ML060860312
| ML060860312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/17/2006 |
| From: | Hofmann S Entergy Nuclear Operations, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, National Legal Scholars Law Firm, PC, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, NRC/OGC, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, State of VT, Dept of Public Service |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| 50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 11412 | |
| Download: ML060860312 (9) | |
Text
PAS?]5 ,//,Vc DOCKETED USWRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA March 17, 2C006 (3:39pm)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ADJUDICATIONS STAFF
)
In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-271 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT )
YANKE E, LLC and ENTERGY ) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) (Operating License Amendment)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
)
JOINT MOTION OF ALL PARTIES TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER Pursuant to 10 CFR §2.332(b), the Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS),
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC (Entergy), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff) and the New England Coalition (NEC) request some modifications of the February 1, 2005 Scheduling Order to allow a modest amount of additional time for filing direct testimo:ny, rebuttal testimony and proposed hearing questions.' Attachment A contains the current schedule and the proposed modified schedule. 2 The parties believe approval of these changes in the schedule will not affect the ultimate date on which hearings will be concluded and thus will not adversely affect the interests of any party or the expeditious adjudication of this y p
- Thismotion is filed on March 17, 2006 instead of March 16, 2006 (as provided for in the Licensing Board's March 14, 2006 Order) pursuant to a one-day extension granted orally to the parties by the Licensing Board's Chairman on March 16, 2006.
2 The proposed modified schedule only applies to the litigation of admitted contentions. If any new contentions are filed and admitted, a separate schedule will need to be developed for those contentions. Any new contentic'ns filed regarding the Staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report would be due by April 5, 2006, with responses due 25 days later, i.e., May 1, 2006.
1 74iek Cy. ow
matter.
I. THE TESTS FOR MODIFICATION ARE MET A. The Parties Have Exercised Due Diligence For the most part, the parties have diligently complied with the deadlines set by the Licensing Board in the Initial Scheduling Order and have deviated from those deadlines only when allowed and for good cause shown.
B. Unavoidable Circumstances The issues raised by the contentions are complex and in some cases have changed as the contentions have been modified over time, such as occurred with NEC Contention 4. These unantici:dated complexities will require additional time to prepare direct and rebuttal testimon y and proposed questions for the Licensing Board.
C. Party Assent And Case Impact After consultation and compromise, all the parties request that the Licensing Board approve the proposed changes in schedule shown in Attachment A.
The proposed schedule changes impact certain filing deadlines but, we believe, will not adversely impact the conduct of the case. The proposed schedule will still assure that all testimony is filed prior to the date for limited appearances. The Licensing Board has now reserved for hearings the weeks of September 10, 2006 and October 15, 2006. Order (Supplemental Schedule) March 14, 2006. The proposed schedule modifications will not impact.
those dates but will assure that adequate time is available for the parties to fully develop testimony and proposed questions and for the Licensing Board to review those materials prio-r to the hearing.
2
The license amendment for the Vermont Yankee uprate has now been issued. The parties are not requesting any postponement of the hearing dates. Taking more time to fully address the issues in direct and rebuttal testimony will not affect the status of plant operations while the Licensing Board is addressing the issues under consideration in this proceeding, nor will this result irn a prolongation of the hearing process.
II. GOOD CAUSE-EXISTS FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION The additional time proposed for filing of direct and rebuttal testimony and for filing proposed questions will enable the parties to fully develop their positions and the bases for them,
- to the potential benefit of the Licensing Board in its examination of the issues. In addition, by lengthening the time for filing direct and rebuttal testimony, parties who choose to file motions in limine will have additional time to prepare such motions and have them considered by the Licensing Board in advance of the hearing. In addition, the parties' proposed modifications incorporate time for the filing of responses to those motions, and afford time for the Licensing Board to review the motions and responses prior to ruling thereon.
Providing additional time within which to prepare and submit proposed cross-examination can likewise be useful in allowing the parties to identify for the Licensing Board where they believe conflicts in testimony exist and to articulate the issues they believe need Io be examined to resolve those conflicts, thus potentially shortening the hearing time.
For the reasons stated, we request that the Licensing Board grant the proposed modifications of certain dates in the Initial Scheduling Order, as set forth in the attached schedule.
3
Respectfully submitted, Sarah Hofmann Director for Public Advocacy Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05602-2601 Anthony Z. Roisman National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.
Lyme, NH 03768 Counsel for the Vermont Department of Public Service Jay E. Silberg Matias F. Travieso-Diaz PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Raymond Shadis New England Coalition P.O. Box 98 Shadis Road Edgecomb ME 04556 Sherwin E. Turk Steven C. Hamrick Counsel for the NRC Staff Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Dated this 17 th day of March 2006.
4
Attachment A UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY.COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
) Docket No. 50-271 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR }
OPERATIONS, INC. ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))
Schedule Modifications Proposed Jointly by All Parties Current Schedule New Date Proposed As Per Order of 2/1/05 by the Parties Event March 6, 2006 Final SER issued (SER issued on March 2, 2006 but didn't reach NEC until March 6, 2006)
March :16, 2006 Motions to Modify Schedule due May 5, 2006 May 17, 2006 Final written statements of position and written testimony with supporting affidavits due. "The initial written statement should be in the nature of a trial brief that provides a precise road map of the party's case, setting out affirmative arguments and applicable legal standards, identifying witnesses and evidence, and specifying ihe purpose of witnesses and evidence (i.e.,
stating with particularity how the witness or evidence supports a factual or legal position). The written testimony shall be under oath or supported by an affidavit."
1
May 25, 2006 June 22, 2006 File written responses and rebuttal testimony with supporting affidavits pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.1207(a)(2). "The written response should be in the nature of a response brief that identifies the legal and factual weaknesses in an opponent's position, identifies rebuttal witnesses and evidence, and specifies the precise purpose of rebuttal witnesses and evidence. Rebuttal testimony shall be under oath or supported by affidavit.
Being in the nature of rebuttal, the response and rebuttal testimony are not to advance any new affirmative claims or arguments that should have been, but were not, included in the party's previously-filed initial written statement."
Week of June 25, 2006 No change Limited appearance statement session June 9, 2006 July 19, 2006 File proposed questions for the Board to consider propounding to the direct or rebuttal witnesses, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.1207(a)(3)(i) and (ii). "In preparing the proposed direct or rebuttal questions, each party should be mindful that the examination plan is not a trial tool to assist the party; rather its purpose is to assist the Board in ensuring the development of an adequate record. Accordingly, the plan should contain a brief description of the issue or issues which the party contends need further examination, the objective of the examination, and the proposed line of questioning (including specific questions) that may logically lead to achieving the objective."
June 9, 2006 July 19, 2006 File any requests to permit a party to conduct cross-examination of a specified witness or witnesses, together with the associated cross-examination plan(s),
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1204(b).
2
June 26, 2006 August 1, 2006 Deadline for filing motions in limine.
August 11, 2006 Deadline for filing oppositions to motions in limine Week cf Sept. 10, 2006 No change Evidentiary Hearings Week cf Oct. 15, 2006 No change Evidentiary Hearings 30 days after close of oral hearing: File proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on contentions.
3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
} Docket No. 50-271 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR ) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA OPERATIONS, INC. )
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
] hereby certify that copies of the Joint Motion of All Parties to Modify Scheduling Oider in the above captioned proceeding has been served on the following by electronic mail where indicated by an asterisk on this 17 th day of March, 2006, and will be mailed by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on the 17th day of March, 2006.
Alex S. Karlin, Chair* Dr. Anthony J. Baratta*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge 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 E-mail: ask2(,nrc.gov E-mail: aib5(Rnrc.gov Lester S. Rubenstein* Office of the Secretary*
Administrative Judge ATTN: Rulemaking & Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: 0-16 C1 4270 E. Country Villa Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuscon, AZ 85718 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: lesrrr(icomcast.net E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET(inrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of Commission Appellate Adj.
Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop 0-16 CI U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Jay E. S'ilberg, Esq.*
Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.* Sherwin Turk, Esq.*
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Steven C. Hamrick.*
2300 N St., NW Robert Weisman, Esq.*
Washington, DC 20037-1128 Office of the General Counsel j*ia.sjIbrg(-pillsburvlaw.com Mail Stop 0-15 D21 matias.lravieso-diaz(apillsburvLaw.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission douglas.rosinski pillsburvlaw.com Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 seteInrc.pgov Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.* schl( ,nrc.gov National Legal Scholars Law Firm rmwa~nrc.gov 84 East Thetford Rd.
Lyme, N4H 03768 aroisma nonationallegalscholars.com John M. Fulton, Esq.*
Raymond Shadis* Assistant General Counsel New England Coalition Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 98 440 Hamilton Avenue Shadis Road White Plains, NY 10601 Edgecornb, ME 04566 ifulto 1(3entergv.com shadis )h3rexar.com Sincerely, Sarah Hofmanpi)
Director for P~bliAdvocacy Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601