ML19105B282
| ML19105B282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/2019 |
| From: | Bessette P, Hamrick S, Lighty R Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, NextEra Energy Seabrook |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-443-LA-2, ASLBP 17-953-02-LA-BD01, RAS 54923 | |
| Download: ML19105B282 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 April 15, 2019 NEXTERAS ANSWER OPPOSING C-10S MOTION REGARDING SEABROOK STATION SITE TOUR Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) hereby timely files this answer to C-10 Research and Education Foundations (C-10) Motion regarding a site tour of Seabrook Station (Motion).1 During the parties recent pre-hearing conference call (Call),2 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) stated that a site tour would be helpful to the Board, and that the Board would provide further guidance to the Parties on this topic in the coming weeks. NextEra looks forward to hosting such a tour for the Board. However, because C-10 did not wait for the Boards guidancewhich is a necessary prerequisite for responding to the issues raised in the MotionNextEra respectfully opposes the Motion.
First, C-10 seeks to establish June 26 or 27 as the date for a tour.3 NextEra believes that it would be imprudent to establish a fixed date before the Board and other parties have had a chance to consider the various factors that would lead to an informed decision regarding the tour 1
C-10 Research and Education Foundations Motion Regarding Seabrook Station Site Tour (Apr. 11, 2019).
2 The call involved C-10, NextEra, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff (collectively, Parties) and the Board, and occurred on April 4, 2019; the transcript is not yet available.
3 Motion at 1.
2 date. For example, the Board stated that it intends to circulate an itemized list of areas, equipment, etc., that it wishes to see on the tour by the end of April. That information will help inform the selection of an appropriate date for the tour, as matters such as ongoing safety-related work and personnel scheduling in certain areas of the plant must be taken into consideration.
C-10s Motion simply puts the cart before the horse.
Second, C-10s request to have four representatives attend the site tourone of them being its primary expert witnessmisapprehends the purpose of the site tour. As the Board noted on the Call, the purpose of the tour is primarily for the Boards benefit; it is not an opportunity for testifying witnesses to gather evidence to inform their testimony. Indeed, as opposed to other types of proceedings, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L proceedings do not provide for entry on land discovery by experts.4 Likewise, the appropriate size of the tour group is a determination best left until after the Board has provided guidance on the areas of the plant to be visited. This will allow NextEra and the Board to make an informed decision on group size after considering all relevant information, including:
the primary purpose and permissible scope of the tour; the escort-to-visitor ratios imposed by site procedures; the time required to visit all tour areas; the potential for impacts to pre-planned plant operations from large groups of visitors; the desire to avoid unnecessary industrial safety risks involved with possible activities such as ladder climbing; and the regulatory objective of keeping radiological doses to persons as low as reasonably achievable (assuming the tour includes radiological areas).
4 Compare 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.707(a)(2), 2.1020 (permitting entry on land discovery in proceedings under Subparts G and J) with 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L (excluding a similar provision).
3 NextEra looks forward to working with the Board and the Parties regarding the requested tour. But, for the reasons stated above, C-10s Motion is simply premature and should be rejected.
Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Steven Hamrick, Esq.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 220 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 349-3496 Fax: (202) 347-7076 E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5796 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5274 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Dated in Washington, DC This 15th day of April 2019
DB1/ 103428852.1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 April 15, 2019 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, the foregoing NEXTERAS ANSWER OPPOSING C-10S MOTION REGARDING SEABROOK STATION SITE TOUR was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.
Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5274 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC