ML12044A306
| ML12044A306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/2012 |
| From: | William Froehlich, Kastenberg W, Nicholas Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21905, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12044A306 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
William J. Froehlich, Chairman Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. William E. Kastenberg In the Matter of: Docket No. 50-346-LR FirstEnergy NUCLEAR OPERATING ASLBP No. 11-907-01-LR-BD01 COMPANY February 13, 2012 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 and SETTING PROPOSED CONTENTION 5s ADMISSIBILITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Joint Intervenors) filed a motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit a newly-proposed Contention 5 regarding shield building cracking.1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff) filed answers to the proposed Contention 5 on February 6, 2012.2 Proposed Contention 5 reads as follows:
1 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012)
(Contention 5).
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).
Interveners contend that FirstEnergys recently-discovered, extensive cracking of unknown origin in the Davis-Besse shield building/secondary reactor radiological containment structure is an aging-related feature of the plant, the condition of which precludes safe operation of the atomic reactor beyond 2017 for any period of time, let alone the proposed 20-year license period.3 On February 9, 2012, FENOC filed an unopposed motion requesting leave from the Board to file a short response to the NRC Staffs Answer.4 FENOC requested that the Board schedule oral argument on Contention 5 should the Board deny the Motion. FENOC desires to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and the following revised contention language advanced in the NRC Staffs Answer:
Is the Structures AMP adequate to address any aging effects for the shield building that are related to the cracks identified by FENOC during the October 10, 2011 reactor head replacement and subject to a root cause evaluation to be provided by FENOC on February 28, 2012 such that the shield building would be unable to perform its intended functions of: 1)protecting the steel containment from environmental effects, including wind, tornado, and external missiles, 2) providing biological shielding, 3) providing controlled release of the annulus during an accident, and 4) providing a means for collection and filtration of fission product leakage from the Containment Vessel following a hypothetical accident?5 Rather than begin a flurry of responsive pleadings, the Board believes that oral argument would be helpful in deciding the admissibility of proposed Contention 5. The Board will therefore set this matter for oral argument at a time and place to be announced. The Boards law clerk will 3
Contention 5 at 11.
4 FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 9, 2012). Counsel for FENOC certified 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. Id. at 2, n.4. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOCs request to file a responsive brief. Id. Counsel for Joint Intervenors similarly indicated that Joint Intervenors would not oppose FENOCs request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Joint Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading. Id.
5 Staff Answer at 16.
contact the parties to arrange a mutually convenient time and place to hold said oral argument.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
William J. Froehlich, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland February 13, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
FIRST ENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING )
COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-346-LR
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
Office of Commission Appellate Office of the Secretary of the Commission Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mail Stop O-15D21 Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov William J. Froehlich, Chair Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
Administrative Judge E-mail: lloyd.subin@nrc.gov E-mail: william.froehlich@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.
E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
Administrative Judge E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Brian P. Newell, Paralegal E-mail: brian.newell@nrc.gov William E. Kastenberg Administrative Judge OGC Mail Center : OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov FirstEnergy Service Company.
Hillary Cain, Law Clerk Mailstop: A-GO-15 E-mail: hillary.cain@nrc.gov 76 South Main Street Matthew Flyntz, Law Clerk Akron, OH 44308 E-mail: matthew.flyntz@nrc.gov David W. Jenkins, Esq.
E-mail : djenkins@firstenergycorp.com
Docket No. 50-346-LR ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Citizens Environmental Alliance (CEA) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW of Southwestern Ontario Washington, D.C. 20004 1950 Ottawa Street Stephen Burdick, Esq. Windsor, Ontario Canada N8Y 197 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Alex Polonsky, Esq. Green Party of Ohio E-mail: apolonsky@morganlewis.com 2626 Robinwood Avenue Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Toledo, Ohio 43610 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Martin ONeill, Esq. Dont Waste Michigan E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 811 Harrison Street Timothy Matthews, Esq. Monroe, Michigan 48161 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com Michael Keegan Brooke Leach, Esq. E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net E-mail: bleach@morganlewis.com Jane Diecker, Esq. Terry J. Lodge, Counsel for CEA, Dont E-mail: jdiecker@morganlewis.com Waste Michigan, and Green Party of Ohio Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520 E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com Toledo, OH 43604-5627 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 Takoma Park, Md. 20912 Kevin Kamps E-mail : kevin@beyondnuclear.org Paul Gunter E-mail : paul@beyondnuclear.org
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day of February 2012 2