ML11181A252: 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)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 06/30/2011
| issue date = 06/30/2011
| title = NRC Staff'S Response to Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables
| title = NRC Staff'S Response to Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables
| author name = Smith M C
| author name = Smith M
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:June 30, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  
{{#Wiki_filter:June 30, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                    )
                                                    )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                    )    Docket No. 50-293-LR
                                                    )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)                      )
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO PILGRIM WATCH MEMORANDUM - SUBMERGED CABLES INTRODUCTION The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables (Memorandum) filed on June 23, 2011.1 For the reasons set forth below, this communication to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) should not be considered to the extent it argues the merits of Pilgrim Watchs pending requests for a hearing on a new contention on submerged cables.2 DISCUSSION Under NRC practice, parties have an obligation to keep the Licensing Board . . .
informed of relevant and material new information. Sacramental Municipal Utility District (Ranco Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-5, 37 NRC 168, 170 (1993). Nonetheless, in ruling on contention admissibility, the Board may generally only consider the hearing request, 1
Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables (June 23, 2011) (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML111741447).
2 Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergys Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ) Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Dec. 13, 2010) (ADAMS Accession No. ML103500400); Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergys Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ)
Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Jan. 20, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110200267)
(amended version).


BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
any answers, and any replies to those answers. The regulations specifically provide, No other written answers or replies will be entertained. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(3). Consequently, parties should inform the Board of any material, new information, but parties may not use the notification as an opportunity to reargue contention admissibility. Otherwise, the filing would constitute an unauthorized pleading under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(3).3 Likewise, in previous decisions, the Commission has declined to consider communications arguing the merits of a pending petition for review.4 Pilgrim Watchs Memorandum goes beyond the acceptable limits of a Board notification.
 
The Memorandum reproduces an article and emphasizes the portions of the article that relate to the new submerged cables contention. Memorandum at 2. The Memorandum explicitly states that the article serves to support Pilgrim Watchs hearing requests on submerged cables.
In the Matter of )
Memorandum at 3. Therefore, to the extent that the Memorandum provides additional argument, the Board should disregard it. To the extent the Memorandum informs the Board of material, new information, the Board may consider it.
) ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR    ) 
Moreover, even if the Board considers the arguments in the Memorandum, they do not provide sufficient support for Pilgrim Watchs new contention on submerged cables. The portions of the article highlighted in the Memorandum only contains quotes from a member of the public and an NRC staff member that suggest the NRC should further evaluate submerged 3
  (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
If Pilgrim Watch wishes to provide additional support for the hearing requests, it may always file an amended petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), (f)(2).
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO PILGRIM WATCH MEMORANDUM - SUBMERGED CABLES INTRODUCTION
 
The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Staff") hereby responds to the Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables ("Memorandum") filed on June 23, 2011.
1  For the reasons set forth below, this communication to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") should not be considered to the extent it argues the merits of Pilgrim Watch's pending requests for a hearing on a new contention on submerged cables.
2 DISCUSSION Under NRC practice, parties have an "obligation to keep the Licensing Board . . .
informed of relevant and material new information."  Sacramental Municipal Utility District (Ranco Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-5, 37 NRC 168, 170 (1993). Nonetheless, in ruling on contention admissibility, the Board may generally only consider the hearing request, 1 Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables (June 23, 2011) (Agencywide Document Access and Management System ("ADAMS") Accession No. ML111741447).
2 Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergy's Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ) Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Dec. 13, 2010) (ADAMS Accession No. ML103500400); Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergy's Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ) Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Jan. 20, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110200267) (amended version).
any answers, and any replies to those answers. The regulations specifically provide, "No other written answers or replies will be entertained." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(3). Consequently, parties should inform the Board of any material, new information, but parties may not use the notification as an opportunity to reargue contention admissibility. Otherwise, the filing would constitute an unauthorized pleading under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(3).
3 Likewise, in previous decisions, the Commission has declined to consider communications arguing the merits of a pending petition for review.
4 Pilgrim Watch's Memorandum goes beyond the acceptable limits of a Board notification. The Memorandum reproduces an article and emphasizes the portions of the article that relate to the new submerged cables contention. Memorandum at 2. The Memorandum explicitly states that the article "serves to support" Pilgrim Watch's hearing requests on submerged cables.
Memorandum at 3. Therefore, to the extent that the Memorandum provides additional argument, the Board should disregard it. To the extent the Memorandum informs the Board of material, new information, the Board may consider it. Moreover, even if the Board considers the arguments in the Memorandum, they do not provide sufficient support for Pilgrim Watch's new contention on submerged cables. The portions of the article highlighted in the Memorandum only contains quotes from a member of the public and an NRC staff member that suggest the NRC should further evaluate submerged 3 If Pilgrim Watch wishes to provide additional support for the hearing requests, it may always file an amended petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), (f)(2).
4 See AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-07, 69 NRC 235, 284 1-1.277(2 009) (stating that a letter to the Commission was not a part of the record when the intervenor filed the letter while a petition for review was pending before the Commission and the letter contained additional argument); AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 676 n.74 (2008) (same).
4 See AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-07, 69 NRC 235, 284 1-1.277(2 009) (stating that a letter to the Commission was not a part of the record when the intervenor filed the letter while a petition for review was pending before the Commission and the letter contained additional argument); AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 676 n.74 (2008) (same).
cables. Memorandum at 2. Presumably, Pilgrim Watch submitted this Memorandum to establish the significance of its proposed contention on submerged cables. While Pilgrim Watch must show that this issue is significant to reopen the record in this case, 5 the Memorandum does not make that showing. The Commission has observed, "The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one."  AmerGen Energy Co., LLC. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLl-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 287 (2009). To show that a safety issue's significance justifies reopeining the record, a petitioner "must establish either that uncorrected ... errors endanger safe plant operation, or that there has been a breakdown of the quality assurance program sufficient to raise legitimate doubt as to the plant's capability of being operated safely."  Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-940, 32 NRC 225, 243 (1990). Moreover, the evidence in support of such a claim must be "strong enough, in the light of any opposing filings, to avoid summary disposition."
Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005). The quotes in the Memorandum only indicate that the NRC should further study submerged cables; they do not state, or even imply, that Pilgrim or other existing plants cannot operate safely. Moreover, such cursory, unsworn statements, by individuals who have not demonstrated their expertise, could not withstand a motion for summary disposition. Therefore, even if the Board considered Pilgrim Watch's arguments, they would not provide a sufficient reason to reopen the record in this case.
5 NRC Staff's Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on New Contention, at 5-8 (Jan. 7, 2011) (ADAMs Accession No. ML110070837). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should disregard Pilgrim Watch's attempts to argue the merits of the proceeding through the Memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,  /RA/ Maxwell C. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30 th Day of June, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of )
) ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR  )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)  ) 
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC Staff's Response to Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables" have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 30th day of June, 2011:
Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate    Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY) Office of the Secretary  Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov
Sheila Slocum Hollis Duane Morris LLP 505 9 th St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004
E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com Terence A. Burke, Esq. Entergy Nuclear 1340 Echelon Parkway Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213
E-mail:  tburke@entergy.com Mary Lampert 148 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
E- mail:  mary.lampert@comcast.net David R. Lewis, Esq. Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1137 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Chief Kevin M. Nord Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency            Management Agency 668 Tremont Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Town Manager Town of Plymouth 11 Lincoln St. Plymouth, MA 02360


E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Richard R. MacDonald Town Manager 878 Tremont Street
cables. Memorandum at 2. Presumably, Pilgrim Watch submitted this Memorandum to establish the significance of its proposed contention on submerged cables.
While Pilgrim Watch must show that this issue is significant to reopen the record in this case, 5 the Memorandum does not make that showing. The Commission has observed, The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one. AmerGen Energy Co., LLC.
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLl-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 287 (2009). To show that a safety issues significance justifies reopeining the record, a petitioner must establish either that uncorrected ... errors endanger safe plant operation, or that there has been a breakdown of the quality assurance program sufficient to raise legitimate doubt as to the plant's capability of being operated safely. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-940, 32 NRC 225, 243 (1990). Moreover, the evidence in support of such a claim must be strong enough, in the light of any opposing filings, to avoid summary disposition.
Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005).
The quotes in the Memorandum only indicate that the NRC should further study submerged cables; they do not state, or even imply, that Pilgrim or other existing plants cannot operate safely. Moreover, such cursory, unsworn statements, by individuals who have not demonstrated their expertise, could not withstand a motion for summary disposition. Therefore, even if the Board considered Pilgrim Watchs arguments, they would not provide a sufficient reason to reopen the record in this case.
5 NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on New Contention, at 5-8 (Jan. 7, 2011) (ADAMs Accession No. ML110070837).


Duxbury, MA  02332 E-mail:  macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us Matthew Brock Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA  02108 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should disregard Pilgrim Watchs attempts to argue the merits of the proceeding through the Memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,
                                                          /RA/
Maxwell C. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th Day of June, 2011


              /Signed Electronically By/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                    )
Maxwell C. Smith            Counsel for the NRC Staff  
                                                    )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                     )      Docket No. 50-293-LR
                                                    )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)                      )
                                                    )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC Staffs Response to Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 30th day of June, 2011:
Administrative Judge                                  Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole                                        Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23                                      Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                              Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov                            E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                                  Office of Commission Appellate Ann Marshall Young, Chair                              Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3F23                                      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                              E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                      Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: T-3F23                                      Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001                              U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY)                              Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov


Sheila Slocum Hollis                          Terence A. Burke, Esq.
Duane Morris LLP                              Entergy Nuclear 505 9th St., NW, Suite 1000                  1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20004                          Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com              Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com Mary Lampert                                  David R. Lewis, Esq.
148 Washington Street                        Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Duxbury, MA 02332                            Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP E- mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net            2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1137 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Chief Kevin M. Nord                          Town Manager Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency      Town of Plymouth Management Agency                          11 Lincoln St.
668 Tremont Street                            Plymouth, MA 02360 Duxbury, MA 02332                            E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Richard R. MacDonald                          Matthew Brock Town Manager                                  Assistant Attorney General 878 Tremont Street                            Commonwealth of Massachusetts Duxbury, MA 02332                            One Ashburton Place E-mail: macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us          Boston, MA 02108 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us
                                            /Signed Electronically By/
Maxwell C. Smith Counsel for the NRC Staff
.}}
.}}

Latest revision as of 17:59, 12 November 2019

NRC Staff'S Response to Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables
ML11181A252
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 06/30/2011
From: Matthew Smith
NRC/OGC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 20536, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR
Download: ML11181A252 (6)
v • d • e


Text

June 30, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO PILGRIM WATCH MEMORANDUM - SUBMERGED CABLES INTRODUCTION The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables (Memorandum) filed on June 23, 2011.1 For the reasons set forth below, this communication to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) should not be considered to the extent it argues the merits of Pilgrim Watchs pending requests for a hearing on a new contention on submerged cables.2 DISCUSSION Under NRC practice, parties have an obligation to keep the Licensing Board . . .

informed of relevant and material new information. Sacramental Municipal Utility District (Ranco Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-5, 37 NRC 168, 170 (1993). Nonetheless, in ruling on contention admissibility, the Board may generally only consider the hearing request, 1

Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables (June 23, 2011) (Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML111741447).

2 Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergys Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ) Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Dec. 13, 2010) (ADAMS Accession No. ML103500400); Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on a New Contention: Inadequacy of Entergys Aging Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified (EQ)

Inaccessible Cables (Splices) at Pilgrim Station (Jan. 20, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML110200267)

(amended version).

any answers, and any replies to those answers. The regulations specifically provide, No other written answers or replies will be entertained. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(3). Consequently, parties should inform the Board of any material, new information, but parties may not use the notification as an opportunity to reargue contention admissibility. Otherwise, the filing would constitute an unauthorized pleading under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(3).3 Likewise, in previous decisions, the Commission has declined to consider communications arguing the merits of a pending petition for review.4 Pilgrim Watchs Memorandum goes beyond the acceptable limits of a Board notification.

The Memorandum reproduces an article and emphasizes the portions of the article that relate to the new submerged cables contention. Memorandum at 2. The Memorandum explicitly states that the article serves to support Pilgrim Watchs hearing requests on submerged cables.

Memorandum at 3. Therefore, to the extent that the Memorandum provides additional argument, the Board should disregard it. To the extent the Memorandum informs the Board of material, new information, the Board may consider it.

Moreover, even if the Board considers the arguments in the Memorandum, they do not provide sufficient support for Pilgrim Watchs new contention on submerged cables. The portions of the article highlighted in the Memorandum only contains quotes from a member of the public and an NRC staff member that suggest the NRC should further evaluate submerged 3

If Pilgrim Watch wishes to provide additional support for the hearing requests, it may always file an amended petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), (f)(2).

4 See AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-07, 69 NRC 235, 284 1-1.277(2 009) (stating that a letter to the Commission was not a part of the record when the intervenor filed the letter while a petition for review was pending before the Commission and the letter contained additional argument); AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 676 n.74 (2008) (same).

cables. Memorandum at 2. Presumably, Pilgrim Watch submitted this Memorandum to establish the significance of its proposed contention on submerged cables.

While Pilgrim Watch must show that this issue is significant to reopen the record in this case, 5 the Memorandum does not make that showing. The Commission has observed, The burden of satisfying the reopening requirements is a heavy one. AmerGen Energy Co., LLC.

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLl-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 287 (2009). To show that a safety issues significance justifies reopeining the record, a petitioner must establish either that uncorrected ... errors endanger safe plant operation, or that there has been a breakdown of the quality assurance program sufficient to raise legitimate doubt as to the plant's capability of being operated safely. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-940, 32 NRC 225, 243 (1990). Moreover, the evidence in support of such a claim must be strong enough, in the light of any opposing filings, to avoid summary disposition.

Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-12, 61 NRC 345, 350 (2005).

The quotes in the Memorandum only indicate that the NRC should further study submerged cables; they do not state, or even imply, that Pilgrim or other existing plants cannot operate safely. Moreover, such cursory, unsworn statements, by individuals who have not demonstrated their expertise, could not withstand a motion for summary disposition. Therefore, even if the Board considered Pilgrim Watchs arguments, they would not provide a sufficient reason to reopen the record in this case.

5 NRC Staffs Answer in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Request for Hearing on New Contention, at 5-8 (Jan. 7, 2011) (ADAMs Accession No. ML110070837).

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board should disregard Pilgrim Watchs attempts to argue the merits of the proceeding through the Memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,

/RA/

Maxwell C. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th Day of June, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC Staffs Response to Pilgrim Watch Memorandum - Submerged Cables have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 30th day of June, 2011:

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Ann Marshall Young, Chair Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: T-3F23 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (VIA INTERNAL MAIL ONLY) Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov

Sheila Slocum Hollis Terence A. Burke, Esq.

Duane Morris LLP Entergy Nuclear 505 9th St., NW, Suite 1000 1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20004 Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com Mary Lampert David R. Lewis, Esq.

148 Washington Street Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.

Duxbury, MA 02332 Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP E- mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1137 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Chief Kevin M. Nord Town Manager Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency Town of Plymouth Management Agency 11 Lincoln St.

668 Tremont Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Duxbury, MA 02332 E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Richard R. MacDonald Matthew Brock Town Manager Assistant Attorney General 878 Tremont Street Commonwealth of Massachusetts Duxbury, MA 02332 One Ashburton Place E-mail: macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us Boston, MA 02108 Martha.Coakley@state.ma.us Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us

/Signed Electronically By/

Maxwell C. Smith Counsel for the NRC Staff

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11181A252&oldid=2115853"