ML20244A320

C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-09

ML20244A320
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/31/2020
From:	Curran D C-10 Research & Education Foundation, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-443-LA-2, ASLBP 17-953-02-LA-BD01, LBP-20-09, RAS 55777
Download: ML20244A320 (4)

Text

August 31, 2020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )

_____________________________________)

C-10 RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF LBP-20-09 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(e), C-10 Research and Education Foundation (C-10) hereby requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to grant it leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration of LBP-20-09. C-10s arguments for partial reconsideration of LBP-20-09 are set forth in Section II.A of the attached C-10 Research and Education Foundations Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 (Aug.

28, 2020) (Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record).

In particular, C-10 seeks consideration of the concerns raised by C-10s expert witness, Dr. Victor E. Saouma, regarding the inadequacy of the four License Conditions proposed by the ASLB to protect public health and safety during the next 30 years of the Seabrook reactors extended license term. Supplemental Testimony of Victor E. Saouma, Ph.D Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 (Aug. 28, 2020) (Exhibit INT052) (Proprietary). As set forth in Dr.

Saoumas Supplemental Testimony, the four License Conditions in LBP-20-09 must be amended because they currently lack sufficiently specific terms for ensuring timely and reliable detection of unacceptable development of internal cracks caused by Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) in

concrete structures at the Seabrook nuclear power plant. Greater clarity of certain qualitative and otherwise undefined terms in these license conditions is needed in order to ensure accountability in ASR monitoring and enforcement of NextEra Energy Seabrook LLCs (NextEras) ASR monitoring program and thereby provide adequate assurance that public health and safety will be protected from the risks posed by ASR-affected safety structures, as required by the Atomic Energy Act and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.

II. THIS MOTION SATISFIES THE NRCS STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION.

The NRC has two virtually identical regulations that govern motions for reconsideration, 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.323(e) and 2.345(b). Both standards require a showing of compelling circumstances, such as the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have reasonably been anticipated, that renders the decision invalid. In addition, both regulations require that requests for reconsideration must be submitted within ten days of the decision.

Section 2.323(e) contains one distinct requirement, that the movant to seek leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration from the Presiding Officer.

C-10 satisfies the NRCs standard for reconsideration in several respects. First, C-10 is filing this motion within ten days of issuance of LBP-20-09.

Second, the concerns presented in Dr. Saoumas Supplemental Testimony regarding the adequacy of the License Conditions in LBP-20-09 are clear and compelling because C-10 could not have addressed them earlier in the proceeding and because they bear on the adequacy of LBP-20-09 to ensure that NextEras monitoring program for Seabrook will adequately protect public health and safety for the next 30 years.

C-10 had no prior opportunity to address the adequacy of the License Conditions because they did not exist before the issuance of LBP-20-09. Thus, C-10 could not reasonably have 2

anticipated them or what they would contain. While C-10 anticipated and indeed sought a ruling by the ASLB that NextEras License Amendment Request (LAR) did not satisfy NRCs safety standards, it could not have anticipated that the ASLB would issue such a ruling and then seek to resolve the LARs deficiencies by imposing new license conditions on NextEra. Nor could C-10 have anticipated the inconsistencies between the observations and holdings in LBP-20-09 with the content of the License Conditions which are discussed in Dr. Saoumas Supplemental Testimony.

In addition, the concerns discussed in Dr. Saoumas Supplemental Testimony are compelling because they present clear and material errors in the ASLBs reasoning with respect to the composition of the License Conditions. 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.323(e), 2.345(b). In particular, while LBP-20-09 notes the importance of limiting NextEras discretion, as well as the lack of regulatory standards or guidance for monitoring ASR, the License Conditions contain provisions that give NextEra excessive and unnecessary degree of discretion in interpreting the results of its ASR monitoring program. C-10 respectfully submits that without strengthening and clarification, these License Conditions would render the [ASLBs] decision invalid. 10 C.F.R.

§§ 2.323(e), 2.345(b). The proposed changes are also needed to make the License Conditions consistent with the ASLBs general reasoning of LBP-20-09.

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should consider C-10s request for partial reconsideration of LBP-20-09, as set forth in the attached Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record.

3

Respectfully submitted,

__/signed electronically by/___

Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.

1725 DeSales Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 240-393-9285 dcurran@harmoncurran.com August 31, 2020 4