Attorneys for PFS were just as adamant that the board had made its ruling and that now was not the time to be reopening the case to hear new arguments. not raised during the hearings. The state had its chance and failed to raise it, PFS attorneys said.

And the board was just as skeptical of that claim.

Most intriguing was a proposal by board c Chairman Michael Farrar, who pointed out that the licensing process for PFS was originally planned in three phases, later combined into two. At the end of the first phase, the state had prevailed and the PFS proposal was found to be deficient.

But the board allowed PFS time to correct the deficiencies in time for the second round of hearings. And PFS prevailed after the second round.

But if PFS was given a mulligan after the first round, questioned Farrar, should not the state be given a mulligan after the second round as a matter of fairness?, Farrar questioned.

And, he asked, what would be so damaging to the process to allow experts for both sides to submit expert testimony on the actual radiation risk should storage casks be breached?

The board is expected to make its ruling on the state's motion for reconsideration within about two weeks. If the ruling goes against the state, the NRC would then review the board's findings and make a final recommendation on whether or not to license the facility.

---

E-mail: spang@desnews.com