ML12313A361

Memorandum and Order (Denying Motion for Leave to File New Contention)

ML12313A361
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/08/2012
From:	Paul Ryerson, Richard Wardwell, Kennedy M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23718, 50-443-LR, ASLP 10-906-02-LR-BD01
Download: ML12313A361 (16)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. Richard E. Wardwell In the Matter of:

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-443-LR ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR-BD01 November 8, 2012 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion for Leave to File New Contention)

Before the Board are a motion for leave to file a new contention and several related submissions filed by Intervenors Friends of the Coast and the New England Coalition (Intervenors).1 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra or Applicant) and the NRC Staff oppose the motion.2 1 Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Aug. 27, 2011) [hereinafter Intervenors Motion for Leave].

See also Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Motion (with September 19, 2012 Corrections) for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Sept.

19, 2012) [hereinafter Intervenors Sept. 19 Corrected Motion]; Supplement to Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Sept. 21, 2012) [hereinafter Intervenors Sept. 21 Supplement]; Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Motion for Oral Argument and a Site Visit (Nov. 6, 2012)

[hereinafter Argument Motion].

2 NextEras Answer Opposing Admission of Contention Concerning Alkali-Silica Reaction (Sept.

21, 2012) [hereinafter NextEra Answer]; NRC Staffs Answer to Intervenors Motion for Leave to Because the proffered new contention is not timely, we deny the motion for leave to file a new contention. Because oral argument and a site visit at this time will not assist the Board, we deny Intervenors motion for oral argument and a site visit. We also deny as moot the Applicants motion to strike a corrected version of the proffered new contention.

I.

BACKGROUND This proceeding concerns NextEras application to renew the operating license for Seabrook, a nuclear power reactor located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.3 On August 27, 2012, Intervenors filed a motion for leave to file a new contention. Their proposed new contention states:

The NextEra Energy Seabrook License Renewal Application, as amended by the Structures Monitoring Program Supplement-Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR)

Monitoring, (dated May 16, 2012 and provided to Friends/NEC in NRC Staff Disclosures, July 6, 2012) fails to demonstrate as required by Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, Section 21(a)(3), of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.21(a)(3)), that the effects of aging on structures and components subject to an aging management review (AMR) are adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis (CLB) for the period of extended operation.4 The parties submissions contemplated by our rules - that is, Intervenors motion and proposed contention,5 the responses by the Applicant and by the NRC Staff,6 and Intervenors reply7 - collectively devote well over 100 pages to the timeliness and sufficiency of the single File New Contention Concerning Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Sept. 21, 2012)

[hereinafter Staff Answer].

3 The background of the proceeding is more fully described in our memorandum and order of February 15, 2011. LBP-11-02, 73 NRC 28, 35-37 (2011).

4 Intervenors Motion for Leave at 8.

5 Id. at 1-18.

6 See NextEra Answer; Staff Answer.

7 Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Reply to NRC Staffs Answer and to Next Eras Answer to Intervenors Motion for Leave to File New Contention Concerning Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Sept. 28, 2012).

proposed contention. The parties address another 200 pages to the proposed contention in additional submissions that are not contemplated by our rules: (1) Intervenors supplement to its initial motion and proposed contention; (2) Intervenors corrected motion; (3) Intervenors corrected exhibit to their supplement; (4) NextEras motion to strike Intervenors corrected motion; (5) Intervenors opposition to NextEras motion to strike; (6) NextEras answer to Intervenors supplement; (7) the NRC Staffs answer to Intervenors supplement; (8) Intervenors reply to NextEras and the NRC Staffs oppositions to their supplement; and (9) Intervenors motion for oral argument and a site visit.8 In summary, Intervenors assert that their proposed new contention is both timely and admissible. The NRC Staff asserts that the contention is not timely, and therefore is not admissible, but that otherwise portions of the contention would be admissible. NextEra asserts that the contention is neither timely nor otherwise admissible, even in part.

II.

ANALYSIS As drafted, we think the proposed new contention is plainly untimely.

The Initial Scheduling Order provides that a proposed new contention shall be deemed timely if it is filed within thirty days of when the new and material information on which it is based first becomes available to the moving party.9 The Order is consistent with case law that 8 See Intervenors Sept. 21 Supplement; Intervenors Sept. 19 Corrected Motion; Letter from Raymond Shadis, Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition, to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (Sept. 26, 2012); NextEras Motion to Strike FOTC/NECs Corrected Contention (Oct. 1, 2012); Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Opposition to NextEras Motion to Strike FOTC/NECs Corrected Contention (Oct. 9, 2012); NextEras Answer Opposing FOTC/NECs Contention Supplement (Oct. 16, 2012); NRC Staffs Answer to Intervenors Supplement to Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Oct. 16, 2012); Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Reply to NRC Staffs and Next Eras Opposition to the Supplement to Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety-Related Concrete Structures (Oct. 23, 2012) [hereinafter Intervenors Reply to Oppositions to Supplement]; Argument Motion.

9 Licensing Board Initial Scheduling Order (Apr. 4, 2011) at 4 (unpublished) [hereinafter Initial Scheduling Order].

generally holds that a contention will be considered untimely - and to be admitted its lateness must be excusable on other grounds - if it is filed more than thirty days after the availability of such new information.10 On its face, the proposed new contention focuses on the sufficiency of a supplement to NextEras application that was submitted to the NRC on May 16, 2012, placed in ADAMS on May 22, and specifically disclosed to Intervenors on July 6 - all more than thirty days before Intervenors filed their proposed new contention on August 27, 2012.11 Intervenors assert, however, that the deadline to file their proposed new contention was not until thirty days after a transcript of a meeting of the NRCs Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS) (during which comments were made regarding the Applicants handling of the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete) became available to them on July 26, 2012.12 Because they claim, based on the date the ACRS transcript became available, that their proposed new contention is timely; Intervenors do not address good cause or any other justification for filing late.13 Therefore, if Intervenors are wrong about the event triggering their 10 See, e.g., S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 08, 74 NRC __, __ n.8 (slip op. at 3 n.8) (Sept. 27, 2011).

11 See Intervenors Motion for Leave at 8 (stating in the proposed contention the dates associated with the production and disclosure of the NextEra supplement). See also SBK-L-12101, Seabrook Station, NextEra Energy Seabrook License Renewal Application, Structures Monitoring Program Supplement-Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) Monitoring (May 16, 2012)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12142A323) [hereinafter LRA Supplement].

12 Intervenors Motion for Leave at 8.

13 The NRC Staff contends, and no other party appears to dispute, that recent changes to our Part 2 regulations regarding the filing of new and amended contentions do not apply here. See Staff Answer at 9 n.41. Although the new rules took effect on September 4, 2012, the Staff contends they do not apply to the ASR contention, which was filed on August 27, 2012. See Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules and Related Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 46562, 46562 (Aug. 3, 2012) ([I]n ongoing adjudicatory proceedings, if there is a dispute over an adjudicatory obligation or situation arising prior to the effective date of the new rule, the former provisions would be used.... [T]he new or amended requirements will be effective and govern all obligations and disputes that arise after the effective date of the final rule.). Regardless, Intervenors make no effort to excuse lateness under either the new rules or the old rules.

obligation to file their proposed contention, it appears they are out of luck. In such a case, when a motion makes no effort to satisfy the pleading requirements for late-filed contentions, that in and of itself constitutes grounds for denying the motion.14 Insofar as the contention as drafted represents a broad attack on the Applicants handling of ASR issues in general, it bears emphasis that the Staff has been raising and reviewing ASR issues at the Seabrook plant since 2010.15 To invoke the availability of new and material information, Intervenors cannot point to documents merely summarizing earlier documents or compiling preexisting, publicly available information into a single source.16 Rather, Intervenors have an iron-clad obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material... with sufficient care to enable [them] to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation for a specific contention.17 Here, much of the Staffs testimony, appearing in the transcript of the July 10, 2012 ACRS meeting regarding ASR issues at Seabrook, merely summarizes opinions and information that were available much earlier in the Staffs requests for additional information and in other correspondence with the Applicant.18 Recently, in very similar circumstances, the Commission has specifically ruled that a party may not use the ACRS meeting, or its transcript, 14 Florida Power & Light Co., (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-06-21, 64 NRC 30, 33-34 (2006).

15 Staff Answer at 11-12.

16 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-11-02, 73 NRC 333, 344 (2011).

17 N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-10-27, 72 NRC 481, 496 (2010) (citing Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-03, 37 NRC 135, 147 (1993)). See also 77 Fed. Reg. at 46566 (reaffirming the Commissions policy).

18 See Staff Answer at 12.

as an artificial bridge to extend the time in which a contention could be filed.19 Intervenors cannot defend their failure to challenge the Applicants May 16, 2012 supplement any earlier on the ground that they did not know about ASR issues at Seabrook. ASR problems at Seabrook had been in the public record for some time by that point.

The Commission has instructed the Board, however, that it must separately consider all bases supporting a proposed contention.20 In this instance, the approach directed by the Commission might work in Intervenors favor. It is possible that, when more narrowly separated according to their various arguments, portions of Intervenors broader contention might be timely. On close examination, however, the Board concludes that each such argument is untimely as well.

Intervenors premise their contention on two principal issues, which in turn are supported by a total of eight sub points. First, Intervenors allege that the Applicants proposed ASR structures monitoring program is not a functionally effective tool for six separate reasons:

1. The Structures Monitoring Program does not provide a baseline for all affected structures from which to register and monitor trending.

2. Visual inspection of surface indications alone is not adequate gauge [sic] the status of internal chemical processes, such as ASR.

3. The proposed monitoring program makes no allowance for inspection of inaccessible or buried concrete save for opportunistic inspections which may never happen, or which are not necessarily biased toward areas and 19 Vogtle, CLI-11-08, 74 NRC at __ (slip op. at 18) (finding no good cause justifying the filing of a nontimely contention where the ACRS transcript on which the proffered contention was based did not alter the technical information previously available).

20 See CLI-12-05, 75 NRC __, __ n.50 (slip op. at 10 n.50) (Mar. 8, 2012) (We remind boards, however, of the need to specify each basis relied upon for admitting a contention.). The Board senses some tension between the Commissions references in recent decisions to contention bases and the language of the Commissions regulations as in effect for the past eight years.

Unlike former 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b)(2)(i), 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii) no longer refers to multiple bases for a contention, but requires only a brief explanation of the basis for the contention.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). Trying to reconcile the language in the Commissions decisions and in its regulations, we understand the Commission to say that a licensing board should either reject a broad contention as insufficiently specific under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(i) or, alternatively, undertake a separate analysis, for purposes of admissibility, of each of the contentions subparts or bases.

structures most likely to be severely affected. In the event that excavations and hence opportunistic inspections happen in lightly affected or non-affected areas, findings will be of little use in locating potential structural failures.

4. The proposed monitoring program makes no provision for monitoring ASR -

aggravating factors, such as the moisture content, the presence of liquid water, the potential of chemically aggressive water, or the temperature of affected of [sic] susceptible concrete.

5. First field observations are to be done by untrained or minimally-trained personnel, who must make the first cut on what is reportable for further examination by a qualified professional engineer.

6. If this monitoring program is the AMP in its entirety it fails because there is no active component proposed to arrest, mitigate or manage the growth of ASR, such as a stringent de-watering program, waterproofing or waterproof membranes restoration, concrete cladding to restore surfaces, or chemical treatment, such as that using lithium compounds.21 Second, Intervenors allege that the Applicant has not developed reliable inventory and analysis on which to base an ASR monitoring program or aging management program, for two separate reasons:

1. NextEra has proposed intervals of inspection of sixth months [sic] but the interval appears nominal; not tied to any calculation of the rate of growth of ASR in any given set of locations.

2. NextEra has determined the extent to which concrete has degraded or lost its structural function by relying on testing measurements of a very limited number of samples for a very limited number of structural dynamics. This approach will not withstand technical or regulatory scrutiny. NO [sic] AMP issuing from analysis known to be inadequate or faulty can provide the necessary assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety; and the CLB into the PEO. The conclusions resulting from such stunted analysis regarding the remaining structural integrity of affected concrete and the rate of degradation (ASR) aging at Seabrook are according to the NRC technical staff (testifying at the July 10, 2012 ACRS Meeting on Seabrook) unsupportable. Friends/NEC relies on the NRC technical opinions expressed in the transcript of this meeting to flesh out the basis of its contention that the ASR monitoring plan/AMP is inadequate. Their testimony and accompanying presentation materials are new material information reflecting NRC Technical Staffs opinions expressed for the first time in an official NRC forum.22 21 Intervenors Motion for Leave at 9-10.

22 Id. at 10-11.

Each of these eight more specific claims is based on information that was available prior to the July 10, 2012 ACRS meeting:

1. Baseline Inspections. The Staffs ACRS presentation was not the first time the Staff indicated its concern regarding the necessity of baseline inspections for all structures to monitor trending. Nearly two years ago, in a request for additional information dated November 18, 2010, the Staff stated: A baseline quantitative concrete inspection of in-scope structures is necessary for monitoring and trending degradation during the period of extended operation.23 In the same request, the Staff asked the Applicant to [p]provide plans for conducting a quantitative baseline inspection, in accordance with ACI 349.3R, prior to the period of extended operation.24 Clearly, the issue of baseline inspections had been raised prior to the Staffs ACRS presentation.

2. Visual Inspections. Numerous documents that were publicly available before the Staffs ACRS presentation indicate that, while visual inspections can signal that ASR is occurring, additional examination is required to confirm it and to understand its impact on structures.25 For example, on November 18, 2011, the NRC issued Information Notice 2011-20 (IN-2011-20), which states that:

ASR can be identified as a likely cause of degradation during visual inspection by the unique craze, map or patterned cracking and the presence of alkali-silica 23 Request for Additional Information Related to the Review of the Seabrook Station License Renewal Application (TAC No ME4028) - Aging Management Programs, Enclosure at 17 (Nov.

18, 2010) (ADAMS Accession No. ML103090558) [hereinafter Nov. 2010 RAI].

24 Id.

25 See NRC Information Notice 2011-20: Concrete Degradation by Alkali-Silica Reaction at 2-3 (Nov. 18, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML112241029) [hereinafter IN-2011-20]; LRA Supplement, Enclosure 2 at 6, 11-12; Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Seabrook Station License Renewal Application, Enclosure at 5 (June 29, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11178A338) [hereinafter June 2011 RAI]; U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Report on the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in Transportation Structures at 3-4 (2010),

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif09004/hif09004.pdf [hereinafter FHWA ASR Report].

gel.... However, ASR-induced degradation can only be confirmed by optical microscopy performed as part of petrographic examination of concrete core samples.26 IN-2011-20 further states: Once visual indications of ASR-induced concrete degradation have been identified, additional actions to evaluate and monitor the condition... may include confirming the presence of ASR through microscopic examination of concrete cores.27 Similarly, in January 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a report indicating that visual inspection may not be sufficient to gauge the status of ASR.28 The January 2010 FHWA report was extensively used by the Applicant and was cited both in the Applicants May 16, 2012 supplement and in IN-2011-20, which the NRC issued in November 2011.29 In a June 2011 request for additional information, the Staff requested that the Applicant explain how these properties (compressive strength, presence of ASR, modulus of elasticity, presence of rebar degradation) can be verified without taking core samples.30 The Staff explained that it was unaware of any method other than core sampling that can be used to determine these properties.31 Thus, the Staffs June 2011 request for additional information expressly disclosed the inadequacy of visual inspection proposed by the Applicant - both to fully evaluate ASR and to rule out its presence - more than a year before Intervenors proffered their proposed new contention.

3. Inaccessible or Buried Concrete. The NRC Staffs concerns regarding inspections for inaccessible or buried concrete were outlined in the previously-discussed request for additional 26 IN-2011-20 at 2.

27 Id. at 4.

28 FHWA ASR Report at 3-4.

29 LRA Supplement, Enclosure 2 at 6, 11-12; IN-2011-20 at 3.

30 June 2011 RAI, Enclosure at 5.

31 Id.

information, dated November 18, 2010. In this request, the Staff observed that below-grade structures have experienced groundwater infiltration and asked the Applicant to [e]explain if/why the [core] samples are representative of affected concrete throughout the plant, including foundations and the containment enclosure building.32 Thus, information regarding inaccessible or buried concrete was publicly available as early as 2010.

Moreover, Intervenors reliance on the ACRS transcript is unfounded for another reason.

Nowhere in the transcript does the Staff specifically discuss inaccessible concrete structures or whether opportunistic inspections would be enough to manage the effects of ASR.

4. ASR-Aggravating Factors. In the previously-discussed June 29, 2011 request for additional information, the NRC Staff asked the Applicant to provide [p]lanes, if any, for relative humidity and temperature measurements of affected concrete areas over the long term.33 The Staff also asked the Applicant to explain [h]own the extent of degradation/corrosion of rears will be established in the ASR affected areas during the period of extended operation.34 Thus, the Staff highlighted these issues more than a year ago.

Moreover, Intervenors reliance on the ACRS transcript is again unfounded for the reason that the Staff did not reference any of these potential ASR-aggravating factors at the July 10, 2012 ACRS meeting.

5. Inspector Qualifications. NextEras ASR aging management program states: ASR is detected by visual inspections performed by qualified individuals. These individuals must either be a licensed Professional Engineer experienced in this area, or will work under the direction of a licensed Professional Engineer.35 That non-engineers might work under the 32 Nov. 2010 RAI, Enclosure at 16.

33 June 2011 RAI, Enclosure at 3.

34 Id.

35 LRA Supplement, Enclosure 2 at 12.

direction of professional engineers is not new information. Moreover, Intervenors assertions regarding inspector qualifications are not related to any statements in the ACRS meeting transcript.

6. No Active Component to Arrest, Mitigate, or Manage Growth of ASR. NextEras ASR aging management program, dated May 16, 2012, states: There are no preventative actions specified in the Seabrook Station Structures Monitoring Program.... These are monitoring programs only. Similarly, the ASR Monitoring Program does not rely on preventative actions.36 This information was therefore available more than three months before Intervenors submitted their proposed new contention. And, once again the ACRS transcript does not contain any statements supporting the claim that the ASR aging management program must contain an active component.

7. Inspection Intervals. In its May 16, 2012 ASR aging management program, the Applicant stated: The Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) Monitoring Program will monitor at least 20 locations that represent the highest CCI [Combined Cracking Index] values recorded during the baseline inspections. Follow-up inspection of these locations will be performed at six month intervals.37 Also, on March 30, 2012, in response to a request for additional information the Applicant stated: Until a trend is established, NextEra will inspect 20 previously inspected cracked locations at six months intervals.38 Thus, Intervenors assertions regarding the six month inspection interval are based on information that was available prior to the ACRS meeting on July 10, 2012. Moreover, the transcript of the ACRS meeting does not contain statements referencing the six-month inspection interval.

36 LRA Supplement, Enclosure 2 at 10.

37 Id. at 3.

38 Seabrook Station, Response to Request for Additional Information, NextEra Energy Seabrook License Renewal Application Supplemental Response - Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR), Enclosure 1 at 17 (Mar. 30, 2012) (ADAMS Accession No. ML12094A364) [hereinafter March 2012 RAI Response].

8. Concrete Sampling. On November 18, 2010, the Staff issued a request for additional information asking for a summary of the results of the concrete testing performed to date...

[including] information on mechanical properties (e.g. compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, etc.) and an explanation of if/why the samples are representative of affected concrete throughout the plant, including foundations and the containment enclosure building.39 In March 2012, NextEra stated in its response that:

NextEra has initiated actions to perform testing on full-scale replicas of station structural configurations that will provide the data necessary to establish the current and future implications of the effects of ASR on plant buildings.

Specifically, these tests will elucidate the effects of ASR with regards to reinforcing steel anchorage, flexural stiffness and shear strength.40 In short, the NRC Staff had expressed concern regarding NextEras testing for degradation of mechanical properties of the ASR affected concrete at Seabrook for the last twenty-four months.

III.

CONCLUSION Because information concerning each argument for their proposed contention was available much earlier, we deny as untimely Intervenors motion for leave to file a new contention regarding ASR. Because our ruling would be the same even if we considered the corrected version of the proffered new contention, we also deny the Applicants motion to strike as moot. Likewise, because Intervenors September 21, 2012 supplement41 was intended solely to add newly released material information,42 and admittedly in no way changed the contention,43 it could not possibly affect our ruling. If the contention as initially submitted was untimely, as the Board concludes, the contention as supplemented must also be untimely.

39 Nov. 2010 RAI, Enclosure at 16.

40 March 2012 RAI Response, Enclosure 1 at 3.

41 Intervenors Sept. 21 Supplement.

42 Intervenors Reply to Oppositions to Supplement at 2.

43 Id.

Neither oral argument nor a site visit at this time44 would be helpful to the Board. We therefore deny Intervenors motion for oral argument and a site visit.45 Finally, because the proposed contention is clearly untimely, the Board does not decide whether some or all of the contention might otherwise be admissible (a point on which the NRC Staff and the Applicant are not in complete agreement). Should Intervenors have occasion to proffer any additional new contentions in the future, however, the Board reminds Intervenors that the Commission has cautioned the parties in this case that our hearing process is reserved for genuine, material controversies between knowledgeable litigants.46 As the Commission has instructed, our contention admissibility requirements are designed to screen out intervenors with negligible knowledge of the issues and, in fact, no direct case to present.47 Although we do not adjudicate the merits at the contention admissibility stage, the Commission has expressed its dissatisfaction in this case with contentions it found to be thinly supported48 or poorly supported.49 IV.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons:

A. Intervenors Motion for Leave to File New Contention Concerning Safety-Related Concrete Structures is denied.

B. NextEras Motion to Strike FOTC/NECs Corrected Contention is denied.

44 As set forth in the Initial Scheduling Order, the Board does intend to conduct a site visit reasonably in advance of the evidentiary hearing in this case. Initial Scheduling Order at 5.

45 Additionally, we encourage parties to file requests for oral argument, if any, at the earliest practicable opportunity, rather than many weeks after both the affected motion and the oppositions thereto have been filed.

46 CLI-12-05, 75 NRC at __ (slip op. at 7).

47 Id. (citations omitted).

48 Id. at __ (slip op. at 23).

49 Id. at __ (slip op. at 40).

C. Intervenors Motion for Oral Argument and a Site visit is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dr. Michael F. Kennedy ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dr. Richard E. Wardwell ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland November 8, 2012

/RA/

/RA/

/RA/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC

)

DOCKET NO. 50-443-LR (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)

)

)

(License Renewal)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NEW CONTENTION) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Paul S. Ryerson, Chair paul.ryerson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Michael F. Kennedy michael.kennedy@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell richard.wardwell@nrc.gov Anthony C. Eitreim, Esq.

Chief Counsel anthony.eitreim@nrc.gov Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk anne.siarnacki@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hearing Docket hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Catherine Kanatas catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov David Roth, Esq.

david.roth@nrc.gov Maxwell Smith, Esq.

maxwell.smith@nrc.gov Mary Spencer, Esq.

mary.spencer@nrc.gov Edward Williamson, Esq.

edward.williamson@nrc.gov Anita Ghosh, Esq.

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov OGC Mail Center OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1) - Docket No. 50-443-LR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NEW CONTENTION) 2 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #220 Washington, DC 20004 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.

steven.hamrick@fpl.com NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 William Blair, Esq.

william.blair@fpl.com James Petro, Esq.

james.petro@fpl.com Mitchell S. Ross, Esq.

mitch.ross@fpl.com Kim Bartels, Sr. Paralegal kim.bartels@fpl.com Counsel for the Applicant Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1122 David R. Lewis, Esq.

david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition (NEC)

Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 Raymond Shadis, Pro Se Representative Debbie Grinnell debbie@c-10.org shadis@prexar.com Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor Oversight Project paul@beyondnuclear.org New Hampshire Sierra Club 40 N. Main Street Concord, NH 03870 Kurt Ehrenberg, Field Organizer kurtehrenberg@gmail.com Seacoast Anti-Pollution League P.O. Box 1136 Portsmouth, NH 03802 Doug Bogen, Executive Director dbogen@metrocast.net State of New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 K. Allen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General k.allen.brooks@doj.nh.gov Michael A. Delaney, Attorney General michael.a.delaney@doj.nh.gov Peter Roth, Assistant Attorney General peter.roth@doj.nh.gov State of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Matthew Brock, Assistant Attorney General matthew.brock@state.ma.us Jillian Riley, Legal Analyst jillian.riley@state.ma.us

[Original signed by Clara Sola ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of November 2012