|
|---|
Category:Legal-Pleading
MONTHYEARML20279A4812020-10-0505 October 2020
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09
ML20272A2742020-09-28028 September 2020
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motion for Leave to File a Reply and Motion for Leave to File INT053
ML20254A2342020-09-10010 September 2020
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10 Motion for Leave and Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-9
ML20254A2352020-09-10010 September 2020
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10 Motion to Reopen the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony
ML20244A3212020-08-31031 August 2020
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09
ML20244A3202020-08-31031 August 2020
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-09
ML20043E2542020-01-31031 January 2020
Redacted C-10 Research and Education'S Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML20031D6992020-01-31031 January 2020
NRC Staff Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML20031E7222020-01-31031 January 2020
NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19354C4482019-12-20020 December 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Response to Nextera'S Motion for Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19353D4192019-12-19019 December 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Response to Nextera'S Motion for Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19347D0672019-12-13013 December 2019
NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Motion for Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19347D0702019-12-13013 December 2019
NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19333B9702019-11-29029 November 2019
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML20043E2522019-11-27027 November 2019
Redacted Corrected C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19325D9092019-11-21021 November 2019
NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Law for the Admitted Contention
ML19325F3902019-11-21021 November 2019
NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
ML19310E2592019-11-0606 November 2019
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Third Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Testimony
ML19304B3522019-10-31031 October 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Response to ASLB Memorandum and Motion to Submit Additional Exhibits Regarding Petrographic Observations and Analyses of ASR at Seabrook
ML19283A0362019-10-0909 October 2019
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motions to Compel Production of Mineralogical Data and to Submit Additional Post-Hearing Testimony
ML19272B3252019-09-30030 September 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion to Compel Production of Mineralogy Data and Request for Opportunity to Submit Supplemental Written Testimony Regarding the Data
ML19262K7512019-09-19019 September 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Opposition to Nextera'S Second Motion in Limine
ML19261B8802019-09-18018 September 2019
NRC Staff'S Answer to Nextera'S Motion in Limine
ML19254F1582019-09-11011 September 2019
Appendix a Revised Exhibit List for September 2019 Evidentiary Hearing Exhibits
ML19253D6782019-09-10010 September 2019
NRC Staff'S Answer to C-10's Motion to Supplement Rebuttal Testimony
ML19252B3072019-09-0909 September 2019
NextEra Answer Opposing C-10 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rebuttal
ML19252B2322019-09-0909 September 2019
Nextera'S Motion in Limine to Strike or Exclude Portions of C-10's Testimony and Exhibits
ML19247D5932019-09-0404 September 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rebuttal Testimony
ML19235A3172019-08-23023 August 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. Rebuttal Statement of Position on C-10's Contentions Regarding Nextera'S Program for Managing ASR at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant
ML19235A3182019-08-23023 August 2019
Appendix a Revised Exhibit List
ML19205A3412019-07-24024 July 2019
NRC Staff Initial Written Statement of Position
ML19205A4882019-07-24024 July 2019
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC Statement of Position and Certificate of Service
ML19171A4012019-06-20020 June 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Errata to Exhibit INT-001, Testimony of Dr. Victor E. Saouma
ML19161A3722019-06-10010 June 2019
Appendix a Exhibit List
ML19161A3712019-06-10010 June 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. Initial Statement of Position on Contentions Re Nextera'S Program for Managing ASR at Seabrook Station
ML19123A1912019-05-0303 May 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Opposition to Nextera'S Motion in Limine
ML19114A0762019-04-23023 April 2019
Nextera'S Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Exhibits Regarding Structure Deformation Monitoring
ML19105B2822019-04-15015 April 2019
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motion Regarding Seabrook Station Site Tour
ML19101A4082019-04-11011 April 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion Regarding Seabrook Station Site Tour
ML19064B4022019-03-0505 March 2019
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Answers to C-10's Emergency Petition
ML19064A6322019-03-0505 March 2019
Notice of Appearance for Jennifer E. Scro
ML19060A3042019-03-0101 March 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Reply to Oppositions by NextEra and NRC Staff to Emergency Petition for Exercise of Commission'S Supervisory Authority to Reverse No Significant Hazards Determination and Immediately Suspend License
ML19060A3032019-03-0101 March 2019
C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions by NextEra and NRC Staff to Emergency Petition
ML19056A5882019-02-25025 February 2019
NRC Staff Answer to C-10's Emergency Petition
ML19056A5862019-02-25025 February 2019
Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10 Emergency Petition
ML19044A7702019-02-13013 February 2019
Exhibit 1 to Saouma Declaration: Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Victor E. Saouma
ML19044A7682019-02-13013 February 2019
Emergency Petition by C-10 Research and Education Foundation for Exercise of Commission'S Supervisory Authority to Reverse No Significant Hazards Determination and Immediately Suspend License Amendment and License Renewal Decisions
ML19044A7692019-02-13013 February 2019
Declaration of Victor E. Saouma, Ph.D
ML19044A7722019-02-13013 February 2019
Exhibit 3 to Saouma Declaration: Sauoma, Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Alkali Silica Reaction in Nuclear Reactors, Final Summary Report
ML19044A7732019-02-12012 February 2019
Exhibit 4a to Saouma Declaration: Introduction and Executive Summary
2020-09-28
[Table view] |
Text
January 24, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S 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 Docket No. 50
-443-LR ASLBP No. 10
-906-02-LR-BD01 2 January 24, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITION'S OBJECTION TO NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC's 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, LLC's 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/NEC's Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing in the above captioned matter, together with corrections and amendments, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC's ('NextEra") and NRC Staff's Answers, and Friends/NEC's 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 Board's pending decision on the admissibility of Friends/NEC proffered contentions. Docket No. 50
-443-LR ASLBP No. 10
-906-02-LR 3 This new information is in the context of an official NRC advisory document and reflects the NRC technical staff's 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 Board's decision on acceptance of Friends/NEC's 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 staff's conclusions regarding the subject of a significant portion of NextEra's 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 NextE ra 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 4 purported "mixing" offsets a second cumulative dose from windborne returning radionuclides.
Friends/NEC's 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 NextEra's 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 NextEra's Response to Friends/NEC's Petition for Leave to Intervene.
C. NextEra's is couched in terms of a motion for summary disposition where NextEra's "letter" claims on page one that the "new information" has the [potential to moot Friends/NEC's contention on SAMA and on Page 4, where it claims, "Consistent with the Appeal Board's 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/NEC's 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]. . ."
5 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/NEC's worthy contentions.
Respectfully submitted, Electronically signed Raymond Shadis
___________________
Raymond Shadis Pro se representati ve Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98
Edgecomb, Maine 04556
207-882-7801 Shadis@prexar.com
