ML12296A215
| ML12296A215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/2012 |
| From: | William Froehlich Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23652, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12296A215 (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 October 22, 2012 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
NOTICE (Supplementing Notice and Order Scheduling Oral Argument)
On September 20, 2012, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued a Notice and Order1 scheduling an oral argument to be held Monday, November 5, 2012 and continuing on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, as necessary, in the Common Pleas Courtroom of the Lucas County Courthouse, 700 Adams Street, in Toledo, Ohio. Argument will commence at 9:00 a.m. each day and will conclude no later than 4:30 p.m.2 The September 20, 2012 Notice and Order stated that the Board would endeavor to inform the parties of its areas of inquiry and examples of specific questions prior to the oral argument.3 At the present time, the Board anticipates questioning counsel for the parties on the following topics:
1 Licensing Board Notice and Order (Scheduling Oral Argument) (Sept. 20, 2012) (unpublished).
2 Id. at 7-8.
3 See id. at 9.
I. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Companys (FENOC) Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 44
- i. Discuss the relationship among FENOCs July 16, 2012 Revised SAMA Analysis Submittal,5 its July 26, 2012 Motion for Summary Disposition,6 and the SAMA issue admitted for hearing in this docket by the Board in LBP-11-13, as modified by the Commission in CLI-12-08.7 ii. Discuss the reasonableness of the use of the MAAP code for NEPA purposes, specifically as it applies to the performance of a SAMA analysis. Would the use of an alternative analysis methodology provide more appropriate results?8 iii. What is meant by code validation in the context of a SAMA analysis application versus licensing design basis application and what are the qualification or confirmation requirements for a severe accident methodology that are appropriate for use in a SAMA analysis?
iv. Do the attachments to the Motion for Summary Disposition purport to show instances where the MAAP code has been accepted or approved by the Commission? Is this the validation the Intervenors request in the contention?
- v. Does the corrected Davis-Besse SAMA sensitivity analysis imply that it covers the possible results of different codes, models, and data?
4 FirstEnergys Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis Source Terms)
(July 26, 2012) [hereinafter Motion for Summary Disposition].
5 See id., Att. 5, Letter from John C. Dominy, Director, Site Maintenance, FirstEnergy, to Document Control Desk, U.S. N.R.C., Correction of Errors in the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME4613) Environmental Report Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis, and License Renewal Application Amendment No. 29 (July 16, 2012).
6 See Motion for Summary Disposition.
7 See CLI-12-08, 75 NRC __, __-__ (Mar. 27, 2012) (slip op. at 20-21).
8 In NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC __, __ (Mar. 8, 2012) (slip op. at 29), the Commission stated that [a] contention proposing alternative inputs or methodologies must present some factual or expert basis for why the proposed changes in the analysis are warranted (e.g., why the inputs or methodology used is unreasonable, and the proposed changes or methodology would be more appropriate). Otherwise, there is no genuine material dispute with the SAMA analysis that was done, only a proposal for an alternate NEPA analysis that may be no more accurate or meaningful.
vi. FENOCs experts and the Staffs expert seem to disagree on the value of using the NUREG-1150 Source Terms for comparison with the Davis-Besse Source Terms.
Since five of the seven plants in NUREG-1465 are the same as NUREG-1150, what adjustments (as suggested by the Staffs expert) are necessary for a comparison of the Davis-Besse source term and both NUREG source terms?
vii. Be prepared to answer questions on the relationship among the NUREG-1465 In-Containment source terms, NUREG-1150, and the MAAP severe accident analyses Ex-Containment source terms.
II. Motion for Admission of Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking9 A. Questions Related to Timeliness
- i. Is the proposed Contention 5 timely? Are any of the amendments timely?
ii. When would be the proper time to file a contention on the shield building cracking issue?
iii. What would trigger the filing of a timely contention (discovery of a crack, news report of discovery of crack, report of discovery to investors, report of discovery to NRC, root cause of the crack, news article on root cause of cracking, amendment to root cause report, filing of an aging management plan, filing of an engineering plan to reestablish the design and licensing basis, etc.)?
B. Questions Related to Shield Building Cracking
- i. How do the amendments alter the proposed contention? Do they expand the scope of the contention? Do they provide additional factual support for the original contention?
ii. Is the Shield Building cracking an environmental issue or a safety issue?
iii. Do the filings show that the proposed aging management programs provide reasonable assurance that those systems, structures, and components referenced in 10 C.F.R. § 54.4 will continue to perform their intended functions consistent with the current licensing basis during the period of extended operation?
iv. Must the cracking issue be discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)? Why or why not?
9 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012).
- v. What evidence is there that the shield building cracks are or are not structural?
What evidence or facts show whether the cracking goes to the structural integrity?
Is there a material dispute? If so, what is it?
III. General Procedural Questions
- i. What is the anticipated completion date for the Draft Safety Evaluation Report?
ii. What is the anticipated completion date for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement?
The Board notes that this is not an exhaustive list of areas of inquiry or questions; the parties should be prepared to address any questions raised by the Board at oral argument.
Lastly, given that the sole purpose of this proceeding is to evaluate whether the motion for summary disposition of Contention 4 should be granted and whether proposed Contention 5 should be admitted, oral argument will only be heard from 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). In addition, the Board will not allow the presentation of any new evidence. The purpose of this oral argument is to allow the Board to seek clarification on the pleadings as they currently exist, not to allow the parties to submit new arguments or evidence.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
William J. Froehlich, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 22, 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 (Supplementing 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.
Matthew Flyntz, Law Clerk Mailstop: A-GO-15 E-mail: matthew.flyntz@nrc.gov 76 South Main Street Onika Williams, Law Clerk Akron, OH 44308 Email: onika.williams@nrc.gov David W. Jenkins, Esq.
E-mail : djenkins@firstenergycorp.com
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-346-LR NOTICE (Supplementing Notice and Order Scheduling Oral Argument)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Dont Waste Michigan 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 811 Harrison Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Monroe, Michigan 48161 Stephen Burdick, Esq. Michael Keegan E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Terry J. Lodge, Counsel for CEA, Dont Martin ONeill, Esq. Waste Michigan, and Green Party of Ohio E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520 Timothy Matthews, Esq. Toledo, OH 43604-5627 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Jane Accomando, Esq.
E-mail: jaccomando@morganlewis.com Beyond Nuclear Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com Takoma Park, Md. 20912 Kevin Kamps Citizens Environmental Alliance (CEA) E-mail : kevin@beyondnuclear.org of Southwestern Ontario Paul Gunter 1950 Ottawa Street E-mail : paul@beyondnuclear.org Windsor, Ontario Canada N8Y 197 Green Party of Ohio 2626 Robinwood Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43610
[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of October, 2012 2