ML080930397
| ML080930397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/02/2008 |
| From: | Abramson P, Cole R, Austin Young Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECYRAS | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, RAS J-22 | |
| Download: ML080930397 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED 04/02/08 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SERVED 04/02/08 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 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. April 2, 2008 (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
ORDER (Ruling on Pilgrim Watch Motion to Permit Late-Filed Exhibits)
Currently before the Licensing Board in this proceeding, which involves the license renewal application of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and one remaining contention of Intervenor Pilgrim Watch involving whether the aging management program proposed in the Pilgrim Application for license renewal is inadequate with regard to aging management of buried pipes and tanks that contain radioactively contaminated water because it does not provide for monitoring wells that would detect leakage, is a Pilgrim Watch motion to permit late-filed exhibits.1 In its motion, Pilgrim Watch submits that it interpreted 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(b)(2) to allow written testimony and exhibits to be presented to the Board at the Oral hearing itself as an addition to that presented to the Board in and with its pre-filed testimony.2 Moreover, Pilgrim Watch understood that any Disclosures produced by Entergy, or any party, during the proceedings would be automatically part of the record and could be used during the hearing and 1
Pilgrim Watch Motion to Permit Late Filled [sic] Exhibits (March 24, 2008) [hereinafter PW Motion].
2 PW Motion at 1.
presented as exhibits at the oral hearing.3 Acknowledging that its interpretation was not accurate, Pilgrim Watch requests this Board to allow it to file additional exhibits prior to the hearing, and further adds that all exhibits requested for filing are from Entergys Disclosures and thus, would provide no prejudice any other party to this proceeding.4 Both Entergy and NRC Staff object to Pilgrim Watchs Motion. NRC Staff argues that Pilgrim Watch has been on notice about what was expected of it in its filings leading up to the evidentiary hearing, through the Licensing Boards scheduling orders.5 Specifically, Staff asserts that these scheduling orders were more than clear that all testimony and exhibits were to be filed prior to the hearing with full explanations of their purpose.6 Entergy raises a number of objections to Pilgrim Watchs request,7 arguing that any exhibit not referenced explicitly in Pilgrim Watchs direct testimony or rebuttal should not be admitted.8 The Board in an order issued on February 21, 2002, directed Pilgrim Watch, in and/or with its rebuttal testimony, to provide specific citations to the testimony of its (or any other partys) experts and to exhibits, as relevant, for each of the statements made in its Statement of Position . . .9 Also, as noted by Entergy, in our initial December 20, 2006, Scheduling Order, we made clear that the pre-filed exhibits shall include all documents that the party or its 3
PW Motion at 1-2.
4 PW Motion at 2.
5 NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Motion to Permit Late Filed Exhibits (March 27, 2008) [hereinafter Staff Response].
6 Id.
7 Entergys Response in Opposition to Pilgrim Watch Motion to Permit Late Filed Exhibits (March 31, 2005) [hereinafter Entergy Response].
8 Id. at 6-7; see also id. at 8.
9 Licensing Board Order and Notice (Regarding Hearing, Limited Appearance Session, and Additional Questions for Parties) at 2 (February 21, 2008).
witnesses refer to, use, or rely upon for their position.10 Those direct and rebuttal filings have been made, and none of Pilgrim Watchs proposed new exhibits is referred to in either its direct or rebuttal testimony. We therefore at this time DENY Pilgrim Watch's Motion to Permit Late-Filed Exhibits.
We note, however, that the primary purpose of the upcoming oral portion of the hearing is for the Board to question the experts of each party. In this context, while it would not generally be appropriate for any party to present new evidence not previously disclosed to other parties, if in responding to the Board's questions an expert witness of any party, in rebutting the evidence of another party's expert witness, proffers documentary evidence not already in the record to support that rebuttal, the Board will address any questions relating to the admissibility and appropriateness of that evidence at that time.
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 April 2, 200811 10 Licensing Board Order (Establishing Schedule for Proceeding and Addressing Related Matters) at 7 (December 20, 2006); see also Entergy Response at 4.
11 Copies of this Order were sent this date by Internet electronic mail transmission to all counsel and representatives for the parties.
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 (RULING ON PILGRIM WATCH MOTION TO PERMIT LATE-FILED EXHIBITS) 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. David R. Lewis, Esq.
David Roth, Esq. Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
Kimberly Sexton, Esq. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP James E. Adler, Esq. 2300 N. Street, N.W.
Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20037-1128 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
2 Docket No. 50-293-LR LB ORDER (RULING ON PILGRIM WATCH MOTION TO PERMIT LATE-FILED EXHIBITS)
Perry H. Buckberg, Project Manager Mary Lampert, Director Plant Licensing Branch I-I Pilgrim Watch Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 148 Washington Street Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Duxbury, MA 02332 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O11-F1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq. Mark D. Sylvia, Town Manager Town of Plymouth MA Town Managers Office Duane Morris, LLP 11 Lincoln Street 505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Plymouth, MA 02360 Washington, DC 20004-2166 Terrence A. Burke, Esq Chief Kevin M. Nord Entergy Nuclear Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency 1340 Echelon Parkway Management Agency Mail Stop: M-ECH-62 668 Tremont Street Jackson, MS 39213 Duxbury, MA 02332
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 2nd day of April 2008