning procedures used in the field and the State Laboratory of Public Health, such as field sampling, sampling preparation, counting equipment operation and data analyses. This information is available by contacting the environmental group in the Radioactive Materials Branch (RAM) of the Radiation Protection Section (RPS) in the Division of Health and Service Regulation. For more information about the section, please visit the RPS Web site at www.ncradiation.net. Present Objectives The program’s basic objectives is to monitor for potential releases of radioactivity from the three nuclear power plants operating in North Carolina, which have a combined total of five reactors, and one operating nuclear plant in South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcguire Nuclear Station Is Located • Nuclear Stations Have Multiple, Robust Safety Barriers in Place
    McGuire Nuclear Station Fact Sheet McGuire Nuclear Station Fact Sheet McGuire Quick Facts Groundbreaking: 1971 Commercial operation: Unit 1 – 1981 Unit 2 – 1984 Number of units: 2 Reactor type: Pressurized water reactor (PWR) Station capacity: 2,316 megawatts, enough to power 1.7 million homes General Information Nuclear Safety McGuire Nuclear Station is located • Nuclear stations have multiple, robust safety barriers in place. on Lake Norman in Mecklenburg County, N.C. • Each containment building housing the nuclear fuel core is made of concrete 3 feet thick with a 3/4 inch-thick steel liner. McGuire station personnel remain • The reactor vessels containing the nuclear fuel are 44 feet tall and 14 committed to operating the units feet in diameter and constructed of 8 1/2-inch-thick steel. safely, reliably and maintaining a • Each unit has redundant safety systems including multiple pumps good relationship with the and backup electrical supply systems. community. • Nuclear stations are built to withstand a variety of external forces, • Lake Norman is the state’s including hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods and earthquakes. largest manmade lake, built by • Duke Energy works closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Energy in 1963 by (NRC), various federal agencies, state agencies and local governments damming the Catawba River with to maintain emergency response plans that ensure close coordination Cowans Ford Hydroelectric with these groups. Station. • Issued a 20-year extension on its Nuclear Security license by the NRC (all U.S. • Nuclear stations have numerous security features, seen and unseen. reactors were initially licensed for • Armed, highly-trained security professionals provide 24-hour protection.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By KUHIKA GUPTA Norman, Oklahoma 2013 ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ______________________________ Dr. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Carol L. Silva, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Christopher M. Weible ______________________________ Dr. Deven E. Carlson ______________________________ Dr. Jill A. Irvine © Copyright by KUHIKA GUPTA 2013 All Rights Reserved. Dedication For my incredible parents, Anil and Alpana Gupta, for making all of this possible, and my husband, Joseph T. Ripberger, for being a constant inspiration. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not be possible were it not for the invaluable support I have received throughout my journey as an undergraduate at Delhi University in India, a graduate student at the University of Warwick in England, and my pursuit of a doctorate at the University of Oklahoma in the United States. During my time at Delhi University, Ramu Manivannan was an amazing mentor who taught me the value of making a difference in both academia and the real world. My greatest debt is to Hank Jenkins-Smith and Carol Silva at the University of Oklahoma, whose encouragement, guidance, and intellectual advice has made this journey possible. I am deeply grateful for their unending support; this dissertation would not exist without them.
    [Show full text]
  • Kewaunee Power Station Applicant's Environmental Report Operating
    Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Table of Contents Operating License Renewal Stage TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations..............................................................................................AA-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology.......................................................... 1-1 1.3 Kewaunee Power Station Licensee and Ownership ................................................... 1-2 1.4 References.................................................................................................................. 1-5 Chapter 2 - Site and Environmental Interfaces ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Aquatic Ecological Communities................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habits ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/10/2021 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2021-16925, and on govinfo.gov [7590-01-P] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2021-0152] Monthly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Monthly notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular monthly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This monthly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from July 14, 2021, to July 22, 2021. The last monthly notice was published on July 13, 2021. DATES: Comments must be filed by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods, however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking Website: Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2021-0152.
    [Show full text]
  • Mailing List of U.S. Domestic Nuclear Utilities
    Mailing List of Domestic Nuclear Utilities ",Plant .. I Address Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Vice President, Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72802 Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Eric A. Larson Beaver Valley Power Station P. O. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 & 3 Mr. Joseph W. Shea Vice President, Nuclear Licensing Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, LP 3D-C Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 & 2 George T. Hamrick, Vice President Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P.O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 Byron Station, Units 1 & 2/Braidwood Station, Michael J. Pacilio Units 1 & 2 Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) Exelon -Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Mr. Adam C. Heflin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Union Electric Company Ameren Missouri P.O. Box 620 -Fulton, MO 65251 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 Mr. George H. Gellrich, Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Mr. Kelvin Henderson Site Vice President Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Catawba Nuclear Station 4800 Concord Road York, SC 29745 All -2- Plant Address Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 Michael J. Pacilio Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Rd. Warrenville, IL 60555 Columbia Generating Station Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report for Mcguire
    Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage McGuire Nuclear Station This page intentionally left blank. McGuire Nuclear Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Introduction Introduction Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submits this Environmental Report (ER) as part of Duke’s application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 of the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire). The Duke application is a combined application to renew the licenses for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 for twenty years beyond the end of the current licenses. In compliance with applicable NRC requirements, this ER analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with renewal of the McGuire licenses. A separate ER is submitted as part of the application to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the renewal of the Catawba licenses. This ER is designed to assist the NRC Staff in preparing the McGuire-specific Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement required for license renewal. The McGuire ER complies with 10 CFR § 54.23, which requires license renewal applicants to submit a supplement to the Environmental Report which complies with requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. This Report also addresses the more detailed requirements of NRC environmental regulations in 10 CFR §§ 51.45 and 51.53, as well as the underlying intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. For major federal actions, NEPA requires preparation of a detailed statement that addresses their significant environmental impacts, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, alternatives to the proposed action, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with implementation of the proposed action.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-13-743, Nuclear Power
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters September 2013 NUCLEAR POWER Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight GAO-13-743 September 2013 NUCLEAR POWER Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight Highlights of GAO-13-743, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The 2011 disaster at Japan's The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relies on its staff’s professional Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power judgment in implementing its processes for overseeing the safety of U.S. Plant demonstrated that unexpected commercial nuclear power reactors. In implementing this oversight, NRC nuclear accidents with extreme allocates specific roles and responsibilities to resident inspectors assigned to consequences can occur and, thus, each plant, regional officials at one of four regional offices responsible for most heightened concerns about NRC’s oversight activities, headquarters officials, and the nuclear power industry. NRC ability to oversee the safety of U.S. also builds into its processes incentives for plant managers to identify concerns commercial nuclear power reactors. about reactor safety, report those concerns to NRC, and take prompt actions to NRC oversees safety through multiple correct them. NRC’s processes for identifying and assessing findings and processes, such as physically violations are based on prescribed agency procedures and include several points inspecting reactors and also responding to signs of declining where NRC staff must exercise their professional judgment, such as determining performance (i.e., findings) or whether issues of concern identified during physical inspections constitute violations of its requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 197/Tuesday, October
    61476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices questions about NRC dockets to Carol violated 10 CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, tests, subpart,’’ of the Commission’s Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; and experiments,’’ when the SGs for regulations. email: [email protected]. For SONGS, Units 2 and 3, were replaced in The NRC will file a copy of the DD technical questions, contact the 2010 and 2011 without a license with the Secretary of the Commission individual listed in the FOR FURTHER amendment request. for the Commission’s review in INFORMATION CONTACT section of this The NRC sent a copy of the proposed accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As document. DD to the petitioner and the licensee for provided by this regulation, the revised • NRC’s Agencywide Documents comment on February 27, 2015 DD will constitute the final action of the Access and Management System (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15020A121 Commission 25 days after the date of the (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- and ML15020A165, respectively). The decision unless the Commission, on its available documents online in the petitioner and the licensee were asked own motion, institutes a review of the ADAMS Public Documents collection at to provide comments within 30 days on DD in that time. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ any part of the proposed DD that was Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day adams.html. To begin the search, select considered to be erroneous or any issues of October 2015. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then in the petition that were not addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Testimony of James E.Rogers
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA DOCKET NO. In the Matter of Amended Project Development Application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC for Approval of Decision to Incur Nuclear Generation Pre-Construction Costs DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. ROGERS FOR DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 2 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND POSITION WITH DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION. 4 A. My name is James E. Rogers, and my business address is 526 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. I am Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Duke Energy Corporation ("Duke Energy" ). Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ("Duke Energy Carolinas" or the "Company" ) is a subsidiary of Duke Energy. 9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE BRIEFLY YOUR EDUCATIONAL AND 10 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. 1j. A. I received a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration (1970) and law degree (1974) from the University of Kentucky. Prior to assuming my current position at Duke Energy in April 2006, I was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cinergy Corp. ("Cinergy"). I helped create Cinergy in 1994 through the merger of PSI Resources, Inc. ("PSI Resources" ), the parent company of PSI Energy, Inc. , ("PSI Energy" ) and The Cincinnati Gas k, Electric Company. Prior to the formation of Cinergy, I was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PSI 18 Resources and PSI Energy. 19 Before joining PSI Resources in October 1988 as Chief Executive Officer, 20 I was Executive Vice President of the gas pipeline group of Enron Corp. ("Enron"), and President of Enron's interstate natural gas pipeline companies 22 from 1985 to 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Duke Energy Corporation Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos
    Duke Power Company P Duke A Duke Energy Company WPower. EC07H A Duke,EneW~ Cnnpany 526 South Church Street P.O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 M. S. Tuckman Executive Vice President (704) 382-2200 OFFICE Nuclear Generation (704) 382-4360 FAX February 12, 2001 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Subject: Duke Energy Corporation Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) Pursuant to Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.5.1.c for Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba Nuclear Stations, enclosed are the Duke Power Company ODCMs effective January, 2001. Duke is issuing the ODCM in a new format as a complete reissue for each nuclear station. The revision number for each manual is found on the front inside page as follows: Oconee Revision 41 McGuire Revision 42 Catawba Revision 43 The new format issues a separate manual for each nuclear site. Information found in the generic section of the previous manual is now contained in each site manual. Please destroy present manual and replace with the enclosed manuals. In the future, a complete manual will be issued for each station with changes shown by revision bars in the margins. If you have any questions, please contact L. B. Jones at (704) 382-4753. Very truly yours, M. S. Tuckman February 12, 2001 Document Control Desk Page 2 Enclosures 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Plants in the Path of Hurricane Florence More Than a Half Dozen Nuclear Power Plants Are in States That May Be Affected by Hurricane Florence
    Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant, Southport, NC Nuclear Power Plants in the Path of Hurricane Florence More than a half dozen nuclear power plants are in states that may be affected by Hurricane Florence. Flooding can threaten the safe operation of nuclear power plants. Powerful hurricanes like Hurricane Florence present multiple risks to nuclear power stations. High winds can down power lines that deliver electricity that nuclear plants use to run their cooling systems. Flooding can damage back-up generators or key components needed to keep reactors safe. Flooding can be caused by heavy rain that raises the level of rivers and reservoirs, by intense local precipitation that overwhelms on-site drainage systems, or by wind-driven intrusion of water into buildings. Storm surges can also cause flooding. Several nuclear reactors are in areas that may be subject to flooding in the wake of Hurricane Florence. Inspec- tions and reviews by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have found potential problems at some plants that could allow water into critical systems. Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant (Southport, NC) Located near where the Cape Fear River empties into the Atlantic Ocean in North Carolina, the Brunswick Nuclear Plant has been producing electricity for over 40 years.1 In 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified multiple potential routes by which parts of the plant could be flooded. The NRC expressed particular concern that a strong hurricane could flood the room where oil that fuels backup generators is stored. Cracks, gaps, and unmaintained seals, the result of “a historical lack of a flood protection program at Brunswick,” made the plant vulnerable.
    [Show full text]