ML061810395
| ML061810395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 06/16/2006 |
| From: | Brock M, Curran D Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, State of MA, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Giitter R | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS 11845 | |
| Download: ML061810395 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
))
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
)
Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
)
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO HEARING REQUEST Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("ASLB's") Order of June 14, 2006, and 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the Massachusetts Attorney General hereby moves for a two-day extension of time to reply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC") Staff's response to the Attorney General's hearing request and contention.1 The NRC Staff has agreed to this motion on the condition that the Staff should be allowed a corresponding extension of two days, or until June 22, 2006, to file its response. The Attorney General does not oppose the Staff's request.
DISCUSSION On May 26, 2006, the Attorney General served its Hearing Request and Contention on the NRC Staff by hand, and on Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
("Entergy") by overnight mail. Under the NRC's procedural rules, the Staff's response is due on June 20, and Entergy's response is due on June 22. Therefore the Attorney General's reply to the Staff is due on June 27, while his reply to Entergy's response is due on June 29.
1 Massachusetts Attorney General's Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene With Respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.'s Application for Renewal of E-fLTC-Z ! E-C-q-0 3-7 z/ý I
In anticipation that some of the arguments by Entergy and the Staff may overlap, the Attorney General wishes to be able to address them in a single reply pleading.
Therefore, the Attorney General seeks to adjust the briefing schedule slightly so that the due date for its reply to the Staff and Entergy will fall on the same date, June 29.
Undersigned counsel Diane Curran consulted Susan Uttal, counsel for the Staff, and David Lewis, counsel for Entergy, who had no objection to this motion. As discussed above, however, the Staff seeks an extension of time until June 22 for its response. The Attorney General has no objection to giving the NRC Staff an additional two days for its response.
Respectfully submitted, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/328-3500 FAX 202/328-6918 dcurran.d-harmoncurran.com Mattew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 617/727/2200 x 2425 FAX 617/727-9665 matthew.brock(aago.state.ma.us June 16, 2006 the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant Operating License, etc. (May 26, 2006) ("Hearing Request and Contention").
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 16, 2006, copies of the foregoing letter from Diane Curran to Administrative Judges and Massachusetts Attorney General's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply were served on the following by first-class mail and/or electronic mail, as indicated below:
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Also by E-mail: amy neynrc.gov Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Also by E-mail: rfc(I@nrc. ov Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Also by E-mail: n.trikouros@,att.net Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Also by E-mail: OCAAMail @,nrc.gov Matthew Brock, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Mass. Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108-1598 Also by E-mail:
matthew.brock-asgo.state.ma. us Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Harry E. Wedewer, Esq.
Mail Stop 0-15D21 Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Also by E-mail: slu(anrc.gov; hew @)nrc.gov Molly H. Bartlett, Esq.
52 Crooked Lane Duxbury, MA 02332 Also by E-mail:
mol lvhbartlettfa.hotmai l.com Terence A. Burke, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear 1340 Echelon Parkway Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213
Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Also by E-mail: hearingdocket@,nrc.gov David R. Lewis, Esq.
Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1137 Also by E-mail:
david.lewis @.pillsbu.ylaw.com naul. aukler(pil Isburvlaw.com Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mary Lambert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 Also by E-mail: lamnbert@adelphia.net Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
Duane Morris L.L.P.
1667 K Street N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 iane Curran 2
HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG
-1E1SENBERG, LLP 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington. DC 20036 (202) 328-3500 (202) 328-6918 fax DOCKETED June 16, 2006 USNRC June 16, 2006 (3:41pm)
Ann Marshall Young, Chair OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Richard F. Cole, Administrative Judge ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Nicholas G. Trikouros, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Pilgrim License Renewal Proceeding Docket No. 50-293 LR
Dear Administrative Judges,
On May 26, 2006, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly submitted a hearing request and petition to intervene in this proceeding.' The Hearing Request included a contention asserting that Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.'s environmental report for the Pilgrim nuclear power plant license renewal application fails to satisfy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") regulations or the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA") because it does not address the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool accidents, including accidents caused by intentional and malicious acts. We are writing to notify you of a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which has a direct bearing on the contention, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 03-74628 (June 2, 2006) ("Mothers for Peace"). A copy of the decision is enclosed.
In Mothers for Peace, the Court reversed a 2003 decision by the NRC Commissioners that had denied the intervenors a hearing on the question of whether NEPA required preparation of an environmental impact statement to evaluate the impacts of an intentional attack on a proposed independent spent fuel storage facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon ISFSI),
CLI-03-1, 57 NRC 1 (2003) ("Diablo Canyon "). The Court ruled that the Commission's rationale for refusing to consider the environmental impacts of intentional malicious attacks against nuclear facilities, as set forth in Diablo Canyon and Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-25, 56 NRC 340 (2002) ("PFS"),
fails to meet NEPA's reasonableness standard. Id., slip op. at 6096. The Court also determined that the question of whether intentional attacks on nuclear facilities are reasonably foreseeable is a question of law rather than a question of fact. Id., slip op. at Massachusetts Attorney General's Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene With Respect to Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.'s Application for Renewal of the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant Operating License, etc. (May 26, 2006) ("Hearing Request").
HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG9,N EISENBERG, LLP Ann Marshall Young, et al.
June 16, 2006 Page 2 6081-83. Finally, the Court held that as a matter of law, "the possibility of terrorist attack is not so 'remote and highly speculative' as to be beyond NEPA's requirements." Id.,
slip op. at 6089, quoting PFS, 56 NRC at 349. The Court remanded the case to the NRC for further proceedings. Id., slip op. at 6096.
Accordingly, the Attorney General requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board apply the Mothers for Peace decision by ruling that the environmental impacts of an intentional attack on the Pilgrim fuel storage pool must be addressed in an EIS, or seek appropriate guidance from the Commission.
Sincerely, 4neC Curra Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Cc w/enclosure: Service list