ML11332A147
| ML11332A147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/2011 |
| From: | Curran D Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21466, 50-391-OL, ASLBP 09-893-01-OL-BD01 | |
| Download: ML11332A147 (4) | |
Text
November 28, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-391 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
)
(Watts Bar Unit 2)
)
___________________________________ )
SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO TVAS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 7 AND FOR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFF IF NEEDED Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLBs)
Scheduling Order of May 26, 2010, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hereby moves for an eight-day extension of the twenty-day time period permitted by 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205(b) for SACE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff to respond to Tennessee Valley Authoritys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 (Nov. 21, 2011)
(TVAs Motion). SACE also requests an opportunity to respond, by January 9, 2012, to any new facts and arguments that the Staff may submit in support of TVAs Motion.
TVA does not oppose this motion. The NRC Staff has also stated that it will not oppose the motion if the extension of time for responding to TVAs Motion applies to the Staff as well as SACE.
SACE respectfully submits that the requested extension of time to respond to TVAs Motion is justified by two significant factors. First, the time for responding to the motion includes the recent Thanksgiving holiday, when SACE staff members, SACEs attorney, and SACEs experts had longstanding family obligations. Second, TVAs motion is extremely
2 voluminous, containing thousands of pages of exhibits that will be time-consuming for SACEs counsel and experts to review and analyze.
In addition, in the event that the NRC Staff submits new arguments or information in its response to TVAs Motion, SACE requests the ASLB to permit SACE to respond by January 9, 2012. SACE respectfully submits that provision of such an opportunity is warranted in order to ensure that SACE has a meaningful opportunity to defend Contention 7 against summary disposition and that the ASLB has a complete record on which to base its ruling. See Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site permit for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP-08-02, 67 NRC 54, 67 n.8 (2008) (observing that a motion for leave to respond to new factual information submitted in response to summary disposition motions would seem to be a reasonable candidate for a favorable Board discretionary decision permitting the filing); Statement of Policy, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 19 (1998) (stating that the Commissions objectives in conducting adjudicatory proceedings include providing a fair hearing process and producing an informed adjudicatory record). In addition, the Commission has specifically provided for such responses in formal proceedings, for which the summary disposition standard is the same as informal proceedings.
See 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.710(a) and 2.1205(c).1 The proposed schedule for SACEs response to any new arguments or information in the NRC Staffs response to TVAs Motion is justified because it effectively provides SACE with approximately ten days to prepare a response, taking into account the fact that SACEs staff, attorney, and experts have pre-existing family obligations over the winter holidays.
1 When the Commission revised its procedural rules in 2004, it provided a simplified procedure for summary disposition in Subpart L proceedings. 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,229 (Jan.
14, 2004). But nothing in the regulations or the preamble to the regulations suggests that the Commission intended, by simplifying the procedures, to completely forbid responses to new facts and arguments presented in response to summary disposition motions.
3 SACE notes that this request is conditional, because it is possible that the Staff will not raise new facts or information to which SACE will wish to respond. SACE is requesting a ruling now, in order to avoid the need for motions and rulings over the upcoming holidays.
Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed by Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 Fax: 202-328-6918 e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com November 28, 2011
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Tennessee Valley Authority
)
Docket No. 50-391
)
(Watts Bar Unit 2)
)
____________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 28, 2011, I posted on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange System copies of the foregoing SACEs Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to TVAs Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 and for Opportunity to Respond to NRC Staff if Needed. It is my understanding that as a result, the following parties were served:
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Paul B. Abramson Gary S. Arnold Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3F23 Lgm1@nrc.gov, pba@nrc.gov, wxb3@nrc.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 ksutton@morganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com NRC Office of the Secretary Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Hearing.docket@nrc.gov NRC Office of Appellate Commission Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ocaamail@nrc.gov David E. Roth, Esq.
Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
Andrea Jones, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 David.roth@nrc.gov, andrea.jones@nrc.gov, Catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.
Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Knoxville, TN 37902 ejvigluicci@tva.gov, ccchandler0@tva.gov (signed electronically by)
Diane Curran