ML14023A885
| ML14023A885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/2014 |
| From: | Vickers J Environmental Law & Policy Ctr |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-454-LR, 50-455-LR, 50-456-LR, 50-457-LR, ASLBP 13-929-02-LR-BD01, RAS 25518 | |
| Download: ML14023A885 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, 50-456, 50-Exelon Generation Company, LLC 457 (Braidwood Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 and Byron Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) January 23, 2014 ELPCS ANSWER OPPOSING EXELONS MOTION TO STRIKE ELPCS REPLY Petitioner Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) hereby answers to Exelon Generations Motion to Strike ELPCs Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Reply, filed on January 13, 2014. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not strike ELPCs Reply, but should instead grant ELPCs Motion for Leave to File Its Reply and consider the Reply itself.
The Board should also reject Exelons request to strike portions of ELPCs Reply because ELPC does not raise a new argument regarding waiver of its Contention 1 argument, but is clarifying ELPCs position in direct response to Exelons and the Commission Staffs arguments in their Answers to ELPCs appeal.
I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ALLOW ELPCS REPLY.
The Commission should grant ELPCs attached Motion for Leave to File Its Reply. The ASLBs November 19, 2013 Order at page 4 states that ELPCs sole remedy to challenge the wisdom or lawfulness of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2) is to file a petition for rulemaking with the Commission itself. ELPCs request for protective stay is a necessary, fair and reasonable approach to make sure that ELPC will be able to have its position regarding the wisdom or lawfulness of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2) considered in the Byron 1 & 2 and Braidwood 1 & 2 license renewals. This is a way to follow the ASLBs prescribed course while ensuring that 1
ELPC is able to raise its contention in this proceeding involving the realities of todays merchant generating plants that are not specifically contemplated in the Commissions regulations.
ELPCs request for protective stay with its appeal of the ASLBs rejection of ELPCs petition for hearing and intervention (10 C.F.R. § 2.311) is a sensible and straightforward way to seek assurance from the Commission that ELPC would retain its ability to raise its Contention 1 argument while it pursues a petition for rulemaking as prescribed by the ASLB. Because Commission regulations are silent as to whether a reply is allowed under these circumstances, and Exelons and Staffs Answers demonstrated misunderstandings regarding ELPCs request for protective stay, ELPC filed a Reply pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341.
ELPC now moves for the Commissions leave to file its reply. The Commission permits replies where necessity and fairness dictates. U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository), 67 N.R.C. 386, 393 (2008). Here, it is necessary for ELPC to reply to Exelons and Staffs Answers in order to clear up misunderstandings as to ELPCs stay request and it is fair because ELPCs request is driven by its good-faith effort to follow the ASLBs prescribed procedure. Therefore, the Commission should grant ELPC leave to file its Reply.
II. ELPCS REPLY DOES NOT RAISE A NEW ARGUMENT.
The Commission should not strike Part II of ELPCs Reply, which clarifies that ELPC is not permanently waiving the merits of its Contention 1 argument. Exelon argues that ELPC raises one new claim when it responds to Staffs claim in its Answer that ELPC has waived its right to appeal the merits of its Contention 1 argument. Exelon Motion at 4; Staff Answer at
- 7. ELPC is not raising a new claim, but is plainly clarifying its position and the scope of its request for protective stay in direct response to Staffs Answer.
2
Staffs Answer has a section arguing that ELPCs Protective Stay Request Waives an Appeal of LBP-13-12. Staff Answer at 7. ELPCs Reply does not raise a new claim, but responds directly and narrowly to Staffs argument that ELPC has somehow waived its right to appeal. ELPC clarifies that while it is not directly appealing its intervention denial in LBP-13-12, ELPC is seeking in this proceeding, and with its forthcoming petition for rulemaking, to have ELPCs Contention 1 issue addressed in the context of the Byron 1 & 2 and Braidwood 1 & 2 license renewals. ELPCs reply on this point is simply to make sure its position is clear, not to introduce a new claim. The Commission should reject Exelons motion to strike Part II of ELPCs Reply because it is not a new claim, but rather is in direct response to an argument raised by Staff and is plainly clarifying ELPCs position on its existing Contention 1 claim.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should reject Exelons Motion to Strike ELPCs Reply and grant ELPCs Motion for Leave to File Its Reply.
Respectfully Submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Justin Vickers Environmental Law and Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 673-6500 jvickers@elpc.org Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy Center Dated in Chicago, IL this 23rd day of January, 2014 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-454-LR
) 50-455-LR EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC ) 50-456-LR
) 50-457-LR (Byron Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; )
Braidwood Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) ) January 23, 2014
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (as revised), I certify that on this date, a copy of ELPCS Answer Opposing Exelons Motion to Strike ELPCs Reply was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.
Signed (electronically) by Justin Vickers Justin Vickers Environmental Law and Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 673-6500 jvickers@elpc.org Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy Center