ML12088A340
| ML12088A340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/2012 |
| From: | William Froehlich Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22100, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12088A340 (6) | |
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 March 28, 2012 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
NOTICE AND ORDER (Scheduling Oral Argument)
On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (collectively Intervenors) filed a proposed Contention 5 in this proceeding.1 This Board issued an Order on February 13, 2012 stating that we would hear oral argument on its admissibility.2 Contention 5 as proposed by the Intervenors reads as follows:
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 1
Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012)
(Contention 5).
2 Licensing Board Order (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument) (Feb. 13, 2012) at 2 (unpublished) (Order).
which precludes safe operation of the atomic reactor beyond 2017 for any period of time, let alone the proposed 20-year license period.3 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and NRC Staff filed answers to the motion on February 6, 2012.4 FENOC asserts that Contention 5 is inadmissible because it is untimely and it fails to satisfy the contention admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).5 NRC Staff argues that Contention 5 was filed untimely, but that the Intervenors have satisfied the requirements for the filing of an untimely contention, despite Intervenors failure to make such an argument in their motion.6 NRC Staff also argues that Contention 5 is admissible in part, and proposes the following language for Contention 5:
Is the Structures [Aging Management Program] 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 to 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?7 On February 9, 2012, FENOC filed an unopposed motion requesting leave from the Board to file a short response to the NRC Staffs Answer.8 The Intervenors filed a reply on February 13, 3
Contention 5 at 11.
4 See FENOCs Answer Opposing Intervenors Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) [hereinafter FENOC Answer]; NRC Staffs Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) [hereinafter NRC Staff Answer].
5 FENOC Answer at 2.
6 NRC Staff Answer at 13-14.
7 Id. at 16.
8 FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 9, 2012).
2012.9 That same day this Board issued an Order denying FENOCs motion for leave to respond to the NRC Staff and setting Contention 5 for oral argument.10 The oral argument will be held on Friday, May 18, 2012, in the Common Pleas Courtroom of the Ottawa County Courthouse, 315 Madison Street, in Port Clinton, Ohio. Argument will commence at 9:00 a.m. and will conclude no later than 4:30 p.m..
Only the duly authorized representatives or counsel for the Intervenors, FENOC, and the NRC Staff who have entered an appearance pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.314(b) will be entitled to participate. The oral argument will proceed as follows. First, we will hear short opening statements, limited to ten minutes each, from the Intervenors, FENOC and the NRC Staff. Second, we will hear oral argument on the admissibility of Contention 5. Third, we will hear closing statements, limited to five minutes each, from each of the parties.
Counsel for the parties should be prepared to address the admissibility of Contention 5 as proposed by the Intervenors as well as the version of Contention 5 proposed by the NRC Staff.
Should the parties reach an agreement on the form or admissibility of the contention prior to the scheduled oral argument, they are requested to inform the Board.
No witnesses, other representatives of the parties, or members of the public will be heard at this time. However, members of the public and representatives of the media are welcome to attend and observe this proceeding. This is an adjudicatory proceeding and the Board intends to conduct an orderly oral argument, focused solely on whether some form of Contention 5 should be admitted. Signs, banners, posters, and displays are prohibited in accordance with NRC policy.11 9
Intervenors Combined Reply in Support of Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 (Feb. 13, 2012).
10 See Order at 2.
11 See Procedures for Providing Security Support for NRC Public Meetings/Hearings, 66 Fed. Reg.
31,719 (June 12, 2001).
All interested persons should arrive at least fifteen minutes early so as to allow sufficient time to pass through any security screening.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
William J. Froehlich, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland March 28, 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 NOTICE AND ORDER (Scheduling 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 NOTICE AND ORDER (Scheduling 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 28th day of March 2012 2