ML21302A159
| ML21302A159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/2021 |
| From: | Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Gary Arnold, Nicholas Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-269-SLR, 50-270-SLR, 50-287-SLR, ASLBP 22-973-01-SLR-BD01, RAS 56288 | |
| Download: ML21302A159 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before the Licensing Board:
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman NicholasG.Trikouros Dr. Gary S. Arnold
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-269-SLR, 50-270-SLR, and 50-287-SLR DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC ASLBP No. 22-973-01-SLR-BD01 (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3)
October 29, 2021
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Initial Prehearing Conference Scheduling and Procedures)
In this 10 C.F.R. Part 50 subsequent license renewal (SLR) proceeding, as described
herein, the Licensing Board will conduct a webconference oral argument regarding the issues of
whether an adequate showing has been made to obtain a 10 C.F.R. § 2.335 waiver and
contention admissibility. To assist in scheduling this initial prehearing conference, the Board is
requesting information from the participants to this proceeding (i.e., petitioners Beyond Nuclear,
Inc., and the Sierra Club, Inc. (collectively Petitioners), applicant Duke Energy Corp. (Duke),
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff), as delineated below. In addition, the
Board sets forth below an outline of the procedures that will govern the argument.
A. Prehearing Conference Schedule
The Board will provide a list of proposed dates/t imes for the argument to take place
during the week of November 15, 2021, by e-mail through its law clerk Brooke Taylor
(Brooke.Taylor@nrc.gov), to be sent contemporaneously with the issuance of this memorandum
and order. The Board requests that on or before noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, one representative of the participants to this proceeding send an e-mail to
Ms. Taylor, with a copy to the other participants, listing one or more agreed dates and times
during which all the participants will be available for this prehearing conference. The Board
anticipates the argument will last no longer than three hours.
That e-mail also should provide for each of the three participants (i.e., Petitioners, Duke,
and the NRC Staff) the name of the single counsel who will be making a presentation on behalf
of that participant.1
B. Conducting the Initial Prehearing Conference
The argument will be conducted virtually using the Cisco WebEx web conferencing
platform. Prior to the conference, the Boards Information Technology staff will conduct a test
with the parties to identify and mitigate any technical issues that might arise during the status
conference. The test session schedule will be established once the oral argument date is set.
Also, after the date for the prehearing conference is established, the Boards law clerk will
contact the participants counsel by e-mail to provide the requisite information to join the Cisco
WebEx status conference, as well as information regarding access to listen-only telephone lines
1 Given the limited scope of the issues before the Board and the time allotted to each of the three participants for argument, see infra p. 3, the Board does not anticipate hearing from more than one counsel for each participant. Those counsel will also be the only participant representative given WebEx video access to the argument per section B below, with all other counsel and participant representatives being afforded access to the argument via a listen-only telephone connection.
The Board recognizes, however, that because of COVID-19 pandemic-related protocols and other circumstances, a participants counsel ma y not be in the presence of those individuals who might be able to provide information that would help frame the most accurate response to a Board inquiry, particularly regarding technical matters. If a participant believes it needs video access to the argument for more than one representative, by the Wednesday deadline cited above it should provide a separate e-mail to the Boards law clerk, with a copy to all other participants, that identifies the additional individual(s) who should be given video access and explains why such access is necessary (as opposed to making other arrangements that will allow counsel to consult promptly with ot her knowledgeable individuals in formulating a response to a Board question).
for others wanting to hear the conference, including interested members of the public and the
press.
The primary purpose of this oral argument is to allow the Board to ask questions and
obtain answers concerning the issues of the sufficiency of the Petitioners waiver showing and
contention admissibility presented by the participants pleadings in connection with Petitioners
Contention 2, Failure to Consider New and Significant Information Regarding Significant
Impacts of Reactor Accidents Caused by Failure of Jocassee Dam, and Contention 3, Failure to
Consider New and Significant Information Affecting Dukes Analysis of Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives.2 Petitioners will have 30 minutes to present their arguments on all
issues, with the NRC Staff and Duke each allott ed 20 minutes to respond. Petitioners may
reserve up to 10 minutes of their prescribed time for rebuttal. No other rebuttal will be
permitted.
In general, in their oral presentations participants counsel should not merely repeat
arguments presented in their written filings. Instead, they should focus on (1) identifying the
principal points in controversy and the information that supports or rebuts their legal and/or
factual claims regarding those matters; and (2) responding to the Boards questions. And
because the argument is not an evidentiary hearing, the participants should not attempt to
2 Petitioners standing, which is not contested, see NRC Staffs Answer Opposing
[Petitioners] Hearing Request (Oct. 22, 2021) at 2; Applicants Answer Opposing Request for Hearing, Petition to Intervene, and Petition for Waiver Submitted by [Petitioners] (Oct. 22, 2021) at 1 n.3, will not be a subject of the argument. In addition, the Board does not anticipate that Petitioners Contention 1, Failure to Comply with 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2), will be a subject of the argument given this Board is bound by the precedent set out by the Commission regarding section 51.53(c)s applicability to an SLR proceeding. See Va. Elec. & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 4, 93 NRC 179, 189 n.11 (2021) (citing Fla. Power &
Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant Units 3 and 4), CLI 3, 91 N.R.C. 133, 141-45 (2020); Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI 11, 92 NRC 335, 342-44 (2020)), appeal pending.
- 4 -
introduce evidence during the argument. Consequently, material that has not already been
cited in the participants pleadings before the Board should not be used.
Although the participants counsel will be appearing remotely, the Board encourages all
those taking part in the oral argument to conduct themselves as if in a hearing room setting,
including seeking to minimize outside noise and interruptions while the conference is ongoing.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/RA/
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
Rockville, Maryland
October 29, 2021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
In the Matter of )
)
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC, ) Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 & 50-287-SLR DUKE ENERY )
)
(Oconee Nuclear Station )
Units 1, 2 and 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Initial Prehearing Conference Scheduling and Procedures) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan Vrahoretis, Esq.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman David E. Roth, Esq.
Administrative Judge Megan A. Wright, Esq.
Mary F. Woods, Esq.
Nicholas G. Trikouros Joseph M. Azeizat, Esq.
Administrative Judge Brian Newell, Senior Paralegal Georgiann E. Hampton, Paralegal Dr. Gary S. Arnold Amanda Black, Paralegal Administrative Judge E-mail: susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov Ian Curry, Law Clerk megan.wright@nrc.gov mary.woods@nrc.gov Brooke Taylor, Law Clerk joseph.azeizat@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov Allison Wood, Law Clerk georgiann.hampton@nrc.gov amanda.black@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov gary.arnold@nrc.gov ian.curry@nrc.gov brooke.taylor@nrc.gov allison.wood@nrc.gov Oconee Power Station (Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287-SLR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Initial Prehearing Conference Scheduling and Procedures)
Duke Energy
Tracey LeRoy, Esq.
550 South Tryon Street, 45A Charlotte, NC 28202 tracey.leroy@duke-energy.com
Counsel for Duke Energy
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Paul Bessette, Esq.
Ryan Lighty, Esq.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com
Paul Vernon Gunter, Esq.
7304 Carroll Avenue #182 Takoma Park, MD 20912 paul@beyondnuclear.org
Counsel for Beyond Nuclear
Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg 1725 DeSales Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 dcurran@harmoncurran.com
Office of the Secretary of the Commission
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of October 2021.
2