ML051090108
| ML051090108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/2005 |
| From: | Mike Farrar Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Giitter R | |
| References | |
| 05-837-01-LR, 50-336-LR, 50-423-LR | |
| Download: ML051090108 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Michael C. Farrar, Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. Peter S. Lam In the Matter of DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423 ASLBP No. 05-837-01-LR April 15, 2005 MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE CALL As contemplated by our Notice of March 31, 2005, the Board conducted a two-hour telephonic prehearing conference earlier this week, on Tuesday, April 12. During the conference, counsel for all three participants -- the Petitioner County of Suffolk, the licensee/applicant Dominion, and the NRC Staff -- ably presented their views on the procedural and substantive matters, relating to the Countys belated Petition for Intervention, about which the Board was seeking clarification.
Partway through the conference (see Tr. at 43-44, 51 et seq.), it appeared from the parties presentations that all three -- while holding disparate views on many aspects of the legitimacy of the pending petition -- might hold common views on certain values underlying the petition, i.e., on the benefits that could be achieved by the establishment of a long-term working relationship centered on their mutual interest in well-conceived emergency plans protecting residents not just of southeastern Connecticut but also of areas of Suffolk County. Seeing that commonality, the Board suggested that the parties utilize the pending dispute as a springboard for establishing just such a relationship (see, e.g., Tr. at 57-58).
In that regard, the Board noted that two of its members are currently facing obligations in another proceeding that involve more pressing priorities than are presented by this stage of
2 1 See Tr. at 89, referring to Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), Docket # 72-22-ISFSI, in which lengthy oral argument was held on April 6 on the State of Utahs March 7 Motion for Reconsideration of that Boards February 24 Partial Initial Decision (unpublished because of its Safeguards aspects) on the last issue remaining before it, that of F-16 Aircraft Accident Consequences.
Millstone.1 Because they will thus not be able to turn immediately to the pending Millstone matters, the Board suggested (Tr. at 89-90) that no decisional delay would be incurred were the parties to attempt in the next three weeks to agree upon a Memorandum of Understanding, or other similar arrangement, that would not only guide the resolution of any current controversy among them but would, more importantly, provide a framework for cooperative solutions of similar emergency planning matters that might arise over the coming years and even decades (if the sought-after license renewals are granted) of operation of the Millstone reactors.
Given the parties receptivity to the Boards suggestion, the decisional timing, and the Commissions emphasis on the value of settlements (10 C.F.R. § 2.338), the Board indicated it would hold the matters before it in abeyance pending receipt by Friday, May 6, 2005 of a progress report on the parties discussions (see Tr. at 90). If those discussions are ultimately successful, the now-pending matters could then be dismissed by agreement, with the short-term-focused adjudication thus terminated in favor of long-term non-adjudicatory solutions.
It appeared that the parties might well be able to resolve this matter on their own. The Board nonetheless reminded them (Tr. at 91) of their opportunity jointly to seek, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.338(b), the appointment of a Settlement Judge to facilitate their discussions.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
Rockville, Maryland By Michael C. Farrar, Chairman April 15, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Copies of this Memorandum were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for Applicant Dominion, Petitioner County, and the NRC Staff.