ML102580884
| ML102580884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/2010 |
| From: | Ken Brooks, Delaney M, Roth P State of NH, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-443-LR, License Renewal 6, RAS 18630 | |
| Download: ML102580884 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC
)
)
Docket No. 50-443-LR (Seabrook Station)
)
)
(Operating License Renewal)
)
____________________________________)
LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY AND REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK TO THE REQUEST OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF SEABROOKS OPERATING LICENSE On July 21, 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) caused to be noticed in the Federal Register a Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 for an Additional 20-Year Period. 75 Fed. Reg. 42,462 (July 21, 2010) (hereinafter Notice). Although the application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 for the Seabrook Station had been filed with the NRC by its operator, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra), on May 25, 2010, it was not until the Notice was issued that NRC concluded that the application contained sufficient information to enable the [NRC] staff to undertake a review but does not constitute a determination that the renewed license should be issued.
Id., col. 3. The Notice also directed that any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene with respect to the renewal of the license in
2 2
accordance with NRCs Rules of Practice contained in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 no later than 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register notice - i.e., on or before September 20, 2010. Notice at 42,463, col. 1.
On September 9, 2010, the Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire wrote a letter to NRC Chairman Jaczko (see Exhibit 1 hereto), and for the reasons outlined therein requested an extension of time to respond to the Notice.1 On September 10, 2010, NextEra filed an Opposition to the State of New Hampshires Request for Extension of Time. Subsequent telephone conversations have occurred between representatives for the State of New Hampshire, NextEra, and NRC regarding the request for extension of time filed by the Attorney General. In those discussions, although the State preferred more time, the State of New Hampshire offered to reduced its requested extension of time from 90 days to 30 days, i.e., until October 20, 2010.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that counsel for NextEra and counsel for the NRC Staff were contacted to discuss this matter in good faith and the NRC staff concurs in the revised 30-day extension of time for the State of New Hampshire to respond to the Notice. Despite sincere efforts to resolve our differences, NextEra does not concur in the revised 30-day extension of time for the State of New Hampshire to respond to the Notice for reasons already stated. The State of New Hampshire would also like to take this opportunity to offer its sincere apology for not contacting NextEra or NRC Staff prior to its initial request for an extension and appreciates the candor and responsiveness of those parties with respect to this subsequent request. Pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the offer to revise the requested extension of time from 90-days to 30-days following the filing of 1
The letter from the Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire is attached hereto for the sole purpose of demonstrating good cause for the requested extension of time. The discussion contained in the letter regarding the length of the time extension is superseded by the 30 days requested herein.
3 3
NextEras response constitutes compelling circumstances that warrant granting this leave to file this reply.
There exists good cause for the Commission to grant the relief requested by the Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire as set forth in detail in his letter to Chairman Jaczko dated September 14, 2010. In addition to the good cause presented by the Attorney General, an extension of 30 days for the State of New Hampshire to file a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene in response to the Notice would not materially impact the 30-month schedule for NRC Staffs consideration of NextEras license renewal application in the event a hearing is required, and for which over 26 months remain for the completion of reviews and hearings. See http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/seabrook.html (which sets December 3, 2012, as the date for a Commission decision if a hearing is requested). Moreover, NRC has specifically structured its Rules of Practice to encourage affected State governments to participate in NRC licensing proceedings, see, e.g., 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(d)(2) (waiving standing requirements for State governments); and 2.315(c) (affording a State not admitted under § 2.309 an opportunity to participate as an interested governmental entity), which suggests that granting the 30-day extension sought by the State of New Hampshire is in the public interest. See also U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository), CLI-08-18, __ NRC ___ (2008)
(where the State of Nevada was granted an additional 30 days, until December 22, 2008, in which to petition to intervene notwithstanding the availability of the license application on June 3, 2008).
4 4
Accordingly, the State of New Hampshire respectfully requests the Commission to grant its reduced request for an extension of time by 30 days, until October 20, 2010, to respond to the Notice.
Respectfully submitted, (signed electronically)
Michael A. Delaney, Attorney General Michael.A.Delaney@doj.nh.gov K. Allen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General K.Allen.Brooks@doj.nh.gov Peter Roth, Assistant Attorney General Peter.Roth@doj.nh.gov Office of the Attorney General State of New Hampshire 33 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397 (603) 271-3658 (telephone)
(603) 271-2110 (facsimile)
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE September 15, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC
)
)
Docket No. 50-443-LR (Seabrook Station)
)
)
(Operating License Renewal)
)
____________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY AND REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK TO THE REQUEST OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF SEABROOKS OPERATING LICENSE, were provided to the individuals and at the addresses listed below by the Electronic Information Exchange this 15th day of September 2010.
Secretary Office of Commission Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16 C1 Mail Stop O-16 C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 hearingdocket@nrc.gov OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov Mary Spencer, Esq.
Stephen Hamrick, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Mail Stop O-15C D21 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 220 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20004 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Steven.Hamrick@fpl.com Mary.Baty@nrc.gov
Mitchell S. Ross, Esq.
Antonio Fernandez, Esq.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 700 Universe Blvd.
Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Mitch.Ross@fpl.com Antonio.Fernandez@fpl.com (signed electronically)
K. Allen Brooks, Esquire
Exhibit 1
Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko Chairman of the Commission September 9, 2010 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re:
Nextera Energy Seabrook Station License Renewal Application -Docket No. 50-443
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This office represents the State of New Hampshire with respect to the pending License Renewal Application of Next era Seabrook. I write pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.307 to request a ninety (90) day extension of the time in which the State of New Hampshire may request a hearing and file a petition to intervene pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.
Alternatively, we would ask for an extension to a date that is the later of ninety days from September 19,2010, or ninety days from the date a decision is made on the pending rule-making petition that seeks to amend 10 C.F.R. § 54.17. The reasons for this request are set forth below.
The State of New Hampshire is the location for the Seabrook Station. As you may be aware, there has historically been a great deal of public interest in the facility due both to its nature and location on the State's relatively short, yet economically important and scenic coastline, and because of the lengthy and contentious bankruptcy proceeding it went through with its former owner, PSNH. The facility is also an important power generator and supplier for the State, providing 1,245 MW of base load capacity for us and other neighboring states. At the same time, a large proportion of New Hampshire's citizens live within the 50-mile radius of the facility, which includes the cities of Portsmouth, Manchester and Concord, as well as numerous towns.
The State of New Hampshire is a governmental body with standing conferred by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(2). We have an important role to play owing to our governmental interest, the fact that should we participate we would bring an unbiased public interest perspective to the proceeding which would help to develop a sound record, and because there is no other party that can participate and stand for the rights of all New Hampshire citizens in this proceeding.
Honorable Gregory B. laczko September 9,2010 Page20f3 The State of New Hampshire has not determined its position with respect to the License Renewal Application at this time but requires additional time to evaluate the voluminous application of tremendous technical complexity in areas of both safety and environmental impacts. The State expects that a proper evaluation will require weeks of study and a large commitment of financial and human resources. We must identify and retain experts on nuclear engineering and environmental impacts. Those experts will need time to review the Application, and make recommendations to responsible State officials. State officials will need some time to assess the recommendations and determine whether to make contentions and seek a hearing. The State may then need to retain additional consulting assistance to draft a request for hearing. The State may also determine that no further action is warranted. In either event, it does not serve the public interest for us immediately to determine a position and hastily commit the resources necessary to assess and present it. We have had State officials from several departments reviewing the application and considering it, and we have begun to map out a strategy for a careful and in-depth analysis of the Application. More than sixty days, however, is required to complete this analysis in a responsible manner.
In addition, the Seabrook License Renewal Application comes twenty years before its expiration. As such, time does not appear to be of the essence. We have been informed by Commission staff that, with a hearing, the process will only take thirty-two months. Observing the process for Vermont Yankee, a longer period may be a more conservative estimate. But even ifthe process takes forty-eight months and an additional three months is added to enable the State meaningfully to evaluate the Application, this is still well over fifteen years before the license expiration. Thus, there is no prejudice to the Applicant or the public interest in a brief delay. Instead, the public interest will be furthered by allowing a key stakeholder to be prepared and appropriately assess the impacts of license renewal on the citizens and State of New Hampshire.
In addition, there is a pending Petition for Rule Making, Pursuant to Section 2.802, dated August 18, 2010, seeking to amend 10 C.F.R. § 54.17 to shorten the period before expiration that a renewal application could be brought from twenty years to ten years. If this Petition is granted and the period is shortened to ten years, it would be a significant waste of New Hampshire's public resources to hire expert consultants at great expense to analyze the Application and make recommendations to the State because a new Application brought ten years from now is almost certain to be a much different document and a new and complete analysis will be required. For this reason, we ask that you extend the Section 2.309 deadline to be ninety days after the rule-making petition is finally decided.
The State of New Hampshire may ultimately decide against making a hearing request after the extended period of time. But the present deadline puts us in an awkward position and could force us to seek a hearing hastily to ensure that we have taken action to protect the public interest in the absence of having done the careful analysis necessary to evaluate the Application and determine whether a hearing is necessary. As noted, if
Honorable Gregory B. laczko September 9,2010 Page 3 of3 the rule-making is granted it would be a waste of scarce public financial resources to require the State to make a supportable contention if the Application will ultimately be deferred for ten more years.
Finally, I would note that limited research of the Commission's dockets has demonstrated that there is recent precedent for granting such an extension as we seek for similar reasons. I respectfully refer you to orders you entered in the matters of PSEG Nuclear LLC for (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) and (Hope Creek Power Plant generating Station, Unit 1), docket numbers 50-272-LR, 50-311-LR and 50-354-LR, as well as in the matter of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (Erwin, Tennessee),
docket number 70-143-LR.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Commission grant us an extension of the time to request a hearing, from the later of ninety days from September 19,2010, or ninety days from the date on which a decision on the Section 2.802 rulemaking petition becomes final.
Respectfully submitted, 7
Michael A. Del<lh~Y~')
Attorney General State of New Hampshire