|
|---|
Category:Legal-Motion
MONTHYEARML15251A6782015-09-0404 September 2015
Motion for Leave to Intervene by First Energy Nuclear Operating Company
ML15132A5152015-05-12012 May 2015
Certificate of Service of Beyond Nuclear Reply to Oppositions to Motion to Admit New Contention
ML15128A2912015-05-0808 May 2015
Beyond Nuclear'S Motion to Amend Nepa Placeholder Contention in License Renewal Proceeding for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant
ML15132A1972015-05-0808 May 2015
Certificate of Service for Beyond Nuclear'S Motion to Amend NEPA Placeholder Contention, Filed May 8, 2015
ML15128A2982015-05-0808 May 2015
Reply by Beyond Nuclear, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Seed Coalition and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy to Oppositions by Applicants and NRC Staff to Motions to Admit New Contentions
ML15112B2012015-04-22022 April 2015
Beyond Nuclear'S Hearing Request and Motion to Intervene
ML15112B1992015-04-22022 April 2015
Beyond Nuclear Motion to Reopen Record of License Renewal Proceeding
ML15112B2022015-04-22022 April 2015
Standing Declaration of Victoria Clemons
ML15065A2222015-03-0606 March 2015
FENOC Motion for Clarification Regarding Termination of Proceeding
ML14364A4052014-12-30030 December 2014
Intervenors' Second Motion to Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate Amps in Shield Building Monitoring Program
ML14335A7802014-12-0101 December 2014
Joint Proposed Corrections to the Transcript of the Oral Argument Held on November 12, 2014
ML14315A0492014-11-11011 November 2014
Notice of Filing of Riley Email (Exhibit a to Contention No. 7)
ML14311A9892014-11-0707 November 2014
Petitioners and Intervenors Consolidated Reply to Answers to Petitions to Suspend Final Reactor Licensing Decisions, Motions to Admit a New Contention, and Motions to Reopen the Record
ML14255A0302014-09-12012 September 2014
Erratum to Intervenors' Motion to Amend and Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate AMPs in Shield Monitoring Program
ML14252A8982014-09-0909 September 2014
Unopposed Motion to Establish Consolidated Briefing Schedule for Proposed Contention 7 Admissibility Filings
ML14251A6092014-09-0808 September 2014
Intervenors Motion to Amend and Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate AMPs in Shield Building Monitoring Program
ML14245A6562014-09-0202 September 2014
Intervenors' Motion for Admission of Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate Amps in Shield Building Monitoring Program
ML14144A0002014-05-23023 May 2014
Intervenors' Reply in Support of Motion for Admission of Contention No. 6 on Shield Building Concrete Void, Cracking and Broken Rebar Problems
ML14112A0072014-04-21021 April 2014
Motion for Admission of Contention No. 6 on Shield Building Concrete Void, Cracking and Broken Rebar Problems
ML14112A0082014-04-15015 April 2014
Exhibit 7 - Request for Additional Information (Rai), April 15, 2014
ML14113A0012014-04-14014 April 2014
Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Victoria Clemons
ML14058A6822014-02-27027 February 2014
Certificate of Service of Petition to Suspend
ML14058A6832014-02-27027 February 2014
Petition to Suspend Reactor Licensing Decisions and Reactor Re-Licensing Decisions Pending Completion of Rulemaking Proceeding Regarding Environmental Impacts of High-Density Pool Storage of Spent Fuel and Mitigation Measures
ML14112A0092014-02-19019 February 2014
Exhibit 1 - Preliminary Notice of Event or Occurrence, February 19, 2014
ML14112A0032014-02-15015 February 2014
Exhibit 2 - Toledo Blade Article, Davis-Besse Had Air Gap in Shield Building, February 15, 2014
ML13277A7252013-10-0303 October 2013
Intervenors' Memorandum in Opposition to 'Fenoc'S Petition for Certification of Waste Confidence-Related Question to the Commission Pursuant to 10CFR2.323(f)(2).'
ML13266A4322013-09-23023 September 2013
Fenoc'S Petition for Certification of Waste Confidence-Related Question to the Commission Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.32.(f)(2)
ML14112A0042013-09-20020 September 2013
Exhibit 6 - Preliminary Notice of Event or Occurrence, September 20, 2013
ML13192A2842013-07-11011 July 2013
Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S Answer Supporting the NRC Staff'S Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioners Reply
ML13192A5052013-07-11011 July 2013
Petitioners' Reply in Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Strike
ML13190A2162013-07-0808 July 2013
Petitioners' Reply in Opposition to FENOC 'Motion to Strike'
ML13182A4792013-07-0101 July 2013
NRC Staff Motion to Strike Portions of Joint Petitioners Reply or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Reply
ML13179A4032013-06-28028 June 2013
Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company'S Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioners' Reply
ML13173A0012013-06-21021 June 2013
Petitioners' Reply in Support of Petition to Intervene and for an Adjudicatory Public Hearing of FENOC License Amendment Request
ML14112A0062013-05-20020 May 2013
Exhibit 8 - Expert Witness Report of Arnold Gundersen, 50-246-LA
ML12334A2602012-11-29029 November 2012
Joint Proposed Corrections to the Transcript of the Oral Argument Held on November 5-6, 2012
ML12304A0652012-10-30030 October 2012
Motion to File Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB Order Granting Fenoc'S Motion to Strike Nunc Pro Tunc
ML12297A3532012-10-22022 October 2012
Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB Order Granting Fenoc'S Motion to Strike Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis-Source Terms)
ML12278A0402012-10-0404 October 2012
Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Fenoc'S Motion to Strike 'Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis - Source Terms).'
ML12268A3762012-09-24024 September 2012
Fenoc'S Motion to Strike Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis - Source Terms).
ML12258A7772012-09-14014 September 2012
Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to 'Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (Sama Analysis - Source Terms).'
ML12237B1972012-08-24024 August 2012
Intervenors' Combined Reply to NRC and FENOC Answers to Inervenors' Third and Fourth Motions to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking)
Information Notice 2010-12, Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Contain2012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Containment Liner Cor
Information Notice 2010-12, Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notic2012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Containment Liner Cor
Information Notice 2010-12, Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Con2012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-51 Through B-53); Turkey Point Event Report; NRC Information Notice 2010-12: Containment Liner Cor
ML12230A0032012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-49 Through B-50)
ML12230A0022012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-44 Through B-48)
ML12230A0012012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Responses (B-39 Through B-43)
ML12230A0002012-08-17017 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix VI: NRC FOIA Response (B-33 Through B-38)
ML12229A5872012-08-16016 August 2012
Intervenors' Fifth Motion to Amend And/Or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking). Appendix III: NRC FOIA Responses (B-24 Through B-26)
2015-09-04
[Table view] |
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
