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
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: Docket No. 50-293-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) 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.
1 Request 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).
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 2
Entergys 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.
3 See 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).
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 4
Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to all counsel or representatives for participants.
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 Administrative Judge Adjudication Ann Marshall Young, 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 Richard F. Cole Paul B. Abramson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan L. Uttal, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.
Marian L. Zobler, Esq. Harmon Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
Andrea Curatola, Esq. 1726 M. Street N. W., Suite 600 Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20036 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
2 Docket No. 50-293-LR LB ORDER (GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General Terence A. Burke, Esq.
Environmental Protection Division Entergy Nuclear Office of the Attorney General 1340 Echelon Parkway One Ashburton Place Mail Stop M-ECH-62 Boston, MA 02108 Jackson, MS 39213 Mary E. Lampert Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Director of Pilgrim Watch David R. Lewis, Esq.
148 Washington Street Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP Duxbury, MA 02332 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Mark D. Sylvia Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
Town Manager Town of Plymouth MA Town Managers Office Duane Morris, LLP 11 Lincoln Street 1667 K. Street, N.W.
Plymouth, MA 02360 Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chief Kevin M. Nord Richard R. MacDonald, Town Manager Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency 878 Tremont Street Management Agency Duxbury, MA 02332 668 Tremont Street P.O. Box 2824 Duxbury, MA 02331
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of May 2007