ML11271A131
| ML11271A131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/28/2011 |
| From: | Brock M State of MA, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21142, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
| Download: ML11271A131 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) September 28, 2011 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ANSWER TO PILGRIM WATCH PETITION FOR REVIEW, REQUEST TO STAY COMMISSION DECISION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STRIKE REFERENCE TO MASSACHUSETTS EXPERT The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(a)(3), hereby submits this limited Answer to Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review,1 for the purpose of requesting that, because of the potential overlap in issues raised by the pro se Pilgrim Watch Petition for Review with those issues raised by the Commonwealth in its contention and related filings currently pending before the Pilgrim ASLB, the Commission should stay issuance of a final decision on the Pilgrim Watch Petition until the ASLB has ruled on the Commonwealths filings.2 To avoid piecemeal and duplicative litigation, and to promote efficient agency decision making, the Commission should defer issuing a final decision on the Pilgrim Watch Petition which, like the Commonwealth, has raised issues under the National Environmental Policy Act regarding 1
Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrim Watchs Requests for Hearing on New Contentions Relating to Fukushima Accident)(September 23, 2011)(Pilgrim Watch Petition).
2 As an Interested State, the Commonwealth is entitled to protect its party-related interests in this proceeding. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC, 522 F. 3d 115, 118 (1st Cir. 2008).
new and significant information arising from the accident at Fukushima.3 However, in the current posture, the Commonwealth and the pro se Petitioner are now in front of different NRC adjudicatory decision makers, with the potential for fragmented agency and judicial review. Once the ASLB has ruled on the Commonweaths contention, the Commission will be better informed as to how best to expedite a final agency decision on these potentially related claims.
In the alternative, the Commonwealth requests that the references of opinion, fact and law in the Pilgrim Watch Petition regarding the Commonwealths expert, Dr. Gordon Thompson, be stricken and disregarded by the Commission in its deliberations on the Petition. The Commonwealth makes this request because, as discussed below, the Commonwealths proposed contention on the lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima, including the declarations by the Commonwealths expert Dr. Thompson, currently are pending for decision before the Pilgrim Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). Therefore it would be premature and potentially prejudicial to the Commonwealth for the Commission to consider a portion of the Commonwealths filings and expert declarations at this time as part of its deliberations on the merits of a Petition for Review filed by another party.
The Commonwealths counsel has been authorized by the pro se representative for Pilgrim Watch to state that she has no objection to this Answer and Request for Relief.
3 See, e.g., Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contention Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed by the Fukushima Radiological Accident (June 2, 2011); cf.
Pilgrim Watch Petition at 11 - 15.
2
=
Background===
On June 2, 2011, the Commonwealth filed a new contention on the lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima, a declaration by the Commonwealths expert Dr.
Gordon Thompson supporting the contention, and related procedural filings.4 Since that time, the Commonwealth has made further filings in support of its contention, including additional declarations prepared by Dr. Thompson.5 These filings remain pending for decision before the ASLB, as well as voluminous filings by the NRC Staff and Entergy responding to the Commonwealths filings.6 On September 23, 2011, Pilgrim Watch filed a Petition for Review with the Commission on the ASLBs denial of the Pilgrim Watch Fukushima-related contentions.
See FN1. In that filing, Pilgrim Watch cited various sources in support of its appeal, including, as relevant here, the Commonwealths expert Dr. Thompson.7 However, because the Pilgrim ASLB currently has jurisdiction over the Commonwealths contention, including its expert declarations and other filings, it would be inconsistent with the NRCs regulatory process, and potentially prejudicial to the Commonwealth, for the Commission to consider a portion of the Commonwealths case in isolation as part of the appeal by another party. Also, as the sponsor of Dr. Thompson, fundamental fairness 4
Declaration of Dr. Gordon R. Thompson in Support of Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contention and Related Petitions and Motions (June 1, 2011).
5 See, e.g., Declaration of Gordon R. Thompson Addressing New and Significant Information Provided by the NRCs Near-Term Task Force Report on the Fukushima Accident (August 11, 2011).
6 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Memorandum and Order Denying Pilgrim Watchs Requests for Hearing on Certain New Contentions, LBP-11-20 (August 11, 2011) at 3 (In addition, that separate ruling [by the ASLB] will address filings by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that also concern information from the Fukushima events.).
7 See, e.g., Pilgrim Watch Petition at FN 3; at 20 - 21 and FN15.
3
requires that the Commonwealth be permitted to present its complete evidence, including its expert-supported contention, for decision before the NRC.
Conclusion For these reasons, and because the pro se representative for Pilgrim Watch does not object to this request for relief, the Commonwealth respectfully requests the Commission to stay issuance of a final decision on the Pilgrim Watch Petition until the ASLB has ruled on the Commonwealths contention and the parties have an opportunity to advise the Commission as to the most efficient process to reach a final resolution on these matters. In the alternative, the Commonwealth requests the Commission to disregard and strike all reference of opinion, fact, and law regarding the Commonwealths expert, Dr. Thompson, for purposes of the Commissions deliberations on the Pilgrim Watch Petition for Review.8 Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Matthew Brock Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Tel: (617) 727-2200 Fax: (617) 727-9665 matthew.brock@state.ma.us September 28, 2011 8
In requesting this relief, the Commonwealth does not otherwise intend to challenge the merits of Pilgrim Watchs appeal of the ASLB decision.
4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of )
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) September 28, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ANSWER TO PILGRIM WATCH PETITION FOR REVIEW, REQUEST TO STAY COMMISSION DECISION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STRIKE REFERENCE TO MASSACHUSETTS EXPERT, dated September 28, 2011, were provided to the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) for service on the individuals below and by electronic mail as indicated by an asterisk*:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Richard S. Harper, Esq.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Administrative Judge Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Richard F. Cole Maxwell C. Smith, Esq.
E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov Edward Williams, Esq Brian Newell, Paralegal Administrative Judge E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, richard.harper@nrc.gov, Hillary Cain, Law Clerk susan.uttal@nrc.gov, axj4@nrc.gov, Hillary.cain@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov, brian.harris@nrc.gov, maxwell.smith@nrc.gov edward.williams@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Commission Appellate Office of the Secretary Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 HearingDocket@nrc.gov OCAAMail.Resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLP Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2300 N Street, N.W.
Mail Stop: O11-F1 Washington DC, 20037-1128 Washington, D.C. 20555 -0001 David R. Lewis, Esq.
Lisa Regner* David.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Senior Project Manager Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Division of License Renewal Paul.gaulker@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Jason B. Parker, Esq.
Jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com
- Maria.webb@pillsburylaw.com Entergy Nuclear Town of Plymouth 1340 Echelon Parkway Town Managers Office Mail Stop M-ECH-62 11 Lincoln Street Jackson, MS 39213 Plymouth, MA 02360 Terence A. Burke, Esq. Melissa Arrighi, Acting Town Manager*
tburke@entergy.com marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Duxbury Emergency Management Agency Town of Plymouth, MA 686 Tremont Street Duane Morris L.L.P.
Duxbury, MA 02332 505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-2166 Kevin M. Nord, Fire Chief & Director*
E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.*
SSHollis@duanemorris.com Pilgrim Watch Town of Duxbury Nuclear Advisory 148 Washington Street Committee Duxbury, MA 02332 31 Deerpath Trl.
North Duxbury, MA 02332 Mary Lampert, Director Mary.Lampert@comcast.net Rebecca Chin, Vice Chair*
rebeccajchin@hotmail.com
/s Matthew Brock Matthew Brock 2