ML053620337
| ML053620337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/28/2005 |
| From: | Karlin A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 10897 | |
| Download: ML053620337 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAS 10897 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED 12/28/05 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SERVED 12/28/05 Before Administrative Judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Lester S. Rubenstein In the Matter of Docket No. 50-271-OLA ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C. ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. December 28, 2005 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)
ORDER (Denying Entergys Motion to Set Schedule)
Before the Board is a motion by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) requesting that we change the deadline for filing motions for summary disposition in this matter to allow Entergy to file such a motion concerning recently admitted New England Coalition (NEC) Modified Contention 4.1 See Entergys Motion to Set Schedule (Dec. 7, 2005) [Entergy Motion]. In essence, Entergy requests that the deadline be extended from December 2, 2005, to at least March 16, 2006.2 Entergys motion is denied. Extending the deadline for filing of motions for summary 1
Our Initial Scheduling Order required that motions for summary disposition be filed no later that thirty days after the issuance of the Draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER). See Licensing Board Initial Scheduling Order (Feb. 1, 2005) at 3 (unpublished). The Draft SER was issued on November 2, 2005, therefore the deadline for motions for summary disposition was December 2, 2005. On that same date, we admitted NEC Modified Contention 4. See LBP 32, 62 NRC _(Dec. 2, 2005). Notwithstanding Entergys suggestion to the contrary, Entergy Motion at 1, this deadline, unless extended, applies to all motions for summary disposition.
2 Entergy asks that the deadline be extended until 20 days after the issuance of the Final Safety Evaluation Report. Entergy Motion at 2. The Staff estimates that it will issue the FSER on February 24, 2006. Thus, Entergys motion would be due March 16, 2006.
disposition would tend to delay and to complicate this proceeding by distracting the parties and the Board from the tasks involved in conducting the upcoming evidentiary hearing. If Entergys request were granted, the motion would be filed, briefed, and ruled on (in March, April and May, 2006, respectively) during the same time frame that our Initial Scheduling Order mandates that the parties file their lists of witnesses, initial written statements, rebuttal testimony, and proposed cross examination plans (March - May, 2006). This confluence is made more acute by the fact that this is a proceeding under new Subpart L, where, during the weeks preceding the oral hearing, the Board has primary responsibility to master these materials and prepare for and conduct all questioning of the witnesses at the hearing. We discussed this problem during our initial scheduling conference, Tr. at 578-79, and the admission of a new contention does not change the importance of avoiding such delays and distractions immediately preceding the hearing.
In addition, the nature of the hearing and of the contention at issue support our discretionary denial of this motion. The Subpart L hearing on this contention will be a paper exercise (unless the Board chooses to ask or allow questions) and we do not see how the essentially simultaneous submission of similar briefs and declarations supporting a motion for summary disposition will significantly assist or expedite the proceeding. Also, given the nature of NEC Contention 4, which alleges, inter alia, that Entergys seismic and structural analyses are not adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects, it appears that it will involve the weighing of countervailing expert opinions on technical and factual matters (i.e., genuine issues of material fact), which are generally not amenable to resolution via summary disposition. Under these circumstances, we see no value in extending the deadline for the filing of motions for summary disposition and thus diverting resources and attention away from the efficient conduct of the impending hearing.
As the Commission has stated: [t]here may be times in the proceeding where [motions
for summary disposition] should not be entertained because consideration of the motions would unduly delay or complicate proceedings by distracting responding parties from addressing other pending issues or distracting other parties and the presiding officer from their preparation for a scheduled hearing. 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2186 (Jan. 14, 2004). Additionally, the Commission noted that the Licensing Board is in a good position to determine when the use of summary disposition would be appropriate and would not delay the ultimate resolution of issues and the Commission will provide presiding officers the flexibility to make that determination in most proceedings. Id. These principles are applicable here.
Accordingly, pursuant to10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319(k) and 2.710(d)(1), Entergys motion is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD3
/RA/
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Administrative Judge Rockville, Maryland December 28, 2005 3
Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for (1) licensees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (2) intervenors Vermont Department of Public Service Department and New England Coalition of Brattleboro; and (3) the NRC staff.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C. ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )
)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
)
(Operating License Amendment) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB ORDER (DENYING ENTERGYS MOTION TO SET SCHEDULE) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Alex S. Karlin, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Lester S. Rubenstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4270 E Country Villa Drive Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Tucson, AZ 85718 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Robert M. Weisman, Esq. Raymond Shadis Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. New England Coalition Jason C. Zorn, Esq. P.O. Box 98 Office of the General Counsel Edgecomb, ME 04556 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
2 Docket No. 50-271-OLA LB ORDER (DENYING ENTERGYS MOTION TO SET SCHEDULE)
John M. Fulton, Esq. Sarah Hofmann, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Special Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Department of Public Service 440 Hamilton Avenue 112 State Street - Drawer 20 White Plains, NY 10601 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
National Legal Scholars Law Firm Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.
84 East Thetford Rd. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Lyme, NH 03768 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December 2005