ML19081A154

NRC Staff Response to Sierra Clubs Motion to Admit Contentions 27 28 and 29

ML19081A154
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	03/22/2019
From:	Lisa Clark NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
ASLBP 18-958-01-ISFSI-BD01, RAS 54882, Holtec International
Download: ML19081A154 (15)

Text

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)

Docket No. 72-1051 NRC Staff Response to Sierra Club's Motion to Admit Contentions 27, 28, and 29 INTRODUCTION The Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby responds to the motion of Sierra Club to admit Contentions 27, 28, and 29.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) should deny the proposed contentions because they fail to meet the requirements of both 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1) and (f)(1) and are therefore inadmissible.

BACKGROUND On March 30, 2017, Holtec International (Holtec) submitted an application, including a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Environmental Report (ER), requesting a license for the construction and operation of a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel (SNF). On July 16, 2018, the NRC published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene in the Federal Register.2 On September 14, 2018, Sierra Club 1 Sierra Clubs Motion to Admit Contentions 27, 28, and 29 (Feb. 25, 2019) (Motion).

2 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 83 Fed. Reg. 32,919 (July 16, 2018) (Holtec Hearing Notice).

2 filed a petition to intervene and admit several contentions.3 The NRC Staff4 and Holtec5 filed responses on October 9, 2018. On January 23-24, oral argument was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

On February 25, 2019, Sierra Club sought leave to admit new Contentions 27, 28, and 29, which Sierra Club asserts are timely based on statements made at the January 23-24 oral argument. Contentions 27 and 28 assert that Holtecs aging management program (AMP) is deficient because it does not address long-term storage of high burn-up fuel (HBF) and groundwater issues beyond 20 years, respectively. Contention 29 asserts that Holtec has failed to provide reasonable assurance of adequate funding because Holtec has not demonstrated that a private market for a CISF exists. Sierra Club also seeks to rely on an additional expert declaration, that of Robert Alvarez.6 LEGAL STANDARDS I.

Timeliness Standards for New and Amended Contentions New or amended contentions submitted after the initial date for hearing requests must meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1). To do so, a party must demonstrate good cause by showing that the following three conditions are met:

(i)

The information upon which the filing is based was not previously available; 3 Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Sierra Club (Sept. 14, 2018) (Petition).

4 NRC Staffs Consolidated Response to Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearing Filed by:

Alliance for Environmental Strategies, Beyond Nuclear, Inc., Dont Waste Michigan, et al., NAC International Inc., and the Sierra Club (Oct. 9, 2018) (Staff Response).

5 Holtec Internationals Answer Opposing Sierra Clubs Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing on Holtec Internationals HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Application, (Oct.

9, 2018) (Holtec Answer).

6 Sierra Clubs Additional Contentions in Support of Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing, at 7-8 & 15-16 (Feb. 25, 2019) (New Contentions); Expert Report and Curriculum Vitae of Robert Alvarez (Feb. 23, 2019) (Alvarez Report).

3 (ii)

The information upon which the filing is based is materially different from information previously available, and (iii)

The filing has been submitted in a timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.

The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that any new or amended contention meets the standards in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.7 To meet the standard, the information proffered must be more than a restatement of previously available information.8 The information must also be more than a new interpretation of previously available information.9 II.

General Requirements for Contention Admissibility In addition to meeting the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1), new or amended contentions must also satisfy the six contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1). That section requires that each contention:

(i)

Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii)

Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii)

Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv)

Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (v)

Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestors/petitioners position on the issue... ; and 7 AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 260-61 (2009).

8 Progress Energy Fla., Inc. (Levy Cty. Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-09-10, 70 NRC 51, 142 (2009) (The fact that a party integrates, consolidates, restates, or collects previously available information into a new document, does not convert it into previously unavailable information.)

9 Id. (Nor can a person satisfy the previously unavailable standard by showing that, as a subjective matter, he or she only recently became aware of, or realized the significance of, public information that was previously available to all.).

4 (vi)

Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact.

The contention admissibility requirements are strict by design10 and do not permit... notice pleading, with details to be filled in later.11 It is the petitioners burden to come forward with support for its contention.12 A board must reject a contention that rests on an incomplete or inaccurate reading of the application or the Staffs review document.13 Finally, if a petitioner provides a document as a basis for a contention, the petitioner must explain the significance of the document and how it supports the contention.14 Further, a petitioner must do more than assert generally that there are deficiencies in the application. A petitioner must identify all pertinent portions of the document it is challenging and state both the challenged position and the petitioners opposing view.15 To demonstrate a genuine, material dispute, the petitioner must address the specific analysis in the document and 10 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001), petition for reconsideration denied, CLI-02-01, 55 NRC 1 (2002).

11 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 338 (1999).

12 Oyster Creek, CLI-09-7, 69 NRC at 260-61; see also Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing ProceedingsProcedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,171 (August 11, 1989) (final rule).

13 Cf. Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), LBP-95-6, 41 NRC 281, 300 (1995) (rejecting a contention based on mistaken reading of the Safety Analysis Report).

14 See USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006) (references to articles or correspondence, without explanation or analysis of their relevance, [do] not provide an adequate basis for admitting a contention); id. at 457 (it is not up to the boards to search through pleadings or other materials to uncover arguments and support never advanced by the petitioners themselves; boards may not simply infer unarticulated bases of contentions); Fansteel, Inc.

(Muskogee, Oklahoma, Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 204-05 (2003) (stating that it is insufficient to refer generally to voluminous documents with no further analysis and supporting evidence showing why particular sections of those documents provide the basis for a contention).

15 Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358 (2001).

5 explain how it is incorrect.16 To show that a dispute is material, a petitioner must show that its resolution would make a difference in the outcome of the proceeding.17 DISCUSSION Sierra Club seeks to admit new Contentions 27, 28, and 29. Contention 27 asserts that Holtecs AMP is deficient because it does not adequately address the storage of HBF.18 Contention 28 asserts that Holtecs AMP is deficient because it does not adequately address impacts to the containers from groundwater or impacts to the groundwater from leaking containers.19 Both Contention 27 and Contention 28 also assert that Holtecs ER is inadequate because it does not mention the AMP.20 Contention 29 asserts that Holtec does not meet the financial assurance requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) because Holtec has not demonstrated that private utilities would be willing to retain title to spent fuel stored at the CISF.21 For each of the three proposed new contentions, Sierra Club relies on statements made at oral argument and the Alvarez Report, which Sierra Club asserts represent new information.22 Sierra Clubs motion should be denied because it does not demonstrate that the information upon which the filing is based was either not previously available or materially different from information previously available, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i) & (ii).

Failure to meet this good cause requirement is sufficient grounds to deny the motion. In addition, even had they been timely raised, Contentions 27, 28, and 29 are inadmissible because Sierra Club fails to show that its concerns are material to the findings the NRC must 16 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

17 Oconee, CLI-99-11, 49 NRC at 333-34.

18 New Contentions at 1.

19 Id. at 8.

20 Id. at 1, 8.

21 Id. at 14.

22 Id. at 9-18.

6 make, to provide adequate support for its claims, and to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the application, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).

I. Contentions 27 and 28 A. Sierra Club has not shown that the information on which it relies for Contentions 27 and 28 satisfies the good cause requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)

In its motion, Sierra Club asserts that the 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1) factors are satisfied because Sierra Club had no reason to believe Holtec would claim that the Aging Management Program would be used as a defense to Sierra Clubs contentions regarding HBF and groundwater impacts.23 Sierra Clubs previous contentions challenged several aspects of the application regarding HBF and groundwater impacts.24 But as Sierra Club concedes here, although those contentions were based on assertions about possible cask degradation or releases causing contamination, Sierra Club did not identify or contest any aspect of the AMP.25 Sierra Club now cites assertions by Holtec at oral argument about the nature of the AMP as information not previously available, and it proceeds to raise various claims that the AMP and ER do not address Sierra Clubs stated concerns regarding HBF and impacts to groundwater. However, Sierra Club does not show how any of the cited statements involve any change, let alone a material change, to the information that was already in the application describing the AMP. Accordingly, as discussed further below, because all of Sierra Clubs proposed challenges to the AMP and ER in Contention 27 and 28 could have been raised with its initial intervention petition, these claims fail to meet 2.309(c)(1).26 23 Motion at (unnumbered page) 3.

24 Sierra Club Contentions 15-22. Petition at 60-75.

25 New Contentions at 2, 10.

26 Nor can a person satisfy the previously unavailable standard by showing that, as a subjective matter, he or she only recently became aware of, or realized the significance of, public information that was previously available to all. Levy County, LBP-09-10, 70 NRC at 142.

7 Proposed contentions 27 and 28 are both based on the mistaken premise that certain statements made at oral argument about Holtecs AMP represent new or materially different information. Sierra Club characterizes Holtec as volunteering a reliance on the AMP for addressing HBF.27 But as is apparent from the statements Sierra Club quotes from the transcript, Holtecs statement entailed nothing more than an assertion that the aging management program... will be a part of the license requirements for the facility.28 That statement did not constitute new information; it simply described the existing contents of the application. Similarly, in Contention 28, Sierra Club asserts that Holtecs reliance on the AMP regarding ground water resources is not supported by the provisions of the AMP.29 However, the transcript statements Sierra Club quotes are again simply the applicants reiteration of the existing contents of the application.30 Sierra Club has not demonstrated that anything in those statements changes the content of the application, only Sierra Clubs interpretation of it.31 27 New Contentions at 2.

28 New Contentions at 2, citing Tr. at 286.

29 Id. at 8.

30 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. The aging management program, not specifically the high burnup fuel one, but the standard aging management program does include testing of groundwater, and can you tell me what that means?...

MR. SILBERG: Well, we have existing wells that have been monitored that have identified groundwater.

The results of that are set forth in the application.

New Contentions at 9 (citing Tr. at 297). Sierra Club also quotes a separate observation from Judge Trikouros regarding the ER (New Contentions at 9-10, citing Tr. at 348-49), which likewise does not identify any new information in the application, in the AMP or otherwise.

31 Sierra Clubs motion states that the responses to its initial contentions did not even hint that the AMP might address its contentions. Motion at (unnumbered page) 3. This claim reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the contention admissibility requirements. A petitioners misreading of a document cannot form the basis for an admissible contention; it is the petitioners responsibility to read the pertinent parts of the application and explain its disagreement. Georgia Tech Research Reactor, LBP-95-6, 41 NRC at 281. As noted in the NRC staffs response to the initial contentions asserting the potential for canister degradation and release of contamination, the petitioners failure to address and controvert the portions of the application that address the facility design and aging management plan does not demonstrate a genuine dispute with the application. See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), LBP-08-9, 67 NRC 421, 433

8 Despite the claim that Holtecs statements constitute new information that would satisfy 2.309(c)(1), Sierra Clubs proposed new contentions 27 and 28 are ultimately based on the previously available content of the AMP and the ER. Although Sierra Club includes the oral argument in the background discussion for its proposed new contentions, the claims Sierra Club makes are solely related to the adequacy of the AMP as it already existed in the application. In particular, these contentions assert for the first time that the AMP does not meet certain standards in Department of Energy (DOE)32 and NRC33 guidance documents; however, these documents were also all available at the time Sierra Club filed its initial intervention petition.

Likewise, Sierra Club cannot demonstrate that the claims raised in the Alvarez Report rely on any new information. With the exception of a single passing reference to the January 2019 oral argument transcript, the most recent document cited by Mr. Alvarez (regarding HBF or otherwise) is Holtecs application itself. Sierra Club does not show how the Alvarez Report involves anything more than repackaging of previously available information.

In sum, because Sierra Club has not shown that its proposed Contentions 27 and 28 are based on any new or materially different information from the oral argument, and because the AMP and other information Sierra Club relies on (both in its contention descriptions and in the Alvarez Report) were all publicly available well before the intervention deadline, neither (citing Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200, 247-48 (1993), review declined, CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994)).

32 See New Contentions at 4-6, 10-12 (citing O.K. Chopra et al., Managing Aging Effects on Dry Cask Storage Systems for Extended Long-Term Storage and Transportation of Used Fuel, Revision 2, (Sept. 30, 2014) (DOE Guidance)). In any event, Sierra Club also fails to establish the relevance of the DOE Guidance for purposes of meeting the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). See infra at

9.

33 See New Contentions at 3-4 (citing NUREG-1927, Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Specific Licenses and Certifications of Compliance for Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel); Id. at 7, 13-14 (citing NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs).

9 contention meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i) and (ii). The failure to meet the criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1) is sufficient grounds to reject these contentions. However, as discussed below, the contentions also do not meet the admissibility criteria of § 2.309(f)(1).

B. Sierra Club has not demonstrated that its proposed Contentions 27 and 28 meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)

Even if Contentions 27 and 28 had been timely raised, they would still be inadmissible because, as explained below, they do not meet the standards of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).

Regarding the referenced DOE guidance document, Sierra Clubs proposed Contentions 27 and 28 assert that the Holtec AMPs treatment of HBF and groundwater is inadequate because it fails to meet the DOE guidance.34 However, Sierra Club provides no basis for its apparent belief that Holtecs AMP is legally required to either discuss or meet DOE guidance. It therefore fails to explain why this concern is material to the findings the NRC staff must make on the application, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv). Further, Sierra Clubs contentions merely assert without explanation that Holtecs AMP would not meet those criteria; Sierra Club does not specify facts or expert opinion to articulate how any of the elements actually contradict any provision in the application (in the AMP or otherwise), contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vi). Similarly, Sierra Club criticizes the SARs reference to Appendix D of NUREG-1927 regarding HBF;35 because the document provides staff review guidance, Sierra Club does not explain why this assertion, even if true, would demonstrate that the application fails to meet any legal requirement. Thus, with respect to these claims regarding the AMP, proposed Contentions 27 and 28 fail to explain why they are material to the NRCs findings, to provide sufficient 34 See, e.g., New Contentions at 4-6 and 10-13 (asserting with respect to each contention that [t]here is no indication in the SAR that these ten elements [of the DOE guidance] are part of or included in Holtecs Aging Management Program[.]).

35 Id. at 3-4.

10 supporting information, or to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the application, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).36 Sierra Club also claims in contentions 27 and 28 that Holtecs ER fails to meet 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.45 because the ER does not discuss the AMP.37 Yet Sierra Club provides no basis for its claim that the AMP purports to be a mitigation measure38 or that an ER is required to discuss an AMP for that purpose.39 Nor does Sierra Club articulate any factual basis to explain what adverse impacts such measures would reduce, or in what way. More significantly, neither contention actually cites the ERs existing discussions of mitigation measures, let alone explains how those discussions are deficient (with respect to potential impacts associated with HBF, groundwater, or otherwise). Thus, with respect to the claims that the ER fails to meet 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.45, proposed Contentions 27 and 28 also fail to meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).

In sum, even if Contentions 27 and 28 had demonstrated good cause for filing after the initial intervention deadline, they would be inadmissible because Sierra Club has failed to demonstrate that its claims are material to the findings the NRC must make, to provide adequate factual or expert support, and to raise a genuine dispute with the applicant, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv)-(vi).

36 In Contention 27, Sierra Club also cites summarily to statements by Mr. Alvarez regarding a 2014 NRC-sponsored study and a 2016 letter from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Id. at 7-8. But Sierra Club does not explain how any of these observations reveal any specific deficiency in any analysis in the application, either in the AMP or in the ERs discussion of potential environmental impacts.

37 Id. at 7 and 13-14.

38 New Contentions at 7 and 14.

39 For example, Sierra Club cites generalized guidance in NUREG-1748 about summarizing mitigation measures that could reduce adverse impacts, but does not identify how the referenced passage (or any other portion of NUREG-1748) encompasses or pertains to aging management programs. Id.

11 II. Contention 29 A. Sierra Club has not shown that the information on which it relies for Contention 29 meets the good cause requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)

Sierra Club asserts that the 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1) factors are satisfied with respect to proposed Contention 29 for two reasons. First, it claims § 2.309(c)(1)(i) is met because the necessary reliance on the reactor owners to be financially responsible for the project did not exist prior to the... January 24 hearing. Second, it claims § 2.309(c)(1)(ii) is met because Sierra Club had no reason to believe the option of the reactor owners involvement was a serious proposal.40 Because neither of these assertions is tenable, Sierra Club fails to demonstrate the good cause required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1).

By its own terms, Contention 29 seeks to challenge the applicants demonstration of reasonable assurance of funding under 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e).41 The portion of the application addressing financial qualifications, including its proposed license condition, has always specifically included the option of private funding.42 Whether or not Sierra Club believed the private funding option was a serious proposal, it was unquestionably in the applications financial assurance analysis and thus previously available. Sierra Club, in its own Contention 1, challenged whether DOE may take title to the waste at a CISF under current law.43 Accordingly, if Sierra Club believed the discussion of the private funding option was also deficient, it could have raised that challenge as part of its initial contentions, at the same time it (and other 40 Motion at (unnumbered page) 3.

41 Motion at (unnumbered page) 2-3; New Contentions at 14.

42 See Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) Underground CISF - Financial Assurance

& Project Life Cycle Cost Estimates (ADAMS Accession No. ML18058A608).

43 Petition at 10-11.

12 petitioners) challenged the applications reference to a potential DOE role.44 Sierra Club chose not to do so.

Furthermore, Sierra Club does not explain how any of the referenced statements from the January oral argument, which relate solely to DOEs ability to take title, involve any new information about the viability of private ownership or funding, the stated concern of Contention

29. Sierra Club identifies no actual change to the applications provision for, and description of, the private ownership option as grounds for Holtecs demonstration of financial assurance.45 Contention 29 also references statements from Mr. Alvarezs report,46 but beyond a passing reference to the January oral argument, Mr. Alvarez does not refer to any information that was not available well before Sierra Club filed its initial contentions.

Accordingly, regarding Holtecs private funding option for its financial assurance, Sierra Club has not demonstrated that proposed Contention 29 is based on information that is new or materially different from what was previously available. Because the application has always provided for the option that Holtec would enter into contracts with reactor owners rather than DOE, the fact that Sierra Club has only now opted to dispute that option does not constitute 44 See, e.g., Staff Response at 32 (responding to Dont Waste Michigan, et al., But the same key portions of the application that the Joint Petitioners quote make clear, to the contrary, that the Applicant may instead enter into contracts with nuclear plant owners, not necessarily with DOE.).

45 Sierra Club itself appears to acknowledge that similar financial assurance conditions for a Part 72 license were previously proposed and upheld in the Private Fuel Storage proceeding. See Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-00-13, 52 NRC 23, 31-32 (2000)

(We therefore affirm... use of license conditions as part of [Private Fuel Storages] showing of financial assurance.); New Contentions at 17 (The bottom line was that the Commission allowed Private Fuel Storage to provide the financial assurance through license conditions.). This precedent only underscores that if Sierra Club believed the private funding aspect of the license condition was deficient, it had the opportunity to do so at the time it challenged the viability of the applicants inclusion of DOE.

46 New Contentions at 15-16.

13 good cause.47 For all these reasons, Sierra Clubs proposed Contention 29 does not satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1) and must be denied.

B. Sierra Club has not demonstrated that its proposed Contention 29 meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)

Even if Contention 29 had been timely raised, it remains inadmissible because it does not meet the standards of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). Contention 29 seeks to challenge the applicants demonstration of reasonable assurance of funding under 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e).48 The application includes Holtecs explanation of its financial qualifications.49 Sierra Club references a variety of life cycle cost estimates stated within the Alvarez Report, and it asserts broadly that Holtec has provided no indication that reactor owners would be willing to enter agreements.50 Sierra Club also poses questions about whether it would be less expensive for owners to store the waste at reactor sites, or what an individual owners cost would be.51 However, Sierra Club never specifies how any of these questions or cost figures, in either the statement of Contention 29 or the referenced Alvarez Report, actually contradict Holtecs application or represent a deficiency in its proposed use of license conditions. A bare assertion that an application is incorrect does not constitute a genuine dispute with the application.52 Because Contention 29 does not ultimately explain how its concerns controvert the application, it does not satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi) and should not be admitted.

47 See Levy County, LBP-09-10, 70 NRC at 142 (Nor can a person satisfy the previously unavailable standard by showing that, as a subjective matter, he or she only recently became aware of, or realized the significance of, public information that was previously available to all.).

48 Motion at (unnumbered page) 2-3; New Contentions at 14.

49 See Holtec International & Eddy Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) Underground CISF - Financial Assurance

& Project Life Cycle Cost Estimates (ADAMS Accession No. ML18058A608).

50 New Contentions at 16.

51 Id. at 16.

52 Any contention that fails directly to controvert the application or that mistakenly asserts the application does not address a relevant issue can be dismissed. See Millstone, LBP-08-9, 67 NRC at 433.

14 CONCLUSION For the reasons described above, the Board should deny Sierra Clubs motion to admit Contentions 27, 28, and 29.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

L. Sheldon Clark Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-2189 E-mail: Sheldon.Clark@nrc.gov Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Rockville, MD this 22th day of March 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)

Docket No. 72-1051 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC Staff Response to Sierra Club's Motion to Admit Contentions 27, 28, and 29, dated March 22, 2019, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding, this 22th day of March 2019.

/Signed (electronically) by/

L. Sheldon Clark Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-2189 E-mail: Sheldon.Clark@nrc.gov Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Rockville, MD this 22th day of March 2019