ML072470661
| ML072470661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/31/2007 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 14064 | |
| Download: ML072470661 (5) | |
Text
August 31, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC
)
Docket No. 50-219-LR
)
(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO AMERGEN MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING CITIZENS REBUTTAL INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and the Memorandum and Order (Prehearing Conference Call Summary, Case Management Directives, and Final Scheduling Order)
(April 17, 2007) (unpublished) (April 17 Order), at 6, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) submits its answer to AmerGens Motion in Limine Regarding Portions of Citizens Rebuttal (Aug. 27, 2007) (Motion).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Staff supports the Motion.
DISCUSSION AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) requests that the Board exclude, or in the alternative, accord no weight to,2 portions of Citizens Rebuttal Regarding Relicensing of Oyster 1 The six organizations -- Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 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 Environmental Federation - are collectively referred to as Citizens.
2 AmerGen explains that the Motion is framed in the alternative because, although the Board has previously declined to expunge irrelevant material and indicated that the Board will accord such material no weight, AmerGen maintains its position that inadmissible evidence cannot be admitted in this proceeding. See Motion at 2 n.4 (citing Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine and Motion for Clarification) (Aug. 2, 2007) (unpublished) at 2). The Staff similarly maintains that immaterial or irrelevant portions of an admissible document should be excluded to the extent practicable in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a).
Creek Nuclear Generating Station: Rebuttal Statement and Exhibits (Aug. 17, 2007) (Citizens Rebuttal), the attached testimony3 and exhibits because Citizens impermissibly challenge the Oyster Creek current licensing basis (CLB), impermissibly argue that AmerGen will violate its regulatory commitments, exceed the scope of rebuttal testimony and the scope of this proceeding, and present arguments without an evidentiary basis. The Staff agrees.
Citizens may not challenge the adequacy of monitoring the sand bed region for integrity of the epoxy coating and for moisture, challenge the spatial scope of AmerGens ultrasonic testing (UT) measurements or challenge AmerGens drywell minimum thickness acceptance criteria. See e.g., LBP-06-22, 64 NRC 229, 244-51, 237-240. Citizens may not challenge any aspect of AmerGens UT monitoring program that applies prior to the period of extended operation (i.e., prior to 2009) since it would be an attack on AmerGens the current licensing basis and beyond the scope of the proceeding. Memorandum and Order Clarifying Order Denying AmerGens Motion for Summary Disposition) (July 11, 2007) (unpublished), at 2.
Citizens rebuttal testimony must be limited to responding to testimony by other parties, see April 17 Order at 5-6, or responding to the Boards questions in the Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motions in Limine and Motion for Clarification) (Aug. 9, 2007) (upublished)
(August 9 Order). Thus, AmerGen is correct that Section II of Citizens Rebuttal, which explicates Citizens position regarding appropriate acceptance criteria, Citizens testimony challenging the scope of UT monitoring or the protective coatings monitoring program, and Citizens Rebuttal and testimony which exceeds the scope of the Boards Question 10, should be accorded no weight (and are inadmissible). See Motion at 3-4, 6-8.
Similarly, although Citizens claim that Exhibit 39, Dr. Richard Hauslers Memorandum, 3 Prefiled Rebuttal Written Testimony of Dr. Rudolf H. Hausler Regarding Citizens Drywell Contention (Hausler Rebuttal Testimony).
Further Discussion of the Nature of the Corroded Surfaces and the Residual Wall Thickness of the Oyster Creek Dry Well (Aug. 16, 2007), is Dr. Hauslers detailed response to AmerGen and Staff testimony, see Hausler Rebuttal Testimony at A7, Exhibit 39 is not presented in question and answer format, the exhibit contains few specific references to testimony of other parties and the exhibit generally proffers arguments that should have been included in initial testimony. Thus, AmerGens request that the Board accord that document no weight should be granted. See Motion at 5-6.
AmerGen also correctly argues that Citizens speculate, without proper evidentiary support, that AmerGen will not adhere to its commitments, that a spot thinner than.049 inch would be observed on the drywell shell, that an interior drywell shell surface corrosion rate of 10 mils per year can occur, that the drywell shell currently violates acceptance criteria, and that galvanic corrosion occurs between dissimilar metals. See Motion at 4-5, 7-9. Thus, these statements should also be accorded no weight.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the AmerGens Motion should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Mitzi A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 31st day of August, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 ANRC STAFF ANSWER TO AMERGEN MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING CITIZENS REBUTTAL@ in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRCs internal mail system or as indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail, with copies by U.S mail, first class, this 31st day of August, 2007.
E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ERH@nrc.gov Anthony J. Baratta Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 AJB5@nrc.gov Paul B. Abramson Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 PBA@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary*
ATTN: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAAmail@nrc.gov Debra Wolf Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DAW1@nrc.gov Suzanne Leta Liou NJ Public Interest Research Group 11 N. Willow St.
Trenton, NJ 08608 sliou@environmentnewjersey.org
Richard Webster, Esq.*
Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102-5695 rwebster@kinoy.rutgers.edu Donald Silverman, Esq.*
Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.*
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.*
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004 dsilverman@morganlewis.com apolonsky@morganlewis.com ksutton@morganlewis.com J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.*
Exelon Corporation 4300 Warrenville Road Warrenville, IL 60555 bradley.fewell@exeloncorp.com
/RA/
Mitzi A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff