ML12362A316
| ML12362A316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/2012 |
| From: | Bessette P, Curran D, Roth D, Sutton K, Vance S, Vigluicci E Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, NRC/OGC, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23938, 50-391-OL, ASLBP 09-893-01-OL-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12362A316 (5) | |
Text
DB1/ 72104874.1 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
)
)
December 27, 2012 (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2)
)
)
JOINT RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF PRACTICE On November 20, 2012, in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) recent amendments to its rules of practice and procedure for licensing proceedings in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 (New Part 2 Rules),1 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued an Order instructing the Parties2 to familiarize themselves with the New Part 2 Rules. Additionally, if changes are necessary or appropriate to modify the Boards Scheduling Order 3 in light of the New Part 2 Rules, the Board requested that the Parties submit a motion to that effect, preferably in the form of a joint motion. In response, the Parties jointly propose changes to the Boards Scheduling Order as identified in the table below. A redlined version of the May 26, 2010 Scheduling Order identifying the proposed changes is attached for the Boards convenience.
1 Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules and Related Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 46,562 (Aug. 3, 2012) (New Part 2 Rules).
2 The Parties are the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), NRC Staff, and Intervenors (Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)).
3 Licensing Board Scheduling Order (May 26, 2010) (unpublished).
DB1/ 72104874.1 2
Scheduling Order Paragraph Proposed Change to Scheduling Order Reason for Proposed Change to Scheduling Order G.1 In the second sentence, delete under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), or a motion for leave to file an untimely new or amended contention and (or both).
These changes are necessary to be consistent with the New Part 2 Rules regarding the timeliness of new or amended contentions. See New Part 2 Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 46,570 - 46,572, 46,582.
G.1 Delete footnote 18.
This footnote is no longer necessary given the New Part 2 Rules regarding Sections 2.309(f)(2) and (c)(1). Id.
G.2 In the first sentence, change 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(iii) to 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(c)(1)(iii).
This change is necessary to be consistent with the New Part 2 Rules regarding the timeliness of new or amended contentions. Id.
G.2 Delete the second and third sentences, which state: If filed thereafter, the motion and proposed contention shall be deemed nontimely under 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(c). If the movant is uncertain, it may file a motion pursuant to both sections, and the motion should cover the three criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and the eight criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) (as well as the six criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)).
This change is necessary to be consistent with the New Part 2 Rules regarding the timeliness of new or amended contentions. Id.
H.3 Delete the first sentence and replace with: A party seeking to file a reply to any answer must first obtain leave of the Board, except with respect to motions to file new or amended contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.
Delete the reference in footnote 22 to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) and replace with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(2).
These changes are necessary because the New Part 2 Rules state in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(2) that the participant filing the motion to file a new or amended contention has a right to reply to an answer to such a motion, and 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(3) states, No other written answers or replies will be entertained. Id. at 46,573, 46,592.
H.6 After the title of Section H.6, Motion Certification, add a footnote with the following text: The consultation and certification requirements in paragraphs H.6 and H.7 do not apply This clarification is warranted because motion certification requirements are derived from 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, but new
§ 2.323(a)(1) provides that the requirements of § 2.323 do not apply to
DB1/ 72104874.1 3
Scheduling Order Paragraph Proposed Change to Scheduling Order Reason for Proposed Change to Scheduling Order to motions to file new or amended contentions. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a)(1).
motions to file new or amended contentions. Id. at 46,574, 46,593.
M Add a footnote following the last sentence, which states: Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law must conform to the format requirements in § 2.712(c).
This change is necessary because the new 10 C.F.R. § 2.1209(c) incorporates the § 2.712(c) formatting requirements for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. at 46,585.
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.
Scott A. Vance, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-632-7317 Fax: 865-632-6147 E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov E-mail: savance@tva.gov Counsel for TVA Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-3000 Fax: 202-739-3001 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Co-Counsel for TVA
DB1/ 72104874.1 4
Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
David Roth, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301-415-3725 Fax: 301-415-3725 E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov Counsel for NRC Staff Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
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, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com Counsel for Intervenors Dated in Washington, DC this 27th day of December 2012
DB1/ 72104874.1 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
)
)
December 27, 2012 (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, a copy of Joint Response to Board Order Notifying Parties of Amendments to Rules of Practice was served electronically with the Electronic Information Exchange.
Signed (electronically) by Jonathan M. Rund Jonathan M. Rund Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-5061 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com