ML080230375

From kanterella
Revision as of 20:19, 14 November 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2008/01/07-Entergy's Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch'S Motion for Reconsideration
ML080230375
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 01/07/2008
From: Doris Lewis
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS 14931
Download: ML080230375 (6)
v • d • e


Text

% ik / V'z/

January 7, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel January 7, 2008 [11:14am]

In the Matter of ) OFFI CE OF SECRETARY

) RULEMAKINGS AND Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and ) Docket No. 50-293-LR ADJIUDICATIONS STAFF Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

ENTERGY'S ANSWER OPPOSING PILGRIM WATCH'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy")

hereby answer and oppose "Pilgrim Watch Motion for Reconsideration ASLBP No. 06-848-02" (Dec. 28, 2007) ("Motion"), which seeks reconsideration of the Licensing Board's December 19, 2007 Order (Revising Schedule for Evidentiary Hearing and Responding to Pilgrim Watch's December 14 and 15 Motions). Pilgrim's Watch's Motion should be denied because it is untimely, offers no grounds for reconsideration, and is devoid of merit. Entergy also objects to Pilgrim Watch's continual filing of motions' as unreasonable and oppressive.

Pilgrim Watch's Motion is untimely, because while Pilgrim Watch purports to seek reconsideration of the December 19 Order, Pilgrim Watch in fact seeks reconsideration of the Licensing Board's October 17, 2007 Memorandum and Order, LPB-07-12, which defined the Pilgrimn Watch's Motion was the fifth motion filed by Pilgrim Watch in the month of December. Entergy also objects to Pilgrim Watch's practice of filing replies prohibited by the NRC rules at 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c). See, e., Pilgrim Watch Reply to Entergy's and NRC Staff's Responses to Pilgrim Watch's Motion for Clarification (Jan. 1, 2008).

T5EA/u-t~ 6({( ý S-C-V o,ý

issue to be heard with respect to Pilgrim Watch Contention 1.2 Pilgrim Watch simply disagrees with the scope of that issue and once more seeks to turn this proceeding into a broad forum in which to litigate groundwater protection. However, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), any motion for reconsideration of LBP-07-12 was due within ten days of its issuance. Thus, Pilgrim Watch's attempt once more to expand this proceeding is improper.

In LPB-7-12, the Board ruled that the material issue in dispute with respect to Contention I is whether Pilgrim's Aging Management Programs ("AMP") for buried piping and tanks are adequate "on their own," without need of any leak detection devices such as groundwater monitoring, to assure that the pipes and tanks in question will perform their intended function.

LBP-07-12 at 16 (emphasis added). As the Board put it another way, "the only issue remaining before this Licensing Board regarding Contention 1 is ... whether Pilgrim's existing AMPs have elements that provide appropriate assurance as required under relevant NRC regulations that the buried pipes and tanks will not develop leaks so great as to cause those pipes and tanks to be unable to perform their intended safety functions." Id. at 18. Pilgrim Watch's arguments that ongoing groundwater monitoring should be litigated simply fly in the face of LBP-07-12.

In an attempt to distinguish the December 19, 2007 Order, Pilgrim Watch suggests that the Board changed the focus from whether buried pipes and tanks "will not develop leaks so great as to be unable to perform their intended safety functions" to whether buried pipes and tanks "are leaking at such great rates that they cannot satisfy their intended safety functions."

Motion at 4. Entergy does not believe that there is any intended significance in the tense of the 2 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1, Regarding Adequacy of Aging Management Program for Buried Pipes and Tanks and Potential Need for Monitoring Wells to Supplement Program), LBP-07-12 (Oct. 17, 2007).

2

Board's language, and understands that the issue remains whether the aging management programs credited for buried pipes and tanks in the Pilgrim license renewal application will adequately manage the effects of aging so that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation. Compare 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.2 1(a)(3), 54.29(a). Obviously, the Board has not changed the basic standards in the NRC rules.

Pilgrim Watch argues that if the Board acknowledges that corrosion and leakage cannot be captured in a one-time snap shot, "then whether the AMPS should properly require monitoring wells is placed in scope." Motion at 5. This argument is a non sequitur. The relevant issue under the NRC's license renewal rules is whether the programs on which Entergy is relying adequately manage aging in a manner reasonably assuring that the buried components within the scope of the license renewal rule will perform their intended function. The license renewal application for Pilgrim does not rely on groundwater monitoring as an Aging Management Program for buried piping and tanks within the scope of the license renewal rule.

Finally, Pilgrim Watch attacks the Board's statement in the December 19, 2007 Order that the bulk of the inquiry at evidentiary hearings conducted under 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L rests with the Board. See Motion at 7. The Board's statements in the December 19, 2007 Order are in complete accord with the NRC's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R. § 2.1202. Pilgrim Watch's contrary claim is simply an impermissible attack on the NRC regulations.

In sum, Pilgrim Watch has demonstrated no compelling circumstances for reconsideration of the December 19, 2007 Order. Pilgrim Watch's claim of a clear and material error in that decision (Motion at 1) is clearly without merit and therefore presents no compelling circumstances. Moreover, Pilgrim Watch makes no showing that the Board's ruling in the 3

December 19, 2007 Order could not reasonably have been anticipated, as is required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e) for a motion for reconsideration. Indeed, Pilgrim Watch cannot make this showing because its basic disagreement is with the scope of the issue defined in LBP-07-12 rather than the December 19, 2007 Order.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Pilgrim Watch's motion should be denied.

Respectfully Submitted, David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Counsel for Entergy Dated: January 7, 2008 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and ) Docket No. 50-293-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of"Entergy's Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch's Motion For Reconsideration," dated January 7, 2008, were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and where indicated by an asterisk by electronic mail, this 7"' day of January, 2008.

  • Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chair Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 amy@nrc.gov rfc 1@Winrc. gov
  • Administrative Judge *Secretary Paul B. Abramson Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 C I Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secy(gnrc.gov; hearigii ,docl<etý(nrc.gov pba nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Adjudication Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop 0-16 CI U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conimnission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
  • Susan L. Uttal, Esq. *Mr. Mark D. Sylvia
  • Kimberly A. Sexton, Esq. Town Manager
  • James E. Adler, Esq. Town of Plymouth Office of the General Counsel 11 Lincoln St.

Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Plymouth MA, 02360 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission msylvia(citowlhalall.pl]ymouth.nma.us Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 slu(cnrc.gov; KAS2@(nrc.gov; JEA I@cnrc.gov

  • Ms. Mary Lampert *ChiefKevin M. Nord 148 Washington Street Fire Chief and Director, Duxbury Emergency Duxbury, MA 02332 Management Agency mary. Iampert@comncast.lnet 688 Tremont Street P.O. Box 2824 Duxbury, MA 02331 nord@town.duxbury.ma.us
  • Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq. *Richard R. MacDonald Duane Morris LLP Town Manager 1667 K Street,'N.W. 878 Tremont Street Suite 700 Duxbury, MA 02332 Washington, D.C. 20006 macdonald@town.duxbury.ma.us sshollis(c(lduanemorris.coln David R. Lewis 2
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML080230375&oldid=2161256"