ML071720013

Vermont Yankee - NRC Staff Answer to New England Coalition'S Request for More Time to Reply to Motion for Summary Disposition of New England Coalition Contention 4

ML071720013
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	06/20/2007
From:	Matt Young NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
M A Young, NRC/OGC, 301-415-1523
References
50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, RAS 13795
Download: ML071720013 (6)

Text

June 20, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT ) Docket No. 50-271-LR YANKEE, LLC, and ENTERGY )

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

NRC STAFF ANSWER TO NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO REPLY TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION CONTENTION 4 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the NRC Staff (Staff) herein answers New England Coalition, Inc.s (NEC) Motion to Extend Time for NECs Opposition to Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of New England Coalitions Contention 4 (Flow Accelerated Corrosion),

dated June 18, 2007 (Motion). For the reasons stated below, the Staff opposes the requested extension.

DISCUSSION As grounds for the instant motion, NEC asserts an extension to July 16, 2007, is needed to respond to the summary disposition motion filed by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively Entergy) on June 5, 2007,1 because NEC cannot meaningfully evaluate the technical grounds for the motion by June 25 deadline.

Specifically, NEC states that (1) additional time is needed for NECs consultants to review relevant materials produced as part of Entergy disclosures, dated June 7, 2007, and (2) NECs consultant is hindered by difficulties locating information among the large volume of documents 1

See Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of New England Coalitions Contention 4 (Flow Accelerated Corrosion) (June 5, 2007) (SD Motion).

. . . produced in non-text-searchable electronic image files, and (3) the requested time period covers the vacations of one NEC counsel and NECs expert from July 4-July 8. Motion at 1 &

n.1. NEC further states that it needs to review documents and document categories listed by Entergys expert, that such documents were not appended to Entergys motion and that Entergy has not identified such documents by production number or informed NEC that the documents are among materials produced. See Motion at 2 (citing SD Motion, Attachment 3, at 4). In addition, NEC claims its request is consistent with 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(b) in that (1) NEC cannot timely complete its review of Entergys filing due to the complexity of the issues and time consuming reviews of reports related to NEC Contention 2, (2) the extension should not interfere with the overall schedule in this proceeding, and (3) the NRCs interest in a fair resolution of NEC Contention 4 would be served by the requested extension. Motion at 3-4.

The Board has ruled that oppositions to motions for extension of time shall address the factors specified in 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(b). Initial Scheduling Order, dated November 17, 2006 (unpublished), at 9. Such factors may include the number of admitted contentions, the complexity of the issues presented, relevant considerations brought to the Boards attention, the schedule for completion of Staff safety and environmental evaluations, and a fair and expeditious resolution of the issue sought to be adjudicated in the proceeding. 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.332(b).

The Motion is not well grounded. Although the Staff agrees that disclosures in searchable formats can be reviewed more quickly, NEC could have anticipated that additional time would be needed to review Entergys disclosures and sought a Board ruling to facilitate speedier document review well in advance of the filing of Entergys summary disposition motion.

It is also not clear that NEC needs the time period requested. The Motion is silent on whether Ms. Tylers co-counsel, Ronald Shems, is available to assist in culling through documents and completing the filing either prior to the current deadline or the commencement of the cited July vacation schedules.

It is also not apparent that the listed documents are relevant to the narrow admitted issue, i.e., whether the Vermont Yankee plan to monitor and manage aging of plant piping due to FAC is inadequate because it relies on CHECWORKS, an empirical code used to determine the scope and frequency of inspection of susceptible components, a code which must be continuously updated with plant-specific data, and a code that has not been benchmarked with data reflecting the parameter changes associated with the recent power uprate. See LBP-06-20, 64 NRC 131, 192-194 (2006). Also, NEC has not explained why its review of NEC Contention 2 documents cannot await the completion of the response to Entergys summary disposition motion on NEC Contention 4 or the filing of Entergys mootness motion on NEC Contention 2. Thus, NEC has not shown that the Motion should be granted.

On the otherhand, NECs assertion that the requested extension would not interfere with the overall schedule in the proceeding is accurate since the requested extension predates the August 2007 issuance of the Safety Evaluation and would not appear to disturb the Boards projected February or March 2008 hearing date. See Transcript of Prehearing Conference Call (June 12, 2007) at Tr. 588-89. NEC, however, has not met its burden to demonstrate that the requested extension to July 16 is warranted, particularly since there are now only three admitted contentions in the proceeding2 and the issues are relatively straightforward.

If the Board grants NEC an extension of time, the Board should preserve the filing sequence in 10 C.F.R. §2.1205(b) and similarly extend the reply date for the Staffs filing.

2 The steam dryer contention is the subject of a previous summary disposition motion and Entergy must file a motion alleging mootness of the metal fatigue contention by July 12. See Entergys Motion for Summary Disposition of New England Coalitions Contention 3 (Steam Dryer) (Apr. 19, 2007);

Order (Setting Deadline for any Motion to Dismiss NEC Contention 2 as Moot) (June 18, 2007)

(unpublished).

CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, NECs motion for extension of time should be denied.

If the Board grants the request, the Staffs response time should similarly be extended to preserve the filing sequence contemplated by 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205(b).

Respectfully submitted,

/RA/

Mitzi A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of June, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC )

AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-271-LR

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF ANSWER TO NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO REPLY TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF NEW ENGLAND COALITION 4 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 20th day of June, 2007.

Alex S. Karlin, Chair Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Richard E. Wardwell Sarah Hofmann, Esq.*

Administrative Judge Director of Public Advocacy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Public Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: rew@nrc.gov E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us Thomas S. Elleman* Ronald A. Shems, Esq.

Administrative Judge Karen Tyler, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 91 College Street Raleigh, NC 27612 Burlington, VT 05401 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.edu E-mail: rshems@sdkslaw.com Ktyler@sdkslaw.com Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Marcia Carpentier, Esq.

Mail Stop: O-16C1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mxc7@nrc.gov

Peter C. L. Roth* David R. Lewis, Esq.*

Senior Assistant Attorney General Matias F. Travieso-Diaz*

Office of the Attorney General Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 33 Capitol Street 2300 N Street, NW Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: peter.roth@doj.nh.gov E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.co Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.*

National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.

Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail:

aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com

/RA/

Mitzi A. Young Counsel for the NRC Staff