• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter of )) Docket Nos. 52-029-COLProgress Energy Florida, Inc. ) 52-030-COL)Levy County Nuclear Plant,) ASLBP No. 09-879-04-COLUnits 1 and 2 )
Progress Energy’s Answer OpposingPetition for Intervention and Request for HearingBy the Green Party of Florida,the Ecology Party of Florida, and Nuclear Information and Resource Service
March 3, 2009
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction...............................................................................................................................1II. Background...............................................................................................................................4III. The Petition Should Be Denied Because Petitioner Has No Admissible Contentions.............6A. Standards For The Admissibility Of Contentions...............................................................7IV. Discussion...............................................................................................................................14A. Contention 1 (AP1000 Design) Is Inadmissible...............................................................14B. Contention 2 (Part 50 Should Apply) Is Inadmissible......................................................25C. Contention 3 (Financial Qualification) Is Inadmissible....................................................26D. Contention 4.A 4.O (HydroEcology) Is Inadmissible...................................................56E. Contention 5 (SAMA Analysis Omits CREC) Is inadmissible......................................156F. Contention 6 (Waste Confidence and High-Level Waste) Is Inadmissible....................159G. Contentions 7 and 8 (Low-Level Radioactive Waste) Are Inadmissible.......................172H. Contention 9 (Omission of Solar-Thermal Option) Is Inadmissible...............................183I. Contention 10 (Poor Treatment of Efficiency and Omission As Option) IsInadmissible....................................................................................................................191J. Contention 11 (Omission And Failure To Analyze Distributed Generation) IsInadmissible....................................................................................................................197V. Selection of Hearing Procedures...........................................................................................205VI. Conclusion............................................................................................................................206
i
 
 
 March 3, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter of )) Docket Nos. 52-029-COLProgress Energy Florida, Inc. ) 52-030-COL)Levy County Nuclear Plant,) ASLBP No. 09-879-04-COLUnits 1 and 2 )
Progress Energy’s Answer OpposingPetition to Intervene and Request for HearingBy the Green Party of Florida,the Ecology Party of Florida, and Nuclear Information and Resource ServiceI.
 
Introduction
Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (“Progress” or “PEF”) hereby submits this answer(“Answer”) in opposition to the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing (“Petition”) by theGreen Party of Florida, the Ecology Party of Florida, and Nuclear Information and ResourceService (collectively the “Petitioners”) filed in this proceeding on February 6, 2009. ThePetitioners seek to intervene in this proceeding and request that the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (“Commission” or “NRC”) conduct a hearing regarding Progress’s application for acombined construction permit and operating license (“COL” or “combined license”) for newUnits 1 and 2 at the Levy County Nuclear Plant (“Levy” or “LNP”) site. The Petition should bedenied because Petitioners have not proposed an admissible contention.
1
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...