ML22349A106
| ML22349A106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2022 |
| From: | Lochbaum D C-10 Research & Education Foundation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML22278A131 | List: |
| References | |
| EPID L-2022-CRS0000 | |
| Download: ML22349A106 (3) | |
Text
Comments on C-10s ASR Petition On October 4, 2022, C-10 submitted a petition (ML22278A133) under 10 CFR 2.206 requesting that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issue an Order to NextEra requiring it to achieve full compliance with regulatory requirements by December 31, 2023, for managing the risk from alkali-silica reaction (ASR) at Seabrook.
C-10 intervened in the application for renewal of the Seabrook operating license primarily due to concerns about the hazard posed by ASR. The matter went through a legal proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board after which the NRC approved the license renewal.
To simplify the issues in that process, C-10 essentially argued that an array of testing and monitoring measures (say Y for short) was necessary to manage the ASR risk while NRC concluded that other measures (say X) - with some overlap to Y - provided reasonable assurance.
C-10s petition does not seek to re-litigate the license renewal process and re-contend that Y should be adopted. Instead, C-10s petition merely seeks to have the X measures implemented. In other words, C-10s petition seeks to cash in the IOUs the organization and the community were promised.
C-10s petition provided a list of non-compliances identified by the NRC of NextEras ASR efforts, places where NextEra has not done the X measures.
C-10s petition provided a list of recent cases where NRC issued Orders to have non-compliant licensees take the steps necessary to achieve compliance.
C-10s petition included a review of its contents against Management Directive 8.11 (see ML18296A043).
NRC may contend that C-10s petition did not raise any new issues and therefore the old issues can and should be handled via the NRCs routine regulatory processes and therefore should be denied. That contention is invalid for two reasons:
- 1. 10 CFR 2.206 does not explicitly or implicitly establish criteria by which the NRC can determine whether to accept or deny a petition. Thus, denying the petition for that reason would constitute extra-legal measures.
- 2. 10 CFR 50.9 explicitly requires that submittals to the NRC be complete and accurate in all material aspects. NextEra applied for license renewal of Seabrook on May 25, 2010 (ML101590094). Because that submittal was not complete and accurate, NextEra submitted fixes on October 29, 2010 (ML103060022), November 15, 2010 (ML103210330), November 23, 2010 (ML103350639, ML103280392, and ML103360326), December 3, 2010 (ML103400259), December 17, 2010 (ML103540534), December 22, 2010 (ML103620313),
January 13, 2011 (ML110140587, ML110140809, and ML110140810), February 18, 2011 (ML110530481), March 16, 2011 (ML110820121), April 5, 2011 (ML110960647), April 14, 2011 (ML11108A131), April 18, 2011 (ML11122A075), April 22, 2011 (ML1115A116), June 2, 2011 (ML11154133), June 10, 2011 (ML11166A255), June 24, 2011 (ML11178A236), August 11, 2011 (ML11227A023), August 25, 2011 (ML11241A142), November 2, 2011 (ML11308A025), November 17, 2011 (ML11327A009), December 15, 2011 (ML11354A235),
January 20, 2012 (ML12025A078), February 7, 2012 (ML12041A054), March 30, 2012 (ML12094A364), April 18, 2012 (ML12110A407), April 23, 2012 (ML121160422), April 26, 2012 (ML12122098), May 3, 2012 (ML12125A022), May 16, 2012 (ML12142A323), June 19, 2012 (ML12178A405), September 13, 2012 (ML12262A513), September 18, 2012 (ML12268A170 and ML12268A171), November 2, 2012 (ML12312A017), May 8, 2013 December 14, 2022 Page 1
(ML13135A005), July 2, 2013 (ML13189A197), September 13, 2013 (ML13261A145), January 22, 2014 (ML14034A019 and ML14034A020), March 5, 2014 (ML14072A018), May 15, 2014 (ML14142A220), June 24, 2014 (ML14177A502), October 2, 2014 (ML14282A023), November 21, 2014 (ML14330A325), February 23, 2015 (ML150672A042), March 9, 2015 (ML15072A035), June 30, 2015 (MLO15183A023), September 18, 2015 (ML15271A161),
October 9, 2015 (ML15287A396), December 3, 2015 (MLO15343A370), December 8, 2015 (ML15349A896), January 29, 2016 (ML16035A245), February 23, 2016 (ML16056A083),
August 9, 2016 (ML16224B079), September 6, 2016 (ML16252A222), October 7, 2016 (ML16286A630), November 23, 2016 (Supplement 50 to the license renewal application, ML16333A407), January 3, 2017 (Supplement 51 clarifying Supplement 50 to the license renewal application, ML17006A399), March 29, 2017 (ML17089A270), May 19, 2017 (ML17142A414), May 25, 2017 (Supplement 53 to the license renewal application, ML17150A066), June 20, 2017 (clarification to Supplement 53, ML17181A104), June 20, 2017 (ML17173A065), August 11, 2017 (clarification to Supplement 55, ML17223A022), October 3, 2017 (ML17277B519 and ML17277A337), October 6, 2017 (ML17278A955), October 18, 2017 (ML17291B221), November 3, 2017 (ML17307A027), December 12, 2017 (correction to seventh annual application update, ML17355A437), January 23, 2018 (additional info to seventh annual application update, ML18024A257), February 28, 2018 (ML18059B203 and ML18059B205), May 1, 2018 (ML18121A403), May 24, 2018 (additional changes to eighth annual application update, ML18144A242), June 20, 2018 (additional changes to eighth annual application update, ML18172A045), and August 29, 2018 (ML18241A324).1 If the NRC denies C-10s petition because it lacked new information, it would be applying an unwritten regulation because 10 CFR 2.206 lacks such a standard.
On the other hand, the NRC repeatedly ignored an explicit, written regulation by accepting incomplete and inaccurate submittal after incomplete and inaccurate submittal from NextEra between 2010 and 2018.
Note that the January 3, 2017, submittal (ML17006A399) which was a correction to the incomplete and inaccurate submittal on November 2016 (ML16333A407) which was itself a correction to the incomplete and inaccurate license renewal application.
In the past, the NRC pursued rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 2.206 to explicitly state its practices. For example, on July 14, 1977, a final rule was published in the Federal Register (42 FR 36239) adding this part: No petition or other request for Commission review of a Directors decision under this section will be entertained by the Commission. The NRC did not revise Management Directive 8.11 to impose this restriction or written it with a Sharpie on a whiteboard in its conference room or done some other non-rulemaking step. Instead, it revised the regulation to codify the measure. If the NRC wants to deny petitions lacking new information, it should amend 10 CFR 2.206 to explicitly include this point and define how it distinguishes the age of information.
But the issue of new or old information is a red herring. The Order requested in C-10s petition is justified simply because it is needed. The NRC has frequently failed to act in a timely way in response to existing information. The long list of examples includes:
- The 2.206 petition submitted by We The People, Inc. in August 1995 (ML20092B117) requested that Millstone Unit 1 be ordered to shut down for 60 days due to recurring violations of regulatory requirements. Within a year, Millstone Unit 1 was permanently shut down.
1 An attempt was made to provide a comprehensive listing, but a dozen or more others might have been overlooked given the vast numbers and inconsistencies coding records for entry into ADAMS.
December 14, 2022 Page 2
- U.S. Government Accountability Office report RCED-97-145 dated May 30, 1997, Nuclear Regulation: Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC Action, documented more than three dozen safety problems at the Salem nuclear plant that NRC tolerated for years, then required the plant to remain shut down until every one was corrected.
- The Union of Concerned Scientists 2.206 petition in September 1997, requesting that the D.C.
Cook nuclear plant not restart until five steps were taken. The plant restarted nearly two years later after all five - plus dozen other - steps were taken to restore minimum safety levels.
More recently, C-10s intervention in the license renewal application of Seabrook demonstrated the value added from public participation. One would hope the NRC would acknowledge that C-10s efforts resulted in a more effective suite of ASR measures than would likely have been otherwise achieved.
Now, C-10s petition seeks only to have those more effective ASR measures resulting from the contentious ASLB proceeding more effectively implemented at Seabrook. NRC inspectors have identified numerous non-compliances with those measures. Rather than tolerating serial non-compliances, as the NRC did with repetitive violations of 10 CFR 50.9 during the license renewal process, the Order sought by C-10 would hasten steps needed to meet rather than miss compliance with the ASR risk management measures.
Prepared by: David Lochbaum C-10 Advisory Board Disclaimer: This material represents the positions of its author. C-10 may agree with the positions in whole or in part, but that agreement should not be implied or assumed.
December 14, 2022 Page 3