ML103090101
| ML103090101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 11/05/2010 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, CLI-10-28, RAS J-295 | |
| Download: ML103090101 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki George Apostolakis William D. Magwood, IV William C. Ostendorff
)
In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION )
COMPANY and ENTERGY NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-293-LR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
___________________________________ )
CLI-10-28 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Intervenor Pilgrim Watch has filed a motion requesting that we either (1) order the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to respond to a motion for clarification that Pilgrim Watch filed before the Board on September 9, 2010, or (2) ourselves respond to questions Pilgrim Watch raised in its motion before the Board.1 Both the NRC Staff and the Applicant, Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., oppose Pilgrim Watchs motion.2 Our review of the record shows that Pilgrim Watchs questions either have been answered by the Board, or prematurely raise evidentiary matters that will be resolved by the 1
Pilgrim Watch Motion Regarding ASLB Refusal to Respond to Pilgrim Watchs Motion for Clarification ASLB Order (Sept. 2, 2010) (Sept. 22, 2010) (referencing Pilgrim Watchs Motion for Clarification of the ASLB Order (Scheduling Conference Call) (Sept. 9, 2010)).
2 See Entergys Opposition to Pilgrim Watchs Interlocutory Motion Seeking Further Clarification (Oct. 4, 2010); NRC Staffs Answer to Pilgrim Watchs Motion Regarding ASLB Refusal to Respond to Pilgrim Watchs Motion for Clarification (Oct. 4, 2010). A motion filed under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 is not a legitimate means to bring challenges to Board decisions to the Commission. Such challenges must be made in appeals or petitions for review. To the extent that Pilgrim Watchs motion could be considered a petition for interlocutory review, it neither addresses nor meets the interlocutory review standards. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(f)(2).
Board at the appropriate point in the proceeding. The Board therefore found it unnecessary to respond formally to the questions Pilgrim Watch raised in its motion.3 The Board has the authority to regulate the course of the proceeding, and we generally defer to the Board on case management decisions.4 Pilgrim Watchs motion presents no justification for us to depart from our usual practice. We deny Pilgrim Watchs new motion before us.
We remanded contention 3 to the Board in March 2010. We expect the Board to make full use of its broad authority under our rules to establish and maintain a fair and disciplined hearing process, avoiding extensions of time absent good cause, unnecessary multiple rounds of briefs, or other unnecessary delay. We urge the Board and parties to work together to bring the proceeding to timely closure.5 3
See, e.g.,Transcript (Sept. 15, 2010) at 708, 718. In particular, pursuant to our direction in CLI-10-11, the Board has explained that it will first determine whether the asserted deficiencies in meteorological modeling credibly could have had a material impact on the Pilgrim Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis conclusions (see, e.g., 71 NRC __ (Mar. 26, 2010) (slip op. at 22) (regarding the significance of the sea breeze effect)). See Tr. at 707-08.
If the Board finds in favor of Pilgrim Watch, it would then assess - to the extent reasonable -
the degree to which any modeling deficiency may have materially affected the current economic cost and evacuation timing conclusions. We see no ground for upsetting the Boards decision to postpone making detailed evidentiary rulings going to the potential, second stage of the proceeding.
4 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-17, 72 NRC ___ (July 8, 2010) (slip op.);
Entergy Nuclear Operations (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), CLI-08-7, 67 NRC 187,192 (2008).
See generally 10 C.F.R. § 2.319.
5 We additionally caution Pilgrim Watch against using future filings as a means to re-argue matters previously resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.6 For the Commission
[SEAL] /RA/
Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of November, 2010 6
Commissioner Apostolakis did not participate in this matter.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO. )
AND )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-293-LR
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-10-28) in the above captioned proceeding have been served upon the following persons by electronic mail this date, followed by deposit of paper copies in the U.S. mail, first class, and NRC internal mail.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair E-mail: Susan.Uttall@nrc.gov E-mail: Ann.Young@nrc.gov Andrea Z. Jones, Esq.
E-mail: Andrea.Jones@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Brian G. Harris, Esq.
Richard F. Cole brian.harris@nrc.gov E-mail: Richard.Cole@nrc.gov Brian Newell, Paralegal E-mail: Brian.Newell@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson E-mail: Paul.Abramson@nrc.gov E-mail: OGCMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov Katherine Tucker, Law Clerk katie.tucker@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMail.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
2 Docket No. 50-293-LR COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-10-28)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2300 N. Street, N.W.
Mail Stop: O11-F1 Washington, DC 20037-1128 Washington, DC 20555-0001 David R. Lewis, Esq.
Lisa Regner E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Senior Project Manager Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Division of License Renewal E-mail: paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Jason B. Parker, Esq.
E-mail: jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com Entergy Nuclear Office of the Attorney General 1340 Echelon Parkway Environmental Protection Division Mail Stop M-ECH-62 One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Jackson, MS 39213 Boston, MA 02108 Terence A. Burke, Esq. Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General E-mail: tburke@entergy.com E-mail: matthew.brock@ago.state.ma.us Duxbury Emergency Management Agency Town of Plymouth MA 668 Tremont Street Town Managers Office Duxbury, MA 02332 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Kevin M. Nord, Fire Chief & Director E-mail: nord@town.duxbury.ma.us Melissa Arrighi, ActingTown Manager E-mail: marrighi@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Duane Morris, LLP Pilgrim Watch Town of Plymouth MA 148 Washington Street 505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Duxbury, MA 02332 Washington, DC 20004-2166 Mary E. Lampert, Director Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
E-mail: mary.lampert@comcast.net E-mail: sshollis@duanemorris.com
[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of November 2010.