ML20034D891
| ML20034D891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 02/03/2020 |
| From: | Bessette P, Lighty R, Matthews T Consolidated Interim Storage Facility, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 72-1050-ISFSI, ASLBP 19-959-01-ISFSI-BD01, LBP-19-11, RAS 55545 | |
| Download: ML20034D891 (23) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. 72-1050-ISFSI ASLBP No. 19-959-01-ISFSI-BD01 February 3, 2020 INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLCS ANSWER OPPOSING PETITIONER SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COALITIONS APPEAL OF LICENSING BOARD DECISION LBP-19-11 Timothy P. Matthews, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-5527 Phone: 202-739-5796 Phone: 202-739-5274 Email: timothy.matthews@morganlewis.com Email: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com Email: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for Interim Storage Partners LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ii
I.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 II.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................... 4 III.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD DENY THE APPEAL BECAUSE SEED HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY ERROR OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE BOARD................................................................................................................................... 6 A.
The Commission Generally Defers to Board Rulings on Contention Admissibility Absent a Clear Error or Abuse of Discretion....................................... 6 B.
The Board Committed No Error or Abuse of Discretion in Finding That SEED Failed to Show Good Cause For Its Late Filing of Contention 17 Under Section 2.309(c)(1)........................................................................................... 7 C.
The Board Committed No Error or Abuse of Discretion in Finding that SEED Failed to Meet the NRCs Contention Admissibility Requirements in Section 2.309(f)(1)................................................................................................................. 12 1.
The Appeal Should Be Rejected As a Procedural Matter Because SEED Fails to Directly Challenge the Specific Grounds on Which the Board Found Its Contention to be Inadmissible Under Section 2.309(f)(1)..................................................................................................... 12 2.
Instead of Identifying Any Specific Alleged Errors in the Boards Contention Admissibility Ruling, SEED Vaguely and Incorrectly Claims That the Board Improperly Raised the Burden for Contention Admissibility............................................................................................... 13 3.
The Board Correctly Concluded That Contention 17 Fails to Meet the Contention Admissibility Requirements in Section 2.309(f)(1)................... 14 IV.
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page
iii
NRC CASES AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-06-24, 64 NRC 111 (2006)......................................................................................................................................... 6 AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235 (2009)....................................................................................................................................... 11 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC & Unistar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), LBP-10-24, 72 NRC 720 (2010).......................................... 14 Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-01-11, 53 NRC 370 (2001)....................................................................................................................................... 12 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999)....................................................................................................................................... 13 Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (TRUMP-S Project), CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71 (1995).................... 13 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631 (2004).................................................................................................................... 7, 13 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349 (2001)........................................................................................................................ 13 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328 (1999).............................................................................................................................................. 13 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-15-22, 82 NRC 310 (2015).... 6, 14 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-8, 75 NRC 393 (2012)........................................................................................................................ 13 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Units 6 & 7), LBP-17-6, 86 NRC 37 (2017)......................... 2 Ga. Power Co. (Vogtle Elec. Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-3, 35 NRC 63 (1992).......... 6 Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-4, 89 NRC 353 (2019).............................................................................................................................................. 16 Hydro Res., Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-01-4, 53 NRC 31 (2001)........... 12 Interim Storage Partners LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-11, 90 NRC
__ (Dec. 13, 2019) (slip op.).................................................................................................... passim Interim Storage Partners LLC, LBP-19-7, 90 NRC __ (Aug. 23, 2019) (slip op.)........... 5, 12, 13, 17 N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-10-27, 72 NRC 481 (2010)......................................................................................................................... 3, 11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page
-iv-Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135 (1993)....................................................................................................................................... 11 Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (License Amendment Request for Decommissioning of the Newfield, New Jersey Facility), CLI-07-20, 65 NRC 499 (2007)............................................... 4, 6 Tex. Utils. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Elec. Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 192 (1993)................................................................................................................................................ 6 USEC Inc. (Am. Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451 (2006)................................................ 14 Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61 (1996)............. 14 FEDERAL COURT CASES Carney v. Am. Univ., 151 F.3d 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1998)......................................................................... 7 Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 2004)............................................................... 7 NRC REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c).................................................................................................................... passim 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).................................................................................................................... passim 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(b)............................................................................................................................. 1 10 C.F.R. Part 71...................................................................................................................... 3, 16, 17 10 C.F.R. Part 72................................................................................................................ 3, 12, 16, 17 FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATIONS Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules & Related Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 46,562 (Aug. 3, 2012)................................................................................................................................. 11 Interim Storage Partners Waste Control Specialists Consolidated Interim Storage Facility, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,070 (Aug. 29, 2018), corrected, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,680 (Aug. 31, 2018)...................... 4 OTHER AUTHORITIES NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Sept. 2014) (ML14196A105).................................................................................. 12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. 72-1050-ISFSI ASLBP No. 19-959-01-ISFSI-BD01 February 3, 2020 INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLCS ANSWER OPPOSING PETITIONER SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COALITIONS APPEAL OF LICENSING BOARD DECISION LBP-19-11 I.
INTRODUCTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(b), Interim Storage Partners LLC (ISP) submits this Answer opposing Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalitions (SEED) January 7, 2020, Appeal of Memorandum and Order LBP-19-11 (Appeal).1 In that decision, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) denied SEEDs October 23, 2019, motion for leave to submit late-filed Contention 172 because SEED failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1) and § 2.309(f)(1).3 The Board then terminated this proceeding in the absence of any pending contentions.4 Contention 17 alleged that ISPs Environmental Report (ER)5 does not satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements in light of purportedly new information in a
1 See Notice of Appeal of LBP-19-11 by Intervenor Sustainable Energy & Econ. Dev. Coalition & Br. in Supp. of Appeal (Jan. 7, 2020) (ML20007K164); Interim Storage Partners LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-11, 90 NRC __ (Dec. 13, 2019) (slip op.) (ML19347A381).
2 Mot. of Intervenor Sustainable Energy & Econ. Dev. Coalition for Leave to File Late-Filed Contention, & Contention 17 (Oct. 23, 2019) (ML19297A226) (SEED Mot.).
3 See ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 1).
4 See id. at __ (slip op. at 1, 14).
5 WCS Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Envtl. Report, Docket No. 72-1050, Rev. 2 (July 2018)
(ML18221A405 (package)).
2 September 23, 2019, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) report titled Preparing for Nuclear Waste TransportationTechnical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (NWTRB Report).6 SEED asserted that the ER fails to address certain issues that the NWTRB identified concerning the Department of Energys (DOE) ability to implement a nationwide spent nuclear fuel (SNF) transportation program, including unresolved technical concerns about the integrity of high-burnup fuel during shipment and dry storage of such fuel,7 and the alleged need to consider installation of a dry transfer system (DTS) at reactor sites and at ISPs proposed consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for SNF repackaging purposes.8 It further contended that ISP improperly segmented the storage and transportation components of the CISF project.9 In LBP-19-11, the Board properly rejected Contention 17 as both non-timely under Section 2.309(c)(1) and inadmissible under Section 2.309(f)(1). Nothing in SEEDs Appeal even remotely suggests that the Board erred or abused its discretion in so ruling. With regard to the Boards ruling on contention timeliness, the good cause standard in Section 2.309(c)(1) serves as a check to prevent petitioners from filing new contentions based on new information that is insignificantly different from previously available information.10 As discussed below, the Board correctly ruled that SEED failed to identify any new and materially different information that might provide good cause for its late filing of Contention 17, particularly in light of the Boards rejection of identical issues raised by SEED and other petitioners in their initial intervention petitions.
6 SEED Mot. at 1, 5. The NWTRB Report is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML19297D146.
7 SEED Mot. at 1-2, 5.
8 Id. at 4-5, 10-11.
9 Id. at 11-13.
10 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Units 6 & 7), LBP-17-6, 86 NRC 37, 48 n.9 (2017).
3 As in its original motion, the gist of SEEDs argument on appeal is that because the NWTRB Report compiles or aggregates previously-expressed opinions and conclusions of individual NWTRB members and others in a single official and authoritative report, those discrete opinions and conclusions must be viewed as new information in support of Contention 17.11 However, as the Board correctly noted, the key information upon which SEED relies in support of Contention 17 has been in the public domain for years, as reflected in various earlier-issued NWTRB, DOE, and Government Accountability Office (GAO) documents that SEED and its proffered expert cite in their respective filings.12 The Commission has held that a document that merely compile[s] and organize[s] certain preexisting information regarding [an] issue raised by [a petitioner]... into a single document does not, by itself, provide good cause for the late filing of a new contention.13 Thus, the Boards ruling on this issue is plainly correct.
Irrespective of its timeliness, the Board also rejected Contention 17 as substantively inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) because its raises issues that are outside the scope of this Part 72 proceeding, lacks adequate factual support, and fails to raise a genuine material dispute with ISPs Application or ER.14 In short, the Board foundagain correctlythat SEED seeks to expand a Part 72 application process into a dispute over the adequacy of the NRCs Part 71 requirements as well as DOEs ability to meet its statutory obligation to implement a national transportation program for SNF.15 In doing so, SEED again overlooks the discrete scope of the application pending NRC review, and ignores the relevant contents of that application. As a result, it fails to raise any genuine, material, and adequately-supported challenge to the proposed action:
11 Appeal at 14-15.
12 See generally ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 5-9).
13 N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-10-27, 72 NRC 481, 496 (2010).
14 See generally ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 9-13).
15 Id. at __ (slip op. at 9-10, 13).
4 licensing of a 5,000-metric ton capacity SNF interim storage facility for an initial 40-year term.
Significantly, in its Appeal, SEED fails entirely to identify any specific alleged error in the Boards contention admissibility rulinga prerequisite to Commission appellate review.16 SEED also incorrectly claims that the Board improperly raised its contention pleading burden. But the Board applied Section 2.309(f)(1)s strict admissibility criteria exactly as the Commissioned intended.
Accordingly, the Commission should deny SEEDs Appeal in its entirety.
II.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ISP is a joint venture of Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) and Orano CIS, LLC.
This proceeding stems from ISPs submittal to the NRC of its revised application on June 8, 2018, to construct and operate a CISF on a WCS-owned site in Andrews County, Texas.17 ISP is seeking a 40-year license to possess and store 5,000 metric tons of uranium (MTUs) of SNF.18 ISPs ER analyzes the possibility of seeking license amendments for up to seven additional 5,000 MTU expansions over the first 20 years of the CISFs licensed operating life.19 If sought and granted, those amendments collectively would result in an authorized storage capacity of 40,000 MTUs.20 On August 29, 2019, the NRC published a Federal Register notice that permitted members of the public to request a hearing and petition to intervene.21 On November 11, 2018, Petitioner,
16 See Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (License Amendment Request for Decommissioning of the Newfield, New Jersey Facility), CLI-07-20, 65 NRC 499, 503 (2007) (Pointing out errors in the Boards decision is a basic requirement for an appeal.) (citations omitted).
17 See Letter from J. Isakson, ISP, to Director, Div. of Spent Fuel Mgmt., NRC, Submittal of License Application Revision 2 & Request to Restart Review of Application for Approval of the WCS CISF, Docket 72-1050 (June 8, 2018)
(ML18166A003) (submitting Revision 2 of the License Application and requesting that the NRC resume all safety and environmental review activities).
18 ISP, License Application, Rev. 2, Docket No. 72-1050 (ML18206A595 (package)) (includes Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 2 and ER, Rev. 2) (Application).
19 ER at 1-1.
20 Id. (Therefore, this report analyzes the environmental impacts of possession and storage of 40,000 MTUs of SNF and related GTCC waste.).
21 Interim Storage Partners Waste Control Specialists Consolidated Interim Storage Facility, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,070, 44,070-75 (Aug. 29, 2018), corrected, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,680 (Aug. 31, 2018) (correcting the deadline date for petitioners to request a hearing to October 29, 2018). The Secretary of the Commission later extended this deadline to November 13, 2018. See Order of the Secy (Oct. 25, 2018) at 2.
5 along with six other groups and one individual (collectively, Joint Petitioners), filed a Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing (Petition), proffering 15 separate contentions.22 Following oral arguments in Midland, TX, on July 10-11, 2019, the Board found that, except for SEED, none of the Joint Petitioners had established standing to intervene.23 However, the Board also found that SEED had failed to proffer an admissible contention.24 On September 17, 2019, Joint Petitioners appealed the Boards adverse standing determinations and rejection of seven of their proposed contentions (including Contentions 1, 4, and 11).25 On October 15, 2019, ISP and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing the appeal.26 On October 23, 2019, SEED submitted late-filed Contention 17.27 SEED also submitted a declaration from Mr. Robert Alvarez in support of its proposed contention.28 On November 18, 2019, ISP and NRC Staff filed answers opposing Contention 17 as non-timely under Section 2.309(c)(1) and inadmissible under Section 2.309(f)(1).29 SEED filed a reply to those answers on November 25, 2019.30
22 [Joint Petrs] Pet. to Intervene & Req. for an Adjudicatory Hrg (Nov. 13, 2018) (ML18317A433) (Pet.). Joint Petitioners included Dont Waste Michigan, Citizens Environmental Coalition, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Public Citizen, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, SEED, and Leona Morgan.
23 Interim Storage Partners LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-7, 90 NRC __, __ (Aug. 23, 2019) (slip op. at 17-18) (ML19235A165).
24 See generally ISP, LBP-19-7, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 67-93).
25 Notice of Appeal of LBP-19-07 by [Joint Petrs], & Br. in Supp. of Appeal (Sept. 17, 2019) (ML19260J391).
26 See [ISPs] Answer Opposing the Appeal of LBP-19-7 by [Joint Petrs] (Oct. 15, 2019) (ML19288A282); NRC Staffs Answer in Oppn to [Joint Petrs] Appeal of LBP-19-7 (Oct. 15, 2019) (ML19288A228).
27 See generally SEED Mot. SEED expressly cited previously-rejected Contentions 4 and 11 as relevant to its claims in late-filed Contention 17. Contention 4 claimed that ISP has underestimated the amount of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) that will be generated from site activities, specifically including the postulated repackaging of spent fuel. See Pet. at 64-76. Contention 11 claimed that the lack of a DTS at the proposed CISF presents an impermissible risk that is not adequately addressed in ISPs ER. See id. at 118-27. SEED also reasserted on appeal its claim in Contention 1 that ISP has improperly segmented the SNF storage and transportation components of the CISF project for purposes of NEPA.
28 See Decl. of Robert Alvarez in Supp. of Mot. of Intervenor [SEED Coalition] for Leave to File Late-Filed Contention (Oct. 23, 2019) (Alvarez Decl.).
29 See [ISPs] Answer Opposing Petr [SEEDs] Mot. for Leave to Submit Late-Filed Contention 17 (Nov. 18, 2019)
(ML19322D453) (ISP Answer); NRC Staff Answer in Oppn to [SEEDs] New Contention 17 (Nov. 18, 2019)
(ML19322C992).
30 Reply of Intervenor [SEED] in Supp. of Litigation of Proposed Contention 17 (Nov. 25, 2019) (ML19329F937).
6 On December 13, 2019, the Board issued LBP-19-11, in which it denied SEEDs motion for leave to submit late-filed Contention 17 and terminated the proceeding. The Board found that Contention 17 is not based on new and materially different information, as required by 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(c)(1). It also found that Contention 17 improperly raises issues that are outside the scope of this Part 72 proceeding, lacks adequate support, and fails to raise a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact, contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii)-(vi).
SEED timely filed its Appeal of LBP-19-11 on January 7, 2020. ISP opposes the Appeal for the reasons set forth below.
III.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD DENY THE APPEAL BECAUSE SEED HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY ERROR OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE BOARD A.
The Commission Generally Defers to Board Rulings on Contention Admissibility Absent a Clear Error or Abuse of Discretion The standard for review of contention admissibility determinations is as follows: the Commission will defer to the Boards rulings on contention admissibility absent an error of law or abuse of discretion.31 Thus, when a licensing board has reviewed the record in detail, the Commission generally is disinclined to upset its findings, particularly on matters involving fact-specific issues or consideration of expert affidavits or submissions.32 An appeal that does not point to an error of law or an abuse of discretion, but simply restates the petitioners arguments, does not constitute a valid appeal.33 When a licensing board holds that a contention is inadmissible for failing to meet more than one of the requirements specified in
31 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-15-22, 82 NRC 310, 315 (2015) (citing AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-06-24, 64 NRC 111, 121 (2006)).
32 Hydro Res., Inc. (P.O. Box 777, Crownpoint, NM 87313), CLI-06-1, 63 NRC 1, 2 (2006).
33 See Shieldalloy, CLI-07-20, 65 NRC at 503-05; Tex. Utils. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Elec. Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 192, 198 (1993) (quoting Ga. Power Co. (Vogtle Elec. Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-92-3, 35 NRC 63, 67 (1992)) (A mere recitation of an appellants prior positions in a proceeding or a statement of his or her general disagreement with a decisions result is no substitute for a brief that identifies and explains the errors of a Licensing Board in the order below.).
7 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi), a petitioners failure to acknowledge and rebut each ground for the Boards ruling is sufficient justification for the Commission to reject the petitioners appeal.34 Furthermore, when considering an appeal, the Commission may affirm a Board decision on any ground supported in the adjudicatory record, whether or not relied on by the Board.35 B.
The Board Committed No Error or Abuse of Discretion in Finding That SEED Failed to Show Good Cause For Its Late Filing of Contention 17 Under Section 2.309(c)(1)
SEEDs principal argument on appeal is that the Board erred in ruling that SEED did not show good cause for the late-filing of Contention 17.36 Specifically, the Board found that SEED did not meet its burden to demonstrate that Contention 17 is based on new and materially different information, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(1)(i) and (ii).37 As discussed below, SEED fails to identify any error or abuse of discretion by the Board in its ruling on this issue.
Indeed, the Board fully explained the bases for its conclusion that Contention 17 does not rely on any new and materially different information. First, the Board noted that the NWTRB Report itself does not purport to document any new scientific or engineering research, but instead serves to review the DOEs preparedness to transport SNF and high-level radioactive waste to a permanent federal repository based on existing sources.38 As the Board further explained, DOE has a statutory duty to dispose of the Nations SNF at a permanent repository, and hence eventually to
34 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631, 638 (2004).
35 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-05-1, 61 NRC 160, 166 (2005) (redacted public version of decision) (citing Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014, 1017 (10th Cir. 2004); Carney v. Am. Univ.,
151 F.3d 1090, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).
36 See generally Appeal at 14-19.
37 See generally ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 4-9). Under Section 2.309(c)(1), good cause exists only if the petitioner can show that: (i) the information upon which the amended or new contention is based was not previously available; (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. 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
38 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 5).
8 implement a national transportation program for nuclear waste.39 But DOEs legal obligation is separate and distinct from ISPs pending application for NRC authorization to possess and store 5,000 MTUs of SNF at an interim storage facility.40 SEED continues to overlook this indisputable fact.
Second, the Board noted that the NWTRB Report relies on and cites approximately 150 earlier references, most of which were publicly available before September 2019.41 It further noted that, in identifying the issues that its recommendations address, the NWTRB drew upon such earlier sources.42 Those issues are not new: they were identified and documented in past NWTRB public meetings, technical workshops, and NWTRB reports (spanning 2012-2018), and in reports and presentations by DOE, the U.S. nuclear industry, and researchers in other countries.43 Importantly, those earlier sources identify the same issues identified by SEED and Mr.
Alvarez as lying at the core of Contention 17, so they logically cannot be new. The Board provided several specific examples to illustrate the undeniable fact that Contention 17 is based on facts and theories that were available long before the contention was filed,44 as summarized below:
Timing of DOE removal of SNF from all plants: The NWTRB Report states that, even if the SNF were repackaged into smaller canisters, DOE likely could not remove all such fuel until approximately 2070, and in cases involving the hottest SNF, possibly until 2100.45 As the Board noted, the NWTRB Report cites as authority a November 2013 presentation at a public NWTRB technical workshop by Jeffrey Williams, the Director of DOEs Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning Project, during which Mr. Williams discussed the timeframe for transporting all SNF from reactor sites.46
39 Id. at __ (slip op. at 9-10) (quoting NWTRB Report at 3).
40 See id. at __ (slip op. at 9-11).
41 See id. at __ (slip op. at 5) (citing NWTRB Report at 107-17).
42 Id.
43 See id. (citing NWTRB Report at 23, 107-17).
44 Id. at __ (slip op. at 7); see also NWTRB Report at 23 (Drawing from these sources, the Board has compiled a list of technical issues to be addressed in preparing for transporting SNF and HLW.).
45 See id. at __ (slip op. at 6) (citing NWTRB Report at 77; SEED Mot. at 8).
46 See id. n.31 (citing NWTRB Report at 77; NWTRB workshop tr. at 54 (Nov. 2013),
https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/defaultsource/meetings/2013/november/13nov18.pdf?sfvrsn=9).
9 Purported mandatory use of transportation, aging and disposal (TAD) canisters:
In alleging that ISPs ER does not address the purported DOE mandate of standardized TAD canisters, SEED primarily relies on a 2006 DOE Federal Register notice and DOEs 2008 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Yucca Mountain geologic repository.47 As the Board noted, these are documents that were available more than a decade ago.48 Technical considerations specific to high-burnup fuel: In his declaration, Mr. Alvarez states that the NWTRB concluded in 2016 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department lack a technical basis in support of the safetransport of high burnup
[spent nuclear fuel],49 and even cites his own work in 2013 for the proposition that [h]igh burnup fuel temperatures make the used fuel more vulnerable to damage from handling.50 The Board agreed with ISP and the NRC Staff that Mr. Alvarezs declaration merely repeats conclusions in the NWTRB Report,51 and similarly confirms that SEEDs claims regarding repacking spent fuel for transportation to a DOE permanent repository merely repeat concerns that were expressed years ago.52 On this point, the Board underscored that Mr. Alvarez quotes from a 2013 DOE study, a 2013 NWTRB staff report, and a 2014 GAO report, among other long-available public sources of information cited in his declaration.53 On appeal, SEED makes a number of arguments in support of its claim that the NWTRB Report constitutes or contains new and materially different information. Specifically, it asserts that:
The Board ignored the significant findings made in September 2019 NWTRB Report, which SEED claims is the first time that [a] single members opinion became the officially-adopted NWTRB finding.54
47 See id. at __ (slip op. at 7) (citing SEED Mot. at 6-7).
48 Id. As ISP noted in its answer opposing the admission of Contention 17, neither the NWTRB Report nor the DOE Yucca Mountain-related documents cited in the SEED Motion (and now Appeal) require ISP or its prospective utility customers to repackage SNF into TAD canisters or to construct DTSs to transport and store CISF-destined spent fuel. See ISP Answer at 21. The DOE statements cited and quoted by SEED reflect what SEED itself describes as a prospective policy articulated more than a decade ago, and prior to the suspension of the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding in 2011. Appeal at 9. As such, SEEDs repeated references to mandatory repackaging are groundless and misleading.
49 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 7-8) (citing Alvarez Decl. at 1).
50 Id. at __ (slip op. at 8) (quoting Alvarez Decl. at 6 n.26).
51 Id. at __ (slip op. at 7).
52 Id. at __ (slip op. at 8).
53 Id. (citing Alvarez Decl. at 8-9). The Alvarez Declaration contains no independent substantive analysis or expert opinion.
54 Appeal at 14.
10
[T]he NWTRB Report, not its constituent (and discrete) scientific and engineering bases and opinions, must be viewed as new information in support of Contention 17.55 The report is a set of authoritative recommendations by the NWTRB members acting within their authority as a federal government advisory panel on the topic of disposition of
[SNF].56 Th[e] enormous difference in logistics, cost and the need for DTS capability must be admitted, analyzed, discussed and disclosed in the ER. If an NRC license were issued to ISP in 2021, as the company expects, there is no scenario under which the waste destined for west Texas would all be transported to the facility within the first 20 years envisioned by ISP, or even within the initial 40-year licensing period.57
[The] NWTRB Report has identified some serious scientific, engineering and temporal bottlenecks that have gone almost completely unconsidered in the [ER] because of segmentation of the CISF from obligatory transportation considerations.58 None of these arguments indicates any error or abuse of discretion by the Board. On the contrary, SEED made the same arguments in its previous pleadings on Contention 17, and the Board soundly rejected them for the reasons explained in its decision. The following passage from LBP-19-11 confirms this fact with regard to the first three SEED assertions listed above:
In its reply, SEED argues that it was free to ignore an analysis presented at a public NWTRB workshop in 2013 by a sole member of the NWTRB.
Rather, SEED claims, only when that analysis became the official position of the NWTRB was SEED required to pay attention and submit a contention based on it. The NRC recognizes no such distinction. Moreover, ironically, the Declaration of SEEDs own supporting expert cites and relies on the very same 2013 NWTRB workshop presentation that SEED now claims was of no consequence.59 Quoting controlling Commission precedent, the Board explained that a petitioner may not delay filing a contention until a document becomes available that collects, summarizes and places
55 Id. at 15.
56 Id.
57 Id. at 16 (emphasis in original).
58 Id. at 17.
59 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 7) (quoting SEED Reply at 2-3).
11 into context the facts supporting that contention.60 This conclusion also makes logical sense. To conclude otherwise would, in the Commissions words, turn on its head the regulatory requirement that new contentions be based on information... not previously available,61 and thereby undermine the efficiency of the NRCs adjudicatory process:
There simply would be no end to NRC licensing proceedings if petitioners could disregard our timeliness requirements and add new contentions at their convenience during the course of a proceeding based on information that could have formed the basis for a timely contention at the outset of the proceeding.62 SEED has attempted to do precisely that via late-filed Contention 17 and the NWTRB Report, contrary to its iron-clad obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material...
with sufficient care to enable it to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation for a specific contention.63 Thus, the Boards ruling that SEED failed to comply with that obligation here is far from erroneousit is consistent with longstanding Commission policy and precedent.
The Board also addressed the fourth and fifth SEED assertions listed above and appropriately rejected them as failing to identify any new and materially different information that could support a finding of good cause under Section 2.309(c)(1). In short, the Board noted that SEED concedes that its claim about the need for repackaging spent fuel [possibly including at one or more postulated DTS facilities] is not new in any conventional sense.64 Moreover, as the Board explained later in its decision, ISPs Application does not set forth any intent to repackage
60 Id. n.37 (quoting Prairie Island, CLI-10-27, 72 NRC at 496).
61 Amendments to Adjudicatory Process Rules & Related Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 46,562, 46,566 (Aug. 3, 2012)
(quoting Prairie Island, CLI-10-27, 72 NRC at 496) (emphasis in original)).
62 Prairie Island, CLI-10-27, 72 NRC at 496 (quoting AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 271-72 (2009) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted)). As the Commission noted, its expanding adjudicatory docket makes it critically important that parties comply with [its] pleading requirements and that the Board enforce those requirements. Id.
63 Id. (quoting Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135, 147 (1993)
(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted)).
64 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 8) (quoting SEED Mot. at 19). Specifically, SEED asserted that [t]his is not a new fact, but with the weight of the NWTRB behind it, is new in the sense that it cant simply be ignored any longer.
SEED Mot. at 19.
12 SNF, and the NRCs Continued Storage Rule does not require an interim spent fuel storage facility applicant under Part 72 to include such an analysis beyond the license term.65 Thus, there is nothing specious or inauthentic about the Boards conclusion that the NWTRB has no ability to effectively revise the scope of ISPs project or of this adjudication.66 For the foregoing reasons, the Board properly concluded that SEED failed to identify any new and materially different information that could provide good cause under 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(c)(1) for the late-filing of Contention 17.
C.
The Board Committed No Error or Abuse of Discretion in Finding that SEED Failed to Meet the NRCs Contention Admissibility Requirements in Section 2.309(f)(1)
- 1.
The Appeal Should Be Rejected As a Procedural Matter Because SEED Fails to Directly Challenge the Specific Grounds on Which the Board Found Its Contention to be Inadmissible Under Section 2.309(f)(1)
The Board also denied admission of Contention 17 because SEED failed to satisfy the contention admissibility requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).67 Significantly, while SEED acknowledges this fact in the introduction (Section I) of its brief, it never once asserts that the Board erred in its application of the Section 2.309(f)(1) admissibility criteria.68 In fact, the argument section (Section III) of SEEDs brief does not even reference Section 2.309(f)(1). It is axiomatic that a petitioner must adequately call the Commissions attention to claimed errors in the Boards approach, and that the Commission will deem waived any arguments... not clearly articulated in the petition for review.69 Thus, SEEDs failure to acknowledge and rebut each ground for the
65 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 13) (quoting ISP, LBP-19-7, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 73)). The NRCs Continued Storage Rule Generic Environment Impact Statement recognizes that a separate licensing action would be necessary before a licensee may construct and operate a site-specific DTS. NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, at 2-23 (Sept. 2014) (ML14196A105). The NRC nevertheless included the environmental impacts of constructing a reference DTS to provide a complete picture of the environmental impacts of continued storage. Id.
66 Appeal at 16, 17; ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 11) (quoting SEED Mot. at 20).
67 See generally ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 9-13).
68 See Appeal at 2, 4.
69 Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-01-11, 53 NRC 370, 383 (2001) (citing Hydro Res., Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-01-4, 53 NRC 31, 46 (2001); Commonwealth Edison Co.
13 Boards denial of Contention 17 as inadmissible under Section 2.309(f)(1) alone warrants the Commissions rejection of the Appeal as procedurally deficient.70
- 2.
Instead of Identifying Any Specific Alleged Errors in the Boards Contention Admissibility Ruling, SEED Vaguely and Incorrectly Claims That the Board Improperly Raised the Burden for Contention Admissibility In Section IV of its Appeal, SEED asserts that the Board improperly and unlawfully rejected SEEDs proffered Contention 17 by incorrect imposition of burdens, and that [t]he burden of asserting contention admissibility is not heavy.71 That argument, however, does not square with the Boards actual decision or Commission case law discussing a petitioners burden at the contention pleading stage. In Section II.B of its decision, the Board discussed the Section 2.309(f)(1) admissibility criteria.72 As the Board previously has noted in this proceeding, those criteria are strict by design73 and intended to properly reserve [the] hearing process for genuine, material controversies between knowledgeable litigants.74 SEEDs claim that the Board improperly raised the burden is groundless. SEED apparently wishes the Commission to adopt notice pleading, a practice that the Commission abandoned long ago, and which clearly violates both the letter and intent of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). The Commission strengthened its contention admissibility standards in 1989 because licensing boards had admitted numerous contentions that appeared to be based on little more than speculation.75
(Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 194 (1999); Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (TRUMP-S Project), CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 132 n.81 (1995)).
70 See Millstone, CLI-04-36, 60 NRC at 638 ([T]he appeal does not even challenge the Boards ruling that Contention 1 falls outside the scope of this proceeding. [Petitioners] failure to challenge this last ruling is, in and of itself, sufficient justification to reject [its] appeal as to Contention 1.).
71 Appeal at 19 (citing Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 359 (2001) (Petitioners are required only to articulate at the outset the specific issues they wish to litigate.).
72 See ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 9).
73 ISP, LBP-19-7, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 21) (quoting Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358).
74 Id. (quoting FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-8, 75 NRC 393, 396 (2012)).
75 Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358 (citing Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999)).
14 As discussed below, the Board fairly applied the Commissions strict admissibility criteria in finding that SEED failed to meet its burden under Section 2.309(f)(1).
Finally, the Board specifically acknowledged that it does not adjudicate disputed facts at this stage of the proceeding.76 Nonetheless, licensing boards are expected to examine cited materials to verify that they do, in fact, support a contention.77 Thus, although a board does not decide the merits or resolve conflicting evidence at the contention admissibility stage, materials cited as the basis for a contention are subject to scrutiny by the board to determine whether they actually support the facts alleged.78 A board may examine both the statements in the document that support the petitioners assertions and those that do not.79 Here, the Boards legitimate and transparent efforts to evaluate the information and documents proffered by SEED in support of its contention (including the NWTRB Report and the Alvarez Declaration) do not involve any misapplication of Section 2.309(f)(1) or SEEDs burden under that regulation.80 As such, SEED has not identified any error of law or abuse of discretion that warrants Commission review here.
- 3.
The Board Correctly Concluded That Contention 17 Fails to Meet the Contention Admissibility Requirements in Section 2.309(f)(1)
With regard to the issue of contention admissibility, the Commission can and should reject the Appeal for the reasons set forth in Sections III.C.1 and C.2 above. Regardless, the Boards denial of Contention 17 as inadmissible under Section 2.309(f)(1) is based on its well-considered
76 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 9).
77 Palisades, CLI-15-22, 82 NRC at 320 n.68 (quoting USEC Inc. (Am. Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 457 (2006)). See also Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61, 90 (1996) (noting that supporting material provided by a petitioner, including those portions thereof not relied upon, is subject to licensing board scrutiny, both for what it does and does not show).
78 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC & Unistar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), LBP-10-24, 72 NRC 720, 750 (2010) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
79 Id. Simply alleging or asserting facts does not, by itself, necessarily make those facts reliable, relevant, and material, or create a genuine material dispute, as SEED appears to argue in its Appeal.
80 See Appeal at 19. Cf. Palisades, CLI-15-22, 82 NRC at 320 (The Board appropriately reviewed the support provided for the contention and determined that it did not apply to the circumstances presented here.).
15 analysis of the factual information proffered by SEED and the hearing participants related legal arguments. SEED has not identified any error in the Boards contention admissibility analysis.
In short, the Board correctly found that Contention 17 raises issues that are outside the scope of this proceeding, lacks adequate support, and fails to establish a genuine dispute with the Application or ER on a material issue of fact or law, contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(f)(1)(iii)-(vi).81 The Boards ruling rests soundly on the following key factual findings, none of which SEED has shown to be erroneous:
ISP, a private applicant, is seeking NRC authorization to possess and store 5,000 metric tons of SNF at an interim storage facility for an initial term of 40 years.82 It is DOEs statutory responsibilitynot ISPsto dispose of the Nations entire inventory of SNF and to eventually implement a national transportation program for nuclear waste.83 The NWTRB Report explicitly acknowledges that most of the existing dry-storage casks and canisters for commercial SNF have been designed and approved for both storage and transportation, and that not all outstanding technical issues identified in the report must be resolved before the first of the waste can be transported.84 ISPs Application is for a storage facility under Part 72, not for a transportation system under Part 71.85 Nonetheless, ISPs ER confirms that SNF will be transported to ISPs proposed CISF (by the SNF title holders, not ISP) only in transportation packages that are approved and certified as safe by the NRC under 10 C.F.R. Part 71.86 Moreover, ISPs Application lists the specific, currently-approved packages it proposes to accept for storage at the proposed CISF.87
81 See generally ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 9-13).
82 Id. at __ & n.50 (slip op. at 10 & n.50).
83 Id. at __ (slip op. at 9-10) (quoting NWTRB Report at 3). ISP is not seeking authorization on behalf of itself, DOE, or any other entity to transport any SNFmuch less 40,000 MTUs in a 20-year time frameto the CISF. Moreover, ISPs Application does not propose or require that SNF be shipped to the CISF within a 20-year period. The only time limit is the term of the initial license itself (i.e., 40 years).
84 Id. at __ (slip op. at 10) (citing NWTRB Report at xxiii, 73); see also NWTRB Report at 27 (For a small portion of the existing packaged waste (e.g., certain commercial SNF in NRC-approved, dual-purpose [storage and transportation]
canisters), few technical issues remain unresolved. For example, barring unforeseen problems, certain types of commercial SNF likely could be shipped within a year or two of resolving institutional issues, such as determining a destination and obtaining funding.).
85 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 11). As such, there is no factual basis for SEEDs claim that ISP has improperly segmented the CISF from obligatory transportation considerations. Appeal at 17.
86 Id. (citing ER at 1-8).
87 Id. (citing Application at 2-1).
16 10 C.F.R. § 72.108 requires consideration of transportation-related impacts in an ER.88 However, it does not require that the [ER] prove the safety of transportation packages, which the NRC evaluates under 10 C.F.R. Part 71.89 ISPs ER analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with transportation of SNF, including high-burnup fuel.90 Applying the standards in Section 2.309(f)(1) and related legal principles, and in light of the foregoing factual findings, the Board correctly concluded that Contention 17 is inadmissible. First, the Board found that the NWTRB Report does not support SEEDs suggestion that 5,000 (out of 80,000) metric tons of [SNF] could not possibly be moved to ISPs facility within the term of the license ISP is requesting.91 Therefore, the Board appropriately found that the contentions core claim lacks adequate factual support, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).92 Second, the Board correctly concluded that SEED failed to raise a genuine material dispute with the Application or ER because the NWTRB Report findings on which Contention 17 is based do not contradict ISPs plans.93 In this regard, the Board found that SEED failed to acknowledge or dispute: (1) the portions of the ER that discuss the potential environmental impacts of transportation of SNF (including high-burnup fuel), and (2) any safety analyses, aging management plans, or quality assurance programs described in ISPs Application, including provisions that specifically address how ISP proposes to address potential challenges posed by high-burnup fuel.94 As the
88 ISP, LBP-19-11, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 12).
89 Id. (quoting Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-4, 89 NRC 353, 415 (2019)
(citation omitted), appeal pending).
90 Id. (citing ER at 4-9 to -10, 4-12, 4-16, 4-23). This fact further underscores the baseless nature of SEEDs NEPA segmentation argument.
91 Id. at __ (slip op. at 10).
92 See id.
93 Id. at __ (slip op. at 9).
94 Id. at __ (slip op. at 12) (citing ER at 4-9 to -10, 4-12, 4-16, 4-23; ISP, LBP-19-7, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 85-86)).
17 Board further noted, ISP has committed to accepting at its facility only transportation packages that have been approved by the NRC and licensed under 10 C.F.R. Part 71.95 Finally, the Board properly concluded that Contention 17 raises issues that are neither within the scope of this proceeding nor material to the NRC Staffs required findings on the Application.96 The Board noted that SEEDs claims in Contention 17 try to expand a Part 72 application process into a dispute over the adequacy of the NRCs Part 71 requirements,97 and that any challenge to the safety of NRC-approved transportation packages is outside the scope of this proceeding.98 In addition, the Board found SEEDs claims concerning the alleged need to repackage SNF for eventual transportation to a DOE permanent repository (including the related argument that a DTS is necessary to support such repackaging) to be outside the scope of this proceeding and immaterial to the NRC Staffs review of the ISP Application.99 In summary, SEEDs Appeal fails to specify, much less establish, any clear error or abuse of discretion in the Boards contention admissibility ruling. Contrary to SEEDs claim, the Board did not improperly raise SEEDs burden as a contention proponent, or otherwise misapply the Commissions deliberately strict contention admissibility criteria in denying admission of Contention 17. The Boards ruling is clearly correct in light of the facts of record and the controlling legal standards and principles discussed above.
IV.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Commission should deny SEEDs Appeal.
95 Id. at __ (slip op. at 13).
96 See id. at __ (slip op. at 12-13).
97 Id. at __ (slip op. at 13).
98 Id. at __ (slip op. at 12) (citing ISP, LBP-19-7, 90 NRC at __ (slip op. at 57-58)).
99 See id. at __ (slip op. at 12-13).
18 Respectfully submitted, 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 Email: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)
Timothy P. Matthews, Esq.
Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-5527 Phone: 202-739-5796 Email: timothy.matthews@morganlewis.com Email: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com Counsel for Interim Storage Partners LLC Dated in Washington, D.C.
this 3rd February 2020
DB1/ 111046172 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. 72-1050-ISFSI ASLBP No. 19-959-01-ISFSI-BD01 February 3, 2020 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this date, a copy of Interim Storage Partners LLCs Answer Opposing Petitioner Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalitions Appeal of Licensing Board Decision LBP-19-11 was filed through the E-Filing system.
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 Email: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for Interim Storage Partners LLC