ML12040A170: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:DB1/ 69050454.3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                         )
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of       )  
                                                                      )
        ) Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY )
In the Matter of                                                     )
        )
                                                                      )       Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY                                 )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)   ) February 9, 2012  
                                                                      )
                  ) FENOC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO THE NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 ON SHIELD BUILDING CRACKING On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Part y of Ohio ("Intervenors") filed a Motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") to admit newly-proposed Contention 5
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)                           )       February 9, 2012
("proposed Contention") regardi ng Shield Building cracking.
                                                                      )
1 Both FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company ("FENOC") and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
FENOCS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO THE NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 ON SHIELD BUILDING CRACKING On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Intervenors) filed a Motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit newly-proposed Contention 5 (proposed Contention) regarding Shield Building cracking.1 Both FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff filed Answers to the proposed Contention on February 6, 2012.2 The Staff agreed with FENOC that the proposed Contention was not timely filed under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and the Initial Scheduling Order. Unlike FENOC, however, the Staff concluded that, although not specifically pled by the Intervenors, the factors for non-timely contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) supported timeliness of a revised contention with new wording supplied by the Staff.3 Because the Staff Answer advances arguments not pled by Intervenors themselves, and more importantly, because the Staff Answer supplies revised contention language that FENOC will not otherwise have an opportunity to address in the record, 1
("NRC") Staff filed Answers to the proposed C ontention on February 6, 2012.
Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012).
2   The Staff agreed with FENOC that the proposed Contention was not timely filed under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and the In itial Scheduling Order. Unli ke FENOC, however, the Staff concluded that, although not specifically pled by the Intervenors, the factors for non-timely contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) supported timeliness of a revised contention with new wording supplied by the Staff.
2 NRC Staffs Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) (Staff Answer); FENOCs Answer Opposing Intervenors Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012).
3 Because the Staff Answer a dvances arguments not pled by Intervenors themselves, and more importantly, because the Staff Answer supplies revised contention language that FENOC will not otherwise have an opportunity to address in the record, 1 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012).
3 Staff Answer at 9-16.
2 NRC Staff's Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) ("Staff Answer"); FENOC's Answer Opposing Intervenors' Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012).
DB1/ 69050454.3
3 Staff Answer at 9-16.
DB1/ 69050454.3 2FENOC moves for leave from the Board to file a Response to the Staff Answer in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. The other parties do not oppose FENOC's request.
4  Pursuant to the Board's Initial Scheduling Order Section B, FENOC has no automatic right to file a brief in respons e to another party's Answer. However, the new arguments and modified contention language supplied for the first time in the Staff Answer give rise to exactly the type of "compelling circumstances" contem plated by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) because FENOC could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments made by the Staff.
5  As the non-moving party with respect to Intervenors' propos ed Contention, FENOC respectfully requests an opportunity to address on the record the Staff's arguments against FENOC's interests. FENOC could not reasonably have antici pated the Staff's suggestion of revised contention language, or other new arguments, because FENOC and the Staff filed their Answers on the same day. Accordingly, FENOC requests a limited-scope opportunity to respond to the new arguments and suggested revised contention language. For these reasons, FENOC requests that th e Board grant this mo tion and allow FENOC until Friday, February 17 to file a short Response to the Staff Answer. In the alternative, should the Board not grant this motion, FENOC requests that the Board hold oral argument on the proposed Contention, which would provide FENOC an opportunity to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and revised contention language first advanced in the Staff Answer. 


4 Counsel for FENOC certifies under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other Parties regarding this request. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOC's request to file a responsive brief. Counsel for Intervenors similarly indicated that Intervenors would not oppose FENOC's request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading; FENOC does not oppose.
FENOC moves for leave from the Board to file a Response to the Staff Answer in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. The other parties do not oppose FENOCs request.4 Pursuant to the Boards Initial Scheduling Order Section B, FENOC has no automatic right to file a brief in response to another partys Answer. However, the new arguments and modified contention language supplied for the first time in the Staff Answer give rise to exactly the type of compelling circumstances contemplated by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) because FENOC could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments made by the Staff.5 As the non-moving party with respect to Intervenors proposed Contention, FENOC respectfully requests an opportunity to address on the record the Staffs arguments against FENOCs interests. FENOC could not reasonably have anticipated the Staffs suggestion of revised contention language, or other new arguments, because FENOC and the Staff filed their Answers on the same day.
5 If the Board does not consider this Motion appropriate under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), then FENOC requests the Board consider it as a general motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a).
Accordingly, FENOC requests a limited-scope opportunity to respond to the new arguments and suggested revised contention language.
DB1/ 69050454.3 3      Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
For these reasons, FENOC requests that the Board grant this motion and allow FENOC until Friday, February 17 to file a short Response to the Staff Answer. In the alternative, should the Board not grant this motion, FENOC requests that the Board hold oral argument on the proposed Contention, which would provide FENOC an opportunity to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and revised contention language first advanced in the Staff Answer.
Signed (electronically) by Timothy P. Matthews Timothy P. Matthews Kathryn M. Sutton
4 Counsel for FENOC certifies under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other Parties regarding this request. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOCs request to file a responsive brief. Counsel for Intervenors similarly indicated that Intervenors would not oppose FENOCs request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading; FENOC does not oppose.
5 If the Board does not consider this Motion appropriate under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), then FENOC requests the Board consider it as a general motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a).
DB1/ 69050454.3 2


Stephen J. Burdick  
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Signed (electronically) by Timothy P. Matthews Timothy P. Matthews Kathryn M. Sutton Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5527 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com David W. Jenkins Senior Corporate Counsel FirstEnergy Service Company Mailstop: A-GO-15 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-384-5037 E-mail: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 9th day of February 2012 DB1/ 69050454.3 3


Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.  
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                                  )
In the Matter of                                                )
                                                                  )      Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY                            )
                                                                  )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)                      )      February 9, 2012
                                                                  )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, a copy of FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking was filed with the Electronic Information Exchange in the above-captioned proceeding on the following recipients.
Administrative Judge                                      Administrative Judge William J. Froehlich, Chair                                Dr. Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                    Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                                  Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wjf1@nrc.gov                                      E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                                      Office of the General Counsel Dr. William E. Kastenberg                                  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel                    Mail Stop O-15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                        Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                                  Brian G. Harris E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov                                      Megan Wright Emily L. Monteith Catherine E. Kanatas Office of the Secretary                                    E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                        Megan.Wright@nrc.gov; Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff                        Emily.Monteith@nrc.gov; Washington, DC 20555-0001                                  Catherine.Kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov DB1/ 69050454.3


Washington, DC 20004
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication       Michael Keegan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission               Dont Waste Michigan Mail Stop: O-16C1                                 811 Harrison Street Washington, DC 20555-0001                         Monroe, MI 48161 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov                         E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net Kevin Kamps                                      Terry J. Lodge Paul Gunter                                      316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Beyond Nuclear                                    Toledo, OH 43604 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400                    E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: kevin@beyondnuclear.org; paul@beyondnuclear.org Signed (electronically) by Stephen J. Burdick Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
 
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5059 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC DB1/ 69050454.3
Phone:  202-739-5527 E-mail:  tmatthews@morganlewis.com
                                            }}
 
David W. Jenkins
 
Senior Corporate Counsel
 
FirstEnergy Service Company Mailstop: A-GO-15
 
76 South Main Street
 
Akron, OH 44308
 
Phone: 330-384-5037 E-mail: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 9th day of February 2012 DB1/ 69050454.3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                          )
In the Matter of        )
        ) Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY ) 
        )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)    ) February 9, 2012
                  )  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, a copy of "FENOC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staff's Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking" was filed with the Electronic Information Exchange in the above-captioned proceeding on the following recipients.
Administrative Judge William J. Froehlich, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: wjf1@nrc.gov
 
Administrative Judge Dr. William E. Kastenberg Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov
 
Office of the Secretary
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov
 
Administrative Judge Dr. Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov
 
Office of the General Counsel 
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15D21
 
Washington, DC  20555-0001
 
Brian G. Harris Megan Wright Emily L. Monteith Catherine E. Kanatas E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov; Megan.Wright@nrc.gov; Emily.Monteith@nrc.gov;
 
Catherine.Kanatas@nrc.gov
 
DB1/ 69050454.3
  -    - 2 
 
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication  
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1  
 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov  
 
Kevin Kamps
 
Paul Gunter
 
Beyond Nuclear
 
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: kevin@beyondnuclear.org;
 
paul@beyondnuclear.org
 
Michael Keegan Don't Waste Michigan
 
811 Harrison Street
 
Monroe, MI 48161 E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net
 
Terry J. Lodge  
 
316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520  
 
Toledo, OH 43604 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Signed (electronically) by Stephen J. Burdick Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.  
 
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5059 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com  
 
COUNSEL FOR FENOC}}

Latest revision as of 09:33, 12 November 2019

Fenoc'S Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staff'S Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking
ML12040A170
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 02/09/2012
From: Burdick S, Jenkins D, Matthews T, Sutton K
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21871, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01
Download: ML12040A170 (5)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ) February 9, 2012

)

FENOCS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO THE NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 ON SHIELD BUILDING CRACKING On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Intervenors) filed a Motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit newly-proposed Contention 5 (proposed Contention) regarding Shield Building cracking.1 Both FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff filed Answers to the proposed Contention on February 6, 2012.2 The Staff agreed with FENOC that the proposed Contention was not timely filed under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) and the Initial Scheduling Order. Unlike FENOC, however, the Staff concluded that, although not specifically pled by the Intervenors, the factors for non-timely contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) supported timeliness of a revised contention with new wording supplied by the Staff.3 Because the Staff Answer advances arguments not pled by Intervenors themselves, and more importantly, because the Staff Answer supplies revised contention language that FENOC will not otherwise have an opportunity to address in the record, 1

Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012).

2 NRC Staffs Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) (Staff Answer); FENOCs Answer Opposing Intervenors Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012).

3 Staff Answer at 9-16.

DB1/ 69050454.3

FENOC moves for leave from the Board to file a Response to the Staff Answer in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323. The other parties do not oppose FENOCs request.4 Pursuant to the Boards Initial Scheduling Order Section B, FENOC has no automatic right to file a brief in response to another partys Answer. However, the new arguments and modified contention language supplied for the first time in the Staff Answer give rise to exactly the type of compelling circumstances contemplated by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) because FENOC could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments made by the Staff.5 As the non-moving party with respect to Intervenors proposed Contention, FENOC respectfully requests an opportunity to address on the record the Staffs arguments against FENOCs interests. FENOC could not reasonably have anticipated the Staffs suggestion of revised contention language, or other new arguments, because FENOC and the Staff filed their Answers on the same day.

Accordingly, FENOC requests a limited-scope opportunity to respond to the new arguments and suggested revised contention language.

For these reasons, FENOC requests that the Board grant this motion and allow FENOC until Friday, February 17 to file a short Response to the Staff Answer. In the alternative, should the Board not grant this motion, FENOC requests that the Board hold oral argument on the proposed Contention, which would provide FENOC an opportunity to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and revised contention language first advanced in the Staff Answer.

4 Counsel for FENOC certifies under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other Parties regarding this request. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOCs request to file a responsive brief. Counsel for Intervenors similarly indicated that Intervenors would not oppose FENOCs request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading; FENOC does not oppose.

5 If the Board does not consider this Motion appropriate under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), then FENOC requests the Board consider it as a general motion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a).

DB1/ 69050454.3 2

Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

Signed (electronically) by Timothy P. Matthews Timothy P. Matthews Kathryn M. Sutton Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5527 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com David W. Jenkins Senior Corporate Counsel FirstEnergy Service Company Mailstop: A-GO-15 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-384-5037 E-mail: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC Dated in Washington, D.C.

this 9th day of February 2012 DB1/ 69050454.3 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-346-LR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ) February 9, 2012

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, a copy of FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking was filed with the Electronic Information Exchange in the above-captioned proceeding on the following recipients.

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge William J. Froehlich, Chair Dr. Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wjf1@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of the General Counsel Dr. William E. Kastenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop O-15D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Brian G. Harris E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov Megan Wright Emily L. Monteith Catherine E. Kanatas Office of the Secretary E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Megan.Wright@nrc.gov; Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Emily.Monteith@nrc.gov; Washington, DC 20555-0001 Catherine.Kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov DB1/ 69050454.3

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Michael Keegan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dont Waste Michigan Mail Stop: O-16C1 811 Harrison Street Washington, DC 20555-0001 Monroe, MI 48161 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net Kevin Kamps Terry J. Lodge Paul Gunter 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Beyond Nuclear Toledo, OH 43604 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: kevin@beyondnuclear.org; paul@beyondnuclear.org Signed (electronically) by Stephen J. Burdick Stephen J. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5059 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com COUNSEL FOR FENOC DB1/ 69050454.3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12040A170&oldid=2106448"