|
---|
Category:Legal-Pleading
MONTHYEARML20177A6212020-06-25025 June 2020 Applicants Status Report ML20156A0502020-06-0404 June 2020 Joint Motion of Applicants and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a Stay of Issuance of a Decision on the Pending Petitions for Intervention and a Hearing ML20014E7632020-01-14014 January 2020 Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Its Petition with New Information ML20007E9182020-01-0707 January 2020 Applicants' Answer Opposing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Second Motion to Supplement Its Petition with New Information ML19343C6922019-12-0909 December 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch'S Third Motion to Supplement Its Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing ML19329B3242019-11-25025 November 2019 Watch Motion to Supplement Its February 20, 2019 Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing, Its April 1, 2019 Reply to Petitioners, and Its May 3, 2019 Motion to Supplement ML19284E8962019-10-11011 October 2019 Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel ML19256B9952019-09-13013 September 2019 Applicant'S Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch'S Stay Motions ML19256B9602019-09-13013 September 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing the Application of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a Stay ML19255K4112019-09-12012 September 2019 Reply of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Its Motion for a Twenty-Two Minute Enlargement of Time to File Its Stay Application and Supporting Appendix ML19252A3332019-09-0909 September 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing the Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a Twenty-Two Minute Enlargement of Time to File Its Stay Application ML19246B1762019-09-0303 September 2019 Applicants Unopposed Motion for Clarification of Time to Respond to Pilgrim Watch Motion for Stay of Exemption ML19234A3582019-08-22022 August 2019 Notice of Appearance - Anita Ghosh Naber ML19231A1542019-08-19019 August 2019 Watch Reply to Applicants' Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch'S Motion to File a New Contention ML19228A0902019-08-16016 August 2019 Pilgrm Watch Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for an Enlargement of Time to File an Application to Stay a NRC Staff Order Approving the License Transfer Application ML19228A1672019-08-16016 August 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing the Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for an Enlargement of Time to File an Application for Stay ML19228A1622019-08-16016 August 2019 Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel ML19227A2902019-08-15015 August 2019 Watch Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for Clarification of the Commission'S August 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order ML19224C4242019-08-12012 August 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch'S Motion to File a New Contention ML19217A3682019-08-0505 August 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing the Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Stay Proceedings to Complete Settlement Negotiations ML19197A3302019-07-16016 July 2019 Watch Motion to File a New Contention ML19137A0732019-05-17017 May 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch'S Motion to Supplement Its Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing ML19126A0502019-05-0606 May 2019 Watch Reply to Applicants Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch Motion to Supplement Its Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing May 6, 2019 Its Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing (May 6, 2019) ML19122A1262019-05-0202 May 2019 Applicant'S Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch Motion to Supplement Its Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing ML19122A1222019-05-0202 May 2019 Applicant'S Answer Opposing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Supplement Its Petition with New Information ML19116A1622019-04-26026 April 2019 Watch Motion to Supplement Its Motion to Intervene and Request for Hearing. New Information ML19091A2972019-04-0101 April 2019 Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Reply in Support of Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request ML19077A1902019-03-18018 March 2019 Notice of Appearances for Mary E. Lampert and James B. Lampert ML19077A2352019-03-18018 March 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request ML19077A2322019-03-18018 March 2019 Applicants' Answer Opposing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request ML19052A1872019-02-21021 February 2019 Exhibit 4 to Pilgrim Watch Petition to Intervene and Hearing Request ML19052A1902019-02-21021 February 2019 Exhibit 5 to Pilgrim Watch Petition to Intervene and Hearing Request ML19051A0192019-02-20020 February 2019 Watch Petition to Intervene and Hearing Request ML19052A1822017-07-31031 July 2017 Exhibit 2 to Pilgrim Watch Petition to Intervene and Hearing Request ML17095A3642017-04-0505 April 2017 Status of Decision on Petitioners Request for Hearing Regarding Entergy'S Request for Extension to Comply with NRC Order EA-13-109 ML17048A5712017-02-17017 February 2017 Status of Decision on Petitioners Request for Hearing Regarding Entergy'S Request for Extension to Comply with NRC Order EA-13-109 ML16285A3782016-10-11011 October 2016 Petitioners' Response to NRC Staff'S and Entergy'S Opposition to Peitioners' Request for Hearing Regarding Entergy'S Request for Extension to Comply with NRC Order EA-13-109 ML16277A5482016-10-0303 October 2016 Entergy Answer Opposing Request for Hearing Regarding Pilgrim and EA-13-109 ML16277A5612016-10-0303 October 2016 NRC Staff Response to Pilgrim Watch and Co-Petitioners Request for Hearing ML16277A4652016-10-0303 October 2016 Notice of Appearance for Marcia Simon ML16277A2102016-10-0303 October 2016 Notice of Appearance for Robert Carpenter ML16277A4712016-10-0303 October 2016 Notice of Appearance for Matthew Ring ML12195A0912012-07-13013 July 2012 NRC Staff'S Answer to Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch'S Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Petition for Intervention and Request to Reopen Proceeding and Admit New Contention ML12195A1692012-07-13013 July 2012 Entergy'S Answer Opposing Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch'S Petition for Review of LBP-12-11 ML12185A1392012-07-0303 July 2012 Certificate of Service for Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Petition for Intervention and Request to Reopen Proceeding and Admit New Contention) ML12185A1382012-07-0303 July 2012 Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Petition for Intervention and Request to Reopen Proceeding and Admit New Contention) LBP 12-11, June 18, 2012 ML12160A4392012-06-0808 June 2012 Entergy'S Answer Opposing Jones River Watershed Association'S and Pilgrim Watch'S Motion to Reopen and Hearing Request on Contention Regarding Water-Related Approvals ML12159A5762012-06-0707 June 2012 NRC Staff'S Answer to Jones River Watershed Association and Pilgrim Watch'S Requests to Reopen the Record and File a New Contention on Water Quality ML12159A5772012-06-0707 June 2012 Notice of Appearance for Maxwell C. Smith ML12157A5742012-06-0505 June 2012 Notice of Appearance for Susan L. Uttal on Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Pilgrim) 2020-06-04
[Table view] |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and )
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
January 14, 2012 Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergys Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Motion to File a Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers INTRODUCTION Persuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.323(c), Pilgrim Watch respectfully requests leave to reply to Entergys Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watchs Motion to File a Reply to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers. Pilgrim Watch makes this request because it could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments made by Entergy in opposing Pilgrim Watch's motion.
A. A Separate Request for Leave to Reply First, Pilgrim Watch could not have anticipated Entergy's argument that 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) requires a party "separately [to] request leave to file a reply" and cannot "combine[] its leave request with a proposed reply." (Entergy Answer, 2) That is not what 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) says. To be sure, 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c ) says that a "moving party has no right to reply, except as permitted;" but contrary to Entergy's assertion is has no "explicit requirement that permission be obtained before any reply can be filed." (Id.,)
The first paragraph of the Pilgrim Watch reply to which Entergy objects specifically requested leave pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c):
Persuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.323(c), Pilgrim Watch respectfully requests leave to file a response to Entergys and NRC Staffs Answers to Pilgrim Watch Request to Supplement Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrims Watchs Request for Hearing on Certain New Contnertions, ASLBP NO/ 06-848 LR, August 11, 2011 (Filed August 26, 2011) and Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrim Watchs Requests for Hearing on New Contentions Relating to Fukushima Accident) September 8, 2011 (Filed September 23, 2011). Pilgrim Watch makes this request because it could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments of Entergy and Staff.
Pilgrim Watch has consistently followed this proceedure throughout this proceeding, as a review of the docket clearly shows. Pilgrim Watch could hardly have anticipated an argument that Entergy has never made.
The applicable rule does not require advance separate permission, as shown by Entergy's failure ever to even make this argument before.
B. The Relevance of the Markey Report Second, Pilgrim Watch could not have anticipated Entergy's argument that "the Markey Report is not relevant or material information" because it does not mention Pilgrim SAMA, NEPA or the Commission's NEPA obligations." (Entergy Answer, 2). What Entergy would obviously like the Commission to overlook is that evidence showing that the Board and the Commission have not met their NEPA obligations is relevant to a contention that they have not done so, whether or not that evidence specifically identifies that contention or the parties to it.
PW agrees that the documents the Markey Report cites may well not be "'new' to the Commission" (Entergy Answer, 2, fn 4), but that has nothing to do with whether they are important and highly relevant evidence should be made part of the record in this proceeding.
2
As Pilgrim Watch said in its Reply that Entergy would like to the Commission to ignore, Markeys report is relevant and material to Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review because it provided documented information on the status of NRCs look at the new and significant information raised by Pilgrim Watch that NRC is required to take before Pilgrims licensing decision is made. 1 Marsh v Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 385 (1989)
Pilgrim Watchs Petition for Review showed that a major reason that the Boards decision was erroneous was because the Board failed to take a hard look at the proferred evidence and the Markey report indicates that the Commission has not completed its hard look, either.
Entergy's argument that the Markey Report does not contain new information because it is based on copies of Commission documents (including voting records, reports, emails, correspondence, memoranda, phone or meeting minutes or other materials) related to the events of Fukushima or the NRCs response thereto prepared or obtained by any Commissioner or member of any Commissioners staff (Entergy, footnote 4, partially citing PWs footnote 2) fails for one simple reason. Congressman Markey obtained these documents only after making a specific Congressional request for them, and they became generally available only in Markeys report. 2 1
Congressman Markeys report is based on copies of all documents (including voting records, reports, emails, correspondence, memoranda, phone or meeting minutes or other materials) related to the events of Fukushima or the NRCs response thereto prepared or obtained by any Commissioner or member of any Commissioners staff Markeys review of these materials indicated that: Four NRC Commissioners attempted to delay and otherwise impede the creation of the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima; and conspired, with each other and with senior NRC staff, to delay the release of and alter the NRC Near-Term Task Force report on Fukushima. Further, the other NRC Commissioners attempted to slow down or otherwise impede the adoption of the safety recommendations made by the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima.
2 In late October 2011, Congressman Markey sent a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting copies of all documents (including voting records, reports, emails, correspondence, memoranda, phone or meeting minutes or other materials) related to the events of Fukushima or the NRCs response thereto prepared or obtained by any Commissioner or member of any Commissioners staff. Report, pg.,3 3
For the foregoing reasons the Commission should permit Pilgrim Watch's replies to Entergys meritless filing.
Respectfully submitted, (Signed Electronically)
Mary Lampert Pilgrim Watch, pro se 148 Washington Street Duxbury MA 02332 Tel 781-934-0389 Email: mary.lampert@comcast.net January 14, 2012 4