ML110240704: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:January 24, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD | {{#Wiki_filter:January 24, 2011 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-BD01 (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1) | ||
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS OBJECTION TO NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC.s JANUARY 14, 2011 LETTER FILING OF PURPORTED MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION Submitted by: | |||
Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition | |||
In the Matter of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1) | January 24, 2010 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 Nuclear Station, Unit 1) | ||
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS OBJECTION TO NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLCs JANUARY 14, 2011 LETTER FILING OF PURPORTED MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition (collectively, Friends/NEC), | |||
through its pro se representative, Raymond Shadis, hereby makes its most vigorous objection to Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLCs January 14, 2011 Letter Filing Of Purported Material New Information I. BACKGROUND Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel No. 10-906-02-LR (Board) currently has before it, Friends/NECs Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing in the above captioned matter, together with corrections and amendments, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLCs (NextEra) and NRC Staffs Answers, and Friends/NECs reply thereto. | |||
In addition, Friends/NEC provided to the Board new information in the form of an NRC Information Notice (IN-2010-26 Submerged Electrical Cables, 12/02/2010), new information that is material to the Boards pending decision on the admissibility of Friends/NEC proffered contentions. | |||
2 | |||
This new information is in the context of an official NRC advisory document and reflects the NRC technical staffs current assessment of the effectiveness of certain aging management programs (AMP) for safety-related electrical cables as proposed in the Seabrook License Renewal Application; all new and relevant information ,and material to the Boards decision on acceptance of Friends/NECs contention regarding AMP for non-qualified, safety-related electrical cables susceptible to wetting or submergence. | |||
This new information is not disputable as to authenticity or as a reflection of NRC technical staffs conclusions regarding the subject of a significant portion of NextEras AMP for cables: monitoring for submergence and the dewatering of submerged cables. It is precisely the kind and quality of information contemplated in NRC case law that encourages all parties, in particular, NRC Staff, to provide such information to decision-makers where it is relevant and material. | |||
What is now proffered by NextEra is something altogether different. | |||
II. DISCUSSION NextEra now offers, as new information, its own response to an NRC Request for Additional Information; testimony, as it were. | |||
) for safety | |||
-related electrical cables as proposed in the Seabrook License Renewal Application; all new and relevant information ,and material to the | |||
-qualified, safety | |||
-related electrical cables susceptible to wetting or submergence. This new information is not disputable as to authenticity or as a reflection of NRC technical | |||
-makers where it is relevant and material. What is now proffered by | |||
II. DISCUSSION NextEra now offers | |||
, as | |||
, | |||
A. The new information contained therein is disputable and Friends/NEC disputes it. | A. The new information contained therein is disputable and Friends/NEC disputes it. | ||
NextEra claims that the sea | NextEra claims that the sea-breeze effect (of diurnal shifting winds) will not significantly affect dose factors in the plant vicinity following a major release of radionuclides. | ||
-breeze effect (of diurnal shifting winds) will not significantly affect dose factors in the plant vicinity following a major release of radionuclides. | NextEra acknowledges that a thermal cap or inversion layer resides over the plant site more than 7% of the time; but that somehow this acts as a mixing layer on returning sea-breezes, mitigating additional radiological dose. | ||
NextEra acknowledges that a thermal cap or inversion layer resides over the plant site more than 7% of the time; but that somehow this acts as a mixing layer on returning sea | Friends/NEC contends, as it has from the onset, that NextEra has not proven, with adequate and accurate analyses, that this is the case; or that, in the present case, the 3 | ||
-breezes, mitigating additional radiological dose. | |||
Friends/NEC contends, as it has from the onset, that NextEra has not proven, with adequate and accurate analyses | |||
, that this is the case; or that, in the present case, | |||
1 Dr. Edward Teller, Father of the H | purported mixing offsets a second cumulative dose from windborne returning radionuclides. | ||
-bomb, -who is far from being an alarmist when it comes to the development of atomic energy | Friends/NECs concern that radionuclides under a stable inversion layer, including those recycled on a returning sea-breeze, has been long and well established in the literature 1 and NextEras RAI assurances are insufficient to quell it. | ||
-wrote in the May 1965, | B. The new information is, by and large, not new, but drawn from the Seabrook Final Safety Analysis Report - circa 1990. NextEra has not offered any explanation of why this information could not have been provided earlier; for example, back in October 2010 in NextEras Response to Friends/NECs Petition for Leave to Intervene. | ||
A gently seeping nuclear reactor can put its radioactive poison under a stable inversion layer and concentrate it onto a few hundred square miles in a truly deadly fashion | C. NextEras is couched in terms of a motion for summary disposition where NextEras letter claims on page one that the new information has the [potential to moot Friends/NECs contention on SAMA and on Page 4, where it claims, Consistent with the Appeal Boards decision in Three Mile Island, NextEra provides this information to the Board because it has the potential to moot or resolve this pending issue. [Emphasis added] | ||
[Emphasis added]. . . | If, as it appears. this NextEra filing is intended as a de facto motion for summary judgment, it fails because it is untimely brought, does not contain a list of facts claimed not to be in dispute, and it is not accompanied by a declaration or affidavit as to its effect on Friends/NECs contention regarding SAMA. | ||
1 Dr. Edward Teller, Father of the H-bomb, -who is far from being an alarmist when it comes to the development of atomic energy-wrote in the May 1965, Issue 2 of Journal of Petroleum Technology: In principle, nuclear reactors are dangerous. . .The explosion of a nuclear reactor is not likely to be as violent as an explosion of a chemical plant. But a powerful nuclear reactor which has functioned for some time has radioactivity stored in it greatly in excess of that released from a powerful nuclear bomb. . . | |||
A gently seeping nuclear reactor can put its radioactive poison under a stable inversion layer and concentrate it onto a few hundred square miles in a truly deadly fashion [Emphasis added]. . . | |||
4 | |||
D. Further, this de facto motion is, in violation of 10 C.F.R. §2.323, as it is not attended by a Certificate of Counsel stating that a sincere attempt to obtain the consent of the parties to this filing has been made. | |||
It has not. | It has not. | ||
III | III CONCLUSION - For all of the good reasons above, the Board should disregard the NextEra filing of January 14, 20111 and proceed to timely and deliberate consideration of Friends/NECs worthy contentions. | ||
- For all of the good reasons above, the Board should disregard the NextEra filing of January 14, 20111 and proceed to timely and deliberate consideration of Friends/ | |||
Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed Raymond Shadis | Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed Raymond Shadis | ||
___________________ | ___________________ | ||
Raymond Shadis Pro se representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 Shadis@prexar.com 5}} | |||
Raymond Shadis Pro se | |||
Edgecomb, Maine 04556 | |||
207-882-7801 Shadis@prexar.com}} | |||
Revision as of 04:16, 13 November 2019
| ML110240704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/2011 |
| From: | Shadis R Friends of the Coast, New England Coalition |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML110240702 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 19484, 50-443-LR, ASLBP 10-906-02-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML110240704 (5) | |
Text
January 24, 2011 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-BD01 (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS OBJECTION TO NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC.s JANUARY 14, 2011 LETTER FILING OF PURPORTED MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION Submitted by:
Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition
January 24, 2010 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 Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS OBJECTION TO NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLCs JANUARY 14, 2011 LETTER FILING OF PURPORTED MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition (collectively, Friends/NEC),
through its pro se representative, Raymond Shadis, hereby makes its most vigorous objection to Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLCs January 14, 2011 Letter Filing Of Purported Material New Information I. BACKGROUND Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel No. 10-906-02-LR (Board) currently has before it, Friends/NECs Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing in the above captioned matter, together with corrections and amendments, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLCs (NextEra) and NRC Staffs Answers, and Friends/NECs reply thereto.
In addition, Friends/NEC provided to the Board new information in the form of an NRC Information Notice (IN-2010-26 Submerged Electrical Cables, 12/02/2010), new information that is material to the Boards pending decision on the admissibility of Friends/NEC proffered contentions.
2
This new information is in the context of an official NRC advisory document and reflects the NRC technical staffs current assessment of the effectiveness of certain aging management programs (AMP) for safety-related electrical cables as proposed in the Seabrook License Renewal Application; all new and relevant information ,and material to the Boards decision on acceptance of Friends/NECs contention regarding AMP for non-qualified, safety-related electrical cables susceptible to wetting or submergence.
This new information is not disputable as to authenticity or as a reflection of NRC technical staffs conclusions regarding the subject of a significant portion of NextEras AMP for cables: monitoring for submergence and the dewatering of submerged cables. It is precisely the kind and quality of information contemplated in NRC case law that encourages all parties, in particular, NRC Staff, to provide such information to decision-makers where it is relevant and material.
What is now proffered by NextEra is something altogether different.
II. DISCUSSION NextEra now offers, as new information, its own response to an NRC Request for Additional Information; testimony, as it were.
A. The new information contained therein is disputable and Friends/NEC disputes it.
NextEra claims that the sea-breeze effect (of diurnal shifting winds) will not significantly affect dose factors in the plant vicinity following a major release of radionuclides.
NextEra acknowledges that a thermal cap or inversion layer resides over the plant site more than 7% of the time; but that somehow this acts as a mixing layer on returning sea-breezes, mitigating additional radiological dose.
Friends/NEC contends, as it has from the onset, that NextEra has not proven, with adequate and accurate analyses, that this is the case; or that, in the present case, the 3
purported mixing offsets a second cumulative dose from windborne returning radionuclides.
Friends/NECs concern that radionuclides under a stable inversion layer, including those recycled on a returning sea-breeze, has been long and well established in the literature 1 and NextEras RAI assurances are insufficient to quell it.
B. The new information is, by and large, not new, but drawn from the Seabrook Final Safety Analysis Report - circa 1990. NextEra has not offered any explanation of why this information could not have been provided earlier; for example, back in October 2010 in NextEras Response to Friends/NECs Petition for Leave to Intervene.
C. NextEras is couched in terms of a motion for summary disposition where NextEras letter claims on page one that the new information has the [potential to moot Friends/NECs contention on SAMA and on Page 4, where it claims, Consistent with the Appeal Boards decision in Three Mile Island, NextEra provides this information to the Board because it has the potential to moot or resolve this pending issue. [Emphasis added]
If, as it appears. this NextEra filing is intended as a de facto motion for summary judgment, it fails because it is untimely brought, does not contain a list of facts claimed not to be in dispute, and it is not accompanied by a declaration or affidavit as to its effect on Friends/NECs contention regarding SAMA.
1 Dr. Edward Teller, Father of the H-bomb, -who is far from being an alarmist when it comes to the development of atomic energy-wrote in the May 1965, Issue 2 of Journal of Petroleum Technology: In principle, nuclear reactors are dangerous. . .The explosion of a nuclear reactor is not likely to be as violent as an explosion of a chemical plant. But a powerful nuclear reactor which has functioned for some time has radioactivity stored in it greatly in excess of that released from a powerful nuclear bomb. . .
A gently seeping nuclear reactor can put its radioactive poison under a stable inversion layer and concentrate it onto a few hundred square miles in a truly deadly fashion [Emphasis added]. . .
4
D. Further, this de facto motion is, in violation of 10 C.F.R. §2.323, as it is not attended by a Certificate of Counsel stating that a sincere attempt to obtain the consent of the parties to this filing has been made.
It has not.
III CONCLUSION - For all of the good reasons above, the Board should disregard the NextEra filing of January 14, 20111 and proceed to timely and deliberate consideration of Friends/NECs worthy contentions.
Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed Raymond Shadis
___________________
Raymond Shadis Pro se representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 Shadis@prexar.com 5