ML080090197
| ML080090197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 01/01/2008 |
| From: | Lampert M - No Known Affiliation, Pilgrim Watch |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, RAS 14863 | |
| Download: ML080090197 (6) | |
Text
I--, A r-) rT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCKETED USNRC January 2, 2008 (8:54amn)
In the matter of Docket # 50-293 OFFICE OF SECRETARY Entergy Corporation RULEMAKINGS AND Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station ADJUDICATIONS STAFF License Renewal Application January 1, 2008 PILGRIM WATCH REPLY TO ENTERGY'S AND NRC STAFF'S RESPOSNES TO PILGRIM WATCH'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION Pilgrim Watch hereby replies to Entergy's Answer Opposing Pilgrim Watch's Motion for Clarification, December 31, 2007; and NRC Staff Response to Pilgrim Watch Motion for Clarification, December 31, 2007.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 21, 2007, Pilgrim Watch filed a Motion for Clarification on two issues regarding the December 19, 2007 ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR Order (Revising Schedule for Evidentiary Hearing and Responding to Pilgrim Watch's December 14 and 15 Motions) asking for clarity on two issues.
(1) The buried pipes and tanks now under consideration; and (2) Material necessary to be provided by Entergy by January 8, 2008.
HI. DISCUSSION A. Buried Pipes/Tanks Within The Scope Pilgrim Watch explained that the buried components now under consideration appear to and should include buried pipes and tanks in the following systems: (1) standby gas
treatment; (2) salt service water; (3) condensate storage; (4) fuel oil tanks and associated pipes; (5) station blackout diesel gehdriator; *(6) fire proteiction - not simply systems numbered 1-3.
Entergy and NRC Staff disagree. But both fail to appreciate that the Order has gone through a series of metamorphoses since the initial October 16, 2006 Order, and that there has been a significant change in what now is properly under discussion.
The Licensing Board's October 17, 2007 Order changed the focus. It looked at whether the AMP's are adequate alone or whether more robust and comprehensive inspections and monitoring wells are required to assure that pipes and tanks [not simply those that contain radioactive liquid] perform their intended safety functions and thereby protect public health and safety.
Under the October 17 Order, the exact nature of the contents that the buried pipes/tanks are intended to hold matters not at all. Rather, the question is whether they perform their intended function- separate fluids from the environment - transport the fluid from Point A to Point B, and not into the ground.
There can be no argument- that safety-function challenging leaks are not limited to only those buried pipes and tanks within scope that carry radioactive contaminated water; clearly pipes/tanks servicing the fuel oil and fire safety system perform safety functions also. Neither Entergy nor NRC Staff even tried to deny this fact.
Further neither Entergy nor NRC Staff explain how, or why, the ASLB's logic would be so convoluted as to deny on the one hand that radioactive leaks are relevant and then turn around and limit the discussion to components only carrying radioactive materials.
2
(~-.
q B. Clarify Materials Entergy Should Provide By January 8, 2008 The Board, at 2, called to the attention of all parties that,
...under revisions to the regulations set out in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, the responsibility to perform the bulk of the inquiry at evidentiary hearings rests with the Board.
Pilgrim Watch explained that it was important to specifically clarify what information the Board wanted; we appreciated that the sooner all pertinent information is put on the table, the sooner we can complete this process -avoiding future motions, replies and appeals. We believe that efficiency and public safety are in the interest of all parties.
Entergy and NRC Staff obj ected to adding any specificity or clarification to the Order.
Entergy replied that they had provided Pilgrim Watch with over 10,000 pages of documents. However the Board in. its December 19, 2007 Order said that "the responsibility to perform the bulk of the inquiry at evidentiary hearings rests with the Board." Therefore it is appropriate that the Board should be provided directly with the relevant materials. The Board should not have to rely on Entergy or others to unearth facts from a mountain of often superfluous materials; or put another way, the Board should not rely that others will find the needle in the proverbial haystack.
The NRC, at 7, stated that the Board "specifically outlined exactly what information it needs to perform its function and build the proper adjudicatory record." Pilgrim Watch disagrees. For example, the Board at 2 says, Entergy shall "pipe-by-pipe and tank-by tank"... ( c) specify the procedures by which Entergy will determine, during the license period, whether there are leaks present which might endanger the ability of that pipe or tank to meet its intended safety function...
3
The Board's majority member's have engineering e~xpertise and appreciate that it is necessary to address the different sections of each pipe and tank separately because corrosion does not occur uniformly across the entire component. Therefore, for example, Pilgrim Watch asked that the Order clarify that it wanted specific information regarding the number and location of elbows, dead spots, welds, along with the history of inspection and part replacement in each component section. A general discussion will provide no more information than was provided in the Motion for Summary Disposition and will not allow the Board to perform its safety obligation.
Respectfully submitted, Mary Lampert 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 781-934-0389 Mary. Lampert@comcast.net 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of Docket # 50-293 Entergy Corporation Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application January 1, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Hereby Certify That The Pilgrim Watch Reply To Entergy's and NRC Staff s Responses To Pilgrim Watch's Motion For Clarification Was Served January 1, 2008 By Electronic Mail And By U.S. Mail, First Class To Each Of The Following:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Chair Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop -T-3-F23 US NRC US NRC Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 amy@nrc.gov rfc@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Secretary of the Commission Paul B. Abramson Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Staff Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop 0-16 ClI US NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555-0001 Commission pba~nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 Secy@rc.gov,hearingdocket@nrc. gov 5
Office of Commission Appellate Mr. Mark Sylvia Adjudication Town Manager, Town of Plymouth Mail Stop 0-16 ClI 11 Lincoln Street United States Nuclear Regulatory Plymouth MA 02360ý Commission msylvia@townhall.plymouth.ma.us Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town of Plymouth MA Mail Stop T-3 F23 Duane Morris, LLP United States Nuclear Regulatory 1667 K. Street, N.W.
Commission Suite 700 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20006 Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Kimberly Sexton, Esq. Richard R. MacDonald James Adler, Esq. Town Manager, Town of Duxbury David Roth,Esq. 878 Tremont Street Office of General Counsel Duxbury, MA 02332 Mail Stop 15 D21 macdonald@tow~n.duxbury.ma.us United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Chief & Director DEMA, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Town of Duxbury 688 Tremont Street P.O. Box 2824 Paul A. Gaukler, Esq. Duxbury, MA 02331 David R. Lewis, Esq. nordO~town..duxburv.ma.us Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1138
'Mary Lampert 6