ML081220870

From kanterella
Revision as of 11:53, 12 July 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2008/04/17-Entergy's Request for Guidance on the First Circuit'S Administrative Stay
ML081220870
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 04/17/2008
From: Doris Lewis
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:
NRC/OCM
SECY/RAS
References
50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS J-104
Download: ML081220870 (8)
v • d • e


Text

Ms April 17, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED Before- the Commission USNRC April 18, 2008 (8:00am)In the Matter of ) OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and ) Docket No. 50-293-LR ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)(Pilgnrrim Nuiclear Power Station),)

ENTERGY'S REQUEST POR GUIDANCE ON THEFIRST CIRCUIT'S ADMINISTRATIVE STAY Entergy Nuclear Generation Conipany and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.(collectively,-"Entergy")

hereby request that the Cnommssion provide guidance to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Licensing Board" or, "Bo d") on the application of the administrative stay imposed iilthe Apil .8, 2008' dcisio'no fthe United States Courtof Appeals,....

for the First Circuit.'

In particular, Entergy requests that the Commission interpret the Court's administrative stay as not preventing the Licensing Board from proceeding with the schedule.

for the parties to submit proposed findings of fact onPilgri Watch Cotntention

1. Entergy m aes this request to ensure a p p s lutibn to the aiidjudicatirypo'rtion of thisproc'eding in accordance with Well egsablished 2 On April 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision denying the Coimnonwealth of, Massachusetts' petitionrs.for review of the dismissal of its-Massachuitts
v. NRC. Nos. 07-1482.07--1483-(1 Gir:Apr:;
  • -2008).-., Pursuant to 10C...F.R.

§ 2.323(b), counsel for.Entergy has contacted the other parties, as well as the:".C6-mdhealth.`*1ou~hS'elfor the NRC, Staff supports the reque(.§o~s1fri~Cm~n~at a niae that it .wilinot take'a position.

Pilgrim Watch opposes the request and willfilea resonsIeinoppositinon H~'ýe-,iiiýOý6tul submits Pilgrim Watch has no standito object to this requesta it -etains so1ely to'the pje-' -~pictohf an admi.ni~stra tiveWf sthay is uinrelated to PilgrimiiWat~>

... ..56eI/.47) iv-contention in the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee license renewal proceedings.

Massachusetts v.NRC, supra, note 1. However, the Court "stay[ed]

the close of hearings in both plant license renewal proceedings for fourteen days from the date of issuance of mandate in this case." Id., slip op. at 31-32 (footnote omitted).

The Court issued this stay, which it described as "very brief' (id., slip op. at 4), "in order to afford the Commonwealth an opportunity to request participant status under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c), should it desire to do so." Id.,, slip op. at 32. The purpose of affording the Commonwealth an opportunity to participate as an Interested State under section 2.315(c) isin turnto allow the Commonwealth the opportunity to file a future motion Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.802(d) if it appears that the Commission is preparing to issue the renewed licenses in the Pilgrim or Vermont Yankee proceedings prior to a decision on the Commonwealth's rulemaking petition.

See id. slip op. at 26-31. The Commonwealth has"stated that it has no desire to participate otherwise in the license proceedings (i.e., has no intent to,.participate in the litigation of the admitted cdontentions of other parties).

_SeReply Bief fr '..Petitioner Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case Nos. 07-1482; 07-1483, (1Cir. Nov. 8,'2007)atp. 13.On April 10, 2008, the Board conducted the evidentiary phase of the Pilgrim license renewal hearing.on0 the sole contentionxremaining in this matter, Pilgrim Watch Contention 1.The Board receivedinto evidence the parties' pre-filed testiimony, admitted the parties'exhibits, and heard the testimon of, the paties' wit.esses.

Seed Transcript of Hearing (CTr.") (April 10, 2008).h towloset th ee d-orf the didutift...

thamt ta" wfoase hesitant to close the evidenrtiary, recoid or.proceed with the~sched~ile for submnittal of proposed'2 findings 3 because of uncertainty concerning the meaning and effect of the First Circuit's administrative stay. Tr. at 868-72. The Board suggested that the parties could seek instructions from the Commission.

Id. at 872.Entergy therefore files this motion with the Commission.

Entergy believes that the First Circuit did not intend its ruling to foreclose the parties from filing proposed findings with respect.to Pilgrim Watch Contention 1 in accordance with the schedule previously established by the Board, but rather merely intended to ensure that the Commonwealth has an opportunity to file its request to be treated as an Interested State prior to termination of the adjudicatory proceeding.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interprefthe "close of :the hearing".

as referring to the termination of the adjudicatory proceeding, which will occur only after the Licensing Board issues a decision'resolving the admitted contentions.:

Cf. Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (IndependenFtSpent.FuelStorageInstallation), CLi-06-0I3,63 N.R.C. 19, 24(2006)I in this light, Entergy -respectfully requests that the Commission interpret the Court's order as staying only the termination of the adjudication, and not the closing of the evidentiary record and receipt of proposed, ,findings..

Allowing the'Board to proceed with the receipt of proposed findings will not affect or prejudice the Commonwealth's abiiity to move for State status pursuant to 10 C.F.R: §2.315(c).

The Board's initialschedtuling order contemplated a 45-day period in which the parties would submit proposed 90-dayiperiod from te ckise of the.;yidentiai;y tecord in 3 -The Board's initialiofder estabiisifor-this-pre e C4119 f6orte pariesfile their proposed fihdings of fact andicl-usionis f law;3' dayis aftr A the 6i e of the evidentif rec6rd, and 'tofle repiy findings 14 days &hereaftfi. .Order.6(Etablisg~hiSch'edIle for Profe641eýind Adtressin:gi 6od;andMtofsl(20, 2006), at60 n ddesn dMtes Dc 3 which the Board would issue its decision on the admitted contention.

Thus, there are several*months before the adjudicatory proceeding will terminate.

In contrast, interpreting the First Circuit's stay more, broadly to.preclude the closing of the evidentiary record and the filing of findings of fact and conclusions of law on Pilgrim Watch Contention 1 would significantly delay the proceeding.

While the Court intended a "very brief'stay, such a stay will infactextend a lengthy'two-months

ýbecause it runs from the filing of the mandate in the First Circuit proceeding.

Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the-mandate issues 7 calendar days after the period in which a request for rehearing may be filed,-, which in cases where aFederal agency is apaity is 45 days. Fed. R. App. P. 40 & 41. Since the stay runs for 14 days after themanidate, it willremain in effect until approximately June 13.: If this stay is interpreted as onlyprecluding the te ation ofthe adjudicatory proceeding, itiwill proiectithe Commonwealtihs ishterestwithout irrpactfiig the ultimate schedule,-because the-Licensing-Board's decision would not be expected until July (90 days after the evidentiary 4.hearing).

On the other hand, if the Court's stay were interpreted.'as paralyzing all further proceedings on the ad mitted contention,.

it would cause an unriecessary tw6ot dlyi submittal of proposed findings' and a c-orrespondinfg d elay in the issuance of the Board's'decision.

Such undue delay in, the resolution of PilgrimI Watch's contention.

would be contrary to well established Commission policy.4 Accordingly, in accordance withiii well, eablisheld Cohimi ,isios, 1 policy, Entergy respectfuly requests that tiioh-ih-si diiiii 'et the Aprnil 8, 2008 decisin by the'First Circuit-a .h n6- , o -- J , L othe closure of the e'viden'tiary record.or schedule for he'.partis.

-.filing See 10 C.F.R. Part-2 Appendix -B, Model Milestones for Subpart L Hearii gs (.pro6vidiingthat the initil *decision shouldlissiie'withii 90 da's of the close of then.i he evidehti~r h 9ii an&dIýlg ' -qr their. findings on Pilgrim Watch Contention 1, and direct the Board to order that the parties make'such filings promptly in accordance-with the provisions of the schedule previously established by the Board.Respectfully Submitted, D~avidl i Paul :A.:Gaukler PILLSBURY%

WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP.2300 NStreet,.NW Washingtn, DC-20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-80001 Counsel for Efitergy Dated: April 17, 2008ý5" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter-of)Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and )Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. )Docket No. 50-293-LR ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)))CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "IEntergy's Request for.Guidance on the First Circuit's Administrative Stay" dated April 117, 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 electroni&,mail, this 1 7 th day of April, 2008.*Hon. Dale E. Kline Chainrman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-

D.C., 20555 CHAIRMAN(rrc.

gov .*Hon. Peter B. Lyons Commissioner.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C..-20555 CMRLYONS@iirc.gov

  • Administrative Judge,,, -Ann Manshall'Young, Chair Atom'cSafety and.Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S:. Nuclear Regu:lator domnmission0.

l a~s.ffign,ý-o-D-1C-: 2055"-O00V Ann.Yong(~nr.40o

  • Hon. Gregory B. Jaczko Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555 mnailto :CMRJACZKO@trc_.

goV*H0on. Kristine L. Svinicki Commissioner U.S. Nuclea fRegulatory Commission Washingtoni;C

20555 CMRSV-NICK`

(,nrc. gov*Admsinitative.

Judge charid.F.

.Cole Atonic,$ 6Safe 'nýd Licensing pBoard Mi1jý,S6p-T-3t13 U.,&,Nu61eaf Regulatory.-

Commission W-a-'hif-tiorobD.C.--20555-000L, Richa1 rd.Cole(ir1 goy-

  • Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Paul.Abrams'on(&innr6.gov Officeo6f Commission Appellate Adjudication M~ail Stop 0-16 C1-U.S. Nucledr Regulatory Comissdion Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
    • SusanIL.

Uttal,.Esq.

  • Kimberly.Sexton, Esq.*Jame's E Esq.Office of the, General Counsel Mail StopO-15D21-'
U.S. Nuclear- Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Susain.Uttal@rnrc.gov;-Kimberil.Sexton(onrc.gov;, James.Adler@nrc6g6oI,'*Ms. ,Mar'y Lampert.148 WAshinhgtn Street, Duxbury, MA'0233,2 marn',lanpert_(comcast.net
  • Secretary Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop 0-16 C1 U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingon, D.C. 20555-0001 secy@mr-c.

pov, hearingdocket(nrc.

gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail, St6p T-3. F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

  • Mr. Mark D. Sylvia Town M anager Towiiof Plymouth 11 Lincoln' St.Plyfouth MA, 02360 msylviai@townhall-plymouth.ma.us
  • Ctief Kevin M.Nord .-Fire Chief and Director, Duxbur Imergppny,.,,-

Management Agency 688eTremioit Street P.O. Box 2824 D1A buy' y A'J 02331: n ord~twn~uxburv.ma,.us'

  • Michard R. MacDonald Town Managef 878 Strefe~t;DuxburydU, MA 023u32 iacdona"ýld(&.toý"wni.duxburiv.ma.us
  • Sheilaý SlocumrnI Hollis,: Esq.Duane Morims LLP 505 9th Street, N.W.Suite 1000.washingtonr, D.C. 20006: sslhoilis(&dudnemo0ris.

c'm Matthew Brock, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq..AssistantAoey General. Hannon, Curran, Spie r& isenberg, LL.P.Officbbte'Attornoy naid CI Ofg the t y!GeneralEnviromentailt

'1726M-Street N.W. SuitS 6 0.: Proted'ion-fDi visi5 ---iiii- C.-Onrw AshburtoriPla.ce

-dcur~anýharmo'n-cu-r'rýa-ný.

com0. b.Boston, MA 02108 .Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us 2:

John F. Cordes, Jr., Esq.Solicitor Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. NRC Mail Stop 0-15D21 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Johanna Thibault, Esq,,'Law Atomic and. Safety Licensing Board Mail StopT-3TF23.,, U.S..Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Joham-a.Thibault@,nrc.

gov Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. NRC Mail Stop 0-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Paul A. Gaukler 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML081220870&oldid=1814253"