ML061860568
| ML061860568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/05/2006 |
| From: | Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 06-844-01-LR, 50-0219-LR, RAS 11912 | |
| Download: ML061860568 (6) | |
Text
1 The six organizations are: Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS);
Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc.; Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety; New Jersey Public Interest Research Group; New Jersey Sierra Club; and New Jersey Environmen-tal Federation.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RAS 11912 DOCKETED 07/05/06 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SERVED 07/05/06 Before Administrative Judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-0219-LR ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR July 5, 2006 ORDER (Granting NIRSs Motion for Leave to Submit a Supplement to its Petition)
On February 27, 2006, this Board granted a hearing request submitted by six organiza-tions1 - hereinafter referred to collectively as NIRS - opposing an application by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) to renew its operating license for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) for twenty years beyond the current expiration date of April 9, 2009. See LBP-06-07, 63 NRC 188 (2006). This Board admitted one contention for litiga-tion; namely, NIRSs challenge to AmerGens aging management program for measuring corro-sion in the sand bed region of Oyster Creeks drywell liner to the extent that the program fails to include periodic [ultrasonic testing (UT)] measurements in that region throughout the period of extended operation (LBP-06-07, 63 NRC at 217).
On April 4, 2006 - after this Board had granted NIRSs Petition to Intervene - AmerGen docketed a commitment to perform periodic UT measurements in the sand bed region of the drywell liner throughout the period of extended operation. Subsequently, on April 25, AmerGen 2
The Staff did not submit a response to NIRSs Motion. AmerGen noted in its (continued...)
filed a motion seeking to dismiss NIRSs contention as moot on the basis of its newly docketed commitment. On June 6, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order, in which we concluded that NIRSs contention, as admitted by the Board, was a contention of omission that had subsequently been cured as a result of AmerGens docketed commitment (LBP-06-16, 63 NRC
___ (slip op. at 6-8) (June 6, 2006)).
Instead of dismissing NIRSs contention, the Board gave NIRS the opportunity to file, within 20 days of the date of our Order, a new contention raising a specific substantive chal-lenge to AmerGens new periodic UT program for the sand bed region (LBP-06-16 (slip op. at 9)). NIRS was instructed that [a]ny such filing - the substance of which must be limited to the sand bed region, and which must be limited to AmerGens new UT program for that region as reflected in its docketed commitment of April 4, 2006 - shall address the remaining factors in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), as well as the admissibility factors in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) (ibid.)
On June 23, 2006, NIRS timely filed its new contention. See [NIRS] Petition to Add a New Contention (June 23, 2006) [hereinafter June 23 Petition]. Contemporaneously, NIRS filed a motion seeking leave to supplement its Petition on the basis of AmerGens June 20, 2006 docketing of a new commitment concerning its aging management program for the Oyster Creek drywell liner. See [NIRS] Motion for Leave to Supplement the Petition at 1 (June 23, 2006).
AmerGen does not object to NIRSs request to seek leave to supplement its June 23 Petition (see AmerGens Answer to [NIRSs] Motion for Leave to Supplement the Petition (June 27, 2006) [hereinafter AmerGen Answer]). In the interest of efficiency and litigative economy, however, AmerGen urges that NIRS be required to submit a single new petition containing all of their bases for the new contention (AmerGen Answer at 3).2 AmerGen advises that NIRS 2(...continued)
Answer, however, that NRC Staff counsel supports AmerGens position (AmerGen Answer at 2 n.2).
does not object to submitting such a document, nor does it object to AmerGen and the Staff having 25 days to respond to the new Petition (id. at 2. n.2).
The Board shares the parties desire for an efficient and economical procedure. In our judgment, those goals will be achieved best by having NIRS submit its request to supplement based on AmerGens June 20 commitment in a separate document, subject to the conditions set forth in the following paragraph. In response, AmerGen and the Staff may each file a single Answer that addresses NIRSs June 23 Petition and its subsequently filed supplement.
The Board deems NIRSs June 23 Petition to be its final submission regarding Amer-Gens April 4 commitment, and we will consider the admissibility vel non of the contention con-tained therein on its own merits. However, given AmerGens recent docketing of a new commit-ment on June 20, NIRS may submit a supplement to its June 23 Petition. This supplement -
which shall set forth any new bases or contention(s) NIRS seeks to add to its June 23 Petition, and/or any bases asserted in that Petition NIRS now seeks to withdraw - must be limited to AmerGens UT program for the sand bed region as reflected in AmerGens docketed commit-ment of June 20, and be based on new information contained in that commitment. In addition, NIRSs supplement must demonstrate that it satisfies the criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and the contention admissibility requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). In that connection, the Board will not accept any further augmentation on the part of NIRS with regard to the argu-ments made in its June 23 Petition, insofar as those arguments are not directly impacted by AmerGens June 20 commitment. Finally, we expect NIRSs supplement to contain fully developed arguments - that is, NIRSs supplement shall be a self-contained document that shall not incorporate by reference any aspect of its June 23 Petition.
3 Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1)
AmerGen; (2) New Jersey; (3) NIRS; and (4) the NRC Staff.
Therefore, consistent with the above conditions and the following constraints, NIRSs Motion is granted, and the parties are hereby directed as follows: Within 20 days of the date of this Order (July 25, 2006), NIRS may submit a supplement to its June 23 Petition relating to AmerGens June 20 commitment and subject to the instructions set forth above. Within 25 days of NIRSs submission, the NRC Staff and AmerGen may each file a single Answer that addresses NIRSs June 23 Petition and its subsequently filed supplement (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1)). NIRS may file a reply to any answer within 7 days (id. § 2.309(h)(2)).
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD3
/RA by:/
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland July 5, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
)
Docket No. 50-219-LR
)
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB ORDER (GRANTING NIRSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS PETITION) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.
Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Richard Webster, Esq.
Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102-5695
2 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB ORDER (GRANTING NIRSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS PETITION)
Paul Gunter, Director Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036 Donald J. Silverman, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 402 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 Jill Lipoti, Director New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Safety and Health P.O. Box 424 Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Ron Zak New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Nuclear Engineering P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.
Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way, Suite 200 Kennett Square, PA 19348 Suzanne Leta NJPIRG 11 N. Willow St.
Trenton, NJ 08608 John A. Covino, Esq.
Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.
Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.
Caroline Stahl, Esq.
Deputy Attorneys General New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Environmental Permitting &
Counseling Section Division of Law Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of July 2006