ML12009A157
| ML12009A157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 01/09/2012 |
| From: | Gaukler P, Doris Lewis Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21712, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, LBP-11-20, LBP-11-23 | |
| Download: ML12009A157 (5) | |
Text
January 9, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission 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 PILGRIM WATCHS MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO ENTERGYS AND NRC STAFFS ANSWERS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nu-clear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) respond in opposition to the Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs December 22, 2011 Answers Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Request to Supplement Petitions for Review of LBP-11-20 and LBP-11-23 (Dec. 29, 2011) (Proffered Reply). Pilgrim Watch seeks to reply to Entergys and the NRC Staffs responses in opposi-tion1 to Pilgrim Watchs initial Supplementation Request2 to supplement its petitions for review pending before the Commission with a copy of a Report3 prepared by the office of Congressman Edward J. Markey. Proffered Reply at 1. As discussed below, the Commission should reject the Proffered Reply (as well as the requested supplementation as explained in the Entergy and NRC Staff Oppositions).
1 Entergys Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Request to Supplement Petitions for Review (Dec. 22, 2011) (En-tergy Opposition); NRC Staff Answer to Pilgrim Watchs Request to Supplement Petition for Review of LBP 20 and LBP-11-23 (Dec. 22, 2011) (NRC Staff Opposition).
2 Pilgrim Watchs Request to Supplement Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrim Watchs Requests for Hearing on Certain New Contentions) ASLBP No. 06848-02-LR, August 11, 2011 (Filed Au-gust 26, 2011) and Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrim Watchs Re-quests for Hearing on New Contentions Relating to Fukushima Accident (Sept. 8, 2011) (Filed September 23, 2011)
(Dec. 12, 2011) (Supplementation Request).
3 How Four Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Conspired to Delay and Weaken Nuclear Reactor Safety in the Wake of Fukushima (Dec. 9, 2011) (Markey Report).
First, the governing regulation requires that Pilgrim Watch first obtain permission before filing any reply. 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) (The moving party has no right to reply, except as per-mitted by the Secretary . . . .) (emphasis added). Pilgrim Watch does not separately request leave to file a reply, but instead combines its leave request with a proposed reply. See Proffered Reply at 1-3. Thus, the Proffered Reply violates the explicit requirement that permission be ob-tained before any reply can be filed. Such disregard for the Commissions procedural require-ments should not be countenanced.
Second, Pilgrim Watchs claim of compelling circumstances - that it could not have anticipated certain arguments made by Entergy and the NRC Staff in their respective Opposi-tions to Pilgrim Watchs Supplementation Request, Proffered Reply at 1 is baseless. Pilgrim Watchs claim that it could not anticipate Entergys and the NRC Staffs oppositions to its Sup-plementation Request on the grounds that it is not relevant and material new information is mere pretext for Pilgrim Watchs impermissible reply. Contrary to Pilgrim Watchs conclusory asser-tions of relevance (Proffered Reply at 2), Pilgrim Watch should have reasonably anticipated that Entergy and the NRC Staff would argue that the Markey Report is not relevant or material in-formation because nowhere does the Markey Report mention the Pilgrim severe accident mitiga-tion alternatives analysis, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or the Commis-sions NEPA obligations. Nor does it have any relevance to Pilgrim Watchs pending petitions for review. Thus, Pilgrim Watch can hardly be surprised that Entergy and the NRC Staff would oppose its attempt to inject such irrelevant information into this proceeding.4 4
Pilgrim Watch also contends that the report contains new information related to its pending petitions for review, Proffered Reply at 3, but this claim is plainly wrong. There simply cannot be any information in the Markey Report that is new to the Commission because, as Pilgrim Watch points out (id. at 2), the Markey Report consists of documents prepared or obtained by any Commissioner or any member of any Commissioners Staff.
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should reject the Proffered Reply and strike it from the record.
Respectfully Submitted,
/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 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Dated: January 9, 2012 Counsel for Entergy 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission 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 Pilgrim Watchs Motion to File a Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers, dated January 9, 2012, were provided to the Electronic Information Exchange for service on the individuals below, this 9th day of January, 2012.
Secretary Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop O-16 C1 Mail Stop O-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAAmail@nrc.gov hearingdocket@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chair Mail Stop T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ann.Young@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Richard.Cole@nrc.gov Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov 403269842v4
Susan L. Uttal, Esq. Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Brian Harris, Esq. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Beth Mizuno, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Office of the General Counsel One Ashburton Place Mail Stop O-15 D21 Boston, MA 02108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Washington, DC 20555-0001 Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us Susan.Uttal@nrc.gov; brian.harris@nrc.gov; beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Ms. Mary Lampert Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
148 Washington Street Duane Morris LLP Duxbury, MA 02332 505 9th Street, NW mary.lampert@comcast.net Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 sshollis@duanemorris.com Mr. Mark D. Sylvia Richard R. MacDonald Town Manager Town Manager Town of Plymouth 878 Tremont Street 11 Lincoln St. Duxbury, MA 02332 Plymouth, MA 02360 macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Chief Kevin M. Nord Hillary Cain, Esq.
Fire Chief and Director, Duxbury Emergency Law Clerk, Management Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 688 Tremont Street Mail Stop T3-E2a P.O. Box 2824 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duxbury, MA 02331 Washington, DC 20555-0001 nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Hillary.Cain@nrc.gov
/signed electronically by Paul A. Gaukler/
Paul A. Gaukler 2