ML110470338
| ML110470338 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/16/2011 |
| From: | Gaukler P Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 19595, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
| Download: ML110470338 (5) | |
Text
February 16, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel In the Matter of
)
)
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and )
Docket No. 50-293-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
)
ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
)
JOINT MOTION REQUESTING RESOLUTION OF CONTENTION 3 METEOROLOGICAL ISSUES ON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS The parties, Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(collectively Entergy), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff, and Pilgrim Watch, file this joint motion requesting the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to resolve the Contention 3 meteorological modeling issues based on the written evidentiary submissions already before it without further submissions or an oral hearing. Each party believes that it has sufficiently presented its evidence, to the extent permitted by prior Orders, in its pre-filed testimony and exhibits, and the parties request the Board to resolve and decide the Contention 3 meteorological modeling issues on the basis of these evidentiary submissions without an oral hearing.1 On February 8, 2011, Pilgrim Watch initiated consultation with the parties concerning a potential motion by Pilgrim Watch to allow Dr. Egans January 30, 2011 statement to be admitted as an exhibit. This consultation led to the parties discussing and then agreeing to ask the Board to resolve with no oral evidentiary hearing, based solely on the parties submitted pre-filed testimony and exhibits (including Dr. Egans January 30, 2011 statement),2 the primary 1 This joint request does not include the conduct of any further proceedings if the Board should resolve the meteorological modeling issues in Pilgrim Watch's favor. Neither does it include the timing and location of oral argument on Pilgrim Watch's new contentions.
2 If the Board denies this Joint Motion, the issue of the admissibility of Dr. Egans January 30 declaration as an exhibit would remain an open issue to be resolved either by separate motion or at the hearing.
2 and threshold issue as identified in the Boards Order of September 23, 2010 (Confirming Matters Addressed at September 15, 2010, Telephone Conference), this issue being, whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns/issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could, on its own, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement. Specifically, the parties request the Board to proceed as follows in resolving the remanded meteorological modeling issues:
- 1. The parties request the Board to accept the evidentiary submissions of Entergy, the NRC Staff, and Pilgrim Watch, subject to ruling on Entergys Motion In Limine to Exclude from Evidence Pilgrim Watchs SAMA Remand Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits" (Jan. 13, 2011) (Entergys Motion In Limine). As such, the Board would accept into the record the pre-filed testimony of the parties on the meteorological modeling issues, including the January 30 declaration of Dr. Bruce Egan submitted by Pilgrim Watch, and the pre-filed exhibits of the parties subject to ruling on Entergys Motion In Limine.3
- 2. The parties request the Board to rule on and decide the meteorological modeling issues based on this evidentiary record, without further written submissions or holding of an oral evidentiary hearing. If the Board adopts this procedure, the parties would not submit any questions pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1208(a)(3).
- 3. The parties agree that Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law or written concluding statements of position under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1208(a)(4) are not necessary from their perspective and that they would not submit such proposed findings or concluding statements of position 3 If the Board rules, as requested by Entergy in its Motion In Limine, that the source term used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is beyond the scope of this proceeding, the Board need not admit into the record the source term testimony filed by the parties.
3 unless requested by the Board. If requested by the Board, the parties would file Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law or concluding statements of position per the schedule set by the Board. In accordance with the Boards Order of January 5, 2011, (Rescheduling Hearing and Oral Argument), the period of March 11-20 would be a dead period that is not counted as part of the time provided by the Board to file any further pleadings that it may request.
10 C.F.R. § 2.1206 allows the parties to unanimously agree and file a joint motion requesting a hearing consisting of written submissions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1208. While 10 C.F.R. § 2.1206 provides that such as request shall be made within fifteen days after service of the order granting a request for hearing, 10 C.F.R. § 2.307 authorizes the Board, as presiding officer, to extend such a time limit for good cause or approved stipulation. At stated above, if adopted by the Board, the parties contemplate no further submissions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.1208.
The NRC Staff and Pilgrim Watch have reviewed this joint motion and authorize Entergy to file it on their behalf.
Wherefore, the parties jointly request the Board to rule on the meteorological modeling issues based on the evidentiary record as described above without further written submission or holding of an evidentiary oral hearing.
/Signed electronically by Paul A. Gaukler/
David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: February 16, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and )
Docket No. 50-293-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
)
ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the Joint Motion Requesting Resolution of Contention 3 Meteorological Issues on Written Submissions was provided to the Electronic Information Exchange for service on the individuals below, this 16th day of February, 2011. In addition, a copy of this pleading was provided by email to the persons designated by an asterisk below.
- Secretary Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop O-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 secy@nrc.gov; hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov
- Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 amy@nrc.gov
- Administrative Judge Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 rfc1@nrc.gov
- Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 pba@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
5
- Ms. Mary Lampert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 mary.lampert@comcast.net
- Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
- Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
- Brian Harris, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan.Uttal@nrc.gov; andrea.jones@nrc.gov; brian.harris@nrc.gov
- Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us
- Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
Duane Morris LLP 505 9th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 sshollis@duanemorris.com
- Mr. Mark D. Sylvia Town Manager Town of Plymouth 11 Lincoln St.
Plymouth, MA 02360 msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us
- Chief Kevin M. Nord Fire Chief and Director, Duxbury Emergency Management Agency 688 Tremont Street P.O. Box 2824 Duxbury, MA 02331 nord@town.duxbury.ma.us
- Richard R. MacDonald Town Manager 878 Tremont Street Duxbury, MA 02332 macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us
- Katherine Tucker, Esq.
Law Clerk, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T3-E2a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Katie.Tucker@nrc.gov
/Signed electronically by Paul A. Gaukler/
Paul A. Gaukler