ML11271A131
| ML11271A131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/28/2011 |
| From: | Brock M State of MA, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21142, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR | |
| Download: ML11271A131 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) September 28, 2011 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ANSWER TO PILGRIM WATCH PETITION FOR REVIEW, REQUEST TO STAY COMMISSION DECISION OR IN THE ALTERNATI VE TO STRIKE REFERENCE TO MASSACHUSETTS' EXPERT The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(a)(3), hereby submits this limited Answer to Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review, 1 for the purpose of requesting that, because of the potential overlap in issues raised by the pro se Pilgrim Watch Petition for Review with those issues raised by the Commonwealth in its contention and related filings currently pending before the Pilgrim ASLB, the Commission should stay issuan ce of a final decision on the Pilgrim Watch Petition until the ASLB has ruled on the Commonwealth's filings.
2 To avoid piecemeal and duplicative litigation, and to promote efficient agency decision making, the Commission should defer issuing a final decision on the Pilgrim Watch Petit ion which, like the Commonwealth, has raised issues under the National Environmental Policy Act regarding
1 Pilgrim Watch's Petition for Review of Memorandum and Order (Denying Pilgrim Watch's Requests for Hearing on New Contentions Relating to Fukushima Accident)(September 23, 2011)(Pilgrim Watch Petition).
2 As an Interested State, the Commonwealth is entitled to protect its party-related interests in this proceeding.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC , 522 F. 3d 115, 118 (1st Cir. 2008).
2 new and significant information arising from the accident at Fukushima.
3 However, in the current posture, the Commonwealth and the pro se Petitioner are now in front of different NRC adjudicatory decision makers, with the potential for fragmented agency and judicial review. Once the ASLB ha s ruled on the Commonweath's contention, the Commission will be better informed as to how best to expedite a final agency decision on these potentially related claims.
In the alternative, the Co mmonwealth requests that the references of opinion, fact and law in the Pilgrim Watch Petition rega rding the Commonwealth's expert, Dr. Gordon Thompson, be stricken and disregarded by the Commission in its deliberations on the Petition. The Commonwealth makes this request because, as discussed below, the Commonwealth's proposed contention on the lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima, including the declarations by the Commonwealth's expert Dr. Thompson, currently are pending for decision before the Pilgrim Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). Therefore it would be premat ure and potentially prejudicial to the Commonwealth for the Commissi on to consider a portion of the Commonwealth's filings and expert declarations at this time as part of its deliberations on the merits of a Petition for Review filed by another party.
The Commonwealth's counsel has been authorized by the pro se representative for Pilgrim Watch to state that she has no objection to this Answer and Request for Relief.
3 See, e.g., Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cont ention Regarding New and Significant Information Revealed by the Fukushima Radiological Accident (June 2, 2011);
cf. Pilgrim Watch Petition at 11 - 15.
3 Background On June 2, 2011, the Commonwealth file d a new contention on the lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima, a declaration by the Commonwealth's expert Dr. Gordon Thompson supporting the contention, and related procedural filings.
4 Since that time, the Commonwealth has made further fi lings in support of its contention, including additional declarations prepared by Dr. Thompson.
5 These filings remain pending for decision before the ASLB, as well as voluminous filings by the NRC Staff and Entergy responding to the Commonwealth's filings.
6 On September 23, 2011, Pilgrim Watch f iled a Petition for Review with the Commission on the ASLB's denial of the Pilgrim Watch Fukushima-related contentions. See FN1. In that filing, Pilgrim Watch ci ted various sources in support of its appeal, including, as relevant here, the Commonwealth's expert Dr. Thompson.
7 However, because the Pilgrim ASLB currently has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's contention, including its expert declarations and other filings , it would be inconsistent with the NRC's regulatory process, and poten tially prejudicial to the Commonwealth, for the Commission to consider a portion of the Co mmonwealth's case in isolation as part of the appeal by another party. Also, as the sponsor of Dr. Thompson, fundamental fairness
4 Declaration of Dr. Gordon R. Thom pson in Support of Commonwealth of Massachusetts Contention and Related Petitions and Motions (June 1, 2011).
5 See, e.g., Declaration of Gordon R. Thom pson Addressing New and Significant Information Provided by the NRC's Near-Term Task Force Report on the Fukushima Accident (August 11, 2011).
6 See Entergy Nuclear Generation Company a nd Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Memorandum and Order Denying Pilgrim Watch's Requests for Hearing on Certain New Cont entions, LBP-11-20 (August 11, 2011) at 3 ("In addition, that separate ruling [by the ASLB] will address filings by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that also concern information from the Fukushima events.").
7 See, e.g., Pilgrim Watch Petition at FN 3; at 20 - 21 and FN15.
4 requires that the Commonwealth be permitted to present its complete evidence, including its expert-supported contention, for decision before the NRC.
Conclusion For these reasons, and because the pro se representative for Pilgrim Watch does not object to this request for relief, the Commonwealth respectfully requests the Commission to stay issuance of a final decision on the Pilgrim Watch Petition until the ASLB has ruled on the Commonwealth's conten tion and the parties have an opportunity to advise the Commission as to the most effi cient process to reach a final resolution on these matters. In the alternative, the Commonwealth requests the Commission to disregard and strike all reference of opinion, fact, and law regarding the Commonwealth's expert, Dr. Thompson, for purposes of the Commission's deliberations on the Pilgrim Watch Petition for Review.
8 Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Matthew Brock Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Tel: (617) 727-2200 Fax: (617) 727-9665 matthew.brock@state.ma.us
September 28, 2011
8 In requesting this relief, the Commonwealth does not otherwise in tend to challenge the merits of Pilgrim Watch's appeal of the ASLB decision.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of )
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) ) September 28, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ANSWER TO PILGRIM WATCH PETITION FOR REVIEW, REQUEST TO STAY COMMI SSION DECISION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STRIKE REFERENCE TO MASSACHUSETTS' EXPERT , dated September 28, 2011, were provided to the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) for service on the individuals below and by electronic mail as indica ted by an asterisk*:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Administrative Judge
Ann Marshall Young, Chair E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov
Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov
Administrative Judge E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov
Hillary Cain, Law Clerk Hillary.cain@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel
Mail Stop: O-15 D21
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Richard S. Harper, Esq.
Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.
Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Maxwell C. Smith, Esq.
Edward Williams, Esq
Brian Newell, Paralegal
OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov , richard.harper@nrc.gov , susan.uttal@nrc.gov , axj4@nrc.gov , beth.mizuno@nrc.gov , brian.harris@nrc.gov , maxwell.smith@nrc.gov edward.williams@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
Mail Stop: O-16C1
Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAAMail.Resource@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: O-16C1
Washington, DC 20555-0001
HearingDocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Mail Stop: O11-F1
Washington, D.C. 20555 -0001
Lisa Regner*
Senior Project Manager
Division of License Renewal E-mail: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington DC, 20037-1128
David R. Lewis, Esq.
David.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Paul.gaulker@pillsburylaw.com Jason B. Parker, Esq.
Jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com
- Maria.webb@pillsburylaw.com Entergy Nuclear
1340 Echelon Parkway
Mail Stop M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213
Terence A. Burke, Esq.
tburke@entergy.com Town of Plymouth Town Manager's Office
11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, MA 02360
Melissa Arrighi, Acting Town Manager*
marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Duxbury Emergency Management Agency 686 Tremont Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
Kevin M. Nord, Fire Chief & Director*
E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Town of Plymouth, MA Duane Morris L.L.P.
505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-2166
Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.*
SSHollis@duanemorris.com Pilgrim Watch 148 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
Mary Lampert, Director Mary.Lampert@comcast.net Town of Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee
31 Deerpath Trl.
North Duxbury, MA 02332
Rebecca Chin, Vice Chair*
rebeccajchin@hotmail.com
/s Matthew Brock Matthew Brock