ML072080303: 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:July 27, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of     )         )
{{#Wiki_filter:July 27, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                         )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO.   )
                                                          )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.   ) Docket No. 50-293-LR  
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO.                           )
        ) (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)     )         )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                         )       Docket No. 50-293-LR
        )      )  ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR         )
                                                          )
NRC STAFF MOTION REQUESTING THAT PILGRIM WATCH'S ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF SUPPORT OF ENTERGY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCH'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY'S
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)                           )
                                                          )
                                                          )
                                                          )      ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR
                                                          )
NRC STAFF MOTION REQUESTING THAT PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF SUPPORT OF ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER TO ENTERGYS


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
DISPOSITION MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD INTRODUCTION On July 9, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (collectively, Entergy), filed a motion to strike portions of intervenor, Pilgrim Watch's Answer Opposing Entergy's motion for summary disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3.1   On July 17, 2007, Pilgrim Watch filed its answer in opposition to Entergy's motion,2 and on July 19, 2007, the NRC staff (Staff) filed its response in support of Entergy's motion.3 On July 26, 2007, 1 See Entergy's Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watch's Answer Opposing Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 9, 2007) (Motion to Strike).
DISPOSITION MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD INTRODUCTION On July 9, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
2 See Pilgrim Watch's Answer Opposing Entergy's Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watch's Answer Opposing Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 17, 2007). 3   See NRC Staff Response in Support of Entergy's Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watch's Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (Staff Response).  
(collectively, Entergy), filed a motion to strike portions of intervenor, Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys motion for summary disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3.1 On July 17, 2007, Pilgrim Watch filed its answer in opposition to Entergys motion,2 and on July 19, 2007, the NRC staff (Staff) filed its response in support of Entergys motion.3 On July 26, 2007, 1
See Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 9, 2007) (Motion to Strike).
2 See Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 17, 2007).
3 See NRC Staff Response in Support of Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (Staff Response).


Pilgrim Watch filed an answer to the Staff Response.4   Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and for the reasons discussed below, the Staff hereby requests that Pilgrim Watch's Answer not be considered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing  
Pilgrim Watch filed an answer to the Staff Response.4 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and for the reasons discussed below, the Staff hereby requests that Pilgrim Watchs Answer not be considered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board).
DISCUSSION Pilgrim Watchs Answer is procedurally deficient under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c). There is no provision in that regulation, or any other, that permits a responding party to reply to another responding partys response to a motion made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. Parties are permitted to file an answer in support of or in opposition to motions made pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.323. The moving party is given no right to reply without leave of the Board, based on a demonstration of compelling circumstances. No other pleadings are authorized. Unauthorized pleadings, that is, those that are not authorized by the Board and not authorized by the Commissions regulations, are not permitted and should not be considered by the Board in its decision. See, e.g., Yankee Atomic Elec. Co.(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 343, 345-46 (1998) (interpreting 10 C.F.R. § 2.730, the predecessor to 10 C.F.R. §2.323).
In this case, Pilgrim Watch has filed an answer to the Staffs response to Entergys Motion to Strike. Leave of the Board was not sought and an answer to another partys response is not a permissible pleading under the regulations. Therefore, Pilgrim Watchs Answer is unauthorized and procedurally deficient and should not be considered by the Board in its decision.
4 See Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing NRC Staffs Support of Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (Pilgrim Watchs Answer).


Board (Board).
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL On July 26, 2007, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I e-mailed Mary Lampert, representative of Pilgrim Watch, and David Lewis, counsel for Entergy, in an effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion. Ms. Lampert indicated that Pilgrim Watch opposes this motion. Mr.
DISCUSSION Pilgrim Watch's Answer is procedurally deficient under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c). There is no provision in that regulation, or any other, that permits a responding party to reply to another responding party's response to a motion made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. Parties are permitted to file an answer in support of or in opposition to motions made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. The moving party is given no right to reply without leave of the Board, based on a demonstration of compelling circumstances. No other pleadings are authorized. Unauthorized pleadings, that is, those that are not authorized by the Board and not authorized by the Commission's regulations, are not permitted and should not be considered by the Board in its decision. See, e.g., Yankee Atomic Elec. Co.(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 343, 345-46 (1998) (interpreting 10 C.F.R. § 2.730, the predecessor to 10 C.F.R. §2.323). In this case, Pilgrim Watch has filed an answer to the Staff's response to Entergy's Motion to Strike. Leave of the Board was not sought and an answer to another party's response is not a permissible pleading under the regulations. Therefore, Pilgrim Watch's Answer is unauthorized and procedurally deficient and should not be considered by the Board in its
Lewis indicated that Entergy supports this motion.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully requests that the Board not consider Pilgrim Watchs Answer in deciding the Motion to Strike filed by Entergy.
Respectfully submitted,
                                                    /RA/
Susan L. Uttal Counsel for NRC staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 27th day of July, 2007


decision.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                 )
 
                                                )
4  See Pilgrim Watch's Answer Opposing NRC Staff's Support of Entergy's Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watch's Answer Opposing Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (Pilgrim Watch's Answer).
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.                 )           Docket No. 50-293-LR
 
                                                  )
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL On July 26, 2007, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I e-mailed Mary Lampert, representative of Pilgrim Watch, and David Lewis, counsel for Entergy, in an effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion. Ms. Lampert indicated that Pilgrim Watch opposes this motion. Mr. Lewis indicated that Entergy supports this motion. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully requests that the Board not consider Pilgrim Watch's Answer in deciding the Motion to Strike filed by Entergy.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)                 )           ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR
Respectfully submitted,
                                                )
      /RA/        Susan L. Uttal        Counsel for NRC staff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFF MOTION REQUESTING THAT PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF SUPPORT OF ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER TO ENTERGYS
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland
 
This 27th day of July, 2007 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) ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR  
)       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
I hereby certify that copies of the "NRC STAFF MOTION REQUESTING THAT PILGRIM WATCH'S ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF SUPPORT OF ENTERGY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCH'S ANSWER TO ENTERGY'S


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
DISPOSITION MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD" in the above-captioned proceeding has been served on the following by electronic mail and deposit in the U.S. Mail Service or deposit in the U.S.
DISPOSITION MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD in the above-captioned proceeding has been served on the following by electronic mail and deposit in the U.S. Mail Service or deposit in the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s internal mail system, or by deposit in the U.S. mail system or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system, as indicated by a single asterisk (*), this 27th day of July 2007.
=s internal mail system, or by deposit in the U.S. mail system or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, as indicated by a single asterisk (*), this 27 th day of July 2007.  
Richard F. Cole                                     Paul B Abramson Administrative Judge                                Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                   Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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: rfc1@nrc.gov                                E-mail: pba@nrc.gov Ann Marshall Young, Chair                           Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge                                 Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                   Mail Stop: O-16C1 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@nrc.gov E-mail: amy@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Sheila Slocum Hollis                                Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Duane Morris LLP                                    Mail Stop: O-16C1 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 700                        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20006                                Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com                     E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
Richard F. Cole  
 
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001  
 
E-mail: rfc1@nrc.gov Ann Marshall Young, Chair Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
 
Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: amy@nrc.gov
 
Sheila Slocum Hollis Duane Morris LLP
 
1667 K Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com Paul B Abramson Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001  
 
E-mail: pba@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate      Adjudication
 
Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
E-mail: OCAAMail@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff  
 
Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board*
Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001  
 
Mary Lampert
 
Pilgrim Watch 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332  E-mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net Chief Kevin M. Nord Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency    Management Agency 
 
668 Tremont Street
 
Duxbury, MA 02332 E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Fax: 781-934-6530
 
Terence A. Burke, Esq.* Entergy Nuclear 1340 Echelon Parkway Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213 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 Town Manager
 
Town of Plymouth 11 Lincoln St.
Plymouth, MA 02360 E-mail: msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us
 
/RA/              _____________________
 
Susan L. Uttal


Counsel for NRC Staff}}
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board*        Terence A. Burke, Esq.*
Mail Stop: T-3 F23                        Entergy Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission        1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20555-0001                Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213 Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch                            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 Chief Kevin M. Nord                      E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency          paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Management Agency 668 Tremont Street                        Town Manager Duxbury, MA 02332                        Town of Plymouth E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us          11 Lincoln St.
Fax: 781-934-6530                        Plymouth, MA 02360 E-mail: msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us
                                                  /RA/
_____________________
Susan L. Uttal Counsel for NRC Staff}}

Revision as of 04:12, 23 November 2019

2007/07/27- Pilgrim - NRC Staff Motion Requesting That Pilgrim Watch'S Answer Opposing NRC Staff Support of Entergy'S Motion to Strike Pilgrim Watch'S Answer to Entergy'S Summary Disposition Motion Not Be Considered by the Board
ML072080303
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 07/27/2007
From: Uttal S
NRC/OGC
To:
S L Uttal, NRC/OGC, 301-415-1582
References
50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS 13927
Download: ML072080303 (5)
v • d • e


Text

July 27, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO. )

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

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

)

)

) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)

NRC STAFF MOTION REQUESTING THAT PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF SUPPORT OF ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER TO ENTERGYS

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD INTRODUCTION On July 9, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

(collectively, Entergy), filed a motion to strike portions of intervenor, Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys motion for summary disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3.1 On July 17, 2007, Pilgrim Watch filed its answer in opposition to Entergys motion,2 and on July 19, 2007, the NRC staff (Staff) filed its response in support of Entergys motion.3 On July 26, 2007, 1

See Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 9, 2007) (Motion to Strike).

2 See Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (July 17, 2007).

3 See NRC Staff Response in Support of Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (Staff Response).

Pilgrim Watch filed an answer to the Staff Response.4 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and for the reasons discussed below, the Staff hereby requests that Pilgrim Watchs Answer not be considered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board).

DISCUSSION Pilgrim Watchs Answer is procedurally deficient under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c). There is no provision in that regulation, or any other, that permits a responding party to reply to another responding partys response to a motion made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. Parties are permitted to file an answer in support of or in opposition to motions made pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.323. The moving party is given no right to reply without leave of the Board, based on a demonstration of compelling circumstances. No other pleadings are authorized. Unauthorized pleadings, that is, those that are not authorized by the Board and not authorized by the Commissions regulations, are not permitted and should not be considered by the Board in its decision. See, e.g., Yankee Atomic Elec. Co.(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 343, 345-46 (1998) (interpreting 10 C.F.R. § 2.730, the predecessor to 10 C.F.R. §2.323).

In this case, Pilgrim Watch has filed an answer to the Staffs response to Entergys Motion to Strike. Leave of the Board was not sought and an answer to another partys response is not a permissible pleading under the regulations. Therefore, Pilgrim Watchs Answer is unauthorized and procedurally deficient and should not be considered by the Board in its decision.

4 See Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing NRC Staffs Support of Entergys Motion to Strike Portions of Pilgrim Watchs Answer Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 3 (Pilgrim Watchs Answer).

CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL On July 26, 2007, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I e-mailed Mary Lampert, representative of Pilgrim Watch, and David Lewis, counsel for Entergy, in an effort to resolve the issues raised in this motion. Ms. Lampert indicated that Pilgrim Watch opposes this motion. Mr.

Lewis indicated that Entergy supports this motion.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff respectfully requests that the Board not consider Pilgrim Watchs Answer in deciding the Motion to Strike filed by Entergy.

Respectfully submitted,

/RA/

Susan L. Uttal Counsel for NRC staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 27th day of July, 2007

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) ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFF MOTION REQUESTING THAT PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER OPPOSING NRC STAFF SUPPORT OF ENTERGYS MOTION TO STRIKE PILGRIM WATCHS ANSWER TO ENTERGYS

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD in the above-captioned proceeding has been served on the following by electronic mail and deposit in the U.S. Mail Service or deposit in the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission=s internal mail system, or by deposit in the U.S. mail system or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system, as indicated by a single asterisk (*), this 27th day of July 2007.

Richard F. Cole Paul B Abramson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 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: rfc1@nrc.gov E-mail: pba@nrc.gov Ann Marshall Young, Chair Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: O-16C1 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@nrc.gov E-mail: amy@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Sheila Slocum Hollis Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Duane Morris LLP Mail Stop: O-16C1 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board* Terence A. Burke, Esq.*

Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Entergy Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213 Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch 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 Chief Kevin M. Nord E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com Management Agency 668 Tremont Street Town Manager Duxbury, MA 02332 Town of Plymouth E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us 11 Lincoln St.

Fax: 781-934-6530 Plymouth, MA 02360 E-mail: msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us

/RA/

_____________________

Susan L. Uttal Counsel for NRC Staff

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML072080303&oldid=2174965"