ML13197A004
| ML13197A004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/2013 |
| From: | Shadis R Friends of the Coast, New England Coalition |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-443-LR, ASLBP 10-906-02-LR-BD01, RAS 24828 | |
| Download: ML13197A004 (5) | |
Text
July15, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS ANSWER TO NEXTERAS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS 4B (SAMA SOURCE TERMS) AND 4D (SAMA ATMOSPHERIC MODELING)
INTRODUCTION Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition (Friends/NEC) hereby answers NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLCs (NextEra) Motions for Summary Disposition of Friends/NEC 1
Contentions 4B (SAMA Source TERMS) and 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling).
Friends/NEC concurs with NextEras Statement of Material Facts concerning Contention 4 B and therefore offers no objection to the summary disposition of Contention 4B.
As more fully set forth below, Friends/NEC does dispute certain portions of NextEras Statement of Material Facts regarding Contention D and therefore pleads that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (Board) should find that genuine issues of material fact continue to exist and thus NextEra is not entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 10 C.F.R. § 2.710(d)(2).
BACKGROUND NextEra filed a License Renewal Application (LRA) for Seabrook Station (Seabrook) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission) in May 2010.
1 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (analysis) 1
Friends/NEC filed a Petition to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Petition) on October 20, 2010 raising four contentions including Contention 4, a multi-part challenge to NextEras analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA).
On February 15, 2011, the Board admitted portions of Contention 4, including Contention 4B (SAMA Source TERMS) and 4D (SAMA Analysis Atmospheric Modeling).
On March 19, 2012, NextEra submitted a supplement to its SAMA analysis (March 2012 SAMA supplement (SBK-L-12053)).14 On April 26, 2013, the NRC Staff issued its second draft supplemental environment impact statement for Seabrook (DSEIS) reviewing the updated analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives.
On May 6, 2013, the Board granted the parties joint motion regarding the timing of NextEras summary disposition motions.16 On May 10, 2013, NextEra moved for summary disposition of Contentions 4B and 4D.
STATEMENT OF LAW ASLB Panels rely on 10 C.F.R. Subpart G. 10 C.F.R. § 2.1205(c) in ruling on Subpart L motions for summary disposition Subpart G states that summary disposition is appropriate where the record demonstrates that no genuine dispute exists regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
When a summary disposition motion is supported by affidavits the party opposing the motion may not rest upon . . . mere allegations or denials, but must, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in the rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact warranting a hearing. Bare assertions or general denials are not sufficient. Although the opposing party does not have to show that it would prevail on the issues, it must at least demonstrate that there is a genuine factual issue to be tried. 10 C.F.R. § 2.710(b); Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio, 44041), CLI-93-22, 38 N.R.C. 98, 102 (1993).
2
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) demands that federal agencies contemplating major actions prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.
42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(ii).
Pursuant to this inquiry, an EIS must discuss the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided by mitigation. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, NRCs NEPA regulations require license renewal applicants perform a plant-specific, quantitative assessment of measures that could significantly mitigate the frequency-weighted consequences of radiological impacts in a severe accident a SAMA analysis.
Challenges to a SAMA analysis must be tethered to the computer modeling and mathematical aspects of the analysis, Davis Besse, CLI-12-8, 75 N.R.C. at 415,and must demonstrate a significant defect skewing the cost benefit results. CLI-12-8, 75 N.R.C. at 414. [Emphasis added]
DISCUSSION Friends/NEC, in consultation with appropriate experts, has carefully reviewed NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition, the Statement of Material Facts and the documents attached
/NEC has admitted to no contest with all but two of the twenty three stated material facts.
However , Friends/NEC denies the validity of NextEras conclusions in the two remaining stated material facts because NextEra did not consider uncertainty in determining whether an estimated 2
potential 32% increase in total benefit would result in the identification of new or additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.
In support of the motion, NextEras experts performed a bounding type of analysis to fully characterize the impacts from using an alternative meteorological model suggested in Contention 4D. Specifically, NextEras experts performed a confirmatory wind trajectory analysis using the 2
accounting for NextEras Exposure Index correction factor 3
3 CALMET meteorological model . In addition, they performed an Exposure Indexanalysis to compare the results of the CALMET annual wind trajectory roses with the annual wind rose from the Seabrook Station SAMA analysis. This Exposure Index analysis, according to NextEra, suggests that use of a more complex model like CALMET could potentially increase the calculated benefit of a SAMA by about 32%. NextEra argues that in contrast, an increase by more than a factor of two would be required before another SAMA could be considered cost-4 beneficial.
Friends/NEC experience, for example intervening in Vermont Yankees Extended Power Uprate and License Renewal Applications, is that is that NRC expects applicants to consider uncertainty in the identification of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs.57 As the Commission has stated, in a highly predictive analysis such as a SAMA analysis, there are bound to be significant 5
uncertainties, and therefore an uncertainty analysis is performed .
While guidance is not regulation, NRC endorsed guidance leads to conformance with regulation. Uncertainty analysis, of the type expected by NRC, is prescribed in USNRC RG 1.200, Rev. 2, March 2009, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. and NEI 05-01 (Att. 4D-C), and principles and practice for technically adequate probabilistic risk assessments in conjunction with ASME/ANS-RA-Sa-2009, Addenda to ASME RA-S-2008, Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, 3
NextEras Motion for Summary Disposition at 9. CALMET is model for developing three-dimensional time dependent meteorological fields. Id. See also Joint Declaration of Steven R. Hanna and Kevin R.
4 Atmospheric Modeling) (Hanna & OKula Joint Decl.) at ¶¶ 117-125; NextEras Motion at 9-10; Hanna
& OKula Joint Decl. at ¶¶ 126-131.
5 Pilgrim, CLI-12-01, 75 NRC at 58.
4
In short, NextEra has performed a meteorological analysis including dynamic factors, as recommended by Friends/NEC but has then failed to qualify its resulting conclusions with an uncertainty analysis that has the potential to unearth additional cost-beneficial SAMA considerations.
Friends/NEC does not have the resources to employ an expert witness and produce the appropriate supporting affidavits to support its contentions at this juncture. However Friends/NEC respectfully submits NextEras errors and omissions are clearly obvious to laymen experienced in NRC regulation. Friends/NEC respectfully submits that NextEra has not qualified for judgment as a matter of law because NextEra has not shown that use of a different methodology would not result in the identification of additional potentially cost-beneficial 6
V. CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, the Board should grant NextEras motion for summary disposition of Friends/NEC Contention 4B and deny NextEras motion for summary disposition of Friends/NEC Contention 4D.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by Raymond Shadis Edgecomb, Maine - July 15, 2013 Raymond Shadis Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801 shadis@prexar.com 6
Pilgrim, CLI-09-11, 69 NRC at 533 (stating that the ultimate concern is whether any additional SAMA should have been identified as potentially cost-beneficial).
5