ML12362A316: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:DB1/ 72104874.1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
        )
                                                        )
In the Matter of     )  
In the Matter of                                       )
      ) Docket No. 50-391-OL TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )  
                                                        )   Docket No. 50-391-OL TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY                             )
      ) December 27, 2012 (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2)   )  
                                                        )   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3 Licensing Board Scheduling Order (May 26, 2010) (unpublished).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


)  JOINT RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF PRACTICE On November 20, 2012, in response to th e Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) recent amendments to its rules of practice and procedure for licensing proceedings in 10 C.F.R.
Scheduling       Proposed Change to Scheduling               Reason for Proposed Change to Order                        Order                                Scheduling Order Paragraph G.1           In the second sentence, delete under     These changes are necessary to be 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), or a motion     consistent with the New Part 2 Rules for leave to file an untimely new or      regarding the timeliness of new or amended contention and (or both).     amended contentions. See New Part 2 Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at 46,570 - 46,572, 46,582.
Part 2 (New Part 2 Rules), 1 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued an Order instructing the Parties 2 to familiarize themselves with the New Part 2 Rules. Additionally, if changes are "necessary or appropriate to modify the Board's Scheduling Order "
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.
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 Board's Scheduling Order as identified in the table below. A redlined version of the May 26, 2010 Scheduling Order identifying the proposed changes is attached fo r the Board's convenience. 
G.2           In the first sentence, change 10         This change is necessary to be C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(iii) to 10 C.F.R. consistent with the New Part 2 Rules
 
                § 2.309(c)(1)(iii).                       regarding the timeliness of new or amended contentions. Id.
1  Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules and Related Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 46,562 (Aug. 3, 2012) (New Part 2 Rules).
G.2           Delete the second and third sentences,     This change is necessary to be which state: If filed thereafter, the     consistent with the New Part 2 Rules motion and proposed contention shall       regarding the timeliness of new or be deemed nontimely under 10 C.F.R.        amended contentions. Id.
2  The Parties are the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), NRC Staff, and Intervenors (Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)).
                § 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)).
3  Licensing Board Scheduling Order (May 26, 2010) (unpublished).
H.3           Delete the first sentence and replace     These changes are necessary because with: A party seeking to file a reply to the New Part 2 Rules state in any answer must first obtain leave of     accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(2) the Board, except with respect to          that the participant filing the motion to motions to file new or amended             file a new or amended contention has a contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.     right to reply to an answer to such a motion, and 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(3)
DB1/ 72104874.1
Delete the reference in footnote 22 to    states, No other written answers or 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) and replace      replies will be entertained. Id. at with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(2).           46,573, 46,592.
-    - 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  
H.6           After the title of Section H.6, Motion   This clarification is warranted because Certification, add a footnote with the   motion certification requirements are following text: The consultation and     derived from 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, but new certification requirements in              § 2.323(a)(1) provides that the paragraphs H.6 and H.7 do not apply        requirements of § 2.323 do not apply to DB1/ 72104874.1 Scheduling         Proposed Change to Scheduling             Reason for Proposed Change to Order                        Order                              Scheduling Order Paragraph to motions to file new or amended        motions to file new or amended contentions. See 10 C.F.R. §             contentions. Id. at 46,574, 46,593.
 
2.323(a)(1).
Sections 2.309(f)(2) and (c)(1).
M               Add a footnote following the last         This change is necessary because the sentence, which states: Proposed         new 10 C.F.R. § 2.1209(c) incorporates findings of fact and conclusions of law  the § 2.712(c) formatting requirements must conform to the format                for findings of fact and conclusions of requirements in § 2.712(c).              law. Id. at 46,585.
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 eigh t 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)
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.
Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.                    Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Scott A. Vance, Esq.  
Scott A. Vance, Esq.                         Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
 
Office of the General Counsel               Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Tennessee Valley Authority                   1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT                 Washington, DC 20004 6A-K                                         Phone: 202-739-3000 Knoxville, TN 37902 Fax: 202-739-3001 Phone: 865-632-7317 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Fax: 865-632-6147 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov E-mail: savance@tva.gov Co-Counsel for TVA Counsel for TVA DB1/ 72104874.1 Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
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.
David Roth, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
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)
 
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.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Representative of Southern Alliance for Clean  
Representative of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)
 
Energy (SACE)
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600  
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
 
                                                      )
Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com  
In the Matter of                                     )
 
                                                      )     Docket No. 50-391-OL TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY                           )
Counsel for Intervenors  
                                                      )     December 27, 2012 (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2)                     )
 
                                                      )
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  
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.
In the Matter of     )  
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-5061 E-mail: jrund@morganlewis.com DB1/ 72104874.1}}
      ) 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}}

Latest revision as of 08:34, 6 February 2020

Joint Response to Board Order Notifying Parties of Amendments to Rules of Practice
ML12362A316
Person / Time
Site: Watts Bar Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
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)
v • d • e


Text

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

Scheduling Proposed Change to Scheduling Reason for Proposed Change to Order Order Scheduling Order Paragraph G.1 In the second sentence, delete under These changes are necessary to be 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), or a motion consistent with the New Part 2 Rules for leave to file an untimely new or regarding the timeliness of new or amended contention and (or both). 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 This change is necessary to be C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(iii) to 10 C.F.R. consistent with the New Part 2 Rules

§ 2.309(c)(1)(iii). regarding the timeliness of new or amended contentions. Id.

G.2 Delete the second and third sentences, This change is necessary to be which state: If filed thereafter, the consistent with the New Part 2 Rules motion and proposed contention shall regarding the timeliness of new or be deemed nontimely under 10 C.F.R. amended contentions. Id.

§ 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)).

H.3 Delete the first sentence and replace These changes are necessary because with: A party seeking to file a reply to the New Part 2 Rules state in any answer must first obtain leave of accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(2) the Board, except with respect to that the participant filing the motion to motions to file new or amended file a new or amended contention has a contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309. right to reply to an answer to such a motion, and 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(3)

Delete the reference in footnote 22 to states, No other written answers or 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) and replace replies will be entertained. Id. at with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(2). 46,573, 46,592.

H.6 After the title of Section H.6, Motion This clarification is warranted because Certification, add a footnote with the motion certification requirements are following text: The consultation and derived from 10 C.F.R. § 2.323, but new certification requirements in § 2.323(a)(1) provides that the paragraphs H.6 and H.7 do not apply requirements of § 2.323 do not apply to DB1/ 72104874.1 Scheduling Proposed Change to Scheduling Reason for Proposed Change to Order Order Scheduling Order Paragraph to motions to file new or amended motions to file new or amended contentions. See 10 C.F.R. § contentions. Id. at 46,574, 46,593.

2.323(a)(1).

M Add a footnote following the last This change is necessary because the sentence, which states: Proposed new 10 C.F.R. § 2.1209(c) incorporates findings of fact and conclusions of law the § 2.712(c) formatting requirements must conform to the format for findings of fact and conclusions of requirements in § 2.712(c). law. Id. at 46,585.

Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Scott A. Vance, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Tennessee Valley Authority 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT Washington, DC 20004 6A-K Phone: 202-739-3000 Knoxville, TN 37902 Fax: 202-739-3001 Phone: 865-632-7317 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Fax: 865-632-6147 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov E-mail: savance@tva.gov Co-Counsel for TVA Counsel for TVA DB1/ 72104874.1 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 DB1/ 72104874.1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12362A316&oldid=2458789"