ML082540485: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML082540485
| number = ML082540485
| issue date = 09/10/2008
| issue date = 09/10/2008
| title = 2008/09/10- LB Memorandum and Order (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)
| title = LB Memorandum and Order (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)
| author name = Abramson P B, Baratta A J, Hawkens E R
| author name = Abramson P, Baratta A, Hawkens E
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of                                       Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC                           ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear             September 10, 2008 Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-0219-LR ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)
On September 8, 2008, the Board issued a memorandum and order scheduling oral argument on the issue the Commission referred to the Board on August 21, 2008. In that order, the Board advised that it would provide counsel with the substantive areas that would be the focus of the Boards interest, as well as procedural details regarding how the oral argument will be conducted. This information is provided below.
A.      Topics for Discussion Counsel should be prepared to address the following topics at oral argument:
: 1. How did AmerGen choose the thicknesses and mesh for the 3D model?
* It may assist the Boards understanding if AmerGen were to prepare a diagram that explains Table 1 in Mr. ORourkes June 11, 2008 affidavit.
If AmerGen elects to use a diagram at argument, it should provide the Board and other counsel with a copy no later than noon, Tuesday, September 16, 2008.
* AmerGen should also be able to identify, if asked, the locations of all internal and external measurements in each zone on the diagram should it elect to use such a diagram.
* AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how data from adjacent bays were used to estimate the thickness in a given bay.
: 2. AmerGen should be prepared to explain the bases for its use of engineering judgment in the development of the model, where and why such judgement was used, and what specifically was the result.
* Using an illustrative photo from the record that shows bay corrosion, AmerGen should explain how engineering judgment was used in taking that corrosion into account for the 3D model.
: 3. AmerGen should be prepared to discuss how the finite element grid size was chosen, how it overlays the measurements, and how the physical properties were selected/assigned to each element.
* Amergen should also be prepared to discuss why it believes those properties are conservative, and how Amergen became convinced that the number of elements it has selected will represent a "converged" solution, or if one or more of the sensitivity studies it proposes is designed to establish that convergence.
* The Staff should also be prepared to discuss how it intends to address convergence and conservatism.
: 4. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases it chose result in a conservative best estimate analysis of the drywell shell.
: 5. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases modeled by AmerGen provide for sensitivity studies using an extrapolation scheme or equivalent method to determine the thicknesses between the measured locations.
: 6. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3) that AmerGen improperly failed to include its own estimates of the existing severely corroded areas in its modeling base case.
: 7. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3) that even if AmerGens use of average thicknesses were acceptable, AmerGens estimates of those thicknesses are overly optimistic in part because AmerGen estimated the average thickness of the shell in Bays 1, 3, 7, and 15 below the eleven-foot three-inch level without using any of the measurements taken in those bays.
: 8. Discuss the suggestion (Citizens Reply at 3) that the NRC Staff believes that the 106 external measurements should form the base case from which sensitivity studies should be conducted.
: 9. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3 n.3) that Mr. ORourke mistakenly states that the thickness selected for Bay 1 is consistent with the external data for that Bay.
: 10. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3 n.3) that AmerGen is acting inconsistently and nonconservatively, because it previously estimated the thickness for Bay 15 to be 0.788 inch, but it now proposes to model the lower part of Bay 15 at 0.931 inch.
: 11. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that both the internal and external thickness data should be input into a mathematical extrapolation technique to derive the most accurate picture possible of the state of the shell.
: 12. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that the internal measurements, which cover less than 1% of the shell area, produce nonconservative and uncertain estimates of the spatially distributed thickness.
: 13. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that, where there is both local thinning and generalized thinning, the acceptance criteria could allow the factor of safety to drop to 1.81.
: 14. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4-5) that the Staffs reliance on the Sandia Study to support a conclusion that the drywell shell satisfies safety requirements is misplaced.
In addressing these topics, counsel should keep in mind that this is an oral argument, not an evidentiary hearing. Counsels presentations - which are not part of the evidentiary record -
should endeavor to clarify the positions taken in their briefs and respond to the Boards questions.
B.      Procedures for Oral Argument As discussed during the Boards September 5 conference call with counsel, the Board will allocate five minutes to counsel for each of the parties to discuss what they believe are the boundaries of the Commissions August 21 referral order.1 AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.
1 See Tr. at 897, 899-902.


September 10, 2008 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)
Thereafter, counsel for each party will be allocated one hour to address the questions and discussion points in Part A above.2 Counsel are encouraged to address the questions and discussion points in order. AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.
On September 8, 2008, the Board issued a memorandum and order scheduling oral argument on the issue the Commission referred to the Board on August 21, 2008. In that order, the Board advised that it would provide counsel with the substantive areas that would be the focus of the Board's interest, as well as procedural details regarding how the oral argument will
AmerGen and the NRC Staff will have an opportunity for rebuttal. If they wish to avail themselves of this opportunity, they should advise the Board at the outset of their presentations of the amount of time they wish to reserve for rebuttal.
 
be conducted. This information is provided below.
A.Topics for Discussion Counsel should be prepared to address the following topics at oral argument:
: 1. How did AmerGen choose the thicknesses and mesh for the 3D model?*It may assist the Board's understanding if AmerGen were to prepare a diagram that explains "Table 1" in Mr. O'Rourke's June 11, 2008 affidavit.
If AmerGen elects to use a diagram at argument, it should provide the
 
Board and other counsel with a copy no later than noon, Tuesday, September 16, 2008. *AmerGen should also be able to identify, if asked, the locations of all internal and external measurements in each zone on the diagram should
 
it elect to use such a diagram.
* AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how data from adjacent bays were used to estimate the thickness in a given bay. 2. AmerGen should be prepared to explain the bases for its use of engineering judgment in the development of the model, where and why such judgement was used, and what specifically was the result. *Using an illustrative photo from the record that shows bay corrosion, AmerGen should explain how engineering judgment was used in taking
 
that corrosion into account for the 3D model. 3. AmerGen should be prepared to discuss how the finite element grid size was chosen, how it overlays the measur ements, and how the physical properties were selected/assigned to each element.  *Amergen should also be prepared to discuss why it believes those properties are conservative, and how Amergen became convinced that the number of elements it has selected will represent a "converged" solution, or if one or more of the sensitivity studies it proposes is designed
 
to establish that convergence.  *The Staff should also be prepared to discuss how it intends to address convergence and conservatism.4. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases it chose result in a conservative best estimate analysis of the drywell shell. 5. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases modeled by AmerGen provide for sensitivity st udies using an extrapolation scheme or equivalent method to determine the thicknesses between the measured
 
locations.6. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3) that AmerGen improperly failed to include its own estimates of the existing severely corroded areas in its modeling
 
base case. 7. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3) that even if AmerGen's use of average thicknesses were acceptable, AmerGen's estimates of those
 
thicknesses are overly optimistic in part because AmerGen estimated the average thickness of the shell in Bays 1, 3, 7, and 15 below the eleven-foot
 
three-inch level without using any of the measurements taken in those bays.8. Discuss the suggestion (Citizens' Reply at 3) that the NRC Staff believes that the 106 external measurements should form t he base case from which sensitivity studies should be conducted. 9. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3 n.3) that Mr. O'Rourke mistakenly states that the thickness selected for Bay 1 is consistent with the external data
 
for that Bay. 1 See Tr. at 897, 899-902.10. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3 n.3) that AmerGen is acting inconsistently and nonconservatively, because it previously estimated the thickness for Bay 15 to be 0.788 inch, but it now proposes to model the lower
 
part of Bay 15 at 0.931 inch.11. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4) that both the internal and external thickness data should be input into a mathematical extrapolation technique to
 
derive the most accurate picture possible of the state of the shell. 12. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4) that the internal measurements, which cover less than 1% of the shell area, produce nonconservative and
 
uncertain estimates of the spatially distributed thickness.13. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4) that, where there is both local thinning and generalized thinning, the acceptance criteria could allow the factor
 
of safety to drop to 1.81.14. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4-5) that the Staff's reliance on the Sandia Study to support a conclusion that the drywell shell satisfies safety
 
requirements is misplaced.
In addressing these topics, counsel should keep in mind that this is an oral argument, not an evidentiary hearing. Counsels' presentations -
which are not part of the evidentiary record -
should endeavor to clarify the positions taken in their briefs and respond to the Board's
 
questions.
B.Procedures for Oral Argument As discussed during the Board's September 5 conference call with counsel, the Board will allocate five minutes to counsel for each of the parties to discuss what they believe are the
 
boundaries of the Commission's August 21 referral order.
1  AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens. 2 Counsel need not use the entire hour if they are able to address the Board's concerns in less time. On the other hand, if counsel are unable to fully address the Board's concerns within an hour, the Board may require them to go beyond their allocated time.
3 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for:  (1) Citizens; (2) AmerGen; (3) the NRC Staff; and (4) New Jersey.
Thereafter, counsel for each party will be allocated one hour to address the questions and discussion points in Part A above.
2 Counsel are encouraged to address the questions and discussion points in order. AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.
AmerGen and the NRC Staff will have an opportunity for rebuttal. If they wish to avail themselves of this opportunity, they should advis e the Board at the outset of their presentations of the amount of time they wish to reserve for rebuttal.
It is so ORDERED.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD3
 
                                              /RA/
AND LICENSING BOARD 3
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 10, 2008 2
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman  
Counsel need not use the entire hour if they are able to address the Boards concerns in less time. On the other hand, if counsel are unable to fully address the Boards concerns within an hour, the Board may require them to go beyond their allocated time.
 
3 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1) Citizens; (2) AmerGen; (3) the NRC Staff; and (4) New Jersey.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland
 
September 10, 2008
/RA/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONIn 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 foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) have been served upon the
 
following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001 Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair
 
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 Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta
 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
Mail Stop - T-3 F23
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001 Emily Krause, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
 
Mail Stop - T-3 F23


U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) 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                                    E. Roy Hawkens, 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 Paul B. Abramson                                    Anthony J. Baratta 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 Emily Krause, Law Clerk                            Richard Webster, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                  Julia LeMense, Esq.
Mail Stop - T-3 F23                                Eastern Environmental Law Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                 744 Broad Street, Suite 1525 Washington, DC 20555-0001                          Newark, NJ 07102


Washington, DC  20555-0001 Richard Webster, Esq.
2 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)
Julia LeMense, Esq.
Mary C. Baty, Esq.                 Donald J. Silverman, Esq.
 
Marcia J. Simon, Esq.               Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Eastern Environmental Law Center
Brian Newell, Paralegal            Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.
 
Office of the General Counsel      Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
744 Broad Street, Suite 1525
Mail Stop - O-15 D21                Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20555-0001          Washington, DC 20004 Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight     Jill Lipoti, Director Kevin Kamps                        New Jersey Department of Beyond Nuclear                          Environmental Protection Nuclear Policy Research Institute  Division of Environmental Safety and Health 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400      P.O. Box 424 Takoma Park, MD 20912              Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner   J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.
 
New Jersey Department of           Exelon Corporation Environmental Protection         4300 Warrenville Road P.O. Box 402                       Warrenville, IL 60555 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 Ron Zak                             Suzanne Leta New Jersey Department of           NJPIRG Environmental Protection         11 N. Willow St.
Newark, NJ  07102 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR
Nuclear Engineering                 Trenton, NJ 08608 P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415
 
ORAL ARGUMENT) 2 Mary C. Baty, Esq.
 
Marcia J. Simon, Esq.
 
Brian Newell, Paralegal
 
Office of the General Counsel
 
Mail Stop - O-15 D21
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001 Donald J. Silverman, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
 
Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.
 
Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
 
1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW
 
Washington, DC 20004 Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Kevin Kamps
 
Beyond Nuclear
 
Nuclear Policy Research Institute
 
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400
 
Takoma Park, MD  20912 Jill Lipoti, Director New Jersey Department of  
 
Environmental Protection
 
Division of Environmental Safety and Health
 
P.O. Box 424
 
Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner New Jersey Department of  
 
Environmental Protection
 
P.O. Box 402
 
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.
Exelon Corporation
 
4300 Warrenville Road
 
Warrenville, IL  60555 Ron Zak New Jersey Department of  
 
Environmental Protection
 
Nuclear Engineering
 
P.O. Box 415
 
Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Suzanne Leta NJPIRG 11 N. Willow St.
 
Trenton, NJ  08608 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR
 
ORAL ARGUMENT) 3 John A. Covino, Esq.


3 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)
John A. Covino, Esq.
Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.
Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.
Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.
Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.
 
Deputy Attorneys General New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Environmental Permitting &
Deputy Attorneys General
Counseling Section Division of Law Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625
 
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of September 2008}}
 
Environmental Permitting &  
 
Counseling Section
 
Division of Law
 
Hughes Justice Complex
 
P.O. Box 093
 
Trenton, NJ 08625
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10 th day of September 2008}}

Latest revision as of 05:55, 7 December 2019

LB Memorandum and Order (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)
ML082540485
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 09/10/2008
From: Abramson P, Anthony Baratta, Hawkens E
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECYRAS
References
06-844-01-LR, 50-0219-LR, RAS H-63
Download: ML082540485 (7)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear September 10, 2008 Generating Station)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)

On September 8, 2008, the Board issued a memorandum and order scheduling oral argument on the issue the Commission referred to the Board on August 21, 2008. In that order, the Board advised that it would provide counsel with the substantive areas that would be the focus of the Boards interest, as well as procedural details regarding how the oral argument will be conducted. This information is provided below.

A. Topics for Discussion Counsel should be prepared to address the following topics at oral argument:

1. How did AmerGen choose the thicknesses and mesh for the 3D model?
  • It may assist the Boards understanding if AmerGen were to prepare a diagram that explains Table 1 in Mr. ORourkes June 11, 2008 affidavit.

If AmerGen elects to use a diagram at argument, it should provide the Board and other counsel with a copy no later than noon, Tuesday, September 16, 2008.

  • AmerGen should also be able to identify, if asked, the locations of all internal and external measurements in each zone on the diagram should it elect to use such a diagram.
  • AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how data from adjacent bays were used to estimate the thickness in a given bay.
2. AmerGen should be prepared to explain the bases for its use of engineering judgment in the development of the model, where and why such judgement was used, and what specifically was the result.
  • Using an illustrative photo from the record that shows bay corrosion, AmerGen should explain how engineering judgment was used in taking that corrosion into account for the 3D model.
3. AmerGen should be prepared to discuss how the finite element grid size was chosen, how it overlays the measurements, and how the physical properties were selected/assigned to each element.
  • Amergen should also be prepared to discuss why it believes those properties are conservative, and how Amergen became convinced that the number of elements it has selected will represent a "converged" solution, or if one or more of the sensitivity studies it proposes is designed to establish that convergence.
  • The Staff should also be prepared to discuss how it intends to address convergence and conservatism.
4. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases it chose result in a conservative best estimate analysis of the drywell shell.
5. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases modeled by AmerGen provide for sensitivity studies using an extrapolation scheme or equivalent method to determine the thicknesses between the measured locations.
6. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3) that AmerGen improperly failed to include its own estimates of the existing severely corroded areas in its modeling base case.
7. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3) that even if AmerGens use of average thicknesses were acceptable, AmerGens estimates of those thicknesses are overly optimistic in part because AmerGen estimated the average thickness of the shell in Bays 1, 3, 7, and 15 below the eleven-foot three-inch level without using any of the measurements taken in those bays.
8. Discuss the suggestion (Citizens Reply at 3) that the NRC Staff believes that the 106 external measurements should form the base case from which sensitivity studies should be conducted.
9. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3 n.3) that Mr. ORourke mistakenly states that the thickness selected for Bay 1 is consistent with the external data for that Bay.
10. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 3 n.3) that AmerGen is acting inconsistently and nonconservatively, because it previously estimated the thickness for Bay 15 to be 0.788 inch, but it now proposes to model the lower part of Bay 15 at 0.931 inch.
11. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that both the internal and external thickness data should be input into a mathematical extrapolation technique to derive the most accurate picture possible of the state of the shell.
12. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that the internal measurements, which cover less than 1% of the shell area, produce nonconservative and uncertain estimates of the spatially distributed thickness.
13. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4) that, where there is both local thinning and generalized thinning, the acceptance criteria could allow the factor of safety to drop to 1.81.
14. Discuss the assertion (Citizens Reply at 4-5) that the Staffs reliance on the Sandia Study to support a conclusion that the drywell shell satisfies safety requirements is misplaced.

In addressing these topics, counsel should keep in mind that this is an oral argument, not an evidentiary hearing. Counsels presentations - which are not part of the evidentiary record -

should endeavor to clarify the positions taken in their briefs and respond to the Boards questions.

B. Procedures for Oral Argument As discussed during the Boards September 5 conference call with counsel, the Board will allocate five minutes to counsel for each of the parties to discuss what they believe are the boundaries of the Commissions August 21 referral order.1 AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.

1 See Tr. at 897, 899-902.

Thereafter, counsel for each party will be allocated one hour to address the questions and discussion points in Part A above.2 Counsel are encouraged to address the questions and discussion points in order. AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.

AmerGen and the NRC Staff will have an opportunity for rebuttal. If they wish to avail themselves of this opportunity, they should advise the Board at the outset of their presentations of the amount of time they wish to reserve for rebuttal.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD3

/RA/

E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 10, 2008 2

Counsel need not use the entire hour if they are able to address the Boards concerns in less time. On the other hand, if counsel are unable to fully address the Boards concerns within an hour, the Board may require them to go beyond their allocated time.

3 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1) Citizens; (2) AmerGen; (3) the NRC Staff; and (4) New Jersey.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) 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 E. Roy Hawkens, 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 Paul B. Abramson Anthony J. Baratta 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 Emily Krause, Law Clerk Richard Webster, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Julia LeMense, Esq.

Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Eastern Environmental Law Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 744 Broad Street, Suite 1525 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Newark, NJ 07102

2 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)

Mary C. Baty, Esq. Donald J. Silverman, Esq.

Marcia J. Simon, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Brian Newell, Paralegal Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

Mail Stop - O-15 D21 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20004 Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Jill Lipoti, Director Kevin Kamps New Jersey Department of Beyond Nuclear Environmental Protection Nuclear Policy Research Institute Division of Environmental Safety and Health 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 P.O. Box 424 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.

New Jersey Department of Exelon Corporation Environmental Protection 4300 Warrenville Road P.O. Box 402 Warrenville, IL 60555 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 Ron Zak Suzanne Leta New Jersey Department of NJPIRG Environmental Protection 11 N. Willow St.

Nuclear Engineering Trenton, NJ 08608 P.O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415

3 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT)

John A. Covino, Esq.

Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.

Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.

Deputy Attorneys General New Jersey Office of the Attorney General Environmental Permitting &

Counseling Section Division of Law Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625

[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of September 2008

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML082540485&oldid=2247840"