ML13203A278: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 07/22/2013 | | issue date = 07/22/2013 | ||
| title = Nextera'S Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Answers to Nextera'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4D | | title = Nextera'S Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Answers to Nextera'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4D | ||
| author name = Lewis D | | author name = Lewis D | ||
| author affiliation = NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP | | author affiliation = NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:July 22, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of | {{#Wiki_filter:July 22, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) | ||
) Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) | |||
) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) ) | |||
NEXTERAS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO ANSWERS TO NEXTERAS MOTION FOR | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 4D NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ( | DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 4D NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) hereby moves for leave to file the attached reply to the answers of the NRC Staff and of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition (FOTC/NEC)1 to NextEras motion for summary disposition of Contention 4D.2 This motion is unopposed. FOTC/NEC has consented but reserves its right to respond. The NRC Staff has also consented. For purposes of judicial economy, the Staff suggests that the Board consider establishing a schedule for the parties to brief the sole remaining issue concerning consideration of uncertainty. Alternatively, the Staff respectfully requests the opportunity to respond to NextEras Reply. | ||
( | Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the Board may grant a party leave to file a reply based on compelling circumstances, such as where the moving party demonstrates that it could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments to which it seeks leave to reply. Here, the Staff Answer and FOTC/NEC Answer take the position that the cost-benefit determinations for severe 1 | ||
1 to | NRC Staff Answer to NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition Contention 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (July 15, 2013) (Staff Answer); Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Answer to NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4B (SAMA Source Terms) and Contention 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (July 15, 2013) (FOTC/NEC Answer). | ||
2 | 2 NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition Contention 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (May 10, 2013) (Motion). | ||
2 | |||
accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) should be based on upper bound estimates derived from an uncertainty analysis using the 95th percentile core damage frequency. As discussed in the attached reply, this position appears inconsistent with substantial Commission precedent and guidance, and therefore could not reasonably have been anticipated by NextEra. Further, NextEra could not have anticipated that FOTC/NEC would admit the reasonableness of the atmospheric dispersion model used in NextEras SAMA analysis, abandon every claim set forth in Contention 4D challenging the reasonableness of that model, and yet still argue that NextEra must nevertheless base its cost-benefit determinations on the results of a sensitivity analysis performed in order to demonstrate the now-stipulated reasonableness of the original model. For these reasons, the Board should grant this unopposed Motion. | |||
CERTIFICATION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. §2.323(b), counsel for NextEra conferred with the representatives of the other parties in a sincere effort to resolve the matters at issue in the instant Motion prior to the filing of the Motion, as reflected by the parties consent and comments reflected above. | |||
Respectfully Submitted, | |||
/Signed electronically by David R. Lewis / | |||
Steven C. Hamrick David R. Lewis NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 220 2300 N St. NW Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-349-3496 Telephone: 202-663-8474 Dated: July 22, 2013 Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 2 | |||
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ) | |||
) Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) | |||
) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) ) | |||
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing NextEras Unopposed Motion for Leave to File A Reply to Answers to NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4D has been served through the E-Filing system on the participants in the above-captioned proceeding, this 22nd day of July 2013. | |||
/Signed electronically by David R. Lewis/ | |||
David R. Lewis}} | David R. Lewis}} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:46, 4 November 2019
| ML13203A278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/2013 |
| From: | Doris Lewis NextEra Energy Seabrook, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 24838, 50-443-LR, ASLBP 10-906-02-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML13203A278 (3) | |
Text
July 22, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC )
) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )
NEXTERAS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO ANSWERS TO NEXTERAS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 4D NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) hereby moves for leave to file the attached reply to the answers of the NRC Staff and of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition (FOTC/NEC)1 to NextEras motion for summary disposition of Contention 4D.2 This motion is unopposed. FOTC/NEC has consented but reserves its right to respond. The NRC Staff has also consented. For purposes of judicial economy, the Staff suggests that the Board consider establishing a schedule for the parties to brief the sole remaining issue concerning consideration of uncertainty. Alternatively, the Staff respectfully requests the opportunity to respond to NextEras Reply.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the Board may grant a party leave to file a reply based on compelling circumstances, such as where the moving party demonstrates that it could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments to which it seeks leave to reply. Here, the Staff Answer and FOTC/NEC Answer take the position that the cost-benefit determinations for severe 1
NRC Staff Answer to NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition Contention 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (July 15, 2013) (Staff Answer); Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Answer to NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4B (SAMA Source Terms) and Contention 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (July 15, 2013) (FOTC/NEC Answer).
2 NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition Contention 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (May 10, 2013) (Motion).
accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) should be based on upper bound estimates derived from an uncertainty analysis using the 95th percentile core damage frequency. As discussed in the attached reply, this position appears inconsistent with substantial Commission precedent and guidance, and therefore could not reasonably have been anticipated by NextEra. Further, NextEra could not have anticipated that FOTC/NEC would admit the reasonableness of the atmospheric dispersion model used in NextEras SAMA analysis, abandon every claim set forth in Contention 4D challenging the reasonableness of that model, and yet still argue that NextEra must nevertheless base its cost-benefit determinations on the results of a sensitivity analysis performed in order to demonstrate the now-stipulated reasonableness of the original model. For these reasons, the Board should grant this unopposed Motion.
CERTIFICATION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. §2.323(b), counsel for NextEra conferred with the representatives of the other parties in a sincere effort to resolve the matters at issue in the instant Motion prior to the filing of the Motion, as reflected by the parties consent and comments reflected above.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Signed electronically by David R. Lewis /
Steven C. Hamrick David R. Lewis NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 220 2300 N St. NW Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-349-3496 Telephone: 202-663-8474 Dated: July 22, 2013 Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC )
) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing NextEras Unopposed Motion for Leave to File A Reply to Answers to NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4D has been served through the E-Filing system on the participants in the above-captioned proceeding, this 22nd day of July 2013.
/Signed electronically by David R. Lewis/
David R. Lewis