ML15030A491: 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:January 30, 2015   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of  
{{#Wiki_filter:January 30, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                         )
    )         )  PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY   ) Docket Nos.
                                                          )
50-275-LR/ 50-323-LR ) (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )   Units 1 and 2)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY                         )       Docket Nos. 50-275-LR/ 50-323-LR
    )  NRC STAFF MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECK'S E
                                                          )
-MAIL TO THE BOARD INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the NRC staff (Staff) respectfully request s that the Board not consider the January 21, 2015 e
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,                       )
-mail from Dr. Michael Peck to Judge Ryerson in any determination made in this proceeding
Units 1 and 2)                                    )
.1 The e-mail raises issues outside the scope of license renewal that are not relevant to the proposed or admitted contentions, and Dr. Peck's statements do not represent the position of the Staff.
NRC STAFF MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECKS E-MAIL TO THE BOARD INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the NRC staff (Staff) respectfully requests that the Board not consider the January 21, 2015 e-mail from Dr. Michael Peck to Judge Ryerson in any determination made in this proceeding. 1 The e-mail raises issues outside the scope of license renewal that are not relevant to the proposed or admitted contentions, and Dr. Pecks statements do not represent the position of the Staff.
BACKGROUND On January 21, 2015, the Board held oral argument on the admissibility of three contentions filed by Friends of the Earth concerning the September 2014 Shoreline Fault Report prepared by Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") for the State of California.
BACKGROUND On January 21, 2015, the Board held oral argument on the admissibility of three contentions filed by Friends of the Earth concerning the September 2014 Shoreline Fault Report prepared by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for the State of California. 2 Less than 1
2 Less than  
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for the Staff certifies that it made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding and explained to them the legal and factual reasons for this motion. Counsel for PG&E stated that PG&E supports the motion and reserves the right to respond in due course, if necessary. Counsel for Friends of the Earth stated that Friends of the Earth opposes the motion. Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace was contacted, but did not provide a response.
2 See Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014)
(continued. . .)


1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for the Staff certifies that it made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding and explained to them the legal and factual reasons for this motion. Counsel for PG&E stated that PG&E supports the motion and reserves the right to respond in due course, if necessary.
one hour after the argument concluded, Dr. Michael Peck, an NRC employee who is not a Staff witness in this matter, sent Judge Ryerson an ex parte communication via e-mail concerning several seismic documents related to Diablo Canyon and the nature of the plants current licensing basis (CLB). 3 Specifically, Dr. Pecks e-mail discussed: (1) the development of the 1977 Hosgri Report; (2) the proper interpretation of the differing professional opinion (DPO) filed by Dr. Peck in 2013; (3) how Diablo Canyons three design basis earthquakes are applied to operability; and (4) the licensees duty to update the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.71(e). 4 Judge Ryerson promptly requested that the Office of the Secretary serve Dr. Pecks e-mail on the parties and place it on the license renewal docket. 5 DISCUSSION The Staff asks the Board not to consider Dr. Pecks communication for three reasons.
Counsel for Friends of the Earth stated that Friends of the Earth opposes the motion. Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace was contacted, but did not provide a response.
First, the issues raised in the e-mail are not relevant to license renewal; rather, the e-mail concerns current licensing issues, i.e., the methods for performing operability determinations, and the licensees duty to update its FSAR. 6 Such matters are not within the scope of license renewal. 7
2 See Friends of the Earth's Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014) (continued. . .)  one hour after the argument concluded, Dr. Michael Peck, an NRC employee who is not a Staff witness in this matter , sent Judge Ryerson an ex parte communication via e-mail concerning several seismic documents related to Diablo Canyon and the nature of the plant's current licensing basis ("CLB").3 Specifically, Dr. Peck's e
-mail discussed: (1) the development of the 1977 Hosgri Report; (2) the proper interpretation of the differing professional opinion ("DPO") filed by Dr. Peck in 2013; (3) how Diablo Canyon's three design basis earthquakes are applied to operability; and (4) the licensee's duty to update the Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.71(e).4 Judge Ryerson promptly requested that the Office of the Secretary serve Dr. Peck's e
-mail on the parties and place it on the license renewal docket.5 DISCUSSION The Staff ask s the Board not to consider Dr. Peck's communication for three reasons. First, the issues raised in the e
-mail are not relevant to license renewal
; rather, the e
-mail concerns current licensing issues , i.e., the methods for performing operability determinations , and the licensee's duty to update its FSAR
.6 Such matters are not within the scope of license renewal.7
(. . .continued)
(. . .continued)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14283A591) ("Petition to Intervene").
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14283A591) (Petition to Intervene).
3 See Correspondence to Parties Concerning USGS Circular 672 (Jan. 21, 2015) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ("ADAMS") Accession No. ML15021A529) ("Peck e
3 See Correspondence to Parties Concerning USGS Circular 672 (Jan. 21, 2015) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15021A529) (Peck e-mail).
-mail"). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 17, 54 NRC 3, 8-9 (2001) (stating that the Commission's ongoing regulatory oversight ensures the adequacy of the plant's current licensing basis, thus there is no reason to reanalyze the adequacy of the CLB for license renewal).
4 Id.
Second, Dr. Peck's e
5 Id.
-mail is not relevant to the proposed or admitted contentions in this proceeding. Friends of the Earth's proposed contentions relate to the impact of purportedly new information in the Shoreline Fault Report on the license renewal application.8 Friends of the Earth's contentions do not pertain to the documents referenced by Dr. Peck, to how the plant's three design basis earthquakes are applied to operability, or to the licensee's duty to update the FSAR. The e-mail is also not germane to the admitted contention filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
6 Id.
, because it is unrelated to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis submitted by the licensee.
7 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 8-9 (2001) (stating that the Commissions ongoing regulatory oversight ensures the adequacy of the plants current licensing basis, thus there is no reason to reanalyze the adequacy of the CLB for license renewal).
9 Third, Dr. Peck's communication does not represent the position of the Staff. The Staff' s views pertaining to issues raised in this proceeding can be found in its filings submitted on this docket. Information concerning Dr. Peck's DPO and the Staff's resolution of his concerns can be found in a separate, publicly available DPO case file available on ADAMS.10 This proceeding is not the appropriate forum to revisit the arguments made by Dr. Peck or the Staff's responses.
 
CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Staff requests that the Board not consider Dr. Peck's e-mail in this proceeding.
Second, Dr. Pecks e-mail is not relevant to the proposed or admitted contentions in this proceeding. Friends of the Earths proposed contentions relate to the impact of purportedly new information in the Shoreline Fault Report on the license renewal application. 8 Friends of the Earths contentions do not pertain to the documents referenced by Dr. Peck, to how the plants three design basis earthquakes are applied to operability, or to the licensees duty to update the FSAR. The e-mail is also not germane to the admitted contention filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, because it is unrelated to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis submitted by the licensee. 9 Third, Dr. Pecks communication does not represent the position of the Staff. The Staffs views pertaining to issues raised in this proceeding can be found in its filings submitted on this docket. Information concerning Dr. Pecks DPO and the Staffs resolution of his concerns can be found in a separate, publicly available DPO case file available on ADAMS. 10 This proceeding is not the appropriate forum to revisit the arguments made by Dr. Peck or the Staffs responses.
Respectfully submitted
CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Staff requests that the Board not consider Dr.
,        /Signed (electronically) by
Pecks e-mail in this proceeding.
/
Respectfully submitted,
                                                /Signed (electronically) by/
8 See generally Petition to Intervene.
8 See generally Petition to Intervene.
9 See generally Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.
9 See generally Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 345-46 (2010); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429 (2011).
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 345
10
-46 (2010); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429 (2011).
[Differing Professional Opinion (DPO)] Case File for DPO-2013-002 (ADAMS Accession No.
10 [Differing Professional Opinion (DPO)] Case File for DPO
ML14252A743).
-2013-002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14252A743)
 
.                Joseph A. Lindell Counsel for the NRC Staff       U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop  
Joseph A. Lindell Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1474 E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Date of signature: January 30, 2015
- O-15D21       Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415
-1474       E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Date of signature: January 30, 201 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
        )            ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
    ) Docket Nos. 50
-275-LR/ 50-323-LR      ) (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,      )  Units 1 and 2)    )                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305 , I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing "NRC STAFF MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECK'S E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                    )
-MAIL TO THE BOARD,"
                                                    )
dated January 30
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY                    )      Docket Nos. 50-275-LR/ 50-323-LR
, 201 5, has been filed through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRC's E
                                                    )
-Filing System, in the above captioned proceeding, this 30 th day of January, 201 5:
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,                  )
              /Signed (electronically) by/
Units 1 and 2)                              )
Joseph A. Lindell Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop  
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NRC STAFF MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECKS E-MAIL TO THE BOARD, dated January 30, 2015, has been filed through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs E-Filing System, in the above captioned proceeding, this 30th day of January, 2015:
- O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1474 E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Date of signature
                                                    /Signed (electronically) by/
: January 30, 20 1 5}}
Joseph A. Lindell Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1474 E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Date of signature: January 30, 2015}}

Revision as of 16:20, 31 October 2019

NRC Staff Motion Regarding Dr Michael Peck Email to the Board
ML15030A491
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 01/30/2015
From: Lindell J
NRC/OGC
To: Gary Arnold, Paul Ryerson
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-275-LR, 50-323-LR, ASLBP 10-900-01-LR-BD01, RAS 27154
Download: ML15030A491 (5)
v • d • e


Text

January 30, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR/ 50-323-LR

)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

NRC STAFF MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECKS E-MAIL TO THE BOARD INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the NRC staff (Staff) respectfully requests that the Board not consider the January 21, 2015 e-mail from Dr. Michael Peck to Judge Ryerson in any determination made in this proceeding. 1 The e-mail raises issues outside the scope of license renewal that are not relevant to the proposed or admitted contentions, and Dr. Pecks statements do not represent the position of the Staff.

BACKGROUND On January 21, 2015, the Board held oral argument on the admissibility of three contentions filed by Friends of the Earth concerning the September 2014 Shoreline Fault Report prepared by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for the State of California. 2 Less than 1

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for the Staff certifies that it made a sincere effort to contact the other parties in this proceeding and explained to them the legal and factual reasons for this motion. Counsel for PG&E stated that PG&E supports the motion and reserves the right to respond in due course, if necessary. Counsel for Friends of the Earth stated that Friends of the Earth opposes the motion. Counsel for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace was contacted, but did not provide a response.

2 See Friends of the Earths Request for a Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Oct. 10, 2014)

(continued. . .)

one hour after the argument concluded, Dr. Michael Peck, an NRC employee who is not a Staff witness in this matter, sent Judge Ryerson an ex parte communication via e-mail concerning several seismic documents related to Diablo Canyon and the nature of the plants current licensing basis (CLB). 3 Specifically, Dr. Pecks e-mail discussed: (1) the development of the 1977 Hosgri Report; (2) the proper interpretation of the differing professional opinion (DPO) filed by Dr. Peck in 2013; (3) how Diablo Canyons three design basis earthquakes are applied to operability; and (4) the licensees duty to update the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.71(e). 4 Judge Ryerson promptly requested that the Office of the Secretary serve Dr. Pecks e-mail on the parties and place it on the license renewal docket. 5 DISCUSSION The Staff asks the Board not to consider Dr. Pecks communication for three reasons.

First, the issues raised in the e-mail are not relevant to license renewal; rather, the e-mail concerns current licensing issues, i.e., the methods for performing operability determinations, and the licensees duty to update its FSAR. 6 Such matters are not within the scope of license renewal. 7

(. . .continued)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14283A591) (Petition to Intervene).

3 See Correspondence to Parties Concerning USGS Circular 672 (Jan. 21, 2015) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15021A529) (Peck e-mail).

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 8-9 (2001) (stating that the Commissions ongoing regulatory oversight ensures the adequacy of the plants current licensing basis, thus there is no reason to reanalyze the adequacy of the CLB for license renewal).

Second, Dr. Pecks e-mail is not relevant to the proposed or admitted contentions in this proceeding. Friends of the Earths proposed contentions relate to the impact of purportedly new information in the Shoreline Fault Report on the license renewal application. 8 Friends of the Earths contentions do not pertain to the documents referenced by Dr. Peck, to how the plants three design basis earthquakes are applied to operability, or to the licensees duty to update the FSAR. The e-mail is also not germane to the admitted contention filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, because it is unrelated to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis submitted by the licensee. 9 Third, Dr. Pecks communication does not represent the position of the Staff. The Staffs views pertaining to issues raised in this proceeding can be found in its filings submitted on this docket. Information concerning Dr. Pecks DPO and the Staffs resolution of his concerns can be found in a separate, publicly available DPO case file available on ADAMS. 10 This proceeding is not the appropriate forum to revisit the arguments made by Dr. Peck or the Staffs responses.

CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Staff requests that the Board not consider Dr.

Pecks e-mail in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

8 See generally Petition to Intervene.

9 See generally Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-10-15, 72 NRC 257, 345-46 (2010); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427, 429 (2011).

10

[Differing Professional Opinion (DPO)] Case File for DPO-2013-002 (ADAMS Accession No.

ML14252A743).

Joseph A. Lindell Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1474 E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Date of signature: January 30, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275-LR/ 50-323-LR

)

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NRC STAFF MOTION REGARDING DR. MICHAEL PECKS E-MAIL TO THE BOARD, dated January 30, 2015, has been filed through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs E-Filing System, in the above captioned proceeding, this 30th day of January, 2015:

/Signed (electronically) by/

Joseph A. Lindell Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-1474 E-mail: joseph.lindell@nrc.gov Date of signature: January 30, 2015

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15030A491&oldid=2038416"