ML11259A151
| ML11259A151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/2011 |
| From: | Bessette P, Sutton K, Chandler C, Vance S, Vigluicci E Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21049, 50-391-OL, ASLBP 09-893-01-OL-BD01 | |
| Download: ML11259A151 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-391-OL TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
September 16, 2011 (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2)
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITYS REQUEST TO FILE A SURREPLY TO THE REPLY OF SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY In accordance with Section H.3 of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards May 26, 2010 Scheduling Order,1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) hereby requests leave to file a surreply to Southern Alliance for Clean Energys [SACEs] Reply to Oppositions to Admission of New Contention and SACEs associated Reply Memorandum filed on September 13, 2011.2 In support of this request, TVA respectfully states as follows:
- 1.
On August 11, 2011, SACE filed a Motion to admit a proposed New Contention in this proceeding purportedly based on new and significant information presented by the NRC in its report, Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident (July 12, 2011) (the Task Force Report).3 1
Licensing Board Scheduling Order at 7 (May 26, 2010) (unpublished).
2 See Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings (Sept.
13, 2011).
3 See Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental Implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident (Aug. 11, 2011) (Motion);
Contention Regarding NEPA Requirement to Address Safety and Environmental Implications of the Fukushima Task Force Report (Aug. 11, 2011) (New Contention).
- 2.
On September 6, 2011, TVA and the NRC Staff each filed Answers opposing the admission of the New Contention on the grounds that it does not meet the NRCs contention timeliness and admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.4
- 3.
Three days later, on September 9, 2011, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05), in which it ruled on a series of petitions filed in numerous proceedings to suspend adjudicatory, licensing, and rulemaking activities, and requesting additional related relief, in light of the March 2011 events at Fukishima.5 CLI-11-05 indicates that SACEs April 2011 Emergency Petition to suspend all pending reactor licensing decisions and related rulemaking decisions was among the many filings underlying the Commissions ruling.6
- 4.
Shortly thereafter, on September 13, 2011, SACE filed its Reply and Reply Memorandum in response to the Answers of TVA and the NRC Staff. In the Reply and Reply Memorandum, SACE discusses the relevance and effect of CLI-11-05 with respect to its New Contention, suggesting that it supports admission of the contention.7
- 5.
Unlike SACE, TVA did not have an opportunity to address the implications of CLI-11-05 relative to the admissibility of the New Contention. Relevant here, a portion of the Commissions decision addresses claims that the Fukushima eventsas discussed in the Task Force Reportconstitute new and significant information under NEPA that must be analyzed as part of the environmental review for new reactor and license renewal decisions.8 Accordingly, TVA submits that its inability to address the import of CLI-11-05 in its Answer, due solely to the timing 4
See Tennessee Valley Authoritys Answer in Opposition to Proposed Contention Regarding Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 6, 2011); NRC Staffs Answer to Motion and Contention Regarding NEPA Requirement to Address Safety and Environmental Implications of the Fukushima Task Force Report (Sept. 6, 2011).
5 See Union Elec. Co. d/b/a/ Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-05, 74 NRC __, slip op. (Sept. 9, 2011).
6 See id., Appendix at 4.
7 Reply at 1-2; Reply Memorandum at 1-4.
8 See CLI-11-05, slip op. at 30-31.
of that decision, constitutes good cause for the filing of a brief surreply to address the relevance of CLI-11-05 to the proposed New Contention. Indeed, the Reply recognizes as much, stating that the SACE would not object to a response by the applicant and the Staff to their arguments regarding the relevance of CLI-11-05 to their contention.9
- 6.
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), Counsel for TVA has contacted Counsel for SACE and Counsel for the NRC Staff. They stated that they do not oppose TVAs Motion for Leave to file a limited surreply.
WHEREFORE, TVA respectfully requests that the Board grant its Motion for Leave to file a brief surreply to SACEs Reply and Reply Memorandum on or before Tuesday, August 20, 2011.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Paul M. Bessette Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Scott A. Vance, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Office of the General Counsel 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Tennessee Valley Authority Washington, D.C. 20004 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Phone: (202) 739-3000 Knoxville, TN 37902 Fax: (202) 739-3001 Phone: 865-632-7317 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Fax: 865-632-6147 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov E-mail: savance@tva.gov E-mail: ccchandler0@tva.gov COUNSEL FOR TVA Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 16th day of September 2011 9
Reply at 2 n.2 (Because the applicant and the NRC Staff have not had an opportunity to address the effect of CLI-11-05 on the timeliness and admissibility of SACEs contention, SACE would not object to a response by the applicant and the Staff to their arguments regarding the relevance of CLI-11-05 to their contention.).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-391-OL TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
September 16, 2011 (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on September 16, 2011, a copy of Tennessee Valley Authoritys Request to File a Surreply to the Reply of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy was served by the Electronic Information Exchange on the following recipients:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Administrative Judge E-mail: lgm1@nrc.gov Paul B. Abramson Administrative Judge E-mail: pba@nrc.gov Gary S. Arnold Administrative Judge E-mail: gxa1@nrc.gov Wen Bu, Law Clerk E-mail: wxb3@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Edward Williamson, Esq.
E-mail: elw2@nrc.gov David Roth, Esq.
E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov Andrea Jones, Esq.
E-mail: andrea.jones@nrc.gov Michael Dreher, Esq.
E-mail: michael.dreher@nrc.gov Brian P. Newell, Paralegal E-mail: bpn1@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center E-mail: ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov
2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Diane Curran, Esq.
Representative of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com Signed (electronically) by Paul M. Bessette Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-3000 Fax: 202-739-3001 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com