ML19179A221
| ML19179A221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 06/28/2019 |
| From: | Sara Kirkwood NRC/OGC |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| ASLBP 18-958-01-ISFSI-BD01, RAS 55060, Holtec International | |
| Download: ML19179A221 (11) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL Docket No. 72-1051 (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO FASKEN LAND AND MINERALS, LTD. AND PERMIAN BASIN LAND AND ROYALTY OWNERS' APPEAL OF LBP-19-4 Sara B. Kirkwood Counsel for NRC Staff June 28, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Background................................................................................................................................ 2 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 3 I. Applicable Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 3 A. Interlocutory Review of Petitions to Intervene under 10 C.F.R. § 2.311 ........................... 3 B. Legal Requirements for Contention Admissibility ............................................................ 4 II. Fasken Has Not Demonstrated a Legal Error in the Boards Decision................................. 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 6 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Commission Legal Issuances AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station),
CLI-06-24, 64 NRC 111 (2006) ............................................................................................ 4 Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1 & 2),
CLI-01-19, 54 NRC 109 (2001) ............................................................................................... 5 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3),
CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349 (2001).............................................................................................. 4 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2),
CLI-03-14, 58 NRC 207 (2003) ............................................................................................. 4 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3),
CLI-08-17, 68 NRC 231 (2008) .............................................................................................. 3 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2),
CLI-16-5, 83 NRC 131 (2016) ................................................................................................. 4 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 6 and 7),
CLI-17-12, 86 NRC 215 (2017) ............................................................................................... 3 Intl Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill),
CLI-01-21, 54 NRC 247 (2001) .............................................................................................. 4 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318 (1999) .............................................................................................. 4 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 2 and 3),
CLI-10-9, 71 NRC 245 (2010) ................................................................................................ 4 S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4),
CLI-11-8, 74 NRC 214 (2011) ................................................................................................. 3 USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant),
CLI-06-9, 63 NRC 433 (2006) .............................................................................................. 4 Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station),
CLI-96-1, 43 NRC 235 (1996)................................................................................................ 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Decisions Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),
LBP-06-14, 63 NRC 568 (2006) ........................................................................................... 4 Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility),
LBP-19-4, 89 NRC __ (May 7, 2019) (slip op.) ........................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5 iii
Regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 ................................................................................................................3, 4, 5 10 C.F.R. § 2.311 .................................................................................................................... 1, 3 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 ....................................................................................................................... 5 Other Authorities Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182 (Jan. 14, 2004) ...................... 4 Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility) and Interim Storage Partners, LLC (WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), Order of the Secretary (Oct. 29, 2018) (unpublished) (ML18302A328) ...................................................................2, 3 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 83 Fed. Reg. 12,034 (Mar. 19, 2018) ................................................. 2 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 83 Fed. Reg. 32,919 (July 16, 2018) ............................................... 1, 2 iv
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL Docket No. 72-1051 (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd. and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners' Appeal of LBP-19-4 Introduction Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(b), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) submits its answer opposing the appeal filed by Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd. and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (collectively, Fasken) 1 of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) Memorandum and Order LBP-19-4. 2 In LBP-19-4, the Board found that Fasken had standing but had not submitted an admissible contention regarding Holtec Internationals (Holtec) license application to construct a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) to store spent nuclear fuel pursuant to the NRCs regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 72. 3 Because Fasken has not shown that the Board committed an error of law or abused its discretion, the Commission should affirm the Boards decision.
1 Fasken and [Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners] Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of LBP-19-4 (June 3, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19154A455) (Fasken Appeal).
2 Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-4, 89 NRC __ (May 7, 2019)
(slip op.).
3 Id.; Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 83 Fed. Reg. 32,919 (July 16, 2018).
1
Background
On March 30, 2017, Holtec submitted an application, including a Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Environmental Report (ER), and proposed license, requesting that the NRC grant a license to Holtec for the construction and operation of a CISF for spent nuclear fuel. 4 The proposed CISF would be located in Lea County, New Mexico. In its license application, Holtec requests authorization to store up to 8,680 metric tons of uranium in up to 500 canisters for a license period of 40 years. 5 On March 19, 2018, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the acceptance and docketing of Holtecs CISF license application. 6 The NRC subsequently published a Federal Register notice of opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene. 7 Rather than filing a petition to intervene, Fasken instead filed before the Commission a motion to dismiss the proceeding, arguing that the NRC lacked jurisdiction over the application. 8 The Secretary of the Commission denied the motion, stating that
[t]he NRCs regulations allow interested persons to file petitions to intervene and requests for hearing in which they can raise concerns regarding a particular license application. These regulations do not, however, provide for the filing of threshold motions to dismiss a license application; instead, interested persons must file petitions to intervene and be granted a hearing. 9 4 Holtecs application materials are available at: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/holtec-international.html. Unless otherwise specified, all the NRC Staffs citations to the ER are to Revision 5 (ML19095B800), all citations to the SAR are to Revision 0F (ML19052A379), and all citations to the proposed license are to Revision 0A (ML17310A223) (Proposed License).
5 Proposed License at 1.
6 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 83 Fed. Reg. 12,034 (Mar. 19, 2018).
7 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 83 Fed. Reg. 32,919 (July 16, 2018).
8 Motion of Fasken to Dismiss Licensing Proceedings for HI-STORE CISF and WCS CISF (Sept. 14, 2018), at 1-8 (ML18257A330).
9 Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility) and Interim Storage Partners, LLC (WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), Order of the Secretary (Oct. 29, 2018), at 2 (unpublished) (ML18302A328).
2
The Secretary then referred Faskens motion to the Board for consideration under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309. 10 On May 7, 2019, the Board issued its decision, finding that Fasken had standing but had not submitted a proposed contention that met the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(f)(1). 11 Fasken now appeals the Boards decision to the Commission. As discussed below, the NRC Staff opposes Faskens appeal.
Discussion I. Applicable Legal Standards A. Interlocutory Review of Petitions to Intervene under 10 C.F.R. § 2.311 The NRCs regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(c) provide an appeal as of right on the question of whether a petition to intervene and/or request for hearing should have been granted.
On threshold matters such as standing and contention admissibility, the Commission gives substantial deference to board rulings unless the appeal points to an error of law or abuse of discretion which might serve as grounds for reversal of the boards decision. 12 The Commission has maintained that [r]ecitation of an appellants prior positions in a proceeding or statement of general disagreement with a decisions result is not sufficient. 13 Rather, a valid appeal must point out the errors in the [b]oards decision. 14 In addition, an argument made before the Board 10 Id.
11 Holtec, LBP-19-4, 89 NRC at __ (slip op.at 124-25).
12 S. Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-11-8, 74 NRC 214, 220 (2011); Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-08-17, 68 NRC 231, 234 (2008).
13 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 6 and 7), CLI-17-12, 86 NRC 215, 219 (2017) (citations omitted).
14 Id.
3
but not reiterated or explained on appeal is considered abandoned. 15 Finally, the Commission will not entertain an argument that is raised for the first time on appeal. 16 B. Legal Requirements for Contention Admissibility 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) establishes the basic criteria that all contentions must meet in order to be admissible. 17 The Commission has strictly applied these contention admissibility requirements in NRC adjudications. 18 Failure to comply with any one of these criteria is grounds for the dismissal of a contention. 19 The requirements are intended to focus litigation on concrete issues and result in a clearer and more focused record for decision. 20 The hearing process is reserved for genuine, material controversies between knowledgeable litigants. 21 II. Fasken Has Not Demonstrated a Legal Error in the Boards Decision The Board denied Faskens contention because Fasken did not proffer any contentions of its own and simply incorporated Beyond Nuclears contention by reference. 22 On appeal, 15 Intl Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill), CLI-01-21, 54 NRC 247, 253 (2001); see Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 2 and 3), CLI-10-9, 71 NRC 245 (2010).
16 See, e.g., Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-1, 43 NRC 235, 260 (1996) (rejecting an argument raised for the first time on appeal, which did not satisfy the factors for admission of late-filed contentions, on that basis alone).
17 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(iv); Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-14, 63 NRC 568, 572 (2006). See also USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant),
CLI-06-9, 63 NRC 433, 436-37 (2006) (stating that the Commission will reject any contention that does not satisfy the requirements).
18 AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-06-24, 64 NRC 111, 118 (2006) (citing Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001), petition for reconsideration denied, CLI-02-1, 55 NRC 1 (2002)).
19 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 325 (1999). See also Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI-16-5, 83 NRC 131, 136 (2016).
20 Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2202 (Jan. 14, 2004).
21 Id. (quoting Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI-03-14, 58 NRC 207, 219 (2003)).
22 Holtec, LBP-19-4, 89 NRC at __ (slip op. at 125).
4
Fasken concedes this point. 23 And as the Board observed, the Commission has concluded that where a petitioner has failed to proffer its own admissible contention, its petition should be denied. 24 Because Fasken agrees with the premise of the Boards ruling, and does not identify any legal error with it, the Commission should deny Faskens appeal.
Indeed, in its appeal, Fasken appears to seek reconsideration of the Secretarys Order referring its motion to the Board to be considered under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309. Fasken asserted, both before the Board and now on appeal, that the Secretary lacked the authority to refer its motion to the Board as a contention. 25 Fasken does not appear to dispute, however, the underlying basis for the Secretarys Order denying its motion, namely that NRC regulations do not provide for the filing of threshold motions to dismiss an application. Thus, even if this appeal were an appropriate vehicle to seek reconsideration of the Secretarys Order more than seven months later, Fasken simply has not identified any legal error in the denial of its motion (or, in turn, the rejection of its contention). Rather, Faskens dispute is solely with the additional procedural consideration that the Secretary conservatively afforded it by permitting it to be assessed as a hearing request. That disagreement is untimely 26 and, in any event, provides no basis to disturb the Boards correct determination that Faskens filing did not meet the applicable 10 C.F.R. Part 2 standards for granting a hearing. 27 23 Fasken Appeal at 3.
24 Holtec, LBP-19-4, 89 NRC at __ (slip op. at 124) (citing Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1 & 2), CLI-01-19, 54 NRC 109, 132 (2001)).
25 Fasken Appeal at 2.
26 Motions for reconsideration are governed by 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(e). Among other requirements that Fasken has not addressed or otherwise satisfied, such a motion must be filed within ten days of the action for which reconsideration is requested.
27 Faskens appeal also contains a puzzling denunciation of the [Boards] gratuitous advice to Holtec regarding how Holtec might spark interest in the CISF from potential power plant owners in the DOE.
Appeal at 5. Fasken appears to criticize as advice the Boards brief characterization of the implications of the applications existing provisions stating that Holtecs customers may be either DOE or nuclear power plant owners. Because Fasken does not explain how this observation has any 5
Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Commission should affirm the Boards decision as to the Fasken petition.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
Sara B. Kirkwood Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 287-9187 E-mail: Sara.Kirkwood@nrc.gov Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Rockville, MD this 28th day of June 2019 bearing on the Boards determination of contention admissibility, it provides no basis to overturn the Boards ruling.
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL Docket No. 72-1051 (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC Staff Answer in Opposition to Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd. and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners' Appeal of LBP-19-4, dated June 28, 2019, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding, this 28th day of June 2019.
/Signed (electronically) by/
Sara B. Kirkwood Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 287-9187 E-mail: Sara.Kirkwood@nrc.gov Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Rockville, MD this 28th day of June 2019