ML073180451: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML073180451
| number = ML073180451
| issue date = 11/14/2007
| issue date = 11/14/2007
| title = 2007/11/14 LB Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Entergy'S Motion for Reconsideration of (LBP)-07-12)
| title = LB Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Entergy'S Motion for Reconsideration of (LBP)-07-12)
| author name = Abramson P B, Cole R F, Young A
| author name = Abramson P, Cole R, Young A
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 Entergy's Motion for Reconsideration of LPB-07-12 [sic] (Oct. 29, 2007) [hereinafter Entergy Motion].
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                           DOCKETED 11/14/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL                       SERVED 11/14/07 Before Administrative Judges:
2 Id. at 1.3 Id. at 1-2.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED   11/14/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL SERVED   11/14/07 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.
Ann Marshall Young, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Richard F. Cole In the Matter of:
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)                       November 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Entergys Motion for Reconsideraton of [LBP]-07-12)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
In this memorandum and order we rule on Entergys motion1 that we reconsider our ruling in LBP-07-12, in which we denied its motion for summary disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1. Entergy requests leave to file its motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e),
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)
asserting a clear and material error of law in our earlier decision.2 The Applicant contends that:
Docket No. 50-293-LR ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR November 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Ruling on Entergy's Motion for Reconsideraton of [LBP]-07-12
[s]ince Pilgrim Watch did not proffer any expert affidavit, or any other competent evidence, controverting the adequacy of Entergys aging management program for buried tanks and piping, the Board was required as a matter of law to grant Entergys summary disposition [sic] and resolve PW-1 in Entergys favor.3 Moreover, Entergy urges this Licensing Board to accept [Entergys] conformance with the GALL Report [NUREG-1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report (July 2001)], as 1
)In this memorandum and order we rule on Entergy's motion 1 that we reconsider our ruling in LBP-07-12, in which we denied its motion for summary disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1. Entergy requests leave to file its motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e),
Entergys Motion for Reconsideration of LPB-07-12 [sic] (Oct. 29, 2007) [hereinafter Entergy Motion].
asserting a "clear and material error of law" in our earlier decision.
2 Id. at 1.
2 The Applicant contends that:[s]ince Pilgrim Watch did not proffer any expert affidavit, or any other competent evidence, controverting the adequacy of Entergy's aging management program for buried tanks and piping, the Board was required as a matter of law to grant
3 Id. at 1-2.


Entergy's summary disposition [sic] and resolve PW-1 in Entergy's favor.
substantial evidence that an aging management program is adequate, and that we should permit litigation of the adequacy of such programs only when it is disputed by substantial, competent and probative evidence.4 Citing various case law relating to motions for summary disposition, Entergy lauds its own expert and challenges the expertise, in the field of aging management programs at nuclear plants,5 of Intervenors expert, David Ahlfeld, Ph.D., Professor at the University of Massachusetts in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, asserting further that Dr. Ahlfeld also did not address or rebut the adequacy of Entergys aging management programs.6 Staff Response to Motion The Staff supports Entergys motion, agreeing that Pilgrim Watch provided no competent evidence that refuted the Staffs and Entergys evidence that the AMP [aging management program] is adequate and consistent with GALL.7 Staff also argues, essentially repeating its original arguments against Contention 1, that monitoring for radioactive leaks in the underground pipes and tanks is [not] within the scope of license renewal.8 Pilgrim Watch Response to Motion Pilgrim Watch argues that Entergy has not met the Commissions strict compelling circumstances standard for reconsideration, citing, inter alia, Pacific Gas & Electri. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-06-27, 64 NRC __, __ (slip op.
3 Moreover, Entergy urges this Licensing Board to "accept [Entergy's] conformance with the GALL Report [NUREG-1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report (July 2001)], as 4 Id. at 2.5 Id. at 6.6 Id. at 5.7 NRC Staff Response to [Entergy Motion] at 6 (Nov. 8, 2007).
4 Id. at 2.
8 Id. at 8.-2-substantial evidence that an aging management program is adequate," and that we "should permit litigation of the adequacy of such programs only when it is disputed by substantial, competent and probative evidence."
5 Id. at 6.
4 Citing various case law relating to motions for summary disposition, Entergy lauds its own expert and challenges the expertise, in the field of "aging management programs at nuclear plants,"5 of Intervenors' expert, David Ahlfeld, Ph.D., Professor at the University of Massachusetts in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, asserting further that
6 Id. at 5.
 
7 NRC Staff Response to [Entergy Motion] at 6 (Nov. 8, 2007).
Dr. Ahlfeld also "did not address or rebut the adequacy of Entergy's aging management
8 Id. at 8.
 
at 2) (Nov. 9, 2006).9 Intervenors also challenge Entergys argument that compliance with the GALL report should be taken to show the adequacy of its aging management programs.10 They argue that Dr. Ahlfeld is a qualified expert in the area of groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the subsurface . . . with extensive experience in monitoring programs, whose testimony should be heard and not weighed in ruling on a motion for summary disposition.11 They contend that they did present evidence, through Dr. Ahlfeld and references to NRC and industry documents, that constitutes more than mere allegations and denials.12 Licensing Board Ruling As we stated in LBP-07-12:
programs."
[Intervenors expert] Prof. Ahlfeld states that radioactive contaminants could leak from the condensate storage system, offgas system piping, and the salt service water system. He notes that, while Entergy describes the several methods they use to prevent leaks from occurring, it has not demonstrated that [the plant has]
6 Staff Response to Motion The Staff supports Entergy's motion, agreeing that Pilgrim Watch provided no "competent evidence that refuted the Staff's and Entergy's evidence that the AMP [aging
sufficient means of detecting leaks if they occur. Noting that leaks can and do occur, at various rates, Prof. Ahlfeld indicates among other things that such leaks are virtually impossible to detect without the use of direct sampling methods such as monitoring wells.13 Based on this and other reasoned statements of Intervenors and their expert, the Licensing Board concluded, among other things:
 
We find there is a genuine dispute on the central and material issue of whether those Pilgrim aging management programs, or AMPs, that relate to relevant buried pipes and tanks are adequate on their own, without need of any leak 9
management program] is adequate and consistent with GALL."
Pilgrim Watchs Reply to [Entergy Motion] at 1-3 (Nov. 6, 2007).
7 Staff also argues, essentially repeating its original arguments against Contention 1, that "monitoring for radioactive leaks in
10 Id. at 3-6.
 
11 Id. at 6-7.
the underground pipes and tanks is [not] within the scope of license renewal."
12 Id. at 8.
8 Pilgrim Watch Response to Motion Pilgrim Watch argues that Entergy has not met the Commission's strict "compelling circumstances" standard for reconsideration, citing, inter alia , Pacific Gas & Electri. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-06-27, 64 NRC __, __ (slip op.
13 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-12, 65 NRC ___, ___ (Oct. 17, 2007) (slip op. at 8) (citing Declaration of David Ahlfeld, PhD, PE In Support of Pilgrim Watchs Response Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1 at 1 (June 18, 2007)
9 Pilgrim Watch's Reply to [Entergy Motion] at 1-3 (Nov. 6, 2007).
[hereinafter Ahlfeld Declaration]).
10 Id. at 3-6.11 Id. at 6-7.12 Id. at 8.13 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-12, 65 NRC ___, ___ (Oct. 17, 2007) (slip op. at 8) (citing Declaration of David Ahlfeld, PhD, PE In Support of Pilgrim Watch's Response Opposing Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1 at 1 (June 18, 2007)
detection devices (Intervenors propose monitoring wells), to assure that the pipes and tanks in question will perform their intended functions and thereby protect public health and safety.14 We find no reason let alone compelling circumstances to reconsider this ruling.
[hereinafter Ahlfeld Declaration]). at 2) (Nov. 9, 2006).
First, it is clear that guidance documents such as the GALL Report do not constitute reguatory requirements and are not binding.15 Second, although Entergy would have us construe the requirement of appropriate support in opposition to a motion for summary disposition very narrowly, it is clear that Prof. Ahlfeld, an engineer himself, has appropriate expertise to speak to the subjects on which he provided his opinion in support of Pilgrim Watchs opposition to Entergys summary disposition motion.16 There is clearly a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact and law regarding whether Entergy's aging management program has leak detection provisions sufficient to prevent the subject buried pipes and tanks from failing to satisfy their intended safety function (which the Applicant in its motion describes as delivering water17). Pilgrim Watchs contention, which is essentially a contention of omission, is that Entergys aging management plan is inadequate 14 Id. at 16.
9 Intervenors also challenge Entergy's argument that compliance with the GALL report should be taken to show the adequacy of its aging management programs.
15 See Curators of the Univ. of Mo., CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 98, 100 (1995); Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 544-45 (1986).
10 They argue that Dr. Ahlfeld is a "qualified expert in the area of groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the subsurface . . . with extens ive experience in monitoring programs," whose testimony should be heard and not weighed in ruling on a motion for summary disposition.
16 We find Entergys additional argument concerning allocation of resources for litigation, see Entergy Motion at 2-3, to be completely unrelated to any standards for reconsideration, and void of legal support. In light of its obvious lack of merit, we have not addressed it further herein.
11 They contend that they did present evidence, through Dr. Ahlfeld and references to NRC and
17 Entergy Motion at 6.
 
because it does not contain any provision for detecting such leakage, and that monitoring wells are therefore necessary to fulfil this function.
industry documents, that constitutes more than "mere allegations and denials."
12 Licensing Board Ruling As we stated in LBP-07-12:
 
[Intervenors' expert] Prof. Ahlfeld states that radioactive contaminants could leak from the condensate storage system, offgas system piping, and the salt service water system. He notes that, while Entergy "describes the several methods they
 
use to prevent leaks from occurring," it "has not demonstrated that [the plant has]
 
sufficient means of detecting leaks if they occur.Noting that leaks can and do
 
occur, at various rates, Prof. Ahlfeld indicates among other things that such leaks
 
are "virtually impossible to detect without the use of direct sampling methods
 
such as monitoring wells."
13 Based on this and other reasoned statements of Intervenors and their expert, the Licensing Board concluded, among other things:
We find there is a genuine dispute on the central and material issue of whether those Pilgrim aging management programs, or AMPs, that relate to relevant
 
buried pipes and tanks are adequate on their own, without need of any leak 14 Id. at 16.15 See Curators of the Univ. of Mo., CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 98, 100 (1995);
Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 544-45 (1986).16 We find Entergy's additional argument concerning allocation of resources for litigation, see Entergy Motion at 2-3, to be completely unrelated to any standards for reconsideration, and void of legal support. In light of its obvious lack of merit, we have not addressed it further herein.17 Entergy Motion at 6. detection devices (Intervenors propose monitoring wells), to assure that the pipes and tanks in question will perform their intended functions and thereby protect
 
public health and safety.
14 We find no reason - let alone compelling circumstances - to reconsider this ruling.
First, it is clear that guidance documents such as the GALL Report do not constitute reguatory requirements and are not binding.
15 Second, although Entergy would have us construe the requirement of appropriate support in opposition to a motion for summary disposition very
 
narrowly, it is clear that Prof. Ahlfeld, an engineer himself, has appropriate expertise to speak to
 
the subjects on which he provided his opinion in support of Pilgrim Watch's opposition to
 
Entergy's summary disposition motion.
16 There is clearly a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact and law regarding whether Entergy's aging management program has leak detec tion provisions sufficient to prevent the subject buried pipes and tanks from failing to satisfy their intended safety function (which the
 
Applicant in its motion describes as "delivering water" 17). Pilgrim Watch's contention, which is essentially a contention of omission, is that Entergy's aging management plan is inadequate 18 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to all counsel or representatives for parties. because it does not contain any provision for detecting such leakage, and that monitoring wells are therefore necessary to fulfil this function.
The motion to reconsider of Entergy is therefore DENIED.
The motion to reconsider of Entergy is therefore DENIED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
Line 88: Line 55:
Dr. Paul B. Abramson ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Dr. Paul B. Abramson ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
________/RA/_____________________
________/RA/_____________________
Dr. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland
Dr. Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland November 14, 200718 18 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to all counsel or representatives for parties.
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                                 )
November 14, 2007 18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONIn the Matter of   )
                                                  )
  )ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO.   )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION CO.                   )
AND   )
AND                                               )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.   )Docket No. 50-293-LR
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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON ENTERGY'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIO N OF [LBP] 07-12) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station)                   )
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON ENTERGYS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [LBP] 07-12) 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.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
David Roth, Esq.                                   Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
 
Andrea L. Silvia, Esq.                             Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP Kimberly Sexton, Esq.                              2300 N. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Chair
Office of the General Counsel                      Washington, DC 20037-1128 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
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.
David Roth, Esq.
 
Andrea L. Silvia, Esq.  
 
Kimberly Sexton, Esq.
 
Office of the General Counsel
 
Mail Stop - O-15 D21
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001 David R. Lewis, Esq.
Paul A. Gaukler, Esq.
 
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
 
2300 N. Street, N.W.
 
Washington, DC 20037-1128 2 Docket No. 50-293-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON ENTERGY'S
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [LBP] 07-12)
Perry H. Buckberg, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch I-I
 
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Mail Stop O11-F1
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mary Lampert, Director Pilgrim Watch
 
148 Washington Street
 
Duxbury, MA 02332 Sheila Slocum Hollis, Esq.
Town of Plymouth MA
 
Duane Morris, LLP
 
1667 K. Street, N.W.
 
Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Mark D. Sylvia, Town Manager Town Manager's Office
 
11 Lincoln Street
 
Plymouth, MA 02360 Terrence A. Burke, Esq Entergy Nuclear
 
1340 Echelon Parkway
 
Mail Stop: M-ECH-62
 
Jackson, MS 39213 Chief Kevin M. Nord Fire Chief & Director Duxbury Emergency
 
Management Agency
 
668 Tremont Street
 
Duxbury, MA 02332
[Original signed by Evangeline S. Ngbea]         


Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14 th day of November 2007}}
2 Docket No. 50-293-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON ENTERGYS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [LBP] 07-12)
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 1667 K. Street, N.W.                    Plymouth, MA 02360 Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 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 14th day of November 2007}}

Latest revision as of 08:22, 13 March 2020

LB Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Entergy'S Motion for Reconsideration of (LBP)-07-12)
ML073180451
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 11/14/2007
From: Abramson P, Cole R, Austin Young
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
06-848-02-LR, 50-293-LR, RAS 14648
Download: ML073180451 (7)


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED 11/14/07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL SERVED 11/14/07 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) November 14, 2007 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Entergys Motion for Reconsideraton of [LBP]-07-12)

In this memorandum and order we rule on Entergys motion1 that we reconsider our ruling in LBP-07-12, in which we denied its motion for summary disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1. Entergy requests leave to file its motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e),

asserting a clear and material error of law in our earlier decision.2 The Applicant contends that:

[s]ince Pilgrim Watch did not proffer any expert affidavit, or any other competent evidence, controverting the adequacy of Entergys aging management program for buried tanks and piping, the Board was required as a matter of law to grant Entergys summary disposition [sic] and resolve PW-1 in Entergys favor.3 Moreover, Entergy urges this Licensing Board to accept [Entergys] conformance with the GALL Report [NUREG-1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report (July 2001)], as 1

Entergys Motion for Reconsideration of LPB-07-12 [sic] (Oct. 29, 2007) [hereinafter Entergy Motion].

2 Id. at 1.

3 Id. at 1-2.

substantial evidence that an aging management program is adequate, and that we should permit litigation of the adequacy of such programs only when it is disputed by substantial, competent and probative evidence.4 Citing various case law relating to motions for summary disposition, Entergy lauds its own expert and challenges the expertise, in the field of aging management programs at nuclear plants,5 of Intervenors expert, David Ahlfeld, Ph.D., Professor at the University of Massachusetts in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, asserting further that Dr. Ahlfeld also did not address or rebut the adequacy of Entergys aging management programs.6 Staff Response to Motion The Staff supports Entergys motion, agreeing that Pilgrim Watch provided no competent evidence that refuted the Staffs and Entergys evidence that the AMP [aging management program] is adequate and consistent with GALL.7 Staff also argues, essentially repeating its original arguments against Contention 1, that monitoring for radioactive leaks in the underground pipes and tanks is [not] within the scope of license renewal.8 Pilgrim Watch Response to Motion Pilgrim Watch argues that Entergy has not met the Commissions strict compelling circumstances standard for reconsideration, citing, inter alia, Pacific Gas & Electri. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-06-27, 64 NRC __, __ (slip op.

4 Id. at 2.

5 Id. at 6.

6 Id. at 5.

7 NRC Staff Response to [Entergy Motion] at 6 (Nov. 8, 2007).

8 Id. at 8.

at 2) (Nov. 9, 2006).9 Intervenors also challenge Entergys argument that compliance with the GALL report should be taken to show the adequacy of its aging management programs.10 They argue that Dr. Ahlfeld is a qualified expert in the area of groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the subsurface . . . with extensive experience in monitoring programs, whose testimony should be heard and not weighed in ruling on a motion for summary disposition.11 They contend that they did present evidence, through Dr. Ahlfeld and references to NRC and industry documents, that constitutes more than mere allegations and denials.12 Licensing Board Ruling As we stated in LBP-07-12:

[Intervenors expert] Prof. Ahlfeld states that radioactive contaminants could leak from the condensate storage system, offgas system piping, and the salt service water system. He notes that, while Entergy describes the several methods they use to prevent leaks from occurring, it has not demonstrated that [the plant has]

sufficient means of detecting leaks if they occur. Noting that leaks can and do occur, at various rates, Prof. Ahlfeld indicates among other things that such leaks are virtually impossible to detect without the use of direct sampling methods such as monitoring wells.13 Based on this and other reasoned statements of Intervenors and their expert, the Licensing Board concluded, among other things:

We find there is a genuine dispute on the central and material issue of whether those Pilgrim aging management programs, or AMPs, that relate to relevant buried pipes and tanks are adequate on their own, without need of any leak 9

Pilgrim Watchs Reply to [Entergy Motion] at 1-3 (Nov. 6, 2007).

10 Id. at 3-6.

11 Id. at 6-7.

12 Id. at 8.

13 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. And Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-07-12, 65 NRC ___, ___ (Oct. 17, 2007) (slip op. at 8) (citing Declaration of David Ahlfeld, PhD, PE In Support of Pilgrim Watchs Response Opposing Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Pilgrim Watch Contention 1 at 1 (June 18, 2007)

[hereinafter Ahlfeld Declaration]).

detection devices (Intervenors propose monitoring wells), to assure that the pipes and tanks in question will perform their intended functions and thereby protect public health and safety.14 We find no reason let alone compelling circumstances to reconsider this ruling.

First, it is clear that guidance documents such as the GALL Report do not constitute reguatory requirements and are not binding.15 Second, although Entergy would have us construe the requirement of appropriate support in opposition to a motion for summary disposition very narrowly, it is clear that Prof. Ahlfeld, an engineer himself, has appropriate expertise to speak to the subjects on which he provided his opinion in support of Pilgrim Watchs opposition to Entergys summary disposition motion.16 There is clearly a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact and law regarding whether Entergy's aging management program has leak detection provisions sufficient to prevent the subject buried pipes and tanks from failing to satisfy their intended safety function (which the Applicant in its motion describes as delivering water17). Pilgrim Watchs contention, which is essentially a contention of omission, is that Entergys aging management plan is inadequate 14 Id. at 16.

15 See Curators of the Univ. of Mo., CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 98, 100 (1995); Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-852, 24 NRC 532, 544-45 (1986).

16 We find Entergys additional argument concerning allocation of resources for litigation, see Entergy Motion at 2-3, to be completely unrelated to any standards for reconsideration, and void of legal support. In light of its obvious lack of merit, we have not addressed it further herein.

17 Entergy Motion at 6.

because it does not contain any provision for detecting such leakage, and that monitoring wells are therefore necessary to fulfil this function.

The motion to reconsider of Entergy is therefore DENIED.

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 November 14, 200718 18 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to all counsel or representatives for 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON ENTERGYS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [LBP] 07-12) 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.

Andrea L. Silvia, Esq. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP Kimberly Sexton, 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON ENTERGYS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [LBP] 07-12)

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 1667 K. Street, N.W. Plymouth, MA 02360 Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 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 14th day of November 2007