ML20216A458

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Appeal of LBP-20-07 by Petitioner Citizens' Resistance at Fermi 2 (Craft) and Brief in Support of Appeal
ML20216A458
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/03/2020
From: Jay Collins
Citizens' Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT)
To:
NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-341-LA, LBP-20-07, License Amendment, RAS 55749
Download: ML20216A458 (17)


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission

)

In the Matter of: )

) Docket No. 50-341-LA DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY )

) August 3, 2020 Enrico Fermi Nuclear Reactor, Unit 2 )

)

________________________________________________)

Notice of Appeal of LBP-20-07 by Petitioner Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT)

And Brief in Support of Appeal Jessie Pauline Collins, CRAFT 17397 Five Points Street Redford, MI 48240 (313) 286-3827 Jessiepauline2003@yahoo.com Pro Se Counsel for CRAFT

NOTICE OF APPEAL Petitioner Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 (hereinafter CRAFT), by and through pro se counsel, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.311(c), hereby gives notice of its appeal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) from the ,.Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLB) ruling, LBP-20-07, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petition for Intervention and Request for Hearing) (ML20189A065) (July 7, 2020) (Memorandum and Order in the Matter of DTE Electric Company (Fermi 2).

CRAFT appeals the ASLBs denial of a ruling on Standing and seeks reversal of the ASLBs decisions denying admission of the groups proffered contentions for adjudication.

/s/ Jessie Pauline Collins Jessie Pauline Collins, Pro Se Counsel for CRAFT 2

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION On March 9, 2020, Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT), the Petitioner herein, filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene and for a Hearing on DTEs License Amendment request to Invalidate a License Extension Condition by a License Amendment Request on the docket of the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant. CRAFT sought to intervene in a September 5, 2019 License Amendment Request initiated by DTE Electric Company and DTE Energy (DTE) (request located at ADAMS No. ML19248C679) that seeks to eliminate the license renewal license condition based upon a proposed alternative to install neutron absorbing inserts (i.e., NETCO SNAP-IN rack inserts) in the spent fuel pool (SFP) storage racks containing Boraflex. The amendment also requests revision of technical specifications. Additionally, approval of the new criticality safety analysis, including methodology, is being requested.

DTE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff) responded in opposition to CRAFTs Petition, and CRAFT replied in further support of the Petition. A record hearing took place before the assigned Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on June 10, 2020, for hearing arguments from the parties as to CRAFTs legal standing and whether an admissible contention had been advanced by Petitioner.

The ASLB ruled on July 7 that Joint Petitioners might possess legal standing, but instead stated that it was reluctant to rule unnecessarily on whether CRAFT has established standing because according to the licensing board, CRAFT had failed to submit an admissible contention and denied the hearing request, ducking a ruling on standing. DTE Electric Company (Fermi 2),

LBP-20-07 (July 7, 2020) at 9-10.

3

Petitioner CRAFT maintains in this Appeal that the Licensing Board got it wrong on both counts: CRAFT should have been accorded legal standing to proceed, and further, should have been credited with having proffered one or more admissible contentions. The ASLB failed to fulfill its mandate, first, to determine standing, and if that were found, to proceed separately to the question of contention admissibility. A reading of LBP-20-07 reveals either that the ASLB conflated the questions of standing and contention admissibility to arrive at its erroneous result, or worked backwards from its subjective assessment of the winnability of the contentions to the conclusion that CRAFT lacked standing, i.e., the contentions would not result in a merits decision for CRAFT, hence Petitioner lacks standing.

Whatever the true reasoning of the ASLB, its findings should be reversed, standing should be accorded CRAFT and one or more of its contentions found to be admissible and an adjudication should then be held following discovery.

II. BACKGROUND Fermi 2 uses two types of high-density storage racks in its spent fuel pool: one with Boraflex as the neutron absorbing material; the other with Boral as the neutron absorber. Neutron absorption is an important safety component of spent fuel pools in order to maintain subcriticality.

Subcriticality refers to conditions that do not support self-sustaining fission reactions.

In 2001, the NRC approved DTEs request for License Amendment No. 141, which allowed, but did not require, replacement of the Boraflex racks with Boral racks for the purpose of increasing the capacity of Fermi 2s spent fuel pool. Although the first two phases of this rack replacement occurred in 2001 and 2007, the final phase never took place. After License Amendment No. 141 was approved, the NRC and the industry accumulated operating experience indicating that neutron-absorbing materials such as Boraflex and Boral can degrade, thereby 4

reducing their neutron-absorbing capability.

During the Fermi 2 license renewal process in 2014, DTE committed to completing the rack replacement approved in License Amendment No. 141. The NRC renewed DTEs license subject to License Condition 2.C.(26)( c), which provides that [DTE] shall fully implement the Boraflex rack replacement approved in Amendment No. 141 before the [period of extended operation] (i.e., March 20, 2025), so that the Boraflex material in the spent fuel pool will not be required to perform a neutron absorption function . . . .1 When making this commitment, however, DTE alerted the NRC that alternative solutions could arise. It stated that [i]f, based on further analyses and subject to any necessary NRC approvals, DTE identifies an alternative to implementation of the rack replacement approved in Amendment No. 141 that can be completed in a timely manner, this commitment will be revised accordingly.2 On September 5, 2019, DTE submitted a license amendment request to the NRC for approval of such an alternative plan. Instead of removing and replacing certain spent fuel racks, DTE proposed to install neutron-absorbing NETCO SNAP-IN rack inserts in the existing Boraflex racks. Although the original Boraflex would remain, after these inserts are installed the Boraflex would no longer be credited as a neutron absorber in DTEs criticality safety analysis.

Unlike the replacement of the Boraflex racks as approved by License Amendment No. 141, DTEs proposed alternative would not change the number of racks or the total capacity of the Fermi 2 spent fuel pool. The NRC has previously approved the installation of NETCO SNAP-IN 1

Fermi 2 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43, at 8 (Dec. 15, 2016)

(ADAMS No. ML16270A526) [hereinafter Renewed License]; see also Letter from V.

Kaminskas, DTE, to NRC Document Control Desk, Fermi 2 License Renewal Application Update for the Boraflex Monitoring Program at 2 (Sept. 24, 2015) (ADAMS No. ML15268A454) [hereinafter Boraflex Commitment Letter].

2 Boraflex Commitment Letter at 2.

5

rack inserts to replace the neutron-absorption function of Boraflex at several other nuclear power plants.

Specifically, DTE requests a license amendment that would: (1) eliminate License Condition 2.C.(26) (c) based on DTEs proposal to install neutron absorbing inserts; (2) approve a new criticality safety analysis; and (3) approve an associated revision of technical specification requirements. On January 7, 2020, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of an opportunity to file hearing requests and intervention petitions on DTEs request within 60 days. Petitioner CRAFT filed a hearing request dated March 9, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the NRC Staff and DTE timely filed answers opposing CRAFTs hearing request, and CRAFT timely replied. The Board heard oral argument, by telephone, on June 10, 2020. It issued its decision, LBP-20-07, on July 7, 2020, from which CRAFT takes this appeal.

III. CRAFTS STANDING Both DTE and the NRC Staff argued that CRAFT failed to demonstrate legal standing.

In this license amendment proceeding, the NRC must grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding. However, to determine whether a petitioner has a sufficient interest, the Commission applies contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. The petition is to be construed in favor of the petitioner in deciding standing. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), CLI-15-25, 82 NRC 389, 394 (2015). CRAFT has the burden of demonstrating that standing requirements are met. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-00-05, 51 NRC 90, 98 (2000).

The standing burden may be satisfied in one of three ways:

By a showing of traditional standing, viz., that a person or organization has suffered or 6

might suffer a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action; likely redressable by a favorable decision; and arguably within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

By invoking the Commissions proximity plus standard, which tak[es] into account the nature of the proposed action and the significance of the radioactive source. Ga. Inst. of Tech.

(Ga. Tech Res. Reactor, Atlanta, Ga.), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 116-17 (1995); see Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and Gen. Atomics (Gore, Okla. Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 75 n.22 (1994) ([A]

presumption based on geographic proximity is . . . applicable to materials cases where the potential for offsite consequences is obvious.). [A]lthough the 50-mile presumption does not apply in spent-fuel pool cases, persons living little more than a stones throw from the facility . . . meet the proximity test. Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3),

LBP-00-02, 51 NRC 25, 28 (2000) (quoting Va. Electric and Power Co. (N. Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979)).

Via representational standing, where an organization (1) shows that the interests it seeks to protect are germane to its own purpose; (2) identifies at least one member who qualifies for standing in his or her own right; (3) shows that it is authorized by that member to request a hearing on his or her behalf; and (4) shows that neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires an individual members participation in the organizations legal action. Consumers Energy Co.

(Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-07-18, 65 NRC 399, 409 (2007).

CRAFT established representational standing with a showing of proximity plus on the part of its members. CRAFT submitted sworn declarations from several members, verifying that they live within a 50-mile radius (and from two who live within 4.75 miles3) of Fermi 2. These 3

See Petition, encl., Decl. of Hedwig Kaufman (Mar. 7, 2020); see also id., encl., Decl. of 7

members both authorized CRAFT to represent their interests in this proceeding and expressed concerns that DTEs requested license amendment risks harm to the health and well-being of members living within 50 miles of the site.

A. CRAFT Satisfied Its Standing Burden By Producing Declarations Of Members Living Less Than 5 Miles From The Spent Fuel Pool In NRC jurisprudence, it is a given that avoiding criticality in a spent fuel pool is reasonably of concern to a person who lives less than ten (much less five) miles away. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), LBP-00-02, 51 NRC 25, 27-28 (2000) (residence or activities within 10 miles of a facility sufficient to establish standing in a case involving re-racking to expand capacity of a spent fuel pool); see, also, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-87-7, 25 NRC 116, 118 (1987) (in license amendment case for proposed SFP expansion, interest of one of 50 members of intervenor group will likely suffice to establish standing); id., LBP-87-17, 25 NRC 838, 842, affd in part and revd in part on other grounds, ALAB-869, 26 NRC 13 (1987) (once grassroots organization perfected showing of members standing who lived within 10 miles of SFP, standing was unopposed by NRC Staff and licensee); see also Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-88-10A, 27 NRC 452, 454-55 (1988), affd, ALAB-893, 27 NRC 627 (1988) (standing of individual living 10 miles from facility conceded by parties). A distance of 17 miles has been held to be a permissible basis for an organizations standing in a spent fuel pool proceeding. Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-99-25, 50 NRC 25, 29-31 (1999).

The Commission recently affirmed an ASLB ruling that an individual who lives sufficiently Martin Kaufman (Mar. 7, 2020).

8

close to a potentially massive facility for storing much of the nations spent nuclear fuel need not demonstrate with specificity how radiation might reach them. See Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), CLI-20-04, 91 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 10) (Apr. 23, 2020).

Holtec concerned licensing of an interim spent fuel storage facility. The ASLB had found standing where Sierra Clubs members lived several miles away and expressly rejected the applicants claim that Sierra Club must first demonstrate with specificity just how radiation might reach them.

Holtec Intl (HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP-19-4, 89 NRC 353, 367 (2019).

B. The ASLB Shirked Its Responsibility To Rule Conclusively On CRAFTs Standing The ASLB in this case found that DTEs amendment proposes to replace one safety feature with a different one related to the Fermi independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).4 That is a significant finding of fact that makes the likelihood of a serious spent fuel pool mishap cognizable enough that standing should be accorded the SFPs nearby neighbors.

Despite its recognition of the Holtec cases5 and the res ipsa loquitur nature of ISFSI dangers for purposes of determining standing, however, the licensing board retreated:

[B]ecause one side of the issue has not been briefed by experienced legal counsel, we are reluctant to rule unnecessarily on whether CRAFT has established standing.

Because, for multiple reasons, CRAFT plainly has failed to submit an admissible contention, we deny its hearing request on that ground alone and make no determination of its standing.

DTE Electric Company (Fermi 2), LBP-20-07 (July 7, 2020) at 9-10.

The licensing board is not free to hold that a standing determination is unnecessary. A 4

DTE Electric Company (Fermi 2), LBP-20-07 (July 7, 2020) at 9 fn. 47.

5 Judge Ryerson authored the ASLB decision in Holtec.

9

petitioners standing, or right to participate in a Commission licensing proceeding, is grounded in Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2239 (a)(1)(A), which requires the NRC to provide a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding. The very wording of the AEA obliges the licensing board to make the standing determination by assessing the intervenors interest claimed to be affected by the proceeding as a prerequisite act to ruling on contention admissibility. A ruling on standing is the imperative first step. [I]f no petitioner for intervention can satisfactorily demonstrate standing, it is likely that no hearing will be held. Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 582 (1978).

The NRCs practice of refusing to decide on standing as unnecessary is a denial of due process under the AEA and the U.S. Constitution (Art. V). In practical terms, when it has avoided making a conclusive decision about standing, the ASLB may be trying to avoid creating the precedent of applying a proximity presumption to interventions involving spent fuel pools and ISFSIs. For example, in the Holtec proceeding, the ASLB declined to rule on the standing of the Alliance for Environmental Strategies (AFES), which was advancing Environmental Justice contentions. The licensing board expressed reluctance to clarify the geographic distance that might create a proximity presumption of standing in a licensing proceeding for a spent fuel storage facility:

On the other hand, the proposed Holtec facility is envisioned as potentially much larger than any previous spent fuel storage facility. In this uncharted area, we are reluctant to rule unnecessarily on what geographic distance might or might not be sufficient for a presumption of standing. Because AFES plainly has not submitted an admissible contention, as discussed infra, we deny its request for an evidentiary hearing on that ground alone and make no determination of its standing.

Holtec Intl, LBP-19-4, 89 NRC 353, 371. Then, the ASLB used its finding that there was no admissible contention to de facto deny standing to AFES, without entering a written ruling to that 10

effect. Developing and applying a proximity presumption for ISFSIs and spent fuel pools might be seen as affirming to the public the inherent dangers of SFPs and ISFSIs. The Holtec CISF proposal, for example, involves a prospectively enormous concentration of radiation in shallow burial for hundreds of years. Recognizing a fairly explicit radius of danger signals scientific recognition of a dark side of the peaceful atom.

C. The Standing Determination Was Confused With The Assessment of CRAFTs Case On The Merits In evaluating a petitioners claims of injury-in-fact, care must be taken to avoid the familiar trap of confusing the standing determination with the assessment of petitioners case on the merits. Babcock & Wilcox (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72, 82 (1993), citing City of Los Angeles v. Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 912 F.2d 478, 495 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 117 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1992); Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding), LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54, 68 (1994), affd, CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64 (1994); Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma, Site Decommissioning), CLI-01-02, 53 NRC 2, 15 (2001). See, also, Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 901 F.2d 107, 113 (D.C. Cir. 1990)

(We note at the outset that the standing determination must not be confused with our assessment of whether the party could succeed on the merits.).

In this license amendment case, the ASLB was posed with legal precedent that strongly militated in favor of finding proximity plus standing for at least two of CRAFTs members, yet the licensing board consciously refused to find that legal standing existed. Instead, the ASLB vaulted past the standing issue to repudiate CRAFTs contentions and find that, since CRAFT would lose on the merits, a ruling on standing was unnecessary. This deliberate failure to rule on standing 11

denied CRAFT due process under the AEA and the Fifth Amendment. According to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a),

[T]he Commission, presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene, will grant the request/petition if it determines that the requestor/petitioner has standing under the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section and has proposed at least one admissible contention that meets the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.

The ASLB was required by NRC regulations to determine that the . . . petitioner . . . has standing (or not) and then to address the question of whether an admissible contention was raised. The ASLB did neither, but instead, conflated standing and a subtle merits determination to reach the anomalous conclusion that because CRAFT had no admissible contentions, it was unnecessary to rule on standing.

This matter must be remanded to the ASLB for a yes-or-no ruling on standing so that the public can know the degree of agency compliance with statutory and constitutional criteria governing public participation in the licensing and oversight processes of the NRC.

IV. THE PETIONERS PROFFERED CONTENTIONS WERE DECLINED UNJUSTLY BY THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (ASLB)

CITIZENS RESISTANCE AT FERMI TWO (CRAFT) objects to the refusal of the ASLB to admit its contentions. CRAFTs burden is merely to articulate at the outset the specific issues they wish to litigate. Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 359.

CONTENTION 1: There Is Significant Increase in The Probability or Consequences of An Accident Previously Evaluated.

12

By not physically removing the degraded Boraflex from the spent fuel pool (SFP) Fermi 2 will be out of compliance with License Condition Number 2.C.(26)(c). DTE and the NRC have not considered all failure modes for Boraflex degradation that could lead to a spent fuel fire and potential for failure when the time comes to transfer to dry cask storage, in addition to aging and failure modes that alter regular movement of fuel rods and cooling. That includes cracking, embrittlement, swelling, structural failures and chemical reactions. Boraflex panels are known for degrading and shedding silica into SFP water from gaps and localized washout of Boron.

Boraflex, RACKLIFE, and BADGER: description and Uncertainties (Adams ML12216A307) speaks towards what is and what is not in account, flaws and inconsistencies in formulation and monitoring.

Initial Assessment of Uncertainties Associated with BADGER Methodology (Adams # ML12254A064) also covers similar uncertainties as well as potentially flawed surveillance techniques. Boraflex racks are only a burden if left in place While it is true that the ASLB, granting the licensing amendment, will relieve DTE of the burden of this license condition, the basis for the contention is the inadequacy of analysis.

CONTENTION 2: BORAFLEX DEGRADATION CRAFT contends that the ASLB has not adequately analyzed the potential of corrosion leading to degradation and potential unanticipated consequences of unaccounted debris in the spent fuel pool. This problematic potential could result in stuck fuel assemblies which could break during removal. Because of the cumulative longitudinal degradation, a criticality accident could result when there is malfunction of fuel during transfer.

13

The NRC has produced multiple documents addressing Boraflex degradation within Informational Notices (IN) 87-43, 97-70, 98-38, and 12-13, as well as Generic Letter (GL)96-04.

It is self-evident that deferring maintenance in one mechanical area can cause multiple faceted failures across others.

Addressing all failure modes must be a part of the examination before moving forward.

The ASLB must acknowledge the potential for a spent fuel pool fire if pool cannot be kept sub-critical. This risk can be much greater during transfer of compromised fuel assemblies to dry cask storage.

CRAFT agrees with the ASLB that degraded Boraflex should not be relied upon as a Neutron Absorbing Material (NAM), but the basis of contention 2 is the unaccounted burden of the continued presence of degrading Boraflex material and the publics interest.

CONTENTION 3, MARGIN OF SAFETY IS CONSERVATIVE IN FERMI 2 SFP The ASLB did not agree that in the proposal with the current state of Fermi 2 SFP, the license condition change to K-coefficient will not leave a conservative margin of safety to assure the SFP will remain subcritical. This new conservative margin involved with Fermi 2s modified and aging SFP is played with while the system may have slower and less responsive reaction time.

CRAFT contends the SFP in its current and future state would not have a conservative margin to stay subcritical and is appealing because the ASLB did not acknowledge this. DTE evaluations are based on an analysis that says the SFP reactivity is prevented by Boral, which is an incomplete assumption because there is no modeling of the as-built design of the current Fermi 2 Spent Fuel Pool. This nor any other of the integrated issues brought forth or mentioned along with our contentions have not been evaluated in this case.

14

While we agree with NRC margins of safety, the ASLB must accept contention 3 because Fermi 2s SFP condition is unknown, and the margin of safety is not conservative.

CONTENTIONS 4 AND 5: REMOVAL OF WASTE TO DRY CASKS STORAGE AND HISTORICAL RATING AND OPERATION OF SPENT FUEL CRANE The ASLB refused to acknowledge alternate storage (transfer to dry cask storage) and historical rating/operation of Fermi 2 spent fuel crane. Especially disheartening when in 2010, The Fermi 2 as it was built did not meet seismic specifications. There were hundreds of missing welds revealed in 2010 just as Dry Cask Storage was to begin. The load on the crane would have exceeded ability of Fermi structure to support the crane weight because of missing welds. This was brought up in our initial filing and as well as briefly in questioning during oral argument proceeding.

There is potential of silica and corrosion bonding / adhering to fuel assemblies through cumulative longitudinal degradation. The pedigree and certification of the fuel removal crane has not been demonstrated.

Professor Frank Von Hipple from Princeton University and Dr. Ed Lyman with The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a study on Spent Fuel Fires and said radioactive material could be released during an accident that could contaminate an area twice the size of New Jersey. While displacing up to 8 million people and having Trillion-dollar consequences.

CRAFT contends that alternate and cheaper methods of storage should be made available, the ASLB need accept contention 4 on the grounds that more prudent methods are available (dry cask storage) and have been considered an option before. It is in the publics best interest and 15

interest of safety that a crane used to move waste and insert snap-ins be rated properly for safety, for this reason, the ASLB need admit Contention 5 CONTENTION 6: Fermi 2 Specific Analysis on The SFP as Currently Loaded Has Not Been Provided The ASLB has ignored and overlooked the need for Fermi 2 specific analysis of SFP as it is currently overloaded with more than twice as was designed (4608 assemblies instead of 2300 fuel assemblies). CRAFT has raised concerns that the NRC has accepted DTE calculations that do not reflect the current actual spent fuel pool. CRAFT is concerned that this overloading has not been analyzed. Dr. Frank von Hipple informs that "Fukushima accident could have been a hundred times worse had there been a loss of water covering in the spent fuel pools associated with each reactor," according to Dr. von Hipple ..."That almost happened at Fukushima Unit 4." (Regulators greatly underestimate potential for nuclear disaster by B. Rose Kelly, March US Nuclear 25, 2017, source Woodrow Wilson School.

CRAFT agrees and supports the ASLB advocacy to take things case by case, and for this reason Contention 6 must be admitted. This is the most prudent course of safety and moves in the direction that would be most cost effective in long run.

CONTENTION 7: EXPERIMENTAL GNF-3 FUEL HAS NOT UNDERGONE ADEQUATE EVALUTATION IN RELATION TO SFP AND CRITICALITY CRAFT raised concern about the use of Higher Burnup fuel of GNF-3. This is amounts to an experiment with fuel that is enriched from 5% to 8% U-235. The NRC has not gone through proper Petition for Rule Change on the use of Higher Burnup fuel. The use of Higher Burnup fuel will result in placing Spent Fuel with higher thermal and neutron composition being placed into 16

SFP without having done Validation and Verification in relation to SFP and potential undesired Criticality V. CONCLUSION CRAFT articulate(d) at the outset the specific issues they wish to litigate, Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc., CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 359, but the ASLB turned the contention admissibility standards into a fortress to deny intervention. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, 53 NRC 27.

Petitioner should be granted legal standing and their Contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 should be admitted for adjudication.

s/s Jessie Pauline Collins Jessie Pauline Collins, Pro Se Counsel for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.305, I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of August, 2020, the foregoing Notice of Appeal Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.311 and Brief in Support of Appeal was deposited by me in the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above captioned proceeding for automated distribution to all registered counsel and parties.

s/s Jessie Pauline Collins Jessie Pauline Collins, Pro Se Counsel for Petitioner 17