ML15111A356

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy'S Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in Operating License Proceeding for Watts Bar Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant

ML15111A356
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	04/21/2015
From:	Curran D Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
To:	NRC/SECY
SECY RAS
References
50-391-OL, ASLBP 09-893-01-OL-BD01, RAS 27537
Download: ML15111A356 (26)

Text

April 22, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

Tennessee Valley Authority ) Docket No. 50-391-OL (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) )

SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING FOR WATTS BAR UNIT 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c), 2.309(f)(1), and 2.309(f)(2), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) requests a hearing and seeks leave to intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) operating license proceeding for the Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear power plant. This Hearing Request/Petition to Intervene is supported by the attached SACEs Motion to Reopen the Record of Operating License Proceeding for Watts Bar Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant (Apr. 22, 2015).

SACE seeks admission of a single place-holder contention challenging the NRCs reliance, in proposing to license Watts Bar Unit 2, on the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rule (79 Fed. Reg. 56,238 (Sept. 19, 2014) (Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule)) and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-2157, September 2014) (Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS).1 While SACE seeks admission of its contention, it does not seek to litigate the substantive content in an adjudicatory 1

SACE notes that similar place-holder contentions have been filed in other NRC licensing cases, including the license renewal proceeding for Callaway Unit 1 and the Fermi Unit 3 COL proceeding. See Missouri Coalition for the Environments Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in License Renewal Proceeding for Callaway Nuclear Power Plant (Dec. 8, 2014);

Beyond Nuclears Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in Combined License Proceeding for Fermi Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant (Feb. 12, 2015).

hearing. Instead, SACE has already raised its concerns about the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS in comments on draft versions of those documents, and the NRC has already either rejected or disregarded SACEs comments in the final versions of the Rule and GEIS. SACE also has appealed the final versions to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See Beyond Nuclear v. NRC, Docket No.

14-1216 (filed Oct. 29, 2014).2 The sole purpose of this contention is to lodge a formal challenge to the NRCs complete and unqualified reliance, in the individual licensing proceeding for Watts Bar Unit 2, on the legally deficient Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS.

SACE submits its contention with the reasonable expectation that it will be denied, because the subject matter of the contention is generic. SACE respectfully submits that nevertheless, the filing of a contention is the only procedural means offered by Commission regulations for ensuring that any court decision resulting from SACEs appeal of the generic Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS will also be applied to the individual Watts Bar Unit 2 licensing proceeding, which relies on the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS. Upon denial of SACES contention, SACE intends to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals and request the Court to hold the appeal in abeyance pending its ruling in New York II.3 2

Beyond Nuclear v. NRC was consolidated with four other cases and is now captioned New York et al. v. NRC, Docket Nos. 14-1210, 14-1212, 14-1216, and 14-1217 (Consolidated) (filed October 31, 2014) (New York II).

3 In this context, SACE notes that its contention is not accompanied by a petition for a waiver of 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.71(d), 51.95(c)(2), or any of the other regulations on which the Commission relies to bar members of the public from litigating generic NEPA issues in individual licensing proceedings. No purpose would be served by such a waiver, because SACE does not seek an adjudicatory hearing on the NRCs generic environmental findings. Instead, SACES only 2

II. DEMONSTRATION OF STANDING SACE is a nonprofit membership organization that promotes responsible energy choices that solve global warming problems and ensure clean, safe and healthy communities throughout the southeastern United States. SACE has intervened in several NRC proceedings for the licensing of new nuclear power plants. SACE seeks admission of its contention in order to protect its members interest in a clean and healthy environment, including protection from the health and environmental hazards posed by generation of spent fuel at the proposed Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear reactor. The organization has standing to intervene through members who live, work, and/or own property within 50 miles of the proposed Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor, and their interests may be affected by the results of the proceeding. Virginia Electric and Power Co.

(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). Their health, safety, property value, and means of livelihood could be adversely affected if the NRC permits Watts Bar Unit 2 to operate in a manner that is unsafe or harmful to the environment.

SACE has attached declarations from members Sandra L. Kurtz, Jeannie V. McKinney, and Victoria Anne Murchie, who have authorized SACE to bring this legal action on their behalves.

III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND For several decades, the NRC relied on its Waste Confidence decision and Temporary Storage Rule to address, in reactor licensing and re-licensing proceedings, safety and environmental issues associated with spent fuel storage and disposal. In 2010, the NRC purpose in raising its contention is to ensure that any decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding the validity of the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS will also be applied to this proceeding, in which the NRC relies on them.

3

published updates to the Waste Confidence decision (the Waste Confidence Update) and Temporary Storage Rule, which were challenged by several state governments, an Indian tribe, and environmental organizations. Waste Confidence Decision Update, 75 Fed. Reg. 81,037 (Dec. 23, 2010) and Temporary Storage Rule, 75 Fed Reg. 81,032 (Dec. 23, 2010). In New York

v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (New York I), the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the Waste Confidence Update and Temporary Storage Rule, and remanded them to the NRC for further proceedings.

On July 9, 2012, following on the Courts decision in New York I, SACE submitted a contention in this proceeding, asserting that in the absence of a valid GEIS for spent fuel storage and disposal, the environmental impacts and alternatives must be analyzed in the individual licensing proceeding. Intervenors Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning Temporary Storage and Ultimate Disposal of Nuclear Waste at Proposed Watts Bar Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant. SACE also petitioned the NRC to suspend the Watts Bar Unit 2 licensing proceeding pending the agencys compliance with the Courts remand. At the request of SACE and other petitioners, the NRC subsequently suspended licensing and re-licensing decisions for all reactors, including Watts Bar Unit 2. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Power Project, LLC et al.,

CLI-12-16, 76 NRC 63 (2012) (CLI-12-16).

In May 2013, the NRC issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Unit 2 (NUREG-0492, Supp. 2, May 2013) (ML13144A092) (Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS). The Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS relied in part on the safety and environmental findings of the vacated Waste Confidence Decision and stated that it will be supplemented [i]f the results of the Waste Confidence EIS identify information that requires a supplement.

4

Id. at 4 4-69.

On September 13, 2013, in response to the Courts remand in New York I, the NRC published a proposed rule entitled Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 78 Fed. Reg. 56,776 (Sept. 13, 2013) (Proposed Waste Confidence Rule). The NRC also published a Draft Waste Confidence GEIS (NUREG-2157, noticed at 78 Fed. Reg. 56,621 (Sept.

13, 2013)).

On December 20, 2013, SACE joined thirty-two other environmental organizations in submitting Comments by Environmental Organizations on Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Waste Confidence Rule and Petition to Revise and Integrate All Safety and Environmental Regulations Related to Spent Fuel Storage and Disposal (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A152, corrected on Jan. 7, 2014 in ML14024A297)

(SACE et al. Comments). The SACE et al. Comments were supported by expert declarations by Dr. Arjun Makhijani, David Lochbaum, Dr. Gordon Thompson, and Mark Cooper (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A152). The comments and supporting declarations made detailed and comprehensive criticisms of the Proposed Waste Confidence Rule and Draft Waste Confidence GEIS, charging that they were inadequate to satisfy NEPA or the Atomic Energy Act on both legal and technical grounds. Other organizations, as well as state and local governments, also filed comments critical of the Proposed Rule and Draft GEIS.

Despite receiving significant criticisms of the proposed Waste Confidence Rule and Draft Waste Confidence GEIS, in September 2014, the NRC published the Final Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and Final Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS, without changing its environmental analysis in any significant respect. The Final Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule also omitted 5

Waste Confidence safety findings required by the Atomic Energy Act. Upon issuance of the Rule and GEIS, the Commission lifted the suspension of licensing and re-licensing for Watts Bar Unit 2 and other reactors. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Power Project, LLC et al., CLI-12-08, 80 NRC 71 (2014).

In October 2014, SACE joined seven other environmental organizations in seeking judicial review of the Rule and GEIS by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under NEPA, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, inter alia.

Beyond Nuclear et al. v. NRC, No. 14-1216 (filed Oct. 29, 2014). The case was consolidated with similar appeals by the States of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont; the Prairie Island Indian Community; and Natural Resources Defense Council in New York II. See note 2 above. The parties are now awaiting a briefing schedule.

After the NRC issued the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS, SACE reasonably anticipated that the NRC Staff would comply with NEPA and the agencys own implementing regulations by incorporating the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS by reference into the outdated Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS. When three months had passed after the effective date of the Rule and the NRC Staff still had not supplemented the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS (or any other FEIS issued prior to the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS), SACE joined four other organizations in petitioning the NRC Commissioners to order the correction of the Staffs legal error. Petition to Supplement Reactor-Specific Environmental Impact Statements to Incorporate by Reference the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Spent Fuel Storage (Jan. 28, 2015) (Petition to Supplement). The Petitioners argued that NEPA and implementing regulations of NRC and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) require the NRC to 6

supplement the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS and other EISs to incorporate the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS by reference. The Petition to Supplement is pending before the Commission.

IV. CONTENTION A. Statement of Contention While the text of the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS is outdated with respect to its discussion of spent fuel storage impacts, 10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b) provides that the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS is incorporated by reference into the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS.4 For all of the reasons stated in SACE et al.s Comments on the Draft Waste Confidence GEIS, however, the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS fail to provide the NRC with a lawful basis under NEPA for issuing an operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2. As discussed in SACE et al.s comments on the Rule and GEIS, they suffer from the following failures:

In blatant violation of NEPA and the Courts decision in New York I, the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS fails to examine the probability and consequences of failure to site a repository. Instead of examining the risk of failing to site a repository, the GEIS rationalizes the risk away, by arbitrarily assuming that spent fuel will be protected by institutional controls for an infinite period of time at reactor sites. This assumption is not only absurd and inconsistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), but it also defeats the Courts purpose of forcing NRC to reckon with the environmental consequences of its failure to site a repository.

The GEIS fails to acknowledge that the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule is a licensing action, and therefore it distorts the statement of purpose and need for the rule as relating to administrative rather than environmental concerns. As a result, the GEIS also mischaracterizes the alternatives that must be considered. Instead of evaluating alternatives related to storage and disposal of spent fuel, the GEIS examines alternatives related to the administrative question of how to prepare an EIS. The result is a farcical 4

10 C.F.R. § 51.23(b) states that the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS is deemed incorporated into EISs prepared under 10 C.F.R. § 51.95 (which governs preparation of draft and final supplemental EISs for reactor licensing and license renewal).

7

cost-benefit analysis that utterly fails to address alternatives for avoiding or mitigating the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel or siting a repository.

The GEIS analysis of the environmental impacts of extended spent fuel storage ignores the fact that NRC knows very little about the behavior of spent fuel in long-term or indefinite storage conditions, especially the potentially significant effects of long-term dry cask storage on high burnup fuel integrity. In violation of NEPA, the NRC makes no attempt to quantify these uncertainties.

The GEIS fails to fully consider the environmental impacts of spent fuel pool leaks and fires. In violation of NEPA, the GEIS relies upon incomplete data, adopts a flawed concept of risk and ignores a range of causes for accidents.

In violation of NEPA, the GEIS makes no attempt to show how the environmental impacts associated with the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule will be quantified and incorporated into cost-benefit analyses for nuclear reactors. Although spent fuel disposal and long-term storage costs are high enough to tip the balance of a cost-benefit analysis for reactor licensing away from licensing, nowhere does the NRC explain how it will take these costs into account in reactor licensing decisions.

In violation of NEPA, the GEIS fails to support the limited conclusions in the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS regarding the technical feasibility of spent fuel disposal.

The NRC has splintered the analysis of environmental impacts associated with storage and disposal of spent fuel into an array of safety findings and environmental analyses.

While the issues covered by these separate findings and analyses overlap and involve cumulative impacts, the NRC refuses to integrate them. The NRC also refuses to correct inconsistencies between them.5 B. Statement of Basis for the Contention The basis for SACES contention is provided in the SACE et al. Comments and 5

As discussed above at pages 6-7, the NRC Staff has not yet updated the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS to incorporate the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS by reference, as required by NEPA, 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix A and other authorities. See also Petition to Supplement at 7-9. In the absence of an accurate FEIS, SACE is not able to challenge the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS with the accuracy and specificity required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi) and (f)(2). Id. at 10-11.

Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the contention is filed before the NRC licenses the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor, SACE submits it now, based on the best available information.

8

attachments (including the declarations of Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr. Gordon Thompson, David Lochbaum, and Mark Cooper).

C. Demonstration that the Contention is Within the Scope of the Proceeding The contention is within the scope of the proceeding because it challenges the adequacy of the NRCs NEPA review for the licensing of the proposed Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor.

D. Demonstration that the Contention is Material to the Findings the NRC Must Make to License This Reactor The contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make in order to license this reactor because it asserts that the environmental findings in the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS are not supported and are legally deficient.

E. Concise Statement of the Facts or Expert Opinion Supporting the Contention, Along with Appropriate Citations to Supporting Scientific or Factual Materials The statements of fact or expert opinion supporting the contention are set forth in the SACE et al. Comments and attachments (including the declarations of Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr.

Gordon Thompson, David Lochbaum, and Mark Cooper).

F. A Genuine Dispute Exists with the Applicant on a Material Issue of Law or Fact This contention raises a genuine dispute with both the applicant and the NRC regarding whether the NRC has satisfied NEPA for the purpose of issuing an operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2.

V. THE CONTENTION IS TIMELY PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c) and 2.309(f)(2).

NRC regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) and § 2.309(f)(2) call for a showing that:

9

(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.

This Hearing Request/Petition to Intervene is timely because it does not depend at all on past information. Instead, it is a place-holder that depends on an event that will occur in the future:

the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in New York II. SACES contention seeks the denial (or revocation) of an operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2 in the event that the Court of Appeals reverses the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and/or GEIS.

VI. CONSULTATION CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)

Undersigned attorney Diane Curran certifies that on April 13, 2015, she contacted counsel for the applicant and the NRC Staff in an attempt to obtain their consent to this Hearing Request/Petition to Intervene. Counsel for both parties stated that they would oppose it.

VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, SACE respectfully requests that its contention be admitted.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by:

Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com April 22, 2015 10

April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

Tennessee Valley Authority ) Docket No. 50-391-OL (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) )

SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD OF OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING FOR WATTS BAR UNIT 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.326, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hereby moves to reopen the record in this proceeding to admit a new contention challenging the legal adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Unit 2 (NUREG-0492, Supp. 2, May 2013) (ML13144A092) (Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS).

SACEs Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene in Operating License Proceeding for Watts Bar Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant (April 15, 2015) (Hearing Request/Petition to Intervene).

SACE contends that under NEPA, the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS does not provide the NRC with an adequate legal basis for licensing Watts Bar Unit 2 because it relies for its evaluation of the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage and disposal on the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rule (79 Fed. Reg. 56,238 (Sept. 19, 2014) (Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule)) and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-2157, September 2014) (Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS).1 As discussed in SACES Hearing Request/Petition to Intervene, while SACE seeks admission of its contention, SACE does not seek to litigate the substantive content of its 1

The NRC issued the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS on remand from the U.S.

Court of Appeals in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (New York I).

contention in an adjudicatory hearing. Instead, SACE has already raised its concerns about the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS in comments on draft versions of those documents, and the NRC has already either rejected or disregarded SACES comments in the final versions of the Rule and GEIS. SACE also has appealed the final versions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See Beyond Nuclear

v. NRC, Docket No. 14-1216 (filed Oct. 29, 2014).2 The sole purpose of SACES contention is to lodge a formal challenge to the NRCs reliance, in the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS, on the legally deficient Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS for purposes of licensing Watts Bar Unit 2. This motion is necessary because the hearing record is closed.

Several overlapping factors, set forth in three regulations, govern motions to reopen and admit new contentions. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c), 2.309(f), and 2.326. This motion and the accompanying contention satisfy each of these factors.

II. JURISDICTION Until issuance of its initial final decision, a Licensing Board has jurisdiction to reopen a proceeding. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.318(a), 2.713(a), 2.319(m), and 2.341; Metro. Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-699, 16 NRC 1324, 1326, 1327 (1982). After that, jurisdiction lies with the Commission. Therefore, SACE has filed this Motion before the Secretary of the Commission.

2 Beyond Nuclear v. NRC was consolidated with four other cases and is now captioned New York v. NRC, Nos. 14-1210, 14-1212, 14-1216, and 14-1217 (Consolidated) (New York II).

2

III. THIS MOTION SATISFIES THE STANDARDS FOR REOPENING A CLOSED HEARING RECORD SET FORTH IN 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(a).

10 C.F.R. § 2.236(a) provides three criteria which must be satisfied for this motion to be granted:

(1) The motion must be timely. However, an exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented; (2) The motion must address a significant safety or environmental issue; and (3) The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially.

Id. This motion and the accompanying contention satisfy all three criteria, as discussed below.

A. This Motion is Timely.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.326, motions to re-open the record must be timely. The NRC judges timeliness of motions to reopen the record by the same standards as for contentions. 77 Fed. Reg. 46,562, 46,571 (Aug. 3, 2012).3 This motion to reopen and the attached contention are timely because they do not depend at all on past information. Instead, they are placeholders that depend on an event that will occur in the future: the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in New York II. SACEs contention seeks the denial (or revocation) of an operating license (OL) for Watts Bar Unit 2 in the event that the Court of Appeals reverses the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and/or GEIS.

3 NRC regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) and § 2.309(f)(2) call for a showing that:

(i) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (ii) The information upon which the amended or new contention is based is materially different than information previously available; and (iii) The amended or new contention has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.

3

B. This Motion and the Accompanying Contention Address a Significant Environmental Issue.

This motion and the accompanying contention raise the significant environmental issue that the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS is not supported by an adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage and disposal. As discussed in SACEs comments on the proposed version of the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and the draft version of the Continued Spent Fuel Storage GEIS, the analysis referenced by the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS is seriously deficient to satisfy NEPA. See Hearing Request/Petition to Intervene at 9-10.

C. This Motion and the Accompanying Contention Would Likely Produce a Materially Different Result in this Proceeding.

The purpose of SACES contention is to ensure that in the reasonably likely event that the U.S. Court of Appeals grants SACEs petition for review of the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS and vacates them for failure to comply with NEPA, the NRC will withdraw the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS as base for licensing Watts Bar Unit 2, and therefore withdraw the Watts Bar Unit 2 OL. Thus, admission of this contention would likely produce a materially different result in this proceeding.

IV. THIS MOTION SATISFIES THE STANDARDS FOR REOPENING A CLOSED HEARING RECORD SET FORTH IN 10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b).

10 C.F.R. § 2.326(b) requires that a motion to reopen the record must be accompanied by affidavits that set forth the factual and/or technical bases for the movant claim that the criteria of Section 2.326(a) have been satisfied. SACE has not submitted affidavits, because the bases for this motion are purely legal: As discussed in SACEs Contention, the sole purpose of SACEs Contention - and therefore of this motion - is to ensure that any court decision resulting from SACEs appeal of the generic Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS will also be applied 4

to the individual Watts Bar Unit 2 OL proceeding, which relies on the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS.

V. THIS MOTION AND THE ACCOMPANYING CONTENTION SATISFY THE STANDARDS FOR CONTENTIONS FILED AFTER THE DEADLINE SET FORTH IN 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.326(d) AND 2.309(c).

10 C.F.R. § 2.326(d) provides that [a] motion to reopen which relates to a contention not previously in controversy among the parties must also satisfy the § 2.309(c) requirements for new or amended contentions filed after the deadline in § 2.309(b).4 As discussed above in Section III.A, this Motion and SACEs placeholder Contention are timely because they are based on information that does not yet exist: the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in New York II. If the U.S. Court of Appeals reverses the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS, then the filing of this contention will have ensured that the Watts Bar Unit 2 OL decision is also reversed, because the Watts Bar Unit 2 FEIS relies on the Continued Spent Fuel Storage Rule and GEIS.

VI. CONSULTATION CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(B)

Undersigned counsel Diane Curran certifies that on April 13, 2015, she contacted counsel for the applicant and the NRC staff in an attempt to obtain their consent to this motion. Counsel for both parties stated that they would oppose it.

4 See note 3 above for the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c).

5

VII. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SACEs Motion to Reopen the Record should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

[Signed electronically by]

Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com April 22, 2015 6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket No. 50-391-OL (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 22, 2015, I posted on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS HEARING REQUEST AND PETITION TO INTERVENE IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING FOR WATTS BAR UNIT 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD OF OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING FOR WATTS BAR UNIT 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; and standing declarations of Sandra L. Kurtz, Jeannie V.

McKinney, and Victoria Anne Murchie. It is my understanding that as a result, the NRC Commissioners, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and parties to this proceeding were served.

Respectfully submitted,

[Electronically signed by]

Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 Fax: 202-328-6918 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com April 22, 2015