ML111511077
| ML111511077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/31/2011 |
| From: | Gaukler P, Doris Lewis Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 20382, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
| Download: ML111511077 (5) | |
Text
May 31, 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)
)
)
ENTERGYS ANSWER OPPOSING COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MOTION TO PERMIT UNAUTHORIZED REPLY TO NRC STAFF AND ENTERGY ANSWERS OPPOSING MOTION TO HOLD LICENSING DECISION IN ABEYANCE Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) hereby oppose the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Reply to the Answers of the NRC Staff And Entergy in Opposition to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Hold Licensing Decision in Abeyance Pending Commission Decision (May 19, 2011)
(Motion). The Motion should be denied because the Commissions rules do not allow replies and the Motion does not make the requisite showing of compelling circumstances to overcome the general prohibition against replies.
The Commissions Rules of Practice do not authorize a reply. In particular, 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) provides:
The moving party has no right to reply, except as permitted by the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, or the presiding officer. Permission may be granted only in compelling circumstances, such as where the moving party demonstrates that it could not reasonably have anticipated the arguments to which it seeks leave to reply.
10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c). The Commonwealth makes no showing of compelling circumstances.
2 The Commonwealths claim that it could not have anticipated Entergys answer which is allegedly based upon an error of law inconsistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (NEPA) (Motion at 2) is specious. Entergys answer never discussed NEPA nor based any of its argument on NEPA. The only reference made by the Commonwealth in its Tendered Reply to Energys Answer is to Entergys noting that the Commonwealths request to hold this proceeding in abeyance inappropriately circumvents the Commissions rules governing the timing and standards for stays.1 Any suggestion that the Commonwealth could not have anticipated that Entergy would have referred to the Commissions rules regarding stays, in responding to a motion seeking a stay, is unreasonable.
There is similarly no merit in the Commonwealths assertion that it could not have reasonably anticipated the NRC Staffs Answer. Motion at 1. The Commonwealths claim that the Staff unfairly characterizes the NRCs licensing and decision making process relevant to the contested matters arising from the accident at Fukushima (id. at 1-2) is baseless. The Staffs Answer merely explained how the NRCs licensing process will give the Commission the opportunity to provide whatever instructions are appropriate before the renewed license is issued, thus obviating a need for the Board to issue a housekeeping stay or delay its decision.2 There is nothing in the Staffs discussion that is unfairly characterized or that the Commonwealth could not have anticipated.
1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Reply to NRC Staff and Entergys Opposition to Commonwealth Motion to Hold Licensing Decision in Abeyance Pending Commission Decision Whether to Suspend the Pilgrim Proceeding to Review the Lessons of the Fukushima Accident (May 19, 2011) (Tendered Reply) at 4 n.5.
2 NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Hold Licensing Decision in Abeyance Pending Commission Decision Whether to Suspend the Pilgrim Proceeding to Review the Lessons of the Fukushima Accident (May 12, 2011) at 5-6.
3 For the above stated reasons, the Board should deny the Motion and disregard the Tendered Reply attached to it.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed Electronically By/
David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Phone: (202) 663-8000 E-mail: paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Counsel for Entergy Dated: May 31, 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 copies of Entergys Answer Opposing Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Permit Unauthorized Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy Answers Opposing Motion to Hold Licensing Decision in Abeyance, dated May 31, 2011, were provided to the Electronic Information Exchange for service on the individuals below, this 31st day of May, 2011.
Secretary Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop O-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 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 Ann.Young@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Paul.Abramson@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 Richard.Cole@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
2 402937777 Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
Beth Mizuno, 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 ;
beth.mizuno@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 Ms. Mary Lampert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 mary.lampert@comcast.net 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 Richard R. MacDonald Town Manager 878 Tremont Street Duxbury, MA 02332 macdonald@town.duxbury.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 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