ML12040A170

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Fenoc'S Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staff'S Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking
ML12040A170
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 02/09/2012
From: Burdick S, Jenkins D, Matthews T, Sutton K
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21871, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01
Download: ML12040A170 (5)


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ) February 9, 2012

)

FENOCS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO THE NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 ON SHIELD BUILDING CRACKING On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Intervenors) filed a Motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit newly-proposed Contention 5 (proposed Contention) regarding Shield Building cracking.1 Both FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff filed Answers to the proposed Contention on February 6, 2012.2 The Staff agreed with FENOC that the proposed Contention was not timely filed under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and the Initial Scheduling Order. Unlike FENOC, however, the Staff concluded that, although not specifically pled by the Intervenors, the factors for non-timely contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) supported timeliness of a revised contention with new wording supplied by the Staff.3 Because the Staff Answer advances arguments not pled by Intervenors themselves, and more importantly, because the Staff Answer supplies revised contention language that FENOC will not otherwise have an opportunity to address in the record, 1

Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012).

2 NRC Staffs Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) (Staff Answer); FENOCs Answer Opposing Intervenors Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012).

3 Staff Answer at 9-16.

DB1/ 69050454.3

FENOC moves for leave from the Board to file a Response to the Staff Answer in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. The other parties do not oppose FENOCs request.4 Pursuant to the Boards Initial Scheduling Order Section B, FENOC has no automatic right to file a brief in response to another partys Answer. However, the new arguments and modified contention language supplied for the first time in the Staff Answer give rise to exactly the type of compelling circumstances contemplated by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) because FENOC could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments made by the Staff.5 As the non-moving party with respect to Intervenors proposed Contention, FENOC respectfully requests an opportunity to address on the record the Staffs arguments against FENOCs interests. FENOC could not reasonably have anticipated the Staffs suggestion of revised contention language, or other new arguments, because FENOC and the Staff filed their Answers on the same day.

Accordingly, FENOC requests a limited-scope opportunity to respond to the new arguments and suggested revised contention language.

For these reasons, FENOC requests that the Board grant this motion and allow FENOC until Friday, February 17 to file a short Response to the Staff Answer. In the alternative, should the Board not grant this motion, FENOC requests that the Board hold oral argument on the proposed Contention, which would provide FENOC an opportunity to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and revised contention language first advanced in the Staff Answer.

4 Counsel for FENOC certifies under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other Parties regarding this request. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOCs request to file a responsive brief. Counsel for Intervenors similarly indicated that Intervenors would not oppose FENOCs request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading; FENOC does not oppose.

5 If the Board does not consider this Motion appropriate under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), then FENOC requests the Board consider it as a general motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a).

DB1/ 69050454.3 2

Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

Signed (electronically) by Timothy P. Matthews Timothy P. Matthews Kathryn M. Sutton Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5527 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com David W. Jenkins Senior Corporate Counsel FirstEnergy Service Company Mailstop: A-GO-15 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-384-5037 E-mail: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 9th day of February 2012 DB1/ 69050454.3 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ) February 9, 2012

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, a copy of FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking was filed with the Electronic Information Exchange in the above-captioned proceeding on the following recipients.

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge William J. Froehlich, Chair Dr. Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wjf1@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel Dr. William E. Kastenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop O-15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Brian G. Harris E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov Megan Wright Emily L. Monteith Catherine E. Kanatas Office of the Secretary E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Megan.Wright@nrc.gov; Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Emily.Monteith@nrc.gov; Washington, DC 20555-0001 Catherine.Kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov DB1/ 69050454.3

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Michael Keegan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dont Waste Michigan Mail Stop: O-16C1 811 Harrison Street Washington, DC 20555-0001 Monroe, MI 48161 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net Kevin Kamps Terry J. Lodge Paul Gunter 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Beyond Nuclear Toledo, OH 43604 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: kevin@beyondnuclear.org; paul@beyondnuclear.org Signed (electronically) by Stephen J. Burdick Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5059 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC DB1/ 69050454.3