ML071500416
| ML071500416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 05/30/2007 |
| From: | Cole R, Hawkens E, Austin Young Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 06-848-02-LR, 50-293-LR, RAS 13702 | |
| Download: ML071500416 (5) | |
Text
1Request by Pilgrim Watch for Extension of Time to Reply to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition (May 22, 2007); Entergy Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (May 17, 2007).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RAS 13702 DOCKETED 05/30/07 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL SERVED 05/30/07 Before Administrative Judges:
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Richard F. Cole In the Matter of:
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
Docket No. 50-293-LR ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR May 30, 2007 ORDER (Granting Request for Extension)
On May 22, 2007, Mary Lampert on behalf of Intervenor Pilgrim Watch filed a request for extension of time to reply to a Motion for Summary Disposition filed May 17, 2007, by Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or Applicant), the Applicant in this proceeding to renew the operating license for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.1 Entergy opposes the request.
Intervenor bases its request on the recent and unforeseen withdrawal of its counsel, leaving Ms. Lampert, Director of Pilgrim Watch, to represent it on a pro se basis at this point.
Intervenor through Ms. Lampert also points out that the original deadline set in our December 20, 2006, Scheduling Order for responding to any motions for summary disposition was June 29, 2007. Suggesting that this date should therefore not pose a problem for our schedule in the proceeding; Pilgrim Watch requests that it be permitted to file its response to Applicants Motion on or before the June 29 date.
2Entergys Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Request to Extend Time to Respond to Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (May 24, 2007), at 3; see id. at 1-4.
3See Pilgrim Watchs Reply to Entergys Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Request to Extend Time to Respond to Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 (May 28, 2007).
Entergy argues that Pilgrim Watch has not justified its request, nor did it consult with counsel for Entergy prior to filing it, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b). Citing various Commission case law regarding license applicants right to prompt resolution of disputes, and the requirement at 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205(b) that responses to motions for summary disposition are due within 20 days, and noting further that on May 8 Entergy counsel e-mailed then-counsel for Intervenor that Applicant intended to request summary disposition on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 and provided her with a copy of the expert report that serves as the primary basis for Entergys summary disposition motion, Entergy insists that Intervenors request should be denied for failure to state any extreme and compelling circumstances of why withdrawal of counsel necessitates this additional time.2 Notwithstanding Entergys emphatic arguments against Pilgrim Watchs request for extension, the Licensing Board finds, taking all circumstances into consideration, the requested extension to be appropriate. Response to the subject motion requires examination and critical analysis of voluminous technical materials submitted by the Licensee, including new analyses put forth essentially to demonstrate that the issue raised by contention 3 is now moot. Even taking into account the May 8 e-mail notification of Intervenors former counsel regarding Entergys intent to file its motion, it appears this occurred at approximately the same time that Intervenors former counsel was deciding to move to Africa with her family to take a new job and effectively became unavailable to do work that it was previously anticipated she would do.3 Loss of counsel in any circumstances presents any party with a difficult situation; in this instance, the timing of such loss, in conjunction with the extensive expert review called for in 4Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to all counsel or representatives for participants.
response to Applicants motion, present what this Licensing Board deems to be extreme and compelling circumstances.
We note in addition that, under the schedule previously set for the proceeding, a June 29 deadline for the filing of responses to any motions for summary disposition has been anticipated for some months. Therefore, although Entergy filed its motion prior to the original June 11 deadline for summary disposition motions, allowing for a response in accordance with the original response deadline does not create any delay in the already-established schedule for this proceeding.
In light of the preceding, we GRANT Intervenors request for an extension of time to June 29, 2007, to file its response to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition.
It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
Ann Marshall Young, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/RA/
Dr. Paul B. Abramson ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/RA/
Dr. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland May 30, 20074
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 LB ORDER (GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION) 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 Ann Marshall Young, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole 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 Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Marian L. Zobler, Esq.
Andrea Curatola, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M. Street N. W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036
2 Docket No. 50-293-LR LB ORDER (GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Terence A. Burke, Esq.
Entergy Nuclear 1340 Echelon Parkway Mail Stop M-ECH-62 Jackson, MS 39213 Mary E. Lampert Director of Pilgrim Watch 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
David R. Lewis, Esq.
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Mark D. Sylvia Town Manager Town Managers Office 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
Town of Plymouth MA Duane Morris, LLP 1667 K. Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chief Kevin M. Nord Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency Management Agency 668 Tremont Street P.O. Box 2824 Duxbury, MA 02331 Richard R. MacDonald, Town Manager 878 Tremont Street Duxbury, MA 02332
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of May 2007