ML14239A521
| ML14239A521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Aerotest |
| Issue date: | 08/27/2014 |
| From: | Hawkens E R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-228-LT, ASLBP 14-931-01-LT-BD01, RAS 26408 | |
| Download: ML14239A521 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judge:
E. Roy Hawkens Presiding Officer In the Matter of AEROTEST OPERATIONS, INC.
(Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor)
Docket No. 50-228-LT
ASLBP No. 14-931-01-LT-BD01
August 27, 2014
ORDER (Adopting Transcript Corrections, Denying Companies' Motion to Correct Transcript, and Closing Evidentiary Record)
On August 12, 2014, the Board held an evidentiary hearing for the Aerotest proceeding in Rockville, Maryland. On August 22, 2014, the NRC Staff and the Companies jointly filed proposed transcript corrections for the evidentiary hearing.
1 On the same day, the Companies filed a separate Motion to Correct Transcript, in which they requested to change the response of their witness, Michael Anderson, on page 75, line 15 of the transcript, from "I believe that's correct," to "I believe that is a correct statement of the Staff's position."
2 On August 27, 2014, the NRC Staff filed a motion objecting to the Companies' Motion to Correct Transcript.
3 1 See Joint Proposed Transcript Corrections (Aug. 22, 2014).
2 See Motion to Correct Transcript from August 12, 2014 Hearing (Aug. 22, 2014).
3 See NRC Staff's Objection to Aerotest Operations, Inc. and Nuclear Labyrinth, LLC's Motion to Correct Transcript from August 12, 2014 Hearing (Aug. 27, 2014) [hereinafter NRC Staff's Objection]. The Board denies the Companies' Motion to Correct Transcript, finding that the Companies have not demonstrated that their requested substantive change to the transcript is supported by "good cause." See NRC Staff's Objection at 4-6.
4 After reviewing the parties' jointly filed proposed corrections, the Board hereby adopts the corrections set forth in Appendix A to this order and deems the transcript of the August 12 hearing, which constitutes the official record of events at the evidentiary hearing, 5 to be revised in accord with those corrections. The evidentiary record is now closed. It is so ORDERED.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
________________________________
E. Roy Hawkens PRESIDING OFFICER
Rockville, Maryland August 27, 2014
4 As the NRC Staff correctly observes (see NRC Staff's Objection at 3), in the Companies' Motion to Correct, they do not seek to correct the accuracy of the recorded transcript; rather, they effectively seek to supplement the record with new evidence. This they may not do without demonstrating good cause. See id. at 4.
5 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.327(b). Appendix A Page Line Number(s) Current Statement Proposed Statement 40 21 enback by reference in block by reference 44 1 have been providing has been providing 45 20 reactor has gone reactor has begun 46 6 information the Companies shouldinformation the Companies submitted should 46 18 and their reviewed and they reviewed 46 22 The submitted They submitted 47 5 on revenue for customers on revenue from customers 48 3 cannot reasonable predict cannot reasonably predict 49 20 it cannot they cannot 50 6 the NRC requests the NRC requested 57 10 but we did suggest providing but we did provide 59 12 initial rebuttal statements of position initial and rebuttal statements of position 60 15 or security risk. or security risk." 60 18 license transfer application." license transfer application. 63 15 Companies Companies' 63 17 denial; that denial and that 64 1 denial. They're noted denial, were noted 64 1 form formed 65 14 liability, no funds liability and no funds 70 10 substantial substantive 73 23 each witnesses each witness 75 10 (No audible response).
Correct. 76 10 2003-2000 timeframe 2003-2010 timeframe 81 24 their the 84 22 We entered this transaction We did not enter this transaction 89 5 The Companies question that The Companies question the 89 20 those particular issue those particular services 89 20-21 type of fundamentally these types of issues are fundamentally 90 8 providing service providing a service 90 15-16 service area test services and testing 92 8 closure closing 92 22 license licensed 93 1 critical criticality 93 16 are selected that are selected 94 10-11 be satisfied with their obligations satisfy their obligations 95 1 critical criticality 104 13 licenses licensees 107 4 directly a proportion of directly in proportion to 107 12 amount services amount of services 108 17 you indicate they indicate 110 23 from for 111 5 independent if they independent of if they 112 16 familiar on familiarity with 116 24 provided by provided to 117 10 on the 2013 inspection on the 2012 inspection 118 13 No additional No additional scrutiny 118 17 seeding seating 123 14 questions direction of questions direction to 124 22 seriously lodged with seriously at odds with 125 19-20 Not business, not Aerotest, Not for a business like Aerotest, 126 19 custom behavior analysis customer behavior analysis 126 20 comparative competitor 129 23 wasn't was 130 3 issues issue is 130 3 has to be had to be 130 4 shut down two years at a time shut down for two years at a time 131 2 to run the operator to run and operate the 131 24 percent recurring percent returning 132 22 the closing of the projection, the closing of the transaction, 133 2 believes believed 133 3 believe believed 133 4 funding after funding until after 134 1 company's Companies' 134 4 funding. That will funding that will 134 23 underlying assumption the underlying assumption is the 134 24 return, the fact return. The fact 135 2-3 You stated the same data inspires revenue predictions was sufficient in the X-Ray Industry's license transfer application; is that correct? You stated earlier the same data as far as revenue prediction was considered sufficient in the X-ray Industries license transfer application, is that correct? 139 3 include included 139 17 research revenue 139 22 there's some the sum 142 8 put projected 143 3 position it not an position that it is not an 144 20 a change or changing 145 5 provide anything your decision provide anything in your decision 146 9 comparative competitive 149 2 custom cost and 151 11 opt-in customers top-ten customers 154 1 alternatives alternative 159 22 operating has operating and has 160 21 condition has used Commission has used 162 1 they can throw upon they can bestow upon 165 10 but why is not but why is it not 170 18 core down, core, down, 176 6 application, you have drafted application, could you have drafted 177 3 on the good plate on the grid plate 183 12 fail? fail. 187 2 giving given 194 24 sold at aimed at 195 1 sold, but old radiography, but 195 21 stated their version to stated their aversion to 197 2 warn, standby warm standby 197 3 operate operating 197 22 wouldn't be considerably less would be considerably less 201 19 that we could have determined a time that we could have determined at that time 202 11 founding agreement funding agreement 209 14 final qualification requirements financial qualification requirements 212 19 reasonable unreasonable 214 23 casking companies casting companies 215 1 I have worked with sandy NRAY in the I have worked with Sandy and Ray 220 9 the existed the it existed
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) )
AEROTEST OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-228-LT
) ) ) ) (Aerotest Radiography Research Reactor) ) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Adopting Transcript Corrections, Denying Companies' Motion to Correct Transcript, and Closing Evidentiary Record) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E. Roy Hawkens E-mail: Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov Kathleen Schroeder, Law Clerk
E-mail: Kathleen.Schroeder@nrc.gov
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hearing Docket E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 Kimberly Harshaw, Esq.
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Maria Webb E-mail: Kimberly.Harshaw@pillsburylaw.com Jay.Silberg@pillsburylaw.com
Maria.Webb@pillsburylaw.com
Aerotest Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-228-LT ORDER (Adopting Transcript Corrections, Denying Companies' Motion to Correct Transcript, and Closing Evidentiary Record) 2
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Anita Ghosh, Esq.
Christina England, Esq.
Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
Susan Uttal, Esq.
Edward Williamson, Esq. Jeremy Wachutka, Esq.
Sabrina Allen, Paralegal John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: Anita.Ghosh@nrc.gov
- Christina.England@nrc.gov
- Catherine.Kanatas@nrc.gov
- Susan.Uttal@nrc.gov
- Edward.Williamson@nrc.gov
- Jeremy.Wachutka@nrc.gov John.Tibbetts@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov
[Original signed by Brian Newell ] Office of the Secretary of the Commission
Dated at Rockville, Maryland
this 27 th day of August, 2014