ML103470704

2010/12/13-NextEra Energy Seabrook, Llc'S Response Opposing Nec/Friends of the Coast'S Supplement to Its Petition

ML103470704
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/13/2010
From:	Fernandez A NextEra Energy Seabrook
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 19246, 50-443-LR, ASLPB 10-906-02-LR-BD01
Download: ML103470704 (34)

Text

1 December 13, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter of ) )

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443-LR

)

(Seabrook Station) )

) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Operating License Renewal) )

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC's Response Opposing NEC/Friends of the Coast's Supplement to Its PetitionI. Introduction During the November 30, 2010 prehearing conference held in the above-captioned proceeding, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") afforded NEC/Friends of the Coast ("Petitioners") seven days to present a corrected version of the Declaration of Paul Blanch ("First Blanch Declaration") that Petitioners originally filed with their Hearing Request on October 21, 2010. Transcript at 69-70. The Board

explained that this opportunity was to allow Petitioners to correct typographical errors in the Blanch Declaration so that the record in the proceeding would be clear.

Id. at 70-71. The Board did not authorize Petitioners to present new arguments in support of their

proffered contentions or to add threshold support for their contentions.Seeid.On December 6, 2010, Petitioners submitted a "Supplement to Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Admission of Contention: Errors and Corrections and New Information," ("Petition Supplement"), which included a revised version of the Blanch Declaration ("Second 2Blanch Declaration"), together with a single change to the original Petition and a reference to a newly-published NRC document. The Board explained at the prehearing conference that NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ("NextEra") and the NRC Staff could

object to the revised declaration within seven days of its filing to point out changes that go beyond what is permitted by "the Commission's rules and caselaw." Transcript at 70-

71. NextEra respectfully objects to the Board's consideration of any of the new material proffered in the Petition Supplement.

II. ARGUMENT Having been graciously afforded this opportunity by the Board, the Petitioners could have limited their amendments to merely correcting typographical errors, but instead took the opportunity to make wholesale changes to significant portions of the

Blanch Declaration, to change the text of Contention 4 in their Petition, and to raise new information potentially relevant to Contention 1, without addressing any of the requirements in the Commission's rules and caselaw for raising new claims.

See10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c), (f)(2). As the Board acknowledged at the prehearing conference, Petitioner's pro se representative has at least 14 years of experience litigating various matters at the NRC. Transcript at 57-58. While ignorance of the rules is no excuse, ignorance cannot even plausibly be argued in this case. A. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY Although the Petition Supplement was filed two weeks after Petitioners' Reply, the Commission's caselaw on the permissible scope of replies remains applicable. Any new argument or information that would be impermissible in a reply would certainly also be impermissible in a separate filing two weeks later. The Commission has ruled that a 3reply to an answer may not be used as a vehicle to raise new arguments or claims not found in the original contention, nor be used to cure an otherwise deficient contention

.Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, 60 NRC 223, 224-25 (2004), reconsideration denied CLI-04-35, 60 NRC 619 (2004) ("

LES");Nuclear Management Company, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 NRC 727, 732 (2006); Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-08-19, 68 NRC 251, 262 n.32 (2008);

PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-07-25, 66 NRC 101, 106 n.26 (2007). In the LES case, the licensing board rejected four contentions filed by the State of New Mexico Environment Department ("Environment Department") and the New Mexico Attorney General

("Attorney General") and "declined to consider new 'purportedly material' information in support of the contentions that was first submitted as part of a reply pleading."

LES , CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224. On appeal of the board's decision, the Commission agreed that "the reply briefs constituted a late attempt to reinvigorate thinly supported contentions by presenting entirely new arguments in the reply briefs."

Id. The Commission went on to state that such a course of action was impermissible under its rules of practice: [O]ur contention admissibility and timeliness requirements "demand a level of discipline and preparedness on part of petitioners,"who must examine the publicly available material and set forth their claims and the support for their claims at the outset. The Petitioners' reply brief should be "narrowly focused on the legal or logical arguments presented in the applicant/licensee or NRC staff answer," a point the Board itself emphasized in this proceeding. As we face an increasing adjudicatory docket, the need for

parties to adhere to our pleading standards and for the Board to enforce those standards are paramount. There simply would be "no end to NRC licensing proceedings if petitioners could disregard our timeliness requirements" 4 and add new bases or new issues that "simply did not occur to [them] at the outset."

Id. at 224-25 (footnotes omitted) (emphases added). In denying requests for reconsideration from the Attorney General and the Environment Department and reaffirming its holding in CLI-04-25, the Commission

reiterated the explanations in CLI-04-25 as to why allowing a reply to raise new arguments or claims not found in the original contention would eviscerate its requirements for the pleading of contentions: "Allowing contentions to be added, amended, or supplemented at any time would defeat the purpose of the specific contention requirements" . . . "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 under 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 review the application, prepare a filing on standing, and develop proposed contentions and references to materials in support of the contentions." Under our contention rule, 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. CLI-04-35, 60 NRC at 622-23 (footnotes omitted). The Commission went on to reaffirm its holding that a reply to an answer may notbe used as a vehicle to raise new arguments or claims not found in the original contention

or be used to cure an otherwise deficient contention:

What our rules do not allow is using reply briefs to provide, for the first time, the necessary threshold support for 5 contentions

such a practice would effectively bypass and eviscerate our rules governing timely filing, contention amendment, and submission of late-filed contentions.

Id. at 623 (emphasis added). The Commission later expanded upon the appropriate content of reply briefs in an adjudicatory proceeding in the Palisades license renewal proceeding, where the licensing board had held that it would not "consider anything in the [Petitioners'] Reply that [did]

not focus on the matters raised in the [applicant's and Staff's] Answers." Nuclear Management Company, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-06-10, 63 NRC 314, 329 (2006).The Commission affirmed the licensing board, ruling that the petitioners' reply "constituted an untimely attempt to supplement" the contention.

Palisades , CLI-06-17, 63 NRC at 730. The Commission then held that "[n]ew bases for a contention cannot be

introduced in a reply brief, or any other time after the date the original contentions are due, unless the petitioner meets the late-filing criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c), (f)(2)."

Id. at 732 (emphasis added).

See also AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 261 & 276 (2009) (holding that neither new bases nor new arguments may be raised in a reply brief unless the standards for late-filed contentions are met); Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (North Trend Expansion Project), CLI-09-12, 69 NRC 535, 568 (2009). In Palisades, the Commission reiterated its holding in the LES decision: allowing new content in reply briefs "would defeat the contention-filing deadline."

Palisades , CLI-06-17, 63 NRC at 732. In addition, 6the Commission held that allowing new claims in a reply "would unfairly deprive other participants of an opportunity to rebut the new claims."

Id.Thus, the Commission has warned that a reply to an answer may not be used to cure or supplement an otherwise deficient contention, nor may such remedial action be taken at any other time after the filing deadline. As the Commission has made clear, a contrary ruling would eviscerate the Rules of Practice governing timely filing of properly pled contentions, contention amendments, and submission of late-filed contentions, and would unfairly limit the other proceeding participants' ability to rebut new information. The NRC rules do provide an avenue for providing new information, but "amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing" may be submitted "

only with leave of the presiding officer upon a showing that -(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available;(ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and(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)(emphasis added). As the Commission held in LES and Palisades, allowing the introduction of unauthorized new or amended claims or arguments after the filing deadline would eviscerate these provisions of the rule, rendering them meaningless. In applying these standards, licensing boards have struck, or declined to consider, new information or argument offered in a reply pleading. See , e.g., Luminant Generation 7 Company, LLC (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-09-17, 70 NRC __, slip op. at 9-10 (Aug. 6, 2009); PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-07-10, 66 NRC 1, 32 (2007); PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-07-4, 65 NRC 281 301-02 (2007). Here, the Petition Supplement runs afoul of the Commission's Rules of Practice and its decisions in LES and Palisades. For the reasons explained below, the Petition Supplement raises, without seeking leave of the Board, new arguments and claims nowhere to be found within the Petition. Permitting introduction of these new claims and supporting information would "bypass and eviscerate" the NRC's hearing rules (seeLES ,CLI-04-35, 60 NRC at 623) and "unfairly deprive other participants of an opportunity to rebut the new claims."

Palisades, CLI-06-17, 63 NRC at 732. B. MANY PORTIONS OF THE PETITION SUPPLEMENT VIOLATE THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE The NRC published notice of an opportunity for hearing in the Federal Register. "Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 for an Additional

20-Year Period; Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLC; Seabrook Station, Unit 1," 75 Fed. Reg.

42,462 (July 21, 2010) ("Hearing Notice"). The Hearing Notice permitted any person whose interest may be affected to file a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene within 60 days. 75 Fed. Reg. at 42,463. On September 17, 2010, the Secretary of the Commission granted the State of New Hampshire, Beyond Nuclear, Friends of the Coast and the New England Coalition an extension of time to file intervention petitions, 8until October 20, 2010. In their original filing, it is apparent that Petitioners did not take advantage of the additional 30 days granted by the Commission to proofread or revise the First Blanch Declaration, which is dated September 18, 2010. Instead, contrary to the Rules of Practice and the Commission's jurisprudence on this issue, they seek to do so

now.Notably, for a pleading intended to correct typographical errors, the Petition Supplement is rife with the same type of errors it seeks to correct. For instance, in Sections IA and IB, Petitioners identify changes reflected in the Second Blanch Declaration, each with an identifying page number, ostensibly to help locate the changes.

Every single page reference is incorrect

.11. The Second Blanch Declaration Includes a Multitude of Editorial and Substantive Changes That Should Not Be ConsideredInstead of taking this opportunity to correct typographical errors in the First Blanch Declaration as the Board intended, Petitioners made dozens of editorial (non-typographical) and substantive changes in the Second Blanch Declaration, impermissibly raising new arguments not found in the original submittal, without addressing the factors for new or amended contentions in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). These changes are identified in Attachment 1 to this Response, "Significant Changes to the Blanch Declaration."

2Many of these changes appear to be in response to shortcomings pointed out in NextEra's and the NRC Staff's Answers and by the Board at the prehearing conference, which underscores the inappropriateness of allowing those passages to be amended now. It 1 Inexplicably, Mr. Blanch also removed the paragraph numbers from his declaration. The numeric identifiers in Sections IA and IB of the Petition Supplement do not correspond to the paragraph numbers of the First Blanch Declaration or appear to correspond to any rational numbering system of the unnumbered paragraphs in the Second Blanch Declaration.

2 Attachment 1 does not identify each of the minor typographical corrections in the Second Blanch Declaration.

9 should not be up to the parties or the Board to sort through the Second Blanch Declaration and separate the potentially permissible typographical corrections from the dozens of other changes. For this reason and the reasons set forth below, the Board

should disregard the entire Second Blanch Declaration.Most of the errors corrected in the Second Blanch Declaration cannot properly be considered typographical errors. A typographical error is "an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard, from mechanical failure, or the like."

3 The most obvious errors in the First Blanch Declaration, by contrast, were the result of the wholesale importation of documents prepared for other proceedings. These errors, such as Mr. Blanch's claim to have reviewed applications and safety evaluation reports in other license renewal proceedings but not Seabrook's (seeFirst Blanch Decl. at 4, ¶ 13), are not mere typographical errors that can simply be corrected with no real impact on the proceeding. These errors in the First Blanch Declaration are crucial in that they show Petitioners' failure to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute with the instant application at the outset. 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi). a. Mr. Blanch's ExperienceIn its Answer Opposing The Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing of Friends of the Coast and the New England Coalition ("NextEra Answer"), NextEra explained that the First Blanch Declaration "provides no evidence that he has any specialized knowledge about either corrosion or radiological or environmental protection." NextEra Answer at 54. Mr. Blanch now recognizes this deficiency and has 3Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typographical error (accessed: December 10, 2010).

10attempted to remedy it. Petition Supplement at 3. The Second Blanch Declaration provides the following completely new paragraph:My duties at Northeast Utilities included piping system designs and also all Instrument and control systems. I also served as Nuclear Operations Engineer providing liaison services between the NU headquarter and Millstone Unit 2 responsible for coordination of all system design, operation and backfits of operating systems. Second Blanch Declaration at 3. Mr. Blanch also attempts to bolster his academic coursework by adding that his undergraduate electrical engineering curriculum "included numerous courses in thermal and mechanical engineering." Compare id

.with First Blanch Declaration at 2, ¶ 6. Also, the Second Blanch Declaration adds a new sentence to the "Engineer of the Year" paragraph: "These failures included generic design deficiencies of piping and mechanical systems in reactor level monitoring systems."

Compare id. at 4 with First Blanch Declaration at 3, ¶ 12. The untimely attempt to burnish Mr. Blanch's credentials as an expert on piping should be rejected. The Commission's "contention admissibility and timeliness requirements 'demand a level of discipline and preparedness on part of petitioners,' who must examine the publicly available material and set forth their claims and the support for their claims at the outset."

LES, CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224-25. Had these statements been included in the First Blanch Declaration, NextEra would have had an opportunity to challenge them in its Answer. By waiting to provide these "credentials" in the Petition Supplement, Petitioners deny NextEra that opportunity. In any event, these embellishments could hardly be classified as corrections of typographical errors.

NextEra's Answer also criticized the First Blanch Declaration because Mr.

Blanch failed to state whether he had read the application at issue. NextEra Answer at 1126-27 ("Indeed, Mr. Blanch does not even claim to have read the Seabrook LRA"). Indeed, Mr. Blanch stated that he had "reviewed Vermont Yankee's License Renewal Application and the subsequent submittals by Entergy to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 - [and] also reviewed pertinent sections of the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report [for Vermont Yankee] dated May 2008 (NUREG 1907)". First Blanch Decl. at 4. The Second Blanch Declaration removes the references to the Vermont Yankee and Indian Point applications and the Vermont Yankee Safety Evaluation Report and replaces them with a reference to the Seabrook application.

SeeSecond Blanch Declaration at 5. But, Petitioners must "set forth their claims and the support for their claims at the outset

." LES, CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224-25 (emphasis added). When a proffered expert opines on the sufficiency of the application, part of the support that must be provided at the outset is the simple fact that he has reviewed the application. The First Blanch Declaration failed to make this showing, and Petitioners should not be allowed to remedy that failure now under the pretense of correcting a typographical error.

b. Inaccessible Cables As to Contention 1, NextEra's Answer criticized the First Blanch Declaration for its references to Time-Limited Aging Analyses ("TLAA"). NextEra Answer at 27 ("Of course . . . the Seabrook LRA contains . . . a TLAA for the Environmental Qualification of Electrical Components (LRA § 4.4)"). Mr. Blanch attempts to bolster his declaration and respond to this criticism by removing two references to TLAAs that occurred in the First Blanch Declaration (page 7, ¶ 19; page 7, ¶ 20). Second Blanch Decl. at 7.

However, the Second Blanch Declaration does retain a second reference to TLAAs that 12also appeared in paragraph 19 of page 7 of the First Blanch Declaration. While NextEra does not generally object to Petitioners removing claims from this litigation, Mr.

Blanch's assertions illustrate that Mr. Blanch failed to perform an adequate review of the application, which appears to be why he removed these assertions.. To the extent Petitioners seek to remedy that failure now, it is untimely.

In their Reply, Petitioners argued that the Blanch Declaration in the Vermont Yankee proceeding at ¶¶ 21-22 (and apparently by extension the First Blanch Declaration here at ¶¶ 18-19) made a claim about the lack of an aging management program for low-voltage inaccessible cables. Petitioners' Reply at 11. This claim, if it was actually intended, was ambiguous enough to have confused both NextEra and the Licensing

Board in the Vermont Yankee case. Seeid at 10-11. In any event, Mr. Blanch now seeks to remedy this lack of clarity by adding:

10 CFR 54.21 addresses electrical cables and connections and does not differentiate between low, medium and high voltage cables and connections. It is only the GALL document that makes the differentiation. All cables meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21 must be addressed and provided with an aging management program (AMP).

Second Blanch Decl. at 5. Mr. Blanch also adds: I am aware there are cables within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 and 10 CFR 54.21 that operate from less than 1000

volts to 35,000 volts.

Id. at 6. Mr. Blanch also adds:

A review of the Seabrook LRA Appendix B finds no Aging Management Program (AMP) for inaccessible cables

designed to operate in the voltage range of less than 1000 to 2000 volts . . . There is no assurance that cables not designed to operate while submerged or subsequent to moisture or submergence are capable of performing the

functions within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4.

13 Id. at 7-8.4To the extent the First Blanch Declaration did not sufficiently identify a challenge to the voltage limitation of the original aging management program, the Second Blanch Declaration may not be used to remedy that failure. Mr. Blanch was able to clearly state the low-voltage cable issue four years ago in the Indian Point proceeding, so there can be no dispute that this late clarification is untimely.

See New York State - Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene, Supporting Declarations and Exhibits, Volume I of II (ADAMS Accession No. ML073400205) ("New York State Exhibits"),

Blanch Decl. at 4-5. Mr. Blanch also claimed that "the failure to properly manage aging of Electrical Transformers at Indian Point may compromise plant safety- ." First Blanch Decl. at 7 (emphasis added). This out-of-place statement is changed to "the failure to properly manage aging of Electrical Cables at Seabrook may compromise plant safety- ." Second Blanch Decl. at 8 (emphasis added). Again, this change does not correct a typographical error, but instead represents an attempt to remedy the failure of the First Blanch Declaration to refer to the application at issue. Next, Mr. Blanch adds a new sentence following what was paragraph 24 on page 8 of the First Blanch Declaration, claiming: "Seabrook has experienced submerged cables within the scope of 10 CFR 54." Second Blanch Decl. at 8. This plant-specific operating experience had been identified in Seabrook's LRA (at B-183) and not addressed by Mr.

4 Perhaps justifiably, Mr. Blanch also removed the description of his review as "diligent." CompareFirst Blanch Decl. at 7, ¶ 19 with Second Blanch Decl. at 7. This change appears to be a tacit admission that NextEra's claim that Mr. Blanch did not perform an ade quate review of the application is correct. The original paragraph also included a reference to his "review of the LRA and the NRC Staff's SER." First Blanch Decl. at 7, ¶ 19. Mr. Blanch has replaced that with the new reference to the "Seabrook LRA." Second Blanch Decl. at 7.

14Blanch until the filing of his Second Declaration, which was intended to clarify typographical errors. Mr. Blanch also makes editorial changes to paragraph 24 on page 8 and paragraph 26 on page 9, changing their meaning with no explanation as to the reason.

See Attachment 1.

5 Here again Mr. Blanch has sought to improve upon and bolster his First Declaration. Since his attempts go well beyond correcting typographical errors, they must be rejected.

c. Transformers In the transformers section, Mr. Blanch corrects another significant error in the First Blanch Declaration, where he referred to transformers as both "passive" and "active" devices.

See First Blanch Decl. at 12, ¶¶ 35-36. This error is noteworthy because the Petitioners rely exclusively on the Blanch Declaration to support their claim that transformers are passive, and thus must be subject to an aging management program.

At the prehearing conference, Judge Wardwell pointed out that using the term "active" instead of "passive" is not a typographical error, to which Petitioners' representative replied: "That should have read inactive I believe." Transcript at 107-08. But the Second Blanch Declaration (at 13) changes the term "active" that appeared in the First Blanch Declaration (at 12 ¶ 36) to the correct regulatory term, "passive," not "inactive."

6 The Second Blanch Declaration is evidence that the rationalization of Petitioners' representative at the prehearing conference was incorrect and that the error was not, in

fact, typographical in nature.

5 Mr. Blanch also moves the "commodity grouping" paragraph, originally misplaced in the transformers section of the First Blanch Declaration (page 13, ¶ 38), to the inaccessible cables section. See Second Blanch Decl. at 11.

6 Mr. Blanch also adds a reference to transformers as passive devices on page 11 of the Second Blanch Declaration (modifying page 11, ¶ 28 of the First Blanch Decl.)

15 In its Answer, NextEra also criticized the Blanch Declaration for failing to show that the lack of an AMP was material. NextEra Answer at 45 (citing First Blanch Decl. at 12 ¶36 ("the licensee has not provided for any AMP to assure ???????")). Mr. Blanch also changes this statement, clearly not a typographical error, to read: "the licensee has not provided for any AMP to assure compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21."

Second Blanch Decl. at 13.

Mr. Blanch's changes to his Declaration should be rejected as post hoc efforts to provide the necessary threshold support for Petitioners' contentions. The burden to provide adequate support must be met "at the outset" not now under the guise of

correcting typographical errors. SeeLES, CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224-25. This is of particular significance when a contention relies solely on the opinion of a proffered expert for the necessary support-that opinion must be logically sound and not contradictory. Petitioners cannot remedy their failure to meet their burden now. In addition, on page 12 of the Second Blanch Declaration, Mr. Blanch adds a new sentence regarding the availability of the UFSAR. This revision impermissibly changes his argument from one alleging that NextEra did not include relevant portions of the UFSAR in its application, to one claiming the UFSAR is not available at all.

See First Blanch Decl. at 12, ¶ 34.

Finally, the Second Blanch Declaration replaces the misplaced "commodity

group" paragraph with: Figure 2.5-1 clearly illustrates that transformers are part of the SBO recovery path and there are numerous additional transformers within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 that are not discussed in the LRA. There is no proposed AMP for these transformers.

16Second Blanch Decl. at 14. This section originally criticized the application for not including Figure 2.5-1.

See First Blanch Decl. at 13, ¶ 38. Now Petitioners seek to add a completely new criticism, apparently based on the availability of Figure 2.5-1. For the reasons explained above, this late attempt to identify completely new threshold support

for the contention should be rejected.

d. Buried Pipes and Tanks Mr. Blanch also made a number of impermissible revisions to his support for Contention 3. For instance, on page 14 of the Second Blanch Declaration, he makes significant changes to paragraph 39 of page 13 of the First Blanch Declaration.

Specifically, he adds the sentence: "While numerous drawings were discussed and referenced in the LRA, few of these actual piping drawings and diagrams are available for review." Second Blanch Decl. at 14. He also modified the end of a sentence in that paragraph, completely changing its meaning, with no explanation.

Compare First Blanch Decl. at 14, ¶ 39 ("determine if mechanical scoping was properly done")

with Second Blanch Decl. at 14 ("determine if buried pipes and tanks are properly addressed"). These new and revised claims are untimely and impermissible.

The Second Blanch Declaration (at 15) also makes a significant change to paragraph 41 of page 14 of the First Blanch Declaration. Originally, that paragraph provided four reasons why the Seabrook LRA was allegedly inadequate. The Second Blanch Declaration removes the first reason, "(1) it does not provide for adequate inspection of all systems, structures, and components that may contain or convey radioactively contaminated water, and/or other fluids," and renumbers the remaining three reasons accordingly. NextEra criticized this very phrase in its Answer because such 17issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding. NextEra Answer at 49-51. Mr. Blanch appears to have made this change in an attempt to insulate the contention from this challenge. NextEra's Answer explained that Boards are not permitted to reformulate otherwise inadmissible contentions.

Id. at 52-53. Petitioners, while claiming to correct typographical errors, may not do so either.

Next, Mr. Blanch raises a new claim about the inadequacy of the AMPs for transfer canals and water cavities that contain radioactive water during refueling.

Compare First Blanch Decl. at 15, ¶ 44 with Second Blanch Decl. at 16. This is a new claim that, for the various reasons explained above, Petitioners may not raise at this late date, their obligation is to support their proposed contentions "at the outset".

LES , CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224-25.

Finally, Mr. Blanch revises paragraph 46 of page 15 of the First Blanch Declaration by changing the phrase "various aging piping systems" to "various in-scope piping systems" and adding a new footnote. Second Blanch Decl. at 17. The new footnote seeks to identify the recent events to which Mr. Blanch originally referred, stating: "Indian Point failure of Condensate Storage Tank buried piping and severe degradation of Salem Unit 1 AFW buried discharge piping."

Id. Mr. Blanch does not identify the dates of these events, but in order to amend the support for the contention, Petitioners must show that the information they seek to provide was not previously available. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i). Petitioners have failed to even attempt such a showing here. In any event, providing this type of additional support goes well beyond the scope of the typographical corrections that the Board allowed to be corrected as part

of this new Declaration.

182. Petitioners' Attempt to Amend the Petition is Untimely and Should be Rejected Also in the Petition Supplement, Petitioners seek to make a single correction of a "dislocation and citation error" in the Petition, changing an incorrect reference to another license renewal application on page 74, "LRA, Appendix E, 2.10," to a reference to

Seabrook's application, "LRA , Page F-158 -F.8.2 Uncertainty)" [

sic]. Petition Supplement at 5-6. While this change may not be of enormous importance, however, it is not a typographical error. It is an example of Petitioners' lack of diligence when preparing their Petition and cutting and pasting pleadings from other license renewal proceedings. While perhaps not dispositive, it is certainly some evidence of the extent to which Petitioners reviewed the application at issue in this case. The record should duly reflect Petitioners' carelessness. Petitioners should not be allowed to cure their failure to meet their ironclad obligations under the guise of typographical corrections.

Petitioners also seek to add a footnote that includes a paragraph quotation from page F-158 of the ER, which may be the "dislocation" to which they refer.

Id. at 5-6. The footnote is largely unnecessary because significant portions of that same paragraph

are already quoted on the following page of the Petition.

See Petition at 75. However, to the extent Petitioners seek to amend Contention 4 to add this footnote, it is untimely and the Petitioners have failed to address either the timeliness factors in 10

C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) or the late-filed contention standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c). 3. Petitioners' Submission of New Information Fails to Comply with the Commission's Rules and Should be Rejected Finally, Petitioners identify new information relevant to their Contention 1. Petition Supplement at 6. On December 2, 2010, the NRC published Information Notice 192010-26, Submerged Electrical Cables.

Id. Petitioners argue that this document "is material because it affirms throughout Friends/NEC's concerns with the challenges to maintaining safety of submerged cables."

Id. at 7. Petitioners are not entirely clear, but it appears that they seek to add this document as further support for Contention 1.

SeePetition Supplement at 8-9. Petitioners, however, have failed to make the required showing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) for raising new information with respect to this Information Notice. That rule requires the petitioner to show that: (i) the information was not previously available; (ii) the information is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) the amended contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the

availability of the subsequent information. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).However, Petitioners have not shown that the information contained in the Information Notice is materially different than information that has long been available. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i). For example, one of the cited portions of the Information Notice explains that "the likelihood of failure . . . increases over time as the cable insulation degrades and/or is exposed to water." Petition Supplement at 7-8 (citing IN 2010-26 at 5). Another portion explains that cables may not be designed or qualified for long-term submergence.

Id. at 8 (citing IN 2010-26 at 6). But this is the very reason that this aging management program exists in the first place. The GALL Report explains: [S]ome cables may be exposed to condensation and wetting in inaccessible locations, such as conduits, cable trenches, cable troughs, duct banks, underground vaults or direct buried installations. When an energized medium-voltage

cable (2 kV to 35 kV) is exposed to wet conditions for which it is not designed, water treeing or a decrease in the dielectric strength of the conductor insulation can occur.

This can potentially lead to electrical failure

.

20GALL Rev. 1 at XI E-7 (emphasis added).

See also LRA at B-180-81. None of this cited information is materially different from what was previously available in the GALL Report.Petitioners also refer to the Information Notice's statement asserting that "periodic draining could slow the rate of insulation degradation, but it may not prevent

cable degradation" (Id. (citing IN 2010-26 at 7)). This is also acknowledged in the GALL Report, which explains that because periodic draining may not be sufficient, condition testing will be performed, as well: In this aging management program periodic actions are taken to prevent cables from being exposed to significant moisture, such as inspecting for water collection in cable manholes, and draining water, as needed.

The above actions are not sufficient to assure that water is not trapped elsewhere in the raceways. For example, if duct bank conduit has low points in the routing, there could be potential for long-term submergence at these low points. In addition, concrete raceways may crack due to soil settling over a long period of time and manhole covers may not be watertight. Additionally, in certain areas, the water table is high in seasonal cycles and therefore, the raceways may get refilled soon after purging. Furthermore, potential uncertainties exist with water trees even when duct banks are sloped with the intention to minimize water accumulation. Experience has shown that insulation degradation may occur if the cables are exposed to 100 percent relative humidity.

The above periodic actions are necessary to minimize the potential for insulation degradation. In addition to above periodic actions, in-scope, medium-voltage cables exposed to significant

moisture and significant voltage are tested to provide an

indication of the condition of the conductor insulation. GALL Rev. 1 at XI E-7 (emphases added). Petitioners also refer to the fact that the recent Information Notice provides examples of early cable failures, but also fails to provide materially different information.

21Incidents involving early failures of electric cables and cable failures leading to multiple equipment failures are cited in Information Notice 2002-12, "Submerged Safety-Related Cables," and NRC Generic Letter 2007-01, "Inaccessible or Underground Power Cable Failures That Disable Accident Mitigation Systems or Cause Plant Transients," both of

which Petitioners cited in their Petition.

See Petition at 16-18. Moreover, IN-2010-26 is based in part on licensee responses to Generic Letter 2007-01, which are publicly

available and were due to the NRC in May 2007.

See GL 2007-01. In sum, Petitioners have failed to make the required showing that the information provided in Information Notice 2010-26 is materially different from information that was available when they filed their petition. As a result, their request for the Board to consider this new information in determining the admissibility of Contention 1 is untimely and should be rejected.

7III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, NextEra objects to the Board's consideration of any of the material provided in the Petition Supplement.

7 As this is a nontimely amendment of their contention, Petitioners could have, but failed to, address the factors in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) for admission of a nontimely contention.

22Respectfully Submitted, /Signed electronically by Antonio Fernández/ Mitchell S. Ross Antonio Fernández NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 700 Universe Blvd.

Juno Beach, Florida 33408

Telephone: 561-691-7126 Facsimile: 561-691-7135 E-mail: mitch.ross@fpl.com antonio.fernandez@fpl.com Steven Hamrick NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 220

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: 202-349-3496 Facsimile: 202-347-7076 E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC December 13, 2010 1 NextEra Response to NEC/FOTC Petition Supplement Significant Changes to the Blanch Declaration Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement? Exper-ience2 (5) -including the subject of reactor and electrical theory- 2 -including the subject of reactor systems and electrical theory-No 2 (6) -- 3 This curriculum included numerous courses in thermal and mechanical engineering.

No 2 (7) -project coordination experience for the construction and operation of

nuclear power plants-3 -project coordination experience for the constructionmaintenance and operation of nuclear power plants-No 2 (7) -under the direction of the Engineering division within Northeast Utilities. 3 - under the direction of the Nuclear EngineeringDepartment within Northeast Utilities.

Yes -- -- 3 My duties at Northeast Utilities included piping system designs and also all

Instrument and control systems. I also served as Nuclear Operations Engineer

providing liaison services between the NU headquarter and Millstone Unit 2 responsible for coordination of all system

design, operation and backfits of operating systems.Yes 3 (10) - including monitoring the conditions of active devices including monitoring the performance of safety systemsand devices-No 3 (12) -- 4 These failures included generic design Yes 2Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?deficiencies of piping and mechanical

systems in reactor level monitoring systems. 4 (13) I have reviewed Vermont Yankee's License Renewal Application and the subsequent submittals by Entergy to

renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3. I have also reviewed pertinent sections of the NRC's Safety Evaluation

Report dated May 2008 (NUREG

1907).5 I have reviewed applicable portions of "Renewal Application Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLC, et al. Docket no. 50-443

Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 No Inacc-essible Cables4 (15) Footnote 1:

Cables designed for service between 1000 and 2000 volts are not defined.5 Footnote deleted No 4 (15-16) -- 5 10 CFR 54.21 addresses electrical cables and connections and does not differentiate between low, medium and high voltage cables and connections. It is only the GALL

document that makes the differentiation. All

cables meeting the requirements of 10 CFR

54.21 must be addressed and provided with an aging management program (AMP).

Yes 4 (16) Based upon more than 40 years of engineering, operation and design

experience,I believe these cables are designed to operate between <1000 to 35,000 volts as defined in NUREG 6 Based upon more than 40 years of engineering, operation and design experience, I am aware there are cables within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 and 10 CFR 54.21 that

operate from less than 1000 volts to 35,000 Yes 3Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?

1801. volts. 4 (17) NRC Regulations

17. In preparing this declaration, I

reviewed 10 C.F.R. § 54.4.

Specifically, § 54.4 states:

§ 54.4 Scope.

6Safety-related systems, structures, and components are those relied upon to remain

functional during and following design-basis

events (as defined in 10 CFR 54.4) to ensure the following functions:

No 6 (No ¶ #) § 54.21 Contents of application-technical information. Each application must contain the

following information:

(a) An integrated plant assessment (IPA). The IPA must--7 Text deleted. No 7 (18) Based on my review of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1), and 10 CFR § 54.4, electrical cables are included within

the scope of § 10 CFR 54, irrespective

of the design of or the applied voltage.7 Based on my review of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1), and 10 CFR § 54.4, electrical

cables are clearly included within the scope of § 10 CFR 54, irrespective ofthe applied

voltage.Yes 7 (19) A diligent review of the LRA and the NRC Staff's SER finds no such Time Limited Aging Analysis (TLAA) orAging Management Program (AMP)-7 Areview of the Seabrook LRA Appendix B finds no Aging Management Program (AMP)for inaccessible cables designed to operate in the voltage range of less than 1000 to 2000 volts; - There is no assurance that cables not designed to operate while submerged or subsequent to moisture or submergence are capable of performing the functions within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4.

No 4Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement? 7 (20) Complete and accurate Time Limited Aging Analysis (TLAA) or aneffective Aging Management Program (AMP) would take into account-8 An effective Aging Management Program would take into account-No 7 (20) Consequences of Inadequate Management of Low and Medium Voltage Cables8 Text deleted No 7-8 (21 -

22)The failure to properly manage aging of Electrical Transformers at Indian Pointmay compromise plant safety discussed within 10 CFR 54.4 that states:§ 54.4 Scope.

(a) Plant systems, structures, and components within the scope of this

part are--

(1) Safety-related systems, structures, and components which are those relied upon to remain functional

during and following design-basis events (as defined in 10 CFR 50.49 (b)(1)) to ensure the

following functions-- (i) The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (ii) The capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe

shutdown condition; or 8 The failure to properly manage aging of ElectricalCables at Seabrook may compromise plant safety discussed within 10

CFR 54.4.

No 5Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?(iii) The capability to prevent or

mitigate the consequences of

accidents which could result in

potential offsite exposures

comparable to those referred to in §

50.34(a)(1), § 50.67(b)(2), or § 100.11

of this chapter, as applicable. The consequence of failures of safety related cables may result in accidents

beyond the Design Basis Accidents

resulting in exposures to the public exceeding 10 C.F.R. § 100 limits. 8 (24) Most of the cables within the scope of 10 CFR 54 (<2 kv) are not identified and not inspected or maintained by any aging management program.

These cables are also periodically submerged and not qualified for the environment.

8 The inaccessible cables within the scope of 10 CFR 54 are not identified and not inspected or maintained by any aging management program.

Many of these cables may be periodically submerged and not qualified for this environment.

No 8 (24) -- 8 Seabrook has experienced submerged cables within the scope of 10 CFR 54.

Yes 9 (25) Footnote 2 -

NUREG CR/7000 9 Footnote Deleted No 9 (26) The integrity and function of power and instrumentation and control (I&C) cables are monitored indirectly through the performance of in-service 9 Cables are monitored indirectly through the performance of in-service testing of safety-related systems and components. These

tests may demonstrate the function No 6Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?testing of safety-related systems and components. These tests candemonstrate the function of the cables under test conditions.

However, they do not provide assurance that they will continue to perform successfully when they are

called upon to operate fully loaded for

extended periods as they would undernormal service operating conditions or under design basis conditions.

of the cables only under test conditions.

These tests do not provide assurance that they will continue to perform

successfully when they are called upon to

operate fully loaded for extended

periods as they would under design basis

conditions. 10 (26) Footnote 3 -

NUREG CR/7000 10 Footnote Deleted No 10 (27) 10 CFR Part 50 regulations require- 10 10 CFR Part 50 including Appendix A and B regulations require-No 11 (27) Footnote 4 -

NUREG CR/7000 11 Footnote Deleted No 11 (27) -- 11 Characterization of cables by commodity grouping is an acceptable practice only if the location where each cable type is used is

also identified. The LRA should include the drawings identified in this section so that reviewers can identify locations of cables that may be subjected to moisture and

submergence. Again, these materials are not in the public domain and the LRA is

therefore opaque and incomplete.

No Trans-formers11 (28) There are numerous electrical transformers that perform a function described in §§ 54.4(a)(1)/(2) and (3). 11 There are numerous electrical transformers that perform functions described in 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1)/(2) and (3). Transformers function Potentially: The Petition Supplement 7Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?Transformers function without moving

parts or without a change in

configuration or properties as defined

in that regulation. without moving parts or without a change in configuration or properties as defined in that

regulation and are passive devices.identifies one addition of the term "passive" 11-12 (31-32)Failure to properly manage aging of electrical transformers could result in loss of emergency power to safety equipment and vital busses, including

all station blackout loads. Appendix

A, Page A-35 of the UFSAR supplement describes a Structures Monitoring Program that includes a

program for monitoring

"transformer/switchyard support

structures" yet there is no APM described for transformers within the

scope of 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(I). The LRA also discusses the need for an AMP for "transformer support structures" based on the criterion of 10 CFR § 54.4(a)(3).12 Text Deleted No 12 (34) While other License renewal applications contained a copy of relevant sections of the UFSAR, Seabrook did not provide such copy and only referenced applicable

sections of the UFSAR. 12 While other License renewal applications contained a copy of relevant sections of the UFSAR, Seabrook did not provide such

copy and only referenced applicable

sections of the UFSAR.

This UFSAR is not readily available for review.

No 8Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement? 12 (35) Without a copy of the UFSAR it is not possible to identify all of the transformers within the scope of 10

CFR 54.4, however it is well known that many transformers perform

functions described in 10 CFR 54 and are passive devices in that they contain no moving parts and do not

undergo a change of properties or

state.12 Without a copy of the UFSAR it is not possible to identify all of the transformers

within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4, however it is known that many transformers perform

functions described in 10 CFR 54.

No 12 (36) Transformers are active devices within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 yet the

licensee has not provided any AMP to

assure???????13 Transformers are passive devices within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 yet the licensee

has not provided any AMP to assure compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21.Potentially: The Petition Supplement identifies one addition of the term "passive" 12 (37) -- 13 New Footnote 1 -

Gall Report NUREG 1801 No 12(38) Characterization of cables by commodity grouping is an acceptable practice only if the location where

each cable type is used is also identified. The LRA should include the the drawings identified in this section so that reviewers can identify

location of cables that may be

subjected to moisture and 14 Figure 2.5-1 clearly illustrates that transformers are part of the SBO recovery

path and there are numerous additional

transformers within the scope of 10 CFR 54.4 that are not discussed in the LRA.

There is no proposed AMP for these

transformers.

Yes 9Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?

submergence. Again, these materials are not in the public domain and the LRA is therefore opaque and incomplete.

Buried Pipe 13 (39) In Appendix A of the LRA , under scoping, the licensee references, but does not provide color coded schematic drawings.

14 Page 2.1-6 of the Seabrook LRA states the following:

No 13 (39) Without these drawings the LRA is incomplete and does not permit the reviewer to easily determineif mechanical scoping was properly done.14 While numerous drawings were discussed and referenced in the LRA, few of these actual piping drawings and diagrams are available for review. Without these drawings the LRA is incomplete and does not permit the reviewer to determine if buried pipes and tanks are properly addressed.

No 14 (40) However, 10 CFR 54 does not differentiate between steel and non-steel piping and tanks. Stainless steel, fiberglass, PVC, concrete and other materials are employed and are subject to degradation and must be addressed.

Again, the LRA is incomplete

.15 10 CFR 54 does not differentiate between steel and non-steel piping and tanks.

Stainless steel, fiberglass, PVC, concrete and other materials are employed and are subject to degradation and must be addressed.

Again, the LRA is deficient.No 14 (41) The Aging Management program proposed in the license renewal application for Seabrook is inadequate

because:(1) it does not provide for adequate inspection of all systems, 15 The Aging Management program proposed in the license renewal application

for Seabrook buried pipes is inadequate because:(1) there is no adequate leak prevention . . . [subsequent numbering No 10Section Original Page #(¶ #) First Blanch Declaration New Page #Second Blanch Declaration Identified in Petitioners' Supplement?

structures, and components that may

contain or convey water, radioactively contaminated water, and/or other fluids; (2) there is no adequate leak prevention . . . modified accordingly] 15 (44) These transfer canals contain radioactive water during refuelings. 16 These transfer canals and water cavities contain radioactive water during refuelings. The adequacy of the AMPs for these components cannot be determined from the information provided in the LRA.

No 15 (46) Recent events around the United States and the world -

as well as at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station -

have demonstrated that various aging piping systems have experienced leaks

and/or corrosion. 17 Recent events 2 at nuclear power plants as well as at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station have demonstrated that various in scopepiping systems have experienced leaks and/or

corrosion.

New Footnote 2 - Indian Point failure of Condensate Storage Tank buried piping and severe degradation of Salem Unit 1 AFW buried discharge piping Potentially 17 (53) -- 19 New Footnote 3 -

NACE "Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems" No 18 -- Executed in Accord with 10CFR 2.304(d)

No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter of ) )

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443-LR

)

(Seabrook Station) )

) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Operating License Renewal) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC's Response Opposing NEC/Friends of the Coast's Supplement to Its Petition," were provided to the Electronic Information Exchange for service to those individuals listed below and others on the service list in this proceeding, this 13th day of December, 2010. Administrative Judge Paul S. Ryerson, Esq., Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Mail Stop T-3 F23

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: psr1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Michael Kennedy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Mail Stop T-3 F23

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: michael.kennedy@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Mail Stop T-3 F23

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: richard.wardwell@nrc.gov SecretaryAtt'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Mail Stop O-16 C1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

hearingdocket@nrc.gov 2 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16 C1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov Mary Spencer, Esq.

Catherine E. Kanatas, Esq.

Maxwell C. Smith, Esq.

Emily L. Monteith, Esq.

Megan Wright, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel

Mail Stop O-15 D21

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mary.baty@nrc.gov Raymond Shadis New England Coalition

Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com Kurt Ehrenberg New Hampshire Sierra Club

40 N. Main Street

Concord, NH 03301 E-mail: Kurt.Ehrenberg@sierraclub.org Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Project Beyond Nuclear

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: paul@beyondnuclear.org Doug Bogen Executive Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

PO Box 1136 Portsmouth, NH 03802 E-mail: bogen@metrocast.net

/Signed electronically by Antonio Fernández/

Antonio Fernández