ML100321713
| ML100321713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/01/2010 |
| From: | Harris B NRC/OGC |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, LBP-06-848, RAS J-204 | |
| Download: ML100321713 (6) | |
Text
February 1,2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PILGRIM WATCH NOTICE TO COMMISSION REGARDING NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PILGRIM WATCH'S PETII-ION FOR REVIEW OF LBP-06-848 INTRODUCTION The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Staff') hereby responds to Pilgrim Watch Notice to Commission Regarding New and Significant Information Pertaining to Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of LBP-06-848 ("Notice"), dated January 21, 2010. The Notice claims that a recent paper from the Staff, SECY-09-0174, contradicts a holding of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") on review in this proceeding.' For the reasons set forth below, this Notice to the Commission should not be considered to the extent it attempts to argue the merits of Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of LBP-06-848, LBP-07-13, LBP-06-23 and the Interlocutory Decisions in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Proceeding ("Petition for Review").'
1 Notice at 1-2 (citing SECY-09-0174, Staff Progress in Evaluation of Buried Piping at Nuclear Reactor Facilities, at 3, attach., at 6, 7 (Dec. 2, 2009) (ADAMS Accession No. ML093160004) ("SECY 0174")).
Petition for Review (Nov. 12, 2008) (ADAMS Accession No. ML083240599). Although Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review referred to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Initial Decision as LBP-06-848, the actual number for that opinion is LBP-08-22. Compare Petition for Review at 1 with Entergy (continued. . .)
DISCUSSION In previous decisions, the Commission has declined to consider communications arguing the merits of a pending petition for re vie^.^ The Staff would expect parties to notify the Commission of the status and availability of pertinent inf~rmation.~ But, Pilgrim Watch's Notice goes beyond the permissible scope of a notification and attempts to argue the merits of the pending Petition for Review. Specifically, the Notice mistakenly concludes that "SECY-09-0174 makes clear that the ASLB was incorrect in concluding that the only thing that matters about buried pipes and tanks was that [the leaks] are so great as to permit a design base f a i l ~ r e . "To ~
the extent Pilgrim Watch's Notice argues the merits of the case, i.e. the ASLB erred, the Commission should disregard it. The Staff's assertion that the Commission should disregard the Notice is further supported by the fact that Pilgrim Watch's Notice not only argues that the ASLB was incorrect but does so based on information, the SECY paper, that is already before the Commission.
Even if the Commission were to consider the notice, the SECY paper does not reach the conclusions Pilgrim Watch suggests. Pilgrim Watch argues that SECY-09-0174 contradicts a Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Initial Decision, LBP-08-22, 68 NRC 590 (2008).
See AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station),
CLI-09-07, 69 NRC 235, 284 1-1.277(2009) (stating that a letter to the Commission was not a part of the record when the intervenor filed the letter while a petition for review was pending before the Commission and the letter contained additional argument); AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 676 n.74 (2008) (same).
In response to the Chairman's tasking to the Staff, on December 2, 2009, the Staff formally provided SECY-09-0174 to the Commission. Consequently, Pilgrim Watch's notification to the Commission of a paper already before the Commission is duplicative.
Notice at 2.
holding of the ASLB. While Pilgrim Watch asserts that systems, structures, and components within the scope of review for license renewal must be evaluated to determine if they will comply with all aspects of the plant's continuing licensing basis during the period of extended
~ p e r a t i o nthe
, ~ Board took a more narrow view. The Board concluded that such systems, structures, and components must only be evaluated to determine if they will perform their intended safety function during the period of extended ~ p e r a t i o n .SECY-09-0174
~ reaches a similar result. That paper states, "The license renewal rule requires applicants for license renewal to demonstrate that for each applicable structure, system, or component, the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation.'18 Thus, contrary to Pilgrim Watch's conclusions, both the ASLB's decisions and SECY-09-0174 recognize that the scope of license renewal is limited to whether the licensee will maintain an in-scope-structure, system, or component's intended safety function during the period of extended operation. The parties have already extensively briefed the merits of this c o n c l u ~ i o n . ~
Petition for Review at 4.
7 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, lnc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-12, 68 NRC 113, 128-30 (2007).
SECY-09-0174, attach., at 6.
9 Petition for Review, at 2-6; Entergy's Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review, at 5-8 (Nov. 24,2008) (ADAMS Accession No. ML083380181); NRC Staff's Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of LBP-08-22, LBP-07-13, LBP-06-23 and Interlocutory Decisions, at 7-12 (Nov. 24, 2008) (ADAMS Accession No. NIL083300089); Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergy's Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review, at 1-2 (Dec. 1, 2008) (ADAMS Accession No. ML083440445); Pilgrim Watch Reply to NRC Staff's Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of LBP-08-22, LBP-07-13, LBP-06-23 and Interlocutory Decisions, at 1 (Dec. 1, 2008) (ADAMS Accession No. ML083440446).
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Commission should disregard attempts to argue the merits of the proceeding through notifications to the Commission.
Respectfully submitted, f < d ~ .
Brian G. Harris Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0 - 15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1392 brian.harris@nrc.qov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of February 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and )
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 1 Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC Staff's Response to Pilgrim Watch Notice to Commission Regarding New and Significant Information Pertaining to Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of LBP-06-848" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail and by deposit in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or, as indicated by an asterisk (*), by electronic mail and by deposit in the U.S. Mail system this 1st day of February, 2010.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.qov Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Ann Marshall Young, Chair Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: 0-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.qov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.qov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: T-3F23 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY) Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearinq.Docket@nrc.qov
Johanna Thibault Terence A. Burke, Esq.*
Law Clerk Entergy Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1340 Echelon Parkway Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Jackson, MS 39213 Email: Johanna.thibault@,nrc.aov E-mail: tburke@enterqy.com Mary Lampert* David R. Lewis, Esq*.
148 Washington Street Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Duxbury, MA 02332 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP E- mail: rnarv.lampert@,corncast.net 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1 137 E-mail: david.lewis@~illsburylaw.com paul.qaukler@pillsburvlaw.com Chief Kevin M. Nord* Town Manager*
Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency Town of Plymouth Management Agency 11 Lincoln St.
668 Tremont Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Duxbury, MA 02332 E-mail: msylvia@townhall.plvmouth.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma,us Richard R. MacDonald* Matthew Brock, Esq.*
Town Manager Assistant Attorney General, Chief 878 Tremont Street Environmental Protection Division Duxbury, MA 02332 Office of the Attorney General E-mail: macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.nia.us Sheila Slocum Hollis*
Duane Morris LLP 1667 K Street, IVW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com Counsel for the NRC Staff