ML12097A222
| ML12097A222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/05/2012 |
| From: | Walsh T Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22223, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
| Download: ML12097A222 (7) | |
Text
April 5, 2012 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 MOTION TO STRIKE PETITIONERS AFFIDAVIT AND PORTIONS OF PETITIONERS REPLY Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nu-clear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) move to strike in its entirety the Reply Affidavit of Alex Mansfield (Mar. 25, 2012) (Mansfield Reply Affidavit) and to strike portions of the Reply1 filed by Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch (collectively, Petition-ers) on March 26, 2012. Petitioners Reply and the Mansfield Reply Affidavit raise new infor-mation for the first time on reply, which exceeds the permissible scope of a reply. Accordingly, the Mansfield Reply Affidavit and the offending portions of the Reply should be struck from the record.
On March 8, 2012, Petitioners filed a petition to intervene, motion to reopen the record and late-filed hearing request in the license renewal proceeding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim or PNPS).2 The Petition was accompanied by the affidavits of Ms. Anne Bingham (Bingham Affidavit); Mr. Alex Mansfield (Mansfield Affidavit); and E. Pine du-1 Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch Reply to Answers of NRC Staff and Entergy to Jones River Watershed Association Petitions to Intervene and for Hearing Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 (Mar. 26, 2012) (Reply).
2 Jones River Watershed Association Petitions for Leave to Intervene and File New Contentions Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a), (d) or in the Alternative 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(e) and Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch Motion to Reopen Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.326 and Request for a Hearing Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a) and (d) in Above Captioned License Renewal Proceeding (Mar. 8, 2012) (Petition).
Bois (duBois Affidavit). One week after the Petition was filed, Petitioners filed a Correction and Supplement to [the Petition] (Mar. 15, 2012) (Supplement). Both Entergy and the NRC Staff filed Answers opposing the Petition and Supplement.3 On March 26, 2012, Petitioners filed their Reply.
The Commission has long held that a reply may not contain new information that was not raised in either the petition or the answers. USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-9, 63 N.R.C. 433, 439 (2006) (The Commission will not permit, in a reply, the filing of new ar-guments or new legal theories that opposing parties have not had the opportunity to address.)
(citing Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, 60 N.R.C.
223, 225 (In Commission practice, and in litigation practice generally, new arguments may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief), reconsideration denied, CLI-04-35, 60 N.R.C. 619 (2004). See also Sequoyah Fuels Corp., CLI-94-4, 39 N.R.C. 187, 189 n.1 (1994). Here, Peti-tioners Reply and accompanying Mansfield Reply Affidavit contravene this precedent.
Further, while NRC rules allow a reply to an answer to a contention (see 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2)), those rules do not allow a reply to a motion (see 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c)) such as a Section 2.326 motion to reopen the record. Thus, while Petitioners have the right to reply to le-gal arguments regarding the admissibility of their contentions under the standards in Section 2.309, they have no right under the NRC rules to provide new argument on the reopening stan-dards, or to submit a new affidavit in support of reopening. 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) ([t]he moving party has no right to reply, except as permitted . . . . Permission may be granted only in compel-ling circumstances). And, even where petitioners can reply under Section 2.309, that limited 3
Entergys Answer Opposing Jones River Watershed Associations and Pilgrim Watchs Motion to Reopen and Hearing Request (Mar. 19, 2012); NRC Staffs Answer to Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watchs Petitions for Leave to Intervene and Motions to Reopen the Record, at 2-5 (Mar. 19, 2012); NRC Staffs Answer to Correction and Supplement to Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watchs Petitions to Intervene and Motions to Supplement (Mar. 26, 2012).
2
reply must be narrowly focused on the legal or logical arguments presented in Entergys and the NRC Staffs Answers. Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,203 (Jan. 14, 2004). The Section 2.309 reply is not an opportunity to rehabilitate a flawed con-tention with an affidavit containing belatedly submitted evidence for which an applicant has no opportunity to challenge its adequacy. See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-08-19, 68 N.R.C. 251, 261 (2008) (rejecting a standing authorization affidavit sub-mitted with a reply). [I]f the contention as originally pled did not cite adequate documentary support, a petitioner cannot remediate the deficiency by introducing in the reply documents that were available to it during the time frame for initially filing contentions. Id. at 262 n.32 (quot-ing Nuclear Management Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. 727, 732 (2006)).
The Mansfield Reply Affidavit should be struck in its entirety because by its very nature
- a sworn affidavit from Petitioners witness - it purports to be new evidence offered in reply.
See Palisades, CLI-08-19, 68 N.R.C. at 261. Further, as the Affidavit of Dr. Scherer was submit-ted to demonstrate that Petitioners failed to meet the reopening standards, the Mansfield Reply Affidavit is clearly an attempt to submit an impermissible reply relating to the reopening stan-dards. Moreover, the Mansfield Reply Affidavit raises new claims, including multiple para-graphs of allegations concerning the thermal conditions at the PNPS discharge location, Mans-field Reply Affidavit at ¶¶ 6-11, 17 (emphasis in original), even though his initial Affidavit made only brief mention of thermal loading. See Mansfield Affidavit at ¶30. Petitioners could have raised such claims in the Petition or the initial Affidavits, but did not. Because these claims are raised for the first time in the Reply, Entergy has not been afforded the opportunity to respond to them. Accordingly, they should not be considered by the Board in ruling on the Petition.
3
Likewise, the Reply impermissibly contains new allegations and arguments to which En-tergy has not been provided an opportunity to respond. This includes the allegation that the 2006 BA and the 2012 Supplemental BA do not consider action area, cumulative effects, de-struction or adverse modification, and effects of the action, Reply at 8-10, whereas Petitioners initial filings (incorrectly) claimed only that the Pilgrim SEIS failed to consider specified cumu-lative impacts and the action area. Mansfield Affidavit at ¶¶ 29-30. The impermissible new information in the Reply also includes an attempt to further demonstrate compliance with § 2.326 requirements by submitting a chart that purports to show where the initial affidavits ad-dressed each of the Section 2.326(a)(i)-(iii) criteria, id. at 21-22.4 All of this material is imper-missibly new on reply and, therefore, should be struck from the record.
For the foregoing reasons, the Mansfield Reply Affidavit and the offending portions of the Reply should be struck from the record.
4 The Petitioners attempt to reconstruct how the affidavits met the reopening standards fails the strict requirements that are explicitly set forth in Section 2.326(b). Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-11-08, 74 N.R.C. __, slip op. at 8-9 (Sept. 27, 2011) (quoting licensing board order). In Vogtle, the Commission affirmed a licensing board decision that rejected the suggestion that the licensing board could fill in the blanks itself by examining the [affidavit] to find something to satisfy each of the § 2.326(a) criteria, and decline[d] this offer to hunt for information that the agencys procedural rules required to be explicitly identified and fully explained. Id. (footnote omitted).
4
CERTIFICATION As required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), Counsel for Entergy certifies that he consulted with the NRC Staff, Jones River Watershed Association, and Pilgrim Watch, and made a sincere ef-fort to resolve the issues raised in this Motion. The NRC Staff supports the Motion to the extent it moves to strike new claims and bases raised in the Reply and the Mansfield Reply Affidavit, and reserves the right to take a position on the remainder of the Motion. Jones River Watershed Association opposes the Motion. Pilgrim Watch did not respond to Entergy Counsels consulta-tion request.
Respectfully Submitted,
/signed electronically by Timothy J. V. Walsh/
David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler Timothy J. V. Walsh PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8455 E-mail: timothy.walsh@pillsburylaw.com Counsel for Entergy Dated: April 5, 2012 5
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 Motion to Strike Petitioners Affidavit and Por-tions of Petitioners Reply, dated April 5, 2012, were provided to the Electronic Information Ex-change for service on the individuals below, this 5th day of April 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 Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chair Dr. Richard F. Cole 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 Ann.Young@nrc.gov Richard.Cole@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Paul B. Abramson 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 Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov 403372159v4
Susan L. Uttal, Esq. Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Maxwell C. Smith, Esq. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Brian Harris, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Beth Mizuno, Esq. One Ashburton Place Lauren Woodall, Esq. Boston, MA 02108 Office of the General Counsel Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Mail Stop O-15 D21 Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan.Uttal@nrc.gov; Maxwell.Smith@nrc.gov; brian.harris@nrc.gov; beth.mizuno@nrc.gov; Lauren.Woodall@nrc.gov Ms. Mary Lampert Margaret Sheehan, Esq.
148 Washington Street 61 Grozier Road Duxbury, MA 02332 Cambridge, MA 02138 mary.lampert@comcast.net meg@ecolaw.biz Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq. Richard R. MacDonald Duane Morris LLP Town Manager 505 9th Street, NW 878 Tremont Street Suite 1000 Duxbury, MA 02332 Washington, DC 20006 macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us sshollis@duanemorris.com Mr. Mark D. Sylvia Hillary Cain, Esq.
Town Manager Law Clerk, Town of Plymouth Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 11 Lincoln St. Mail Stop T3-E2a Plymouth, MA 02360 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hillary.Cain@nrc.gov 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
/signed electronically by Timothy J. V. Walsh/
Timothy J. V. Walsh 2