ML101260572: 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)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:May 6, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
{{#Wiki_filter:May 6, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                )
                                                )
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY                      )        Docket No. 50-391-OL
                                                )
(Watts Bar Unit 2)                              )
NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS CONTENTION 1 AS MOOT INTRODUCTION On April 19, 2010, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed a motion before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to dismiss admitted Contention 1 on mootness grounds.
Motion to Dismiss Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Contention 1 as Moot (April 19, 2010)
(Motion). On May 6, 2010, Intervenors Southern Alliance for Clear Energy ("SACE") filed a letter with the Board stating that SACE does not intend to oppose the Motion and considers Contention 1 to be resolved. Letter from Diane Curran to the Board (May 6, 2010). The NRC Staff supports the motion for the reasons discussed below.
BACKGROUND On May 1, 2009, the NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the operating license ("OL") application of TVA for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2.1 On July 13, 2009, SACE along with several other entities, filed a single combined petition to intervene and 1
Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]; Notice of Receipt of Update to Application for Facility Operating License and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 and Order Imposing Procedures for Access, 74 Fed. Reg. 20,350 (May 1, 2009). Requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene were due by June 30, 2009. Id. at 20351. Upon request, the Commission extended SACE's filing deadline without comment to July 14, 2009. Order (June 24, 2009) (unpublished).


In the Matter of    ) 
      )
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY  ) Docket No. 50-391-OL  ) (Watts Bar Unit 2)    )
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY'S CONTENTION 1 AS MOOT INTRODUCTION
On April 19, 2010, Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") filed a motion before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") to dism iss admitted Contention 1 on mootness grounds.
Motion to Dismiss Southern Alliance for Clean E nergy's Contention 1 as Moot (April 19, 2010)
("Motion"). On May 6, 2010, Intervenors Southern Alliance for Clear Energy ("SACE") filed a
letter with the Board stating that SACE does not intend to oppose the Motion and considers
Contention 1 to be resolved. Letter from Diane Curran to the Board (May 6, 2010). The NRC
Staff supports the motion for the reasons discussed below.
BACKGROUND On May 1, 2009, the NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the
operating license ("OL") application of TVA for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2.
1  On July 13, 2009, SACE along with several other entities, filed a single combined petition to intervene and 1  Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]; Notice of Re ceipt of Update to Application for Facility Operating License and Notice of Opportunity for H earing for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 and Order Imposing Procedures for Access , 74 Fed. Reg. 20,350 (May 1, 2009). Requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene were due by June 30, 2009.
Id. at 20351. Upon request, the Commission extended SACE's filing deadline without comment to July 14, 2009. Order (June 24, 2009) (unpublished).
hearing request ("Petition") for the operating license application of Watts Bar Unit 2.
hearing request ("Petition") for the operating license application of Watts Bar Unit 2.
On November 19, 2009, the Board granted party status only to SACE 2 and admitted two environmental contentions, including Contention 1, which alleges that TVA's Final Supplemental  
On November 19, 2009, the Board granted party status only to SACE2 and admitted two environmental contentions, including Contention 1, which alleges that TVAs Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 23 failed to list and discuss the status of compliance with applicable permits, approvals, and environmental quality standards, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(d).4 In admitting Contention 1 as a contention of omission, the Board held that only the allegation regarding the additional, unspecified and unlisted permits supports the admission of this contention. Watts Bar, LBP-09-26, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 19, 21). On April 9, 2010, in response to a Staff Request for Additional Information (RAI),5 TVA provided Table G-5, Federal, State, and Local Authorizations, which lists and describes [a]ll federal, state, and local authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits needed for operation of Unit 2 and the status of each. RAI Response at E1-6; Table G-5. Following its submission of the requested information, TVA filed the instant Motion, seeking dismissal of Contention 1 on the grounds that it has been mooted by TVAs April 9, 2010 RAI Response. Motion at 5.
 
Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") for the Completion and Operation of Watts Bar  
 
Nuclear Plant Unit 2 3 failed to list and discuss the status of compliance with applicable permits, approvals, and environmental quality standards, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(d)
.4 In admitting Contention 1 as a "contention of omission," the Board held that "only the allegation  
 
regarding the additional, unspecified and unlisted permits supports the admission of this  
 
contention."
Watts Bar , LBP-09-26, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 19, 21). On April 9, 2010, in response to a Staff Request for Additional Information ("RAI"), 5 TVA provided Table G-5, "Federal, State, and Local Authorizations," which lists and describes "[a]ll federal, state, and  
 
local authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits needed for operation of Unit 2  
 
and the status of each."  RAI Response at E1-6; Table G-5. Following its submission of the  
 
requested information, TVA filed the instant Motion, seeking dismissal of Contention 1 on the  
 
grounds that it has been mooted by TVA's April 9, 2010 RAI Response. Motion at 5.  
 
2 The Board determined that the remaining parties had not adequately justified their late filing.
2 The Board determined that the remaining parties had not adequately justified their late filing.
See Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Unit 2), LBP-09-26, 70 NRC __ (Nov. 19, 2009) (slip op. at 2-3), aff'd , CLI-10-12, 72 NRC __ (March 26, 2010)(slip op.).
See Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Unit 2), LBP-09-26, 70 NRC __ (Nov. 19, 2009) (slip op. at 2-3), affd, CLI-10-12, 72 NRC __ (March 26, 2010)(slip op.).
3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County, Tenn. (June 2007) (Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Systems ("ADAMS
3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County, Tenn. (June 2007) (Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Accession No. ML080510469).
") Accession No. ML080510469).
4 Watts Bar, LPB-09-26, 70 NRC __, slip op. at 15-21, affd on other grounds, CLI-10-12, 71 NRC
4 Watts Bar , LPB-09-26, 70 NRC __, slip op. at 15-21, aff'd on other grounds , CLI-10-12, 71 NRC
__ (Mar. 26, 2010)(slip op.); Petition at 6-8.
__ (Mar. 26, 2010)(slip op.); Petition at 6-8.
5 NRC Staff Watts Bar 2 RAI, at 8 (Dec.
5 NRC Staff Watts Bar 2 RAI, at 8 (Dec. 3, 2009) (ML093290073) (requesting a list of all authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits and approvals needed for operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 and provide a status for each item).
3, 2009) (ML093290073) (requesting "a list of all authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits and approvals needed for operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 and prov ide a status for each item").
DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard A contention alleging that required information has been omitted from an application for
 
an operating license must be modified or dismissed as moot where the information in question
 
is provided in response to a Staff RAI.
See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-383 (2002).
 
II. Discussion The Board admitted Contention 1 as a "contention of omission,"
Watts Bar , LBP-09-26, 70 NRC at __ (slip op. at 21), to the limited extent that SACE alleged that TVA's application did
 
not include "unspecified permits that should have been listed and discussed by TVA" in the
 
application, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(d).
Id. at 19. With respect to two documents enumerated in its contention (i.e., the Interagency Agreement and National Pollutant Discharge
 
Elimination System ("NPDES") permit), the Board held that SACE had not alleged facts
 
sufficient to raise a genuine dispute warranting admission of its contention. However, citing
 
TVA's FSEIS, the Board admitted SACE's contention because TVA "concedes that there are
 
other applicable permits and approvals but does not identify them or discuss the current
 
compliance status."
Id. at 21.
In its Motion, TVA states that in response to the Staff's December 3, 2009 RAI, TVA has now supplied "all federal, state, and local authorizations, consultations, and environmental
 
permits needed for operation of Unit 2 and the status of each."  Motion at 3 (quotations omitted). 
 
To the extent that TVA's response ameliorates the cited omissions in its original FSEIS, see Watts Bar , LBP-09-26, 70 NRC at __ (slip op. at 19), the Staff supports TVA's request that Contention 1 be dismissed as moot.
See McGuire/Catawba , CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 382-383.   
 
CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Staff supports dismissal of Contention 1 on the grounds that it is
 
rendered moot by TVA's submittal of additional information.       
 
Respectfully submitted,      /Signed (electronically) by/      Michael G. Dreher        Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-2314 E-Mail: Michael.Dreher@nrc.gov Signed: May 6, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
 
In the Matter of    )
      )
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY  )  Docket No. 50-391-OL ) (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2)  )
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO TENNESSEE
 
VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN
 
ENERGY'S CONTENTION 1 AS MOOT," dated May 6, 2010, have been served upon the
 
following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 6th day of May 2010:
 
Administrative Judge
 
Lawrence G. McDade, Chair
 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Mail Stop: T-3 F23
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
E-mail:  lgm1@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Mail Stop: O-16G4
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resource@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson
 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Mail Stop: T-3 F23
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
E-mail:  pba@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff
 
Mail Stop: O-16G4
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Gary S. Arnold
 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Mail Stop: T-3 F23
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
E-mail:  gxa1@nrc.gov Edward Vigluicci, Esq.
Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.
 
Scott A. Vance, Esq.
 
Tennessee Valley Authority
 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K
 
Knoxville, TN 37902
 
E-mail:  ejvigluicci@tva.gov
 
ccchandler0@tva.gov
 
savance@tva.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 
Washington, D.C. 20004
 
E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Diane Curran Matthew D. Fraser


for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE)
DISCUSSION I.      Legal Standard A contention alleging that required information has been omitted from an application for an operating license must be modified or dismissed as moot where the information in question is provided in response to a Staff RAI. See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-383 (2002).
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
II. Discussion The Board admitted Contention 1 as a contention of omission, Watts Bar, LBP-09-26, 70 NRC at __ (slip op. at 21), to the limited extent that SACE alleged that TVAs application did not include unspecified permits that should have been listed and discussed by TVA in the application, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(d). Id. at 19. With respect to two documents enumerated in its contention (i.e., the Interagency Agreement and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit), the Board held that SACE had not alleged facts sufficient to raise a genuine dispute warranting admission of its contention. However, citing TVAs FSEIS, the Board admitted SACEs contention because TVA concedes that there are other applicable permits and approvals but does not identify them or discuss the current compliance status. Id. at 21.
In its Motion, TVA states that in response to the Staffs December 3, 2009 RAI, TVA has now supplied all federal, state, and local authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits needed for operation of Unit 2 and the status of each. Motion at 3 (quotations omitted).
To the extent that TVAs response ameliorates the cited omissions in its original FSEIS, see Watts Bar, LBP-09-26, 70 NRC at __ (slip op. at 19), the Staff supports TVAs request that Contention 1 be dismissed as moot. See McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 382-383.


1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600
CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Staff supports dismissal of Contention 1 on the grounds that it is rendered moot by TVAs submittal of additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
                                            /Signed (electronically) by/
Michael G. Dreher Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-2314 E-Mail: Michael.Dreher@nrc.gov Signed: May 6, 2010


Washington, DC 20036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                              )
                                              )
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY                    )    Docket No. 50-391-OL
                                              )
(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2)              )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS CONTENTION 1 AS MOOT, dated May 6, 2010, have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 6th day of May 2010:
Administrative Judge                              Office of Commission Appellate Lawrence G. McDade, Chair                          Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3 F23                                Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                        E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resource@nrc.gov E-mail: lgm1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                              Office of the Secretary Paul B. Abramson                                  Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23                                Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                        E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov E-mail: pba@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                              Edward Vigluicci, Esq.
Gary S. Arnold                                    Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          Scott A. Vance, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                Tennessee Valley Authority Mail Stop: T-3 F23                                400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Washington, DC 20555-0001                        Knoxville, TN 37902 E-mail: gxa1@nrc.gov                              E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov ccchandler0@tva.gov savance@tva.gov


E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com E-mail: mfraser@harmoncurran.com
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.            Diane Curran Paul M. Bessette, Esq.              Matthew D. Fraser Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP        for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW        (SACE)
          /Signed (electronically) by/       Michael G. Dreher       Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-2314 E-Mail: Michael.Dreher@nrc.gov Signed: May 6, 2010}}
Washington, D.C. 20004              Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com    1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com  Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com E-mail: mfraser@harmoncurran.com
                                      /Signed (electronically) by/
Michael G. Dreher Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-2314 E-Mail: Michael.Dreher@nrc.gov Signed: May 6, 2010}}

Revision as of 19:38, 13 November 2019

2010/05/06-NRC Staff'S Answer to Tennessee Valley Authority'S Motion to Dismiss Southern Alliance for Clear Energy'S Contention 1 as Moot
ML101260572
Person / Time
Site: Watts Bar Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 05/06/2010
From: Dreher M
NRC/OGC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-391-OL, ASLBP 09-893-01-OL-BD01, RAS 17847
Download: ML101260572 (6)
v • d • e


Text

May 6, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket No. 50-391-OL

)

(Watts Bar Unit 2) )

NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS CONTENTION 1 AS MOOT INTRODUCTION On April 19, 2010, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed a motion before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to dismiss admitted Contention 1 on mootness grounds.

Motion to Dismiss Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Contention 1 as Moot (April 19, 2010)

(Motion). On May 6, 2010, Intervenors Southern Alliance for Clear Energy ("SACE") filed a letter with the Board stating that SACE does not intend to oppose the Motion and considers Contention 1 to be resolved. Letter from Diane Curran to the Board (May 6, 2010). The NRC Staff supports the motion for the reasons discussed below.

BACKGROUND On May 1, 2009, the NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the operating license ("OL") application of TVA for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2.1 On July 13, 2009, SACE along with several other entities, filed a single combined petition to intervene and 1

Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]; Notice of Receipt of Update to Application for Facility Operating License and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 and Order Imposing Procedures for Access, 74 Fed. Reg. 20,350 (May 1, 2009). Requests for a hearing and petitions to intervene were due by June 30, 2009. Id. at 20351. Upon request, the Commission extended SACE's filing deadline without comment to July 14, 2009. Order (June 24, 2009) (unpublished).

hearing request ("Petition") for the operating license application of Watts Bar Unit 2.

On November 19, 2009, the Board granted party status only to SACE2 and admitted two environmental contentions, including Contention 1, which alleges that TVAs Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 23 failed to list and discuss the status of compliance with applicable permits, approvals, and environmental quality standards, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(d).4 In admitting Contention 1 as a contention of omission, the Board held that only the allegation regarding the additional, unspecified and unlisted permits supports the admission of this contention. Watts Bar, LBP-09-26, 72 NRC at __ (slip op. at 19, 21). On April 9, 2010, in response to a Staff Request for Additional Information (RAI),5 TVA provided Table G-5, Federal, State, and Local Authorizations, which lists and describes [a]ll federal, state, and local authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits needed for operation of Unit 2 and the status of each. RAI Response at E1-6; Table G-5. Following its submission of the requested information, TVA filed the instant Motion, seeking dismissal of Contention 1 on the grounds that it has been mooted by TVAs April 9, 2010 RAI Response. Motion at 5.

2 The Board determined that the remaining parties had not adequately justified their late filing.

See Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Unit 2), LBP-09-26, 70 NRC __ (Nov. 19, 2009) (slip op. at 2-3), affd, CLI-10-12, 72 NRC __ (March 26, 2010)(slip op.).

3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County, Tenn. (June 2007) (Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Accession No. ML080510469).

4 Watts Bar, LPB-09-26, 70 NRC __, slip op. at 15-21, affd on other grounds, CLI-10-12, 71 NRC

__ (Mar. 26, 2010)(slip op.); Petition at 6-8.

5 NRC Staff Watts Bar 2 RAI, at 8 (Dec. 3, 2009) (ML093290073) (requesting a list of all authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits and approvals needed for operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 and provide a status for each item).

DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard A contention alleging that required information has been omitted from an application for an operating license must be modified or dismissed as moot where the information in question is provided in response to a Staff RAI. See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-383 (2002).

II. Discussion The Board admitted Contention 1 as a contention of omission, Watts Bar, LBP-09-26, 70 NRC at __ (slip op. at 21), to the limited extent that SACE alleged that TVAs application did not include unspecified permits that should have been listed and discussed by TVA in the application, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(d). Id. at 19. With respect to two documents enumerated in its contention (i.e., the Interagency Agreement and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit), the Board held that SACE had not alleged facts sufficient to raise a genuine dispute warranting admission of its contention. However, citing TVAs FSEIS, the Board admitted SACEs contention because TVA concedes that there are other applicable permits and approvals but does not identify them or discuss the current compliance status. Id. at 21.

In its Motion, TVA states that in response to the Staffs December 3, 2009 RAI, TVA has now supplied all federal, state, and local authorizations, consultations, and environmental permits needed for operation of Unit 2 and the status of each. Motion at 3 (quotations omitted).

To the extent that TVAs response ameliorates the cited omissions in its original FSEIS, see Watts Bar, LBP-09-26, 70 NRC at __ (slip op. at 19), the Staff supports TVAs request that Contention 1 be dismissed as moot. See McGuire/Catawba, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 382-383.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Staff supports dismissal of Contention 1 on the grounds that it is rendered moot by TVAs submittal of additional information.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

Michael G. Dreher Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-2314 E-Mail: Michael.Dreher@nrc.gov Signed: May 6, 2010

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

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket No. 50-391-OL

)

(Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS CONTENTION 1 AS MOOT, dated May 6, 2010, have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 6th day of May 2010:

Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16G4 Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resource@nrc.gov E-mail: lgm1@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Paul B. Abramson Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov E-mail: pba@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Edward Vigluicci, Esq.

Gary S. Arnold Christopher C. Chandler, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Scott A. Vance, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Mail Stop: T-3 F23 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Washington, DC 20555-0001 Knoxville, TN 37902 E-mail: gxa1@nrc.gov E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov ccchandler0@tva.gov savance@tva.gov

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Diane Curran Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Matthew D. Fraser Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (SACE)

Washington, D.C. 20004 Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com 1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 E-mail: pbessette@morganlewis.com Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com E-mail: mfraser@harmoncurran.com

/Signed (electronically) by/

Michael G. Dreher Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O15-D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-2314 E-Mail: Michael.Dreher@nrc.gov Signed: May 6, 2010

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML101260572&oldid=2133469"