ML24127A233
| ML24127A233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/2024 |
| From: | Siegman R, Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57009, 50-338-SLR-2, 50-339-SLR-2 | |
| Download: ML24127A233 (0) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-338- SLR-2 and 50- 339-SLR-2
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY BEYOND NUCLEAR INC. AND SIERRA CLUB, INC.
Sherwin E. Turk Reuben I. Siegman
May 6, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 3
DISCUSSION... ................................................................................................. ........................ 8
I. Standing to Intervene ..................................................................................................... 9
A. Applicable Legal Requirements. ......................................................................... 9
B. The Petitioners Have Established Representational Standing to Intervene.......11
II. The Petitioners Contentions Do Not Challenge New Information in the 2023 DEIS and Are Therefore Beyond the Limited Scope of This Proceeding.............13
III. The Petitioners Have Failed to Present at Least One Admissible Contention as Required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(a) and (f)(1). ............................................................. 15
A. Requirements for Contention Admissibility........................................................15
B. Requirements for Environmental Review of License Renewal Applications......19
C. The Petitioners Contentions Do Not Satisfy the Regulations Governing the Admissibility of Contentions. .................................................... 21
- 1. Contention 1: Draft SEIS Fails to Address Environmental Significance of the 2011 Mineral Earthquake. ......... ............................... 23
- 2. Contention 2: Draft SEIS does not contain a complete or adequately rigorous evaluation of accident risks.................................... 28
- 3. Contention 3: Draft SEIS fails to address the effects of Climate change on accident risk.............................................................. 33
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................44
May 6, 2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-338- SLR-2 and 50- 339-SLR- 2
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY BEYOND NUCLEAR INC. AND SIERRA CLUB, INC.
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i), the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC Staff) hereby files this Answer 1 in opposition to the hearing request and
petition to intervene filed by Beyond Nuclear, Inc. and the Sierra Club, Inc. (the Petitioners) on
March 28, 2024, as corrected on April 8, 2024, and amended on April 11, 2024. 2 In their
1 This Answer is filed in accordance with the Briefing Schedule set forth in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Order (amended)) (Apr. 15, 2024),
at 2. To assist the Board and parties in their review of the Petition and the Staffs Answer, the Staff is filing herewith a Compare Document in which the wording of the December 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is compared to the wording of the August 2021 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) in redline/ strikeout format, for those portions of the DEIS and DSEIS that are relevant to the Petitioners contentions. See Attachment 1 (Partial Comparison of (1) N RC Staffs December 2023 Site- Specific Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to (2) NRC Staffs August 2021 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Subsequent License Renewal o f North Anna Units 1 a nd 2 )
(May 6, 2024).
2 See (1) Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (Mar. 28, 2024) (Petition) (ADAMS Accession No. ML20349D952); (2) Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (Mar. 28, 2024, corrected Apr. 8, 2024) (Corrected Petition)
(ML20349D952); and (3) Motion by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club to Amend Their Contention 3 Regarding Failure to Consider Environmental Impacts of Climate Change (Apr. 11, 2024) (Amended Contention) (ML20349D952).
Petition, as corrected and amended, the Petitioners present three contentions that challenge
Virginia Electric and Power Companys (Dominion or Applicant) application for subsequent
license renewal (SLR) of North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (North Anna), as
supplemented in September 2022. 3 More specifically, the Petitioners contentions purport to
challenge the accident analyses discussed in the Staffs evaluation of environmental impacts set
forth in the Staffs December 2023 site -specific Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
North Anna SLR. 4
For the reasons set forth below, the Staff submits that while the Petitioners have
established their representational standing to intervene, they fail to demonstrate that at least one of
their contentions is admissible for litigation in this proceeding, which the Commission directed in
CLI-22-3 is limited to contentions based on new information in the site-specific environmental
impact statement. 5 Specifically, the Petitioners contentions (a) fail to contest the new information
presented in the Staffs December 2023 DEIS, and are therefore beyond the limited scope of this
proceeding, and (b) fail to satisfy the criteria governing the admissibility of contentions set forth in
10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.
3 North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Application for Subsequent License Renewal (August 2020)
(ML20246G 696) (SLRA). The SLRA included an environmental report that relied, in part, on the generic determinations for Category 1 issues identified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B, Table B -1, and NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Rev. 1 (June 2013) ( 2013 GEIS) (ML13107A023) (ADAMS Package) . See Appendix E, Applicants Environmental Report, Subsequent Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 (ML20246G698) (2020 ER). On September 28, 2022, following the Commissions issuance of CLI 3, the Applicant submitted a site- specific Environmental Report (ER) (ML22272A041), replacing its previous ER.
4 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, Site Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment (Dec. 2023) (DEIS)
(ML23339A047).
5 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), Exelon Generation Co. LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 3, 95 NRC 40, 42 (2022).
In the following discussion, the Staff (1) briefly summarizes the background of this
proceeding; (2) discusses the legal principles governing standing and analyzes the Petitioners
standing to intervene; (3) discusses the Commissions decisio n in CLI 3, and the legal
principles governing contention admissibility; and (4) demonstrates that all three of the
Petitioners contentions should be rejected.
BACKGROUND
This proceeding concerns the application submitted by Dominion in August 2020 for
the subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- 4 and
NPF-7, to permit an additional 20 years of operation of North Anna Units 1 and 2 until April 1,
2058, and August 21, 2060, respectively . 6 North Anna Units 1 and 2 are located on an
1,803- acre (730- hectare) site in Louisa County, Virginia, adjacent to Lake Anna in the
northeastern portion of Virginia. 7 The North Anna site is approximately 40 miles (64 km)
northwest of Richmond, Virginia, and approximately seven miles (11 km) northeast of the
town of Mineral, Virginia.8
Commencement of the North Anna SLR Proceeding
The NRC published a notice of receipt of the North Anna SLRA on September 21,
2020. 9 On October 15, 2020, the NRC determined that the application was acceptable for
docketing, and published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave
to intervene. 10 On December 14, 2020, the Petitioners filed a timely request for hearing and
6 See SLRA at 1- 7. The current renewed operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 were issued in March2003 and expire at midnight on April 1, 2038, and August 21, 2040, respectively . See North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 1, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF -4 at 9 (ML052990145); North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-7 (ML052990147); see also SLRA at 1-2.
7 ER at E-3-1. A portion of the site extends into Spotsylvania County, VA. Id.
8 Id. at E-3-1, E-3-2.
9 North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 85 Fed. Reg. 59,334 (Sep. 21, 2020).
10 North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 85 Fed. Reg. 65,438 (Oct. 15, 2020).
petition for leave to intervene, in which they proffered a single contention challenging the
Environmental Reports (ER) failure to consider the environmental significance of a beyond-
design- basis magnitude 5.8 earthquake that took place in Mineral, Virginia on August 23,
2011; 11 in addition, they fi led a petition for waiver of certain rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 to allow
them to challenge the NRCs generic determinations on Category 1 environmental issues. 12
An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on December 21, 2020, to
preside over the North Anna SLR proceeding. 13 On January 8, 2021, the Applicant and Staff
filed responses to the petitions to intervene and for a waiver , 14 to which the Petitioners
replied. 15 Oral argument on the petitions and the admissibility of the Petitioners contentions
was held on February 4, 2021. 16 On March 29, 2021, the Board issued LBP 4, in which it
denied the Petitioners intervention and waiver petitions and terminated the proceeding.17
The Petitioners then filed a petition for Commission review of the Boards decision, 18 to which
11 Petition at 13- 14. For a summary of the North Anna design- basis earthquake and the NRCs oversight activities related to seismic conditions at North Anna following the 2011 Mineral Earthquake, see Staff Answer ( Jan. 8, 2021) at 8-13. See also Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 4, 93 NRC 179 (2021) , dismissed without prejudice, CLI 3, 95 NRC 40 (2022).
12 Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia and Petition for Waiver of 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(3)(i), 51.71(d), and 51.95(c)(1), to Allow Consideration of Category 1 NEPA Issues (Dec. 20, 2020) (ML 20349D952).
13 Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Dec. 21, 2020) (ML20356A175).
14 See Applicants Answer Opposing Request for Hearing, Petition to Intervene, and Petition for Waiver Submitted by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia, (Jan. 8, 2021) NRC Staff Answer to Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Petition for Waiver Filed by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia (Jan. 8, 2021) (Staff Answer). Neither the Applicant nor the Staff opposed the Petitioners standing to intervene.
15 Reply by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia to Oppositions to Hearing Request and Waiver Petition, (Jan. 15, 2021) .
16 See Virginia Elec. & Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Official Transcript of Proceedings, at 1-98 (Feb. 4, 2021); see also Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (adopting Transcript Corrections for Initial Prehearing Conference) (Feb. 25, 2021) (unpublished).
17 North Anna, LBP 4, 93 NRC 179 (2021) .
18 Brief on Appeal of LBP-21-4 by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia (Apr. 23, 2021) .
the Applicant and Staff responded; 19 the Petitioners later filed a motion to reopen the
proceeding and to amend the contention that was rejected in LBP-21-4, to challenge the
August 2021 Draft SEIS. 20
Issuance of the Commissions February 2022 Decision s
On February 24, 2022, the Commission issued two seminal decisions regarding the
environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal. First, i n the Turkey Point proceeding,
the Commission issued CLI-22-2. 21 In that decision, the Commission reversed its previous
decision in CLI-20-3, 22 and held that 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) does not apply to SLR
applications; that the 2013 GEIS and Table B -1 to 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B, did not
address SLR; and that the Staffs environmental evaluation of the Turkey Point SLR
application was therefore incomplete.23
19 Applicants Brief in Opposition to Appeal of LBP 4 by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia (May 18, 2021) (ML21138A894); NRC Staffs Brief in Response to Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginias Appeal of LBP 4 (May 18, 2021) (ML21138A942) .
On May 25, 2021, the Petitioners filed a motion for leave to reply to the Applicants and Staffs briefs on appeal; the Staff and Applicant filed answers in opposition to that motion on May 28 and June 1, 2021, respectively.
20 Motion to Amend Contention Out of Time and Motion to Re- Open the Record by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance for Progressive Virginia (Sept. 29, 2021)
21 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI 2, 95 NRC 26 (2022) (majority decision). Recognizing that the Staff had already issued the subsequent renewed licenses for Turkey Point, which had become immediately effective upon issuance, the Commission left the licenses in place, but with shortened terms to match the end dates of the previous licenses . . . until completion of the NEPA analysis. Commissioner Wright dissented from the majoritys decision, except with respect to the status of the licenses and the path forward to resolve the purported NEPA deficiency.
Id. at 38.
22 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI 3, 91 NRC 133 (2020), revd, CLI 2, 95 NRC 26 (2022). In CLI 3, the Commission held that (1) the environmental impacts of SLR were addressed by the 2013 GEIS and 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, and that the Staff may rely on the 2013 GEIS and Appendix B, Table B-1, when evaluating the environmental impacts of Category 1 issues for SLR , absent new and significant information that would change those conclusions, and (2) any challenge to Category 1 issues would require the filing of a rule waiver petition) .
Commissioner Baran dissented from the decision. See id. at 159- 65.
23 Turkey Point, CLI 2, 95 NRC at 27, 31.
Second, the Commission issued CLI-22-3 in the North Anna, Oconee, Peach Bottom,
Point Beach, and Turkey Point SLR proceedings. 24 In CLI-22-3, the Commission (a) stated
that it will not issue any further licenses for an SLR term until the Staff has completed an
adequate NEPA review for each application; 25 (b) directed the Staff to review and update
the 2013 GEIS so that it covers operation during the subsequent license renewal period;
(c) directed the Staff to evaluate Category 1 impacts on a site- specific basis in its EISs,
pending the issuance of a revised GEIS; and (d) dismissed the environmental contentions,
motions and appeals that were pending in those proceedings.26
In CLI 3, the Commission provided two possible paths forward for the North Anna
and other SLR proceedings. T he Commission observed that the most efficient way to
proceed is to direct the Staff to review and update the 2013 GEIS, and to then update the
plants EISs to ensure that the environmental impacts of SLR are considered. But the
Commission also provided an alternative to waiting for the update of the 2013 GEIS: it
afforded applicants an opportunity to submit a revised environmental report providing
information on the site -specific environmental impacts of SLR for their plants and stated that
[a] fter each site- specific review is complete, a new notice of opportunity for hearing, limited to
24 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI- 22-3, 95 NRC 40(2022).
25 Id.,95 NRC at 41. In addition to issuing CLI-22-2 and CLI-22-3 , the Commission issued CLI-22-4 in which it ruled on certain matters in the Peach Bottom SLR proceeding. Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI 4, 95 NRC 44 (2022). Finally, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), instructing the Staff to submit a rulemaking plan to update 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and the 2013 LR GEIS, to address the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal. Staff Requirements--SECY- 21- 0066 "Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150- AK32; NRC- 2018- 0296) (Feb. 24, 2022) (ML22053A308).
26 The Commission observed that because the NRC will be updating the GEIS and site- specific environmental analyses, it would be inefficient to continue litigating any of the pending environmental contentions based on environmental information that may change. Id., 95 NRC at 42 n.6.
contentions based on new information in the site- specific environmental impact statement, will be issued.27
The NRC Staffs Environmental Evaluations
On August 25, 2021, while the p etition for review of LBP- 21-4 was pending before the
Commission, the Staff published a Notice in the Federal Register, 28 informing members of the
public that it had issued for comment a draft supplement (Draft SEIS) to the 2013 GEIS, 29
evaluating the environmental impacts of SLR for North Anna Units 1 and 2. 30 Consistent with
the Staffs prior practice, t he Draft SEIS relied upon the determinations for Category 1 generic
issues contained in the 2013 GEIS, evaluated any new and significant information that was
identified on Category 1 issues, and evaluated the site- specific (Category 2) impacts of SLR for
North Anna.
As discussed above, the Commission issued CLI 2 and CLI-22-3 on February 24,
2022. On September 28, 2022, the Applicant submitted a site-specific ER, replacing its
previous ER for North Anna SLR. 31 In accordance with CLI-22-3, the Staff reviewed the
Applicants site-specific ER and other relevant information and, upon completing that review,
published a site-specific Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for public
27 Id.,95 NRC at 42(emphasis added) .
28 Virginia Electric and Power Company; Dominion Energy Virginia; North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Request for Comment, 86 Fed. Reg.
47,525 (Aug. 25, 2021).
29 NUREG-1437, Rev. 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report, (June 2013) (2013 GEIS) ( ML13107A023) (ADAMS Package). The 2013 GEIS revised the previous GEIS, issued in 1996 . See NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report (May 1996) (1996 GEIS)
30 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Draft Supplement 7, Second Renewal, Draft Report for Comment (Draft SEIS)) (ML21228A084).
31 See note 2 , supra.
comment in December 202332 and a notice of opportunity for hearing in accordance with
CLI-22-3. 33 The December 2023 DEIS presented a site-specific evaluation of all environmental
issues that had been treated as generic Category 1 issues in the 2013 GEIS, as the Commission
had directed. In addition, in the interest of consolidating all of the Staffs site -specific evaluations of
North Anna SLR issues in a single document, the DEIS also included the Staffs previous
evaluations of Category 2 issues that had previously appeared in the 2021 DSEIS, and the Staff
updated its previous evaluations on a site- specific basis (including responses to public comments
on the August 2021 DSEIS). 34
DISCUSSION
Under the Commissions rules of practice, any person whose interest may be affected by
a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing.
This request must include the contentions that the person seeks to have litigated in the
hearing. 35 The presiding officer will grant the hearing request if they determine that the
requestor has standing under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) and has proposed at least one admissible
32 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, Site Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment (Dec. 2023) (DEIS)
(ML23339A047).
33 The Commission subsequently upheld the Staffs determination to publish the notice of opportunity for hearing upon issuing the draft site-specific EIS. The Commission found that the Staffs view that issuance of the draft EIS marked the point of completion of its site- specific review, was a reasonable interpretation of the Commissions direction in CLI-22-3, that [a] fter each site- specific review is complete, a new notice of opportunity for hearing--limited to contentions based on new information in the site-specific environmental impact statement--will be issued. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI 1, 99 NRC ___, ___ (slip op. at 2) (Mar. 7, 2024) ; accord, Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), Order of the Secretary (Mar.13, 2024) (denying Petitioners motions to withdraw the notice of opportunity for hearing and suspend the deadline for filing petitions to intervene) .
34 The revisions made to the 2021 DSEIS, as relevant to the Petitioners contentions, are reflected in the redline/strikeout revisions shown in Attachment 1 hereto. While the December 2023 DEIS reproduced the previous site- specific evaluations from the August 2021 DSEIS, those evaluations do not constitute new information in the DEIS, and therefore do not fall within the limited scope of this proceeding established in CLI 3.
35 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).
contention that meets the requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). 36 As discussed below, the
Petitioners have demonstrated standing to intervene but have not proposed at least one
admissible contention. Therefore, their hearing request and petition to intervene should be
denied.
I. Standing to Intervene
A. Applicable Legal Requirements
Under the general standing requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(1), a petitioner
must state:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (ii) The nature of the petitioner s right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (iii) The nature and extent of the petitioner s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (iv) The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the petitioner s interest.37
In ruling on a petition, the p residing officer must determine, among other things, whether the
petitioner has an interest affected by the proceeding considering the factors enumerated in
§ 2.309(d)(1). 38
As the Commission has observed, the NRC has long applied contemporaneous judicial
concepts of standing, which require an actual or threatened injury that is fairly traceable to the
challenged action, is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and arguably falls within the
36 Id.
37 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(1).
38 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d)(2). The presiding officer may also consider a request for discretionary intervention when a petitioner is determined to lack standing to intervene as a matter of right, where a sufficient showing is made with respect to the factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(e).
zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.39 The injury must
be both concrete and particularized, not conjectural, or hypothetical.40 Further, at the heart of
the standing inquiry is whether the petitioner has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to demonstrate that a concrete adverseness exists [that] will sharpen the
presentation of issues. 41
While the Commission generally requires the elements of standing to be pled with
specificity, standing to intervene has been found to exist in construction permit and operating
license proceedings based upon a proximity presumption.42 In such proceedings, standing is
presumed for persons who reside in, or have frequent contact with, the zone of possible harm
around the nuclear reactor.43 In practice, the Commission has found standing based on the
proximity presumption for persons who reside within approximately 50 miles (80 km) of the
facility. 44 As the Commission noted, licensing boards have employed the proximity presumption
to establish standing to intervene in reactor operating license renewal proceedings.45
An organization seeking to intervene must satisfy the same standing requirements as
an individual seeking to intervene.46 The organization may establish standing based on
organizational standing (showing that its own organizational interests could be adversely
39 El Paso Electric Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI 7, 91 NRC 225, 230 (2020) (quoting Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI- 09- 20, 70 NRC 911, 915 (2009)).
40 Palo Verde, CLI 7, 91 NRC at 230 (quoting Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 72 (1994).
41 Gore, Oklahoma Site, CLI 12, 40 NRC at 71 (citing Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 72 (1978) and quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).
42 See, e.g., Calvert Cliffs, CLI 20, 70 NRC at 915- 17 (quoting Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI 21, 38 NRC 87, 92 (1993)).
43 Calvert Cliffs, CLI 20, 70 NRC at 915.
44 Id. at 915- 16.
45 Id., at 915 n.15 (noting that the Board in Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP 6, 53 NRC 138, 150, affd on other grounds, CLI 17, 54 NRC 3 (2001) was applying [the] proximity presumption in [a] reactor operating license renewal proceeding).
46 Palo Verde, CLI 7, 91 NRC at 231.
affected by the proceeding), or representational standing (based on the standing of its
members). Where an organization seeks to establish representational standing, the
organization must demonstrate that at least one of its members may be affected by the
proceeding and these members, who must be identified by name, have authorized the
organization to represent them and to request a hearing on their behalf.47 Further, the member
seeking representation must qualify for standing in [their] own right; the interests that the
representative organization seeks to protect must be germane to its purpose; and neither the
asserted claim nor the requested relief must require an individual member to participate in the
organizations legal action.48
B. The Petitioners Have Established Representational Standing to Intervene.
In their Petition, Petitioner Beyond Nuclear states, in part, that it is a nonprofit
membership organization that aims to educate and activate the public about the connections
between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to protect the public health and safety, prevent environmental harms, and safeguard the future.49 It further states
that for more than 15 years, it has worked toward its mission by regularly intervening in NRC
licensing, relicensing, and other proceedings related to nuclear safety matters. 50 Similarly, the
Sierra Club states , in part, that it is a national environmental organization with more than 3.8
million members, whose purposes are to explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth;
to practice and promote the responsible uses of the earths ecosystems and resources; to
47 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. and FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Davis -Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1),
CLI 5, 91 NRC 214, 220 (2020); Consumers Energy Co. (Palisades Nuclear Power Plant), CLI 18, 65 NRC 399, 409- 10 (2007).
48 Beaver Valley, CLI-20-5, 91 NRC at 220(citing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI 19, 68 NRC 251, 258 (2008); Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 10, 49 NRC 318, 323 (1999).
49 Corrected Petition at 4.
50 Id.
protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful
means to carry out these objectives.51
Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club seek to establish representational standing to
intervene, based on the individual standing of their respective members. In support of the
Petition, Beyond Nuclear submitted the Declarations of three of its members (Glen Besa, Erica
Gray, and Jerry Rosenthal), 52 while the Sierra Club submitted the Declarations of four members
(Barbara Cruickshank, John Cruickshank, Diana Johnson, and William J. Johnson). 53 In their
Declarations, the Declarants provided their home addresses, and stated that they live within the
North Anna 50- mile emergency planning Ingestion Pathway Zone. Further, th ey stated their
belief that continued operations of North Anna for 20 years beyond the current license expiration
dates could result in a severe nuclear accident, causing death, injury, illness, dislocation, and
economic damage to the Declarants and their families, as well as devasting environmental
damage. The Declarants also stated that they are members of their respective organizations
and that they each authorize their respective organizations to represent their interests in this
proceeding.54
Based upon its review of the Petitioners Declarations, the Staff is satisfied that Beyond
Nuclear and the Sierra Club have established representational standing to intervene in this
proceeding. Each Petitioner provided the name and address of at least one of its members,
who stated that they are concerned about the environmental impacts of continued operations of
North Anna Units 1 and 2. The Declarations demonstrate that these members reside within 50
miles of the facility, and that they authorize their respective organizations to represent their
interests in this proceeding. As such, each of the Petitioners has shown that at least one of its
51 Id.
52 Petition, Attachments 2A, 2B and 2C.
53 Petition, Attachments 2D, 2E, 2F, and 2G.
54 Petition, Attachments 2A - 2G.
members would have standing to intervene in their own right, based on the proximity
presumption, and that those members have authorized their organizations to represent their
interests here. Accordingly, each of the Petitioners has satisfactorily established its
representational standing to intervene in the proceeding under the proximity presumption.55
II. The Petitioners Contentions Do Not Challenge New Information in the 2023 DEIS and Are Therefore Beyond the Limited Scope of This Proceeding.
As discussed above,56 this second proceeding for the subsequent license renewal of
North Anna Units 1 and 2 was initiated by the Staffs publication of a Notice in the Federal
Register on January 8, 2024, stating that the Staff had issued a draft site-specific EIS (DEIS)
for comment, 57 and offering members of the public a limited opportunity to request a hearing.
The Notice stated that the DEIS supersedes the draft supplemental EIS (DSEIS) that was
published in August 2021 as a supplement to the GEIS, 58 and observed that the DEIS:
. . . includes the NRC staff's site-specific evaluation of the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal (SLR) for North Anna for each of the environmental issues that were previously dispositioned as Category 1 issues (generic to all or a distinct subset of nuclear power plants) in the August 2021 DSEIS consistent with the list of Category 1 issues in [10 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, and the 2013 GEIS]. The DEIS also considers whether there is significant new information that would change the NRC staff's conclusions concerning Category 2 issues (specific to individual nuclear power plants) in the August 2021 DSEIS.59
55 The Board in the prior North Anna SLR proceeding similarly found that the Petitioners had established representational standing to intervene. See LBP 4, 93NRC at 197. Cf. Palo Verde, CLI-20-07, 91NRC at 231- 32; see also, Calvert Cliffs , CLI 20, 70 NRC at 915.
56 See discussion supra at 4-5.
57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, Site Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment (Dec. 2023) (DEIS)
(ML23339A047).
58 Id. at 961.
59 Id. (emphasis added).
Further, the Notice stated that the Staff had prepared the DEIS in accordance with the
Commission's decisions in CLI- 22- 2 and CLI- 22-3 , and offered members of the public a
limited opportunity to request a hearing, stating as follows:
As the Commission directed in CLI- 22- 03, a new notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervenelimited to contentions based on new information discussed in the DEISis being issued. 60
Consistent with the Commissions instructions in CLI 3, the Federal Register Notice provided
an opportunity for hearing that was limited to new information discussed in the DEIS; the
Notice did not provide an opportunity for hearing on any previously available information or any
evaluations that were contained in the previous (August 2021) DSEIS.
Indeed, the Petitioners recognize that the current opportunity to request a hearing is
limited to new information contained in the December 2023 DEIS. In this regard, they state that
they request a hearing on new information discussed in the Draft Supplemental [sic]
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS [sic]) - citing the December 2023 DEIS.61
However, the Petitioners fail to recognize that the analyses and conclusions they seek to
challenge were actually presented in the August 2021 DSEIS as part of the Staffs site-specific
analyses of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), and those discussions were then
reproduced in the 2023 DEIS in the interest of collecting, in a single document, all of the Staffs
site-specific evaluations of the impacts of SLR for North Anna. This is readily apparent by comparing the 2021 DSEIS with the 2023 DEIS.62 Thus, the matters raised in the Petitioners
contentions do not constitute new information discussed in the DEIS and are therefore beyond
the limited scope of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Petitioners contentions should be
60 Id. at 961- 62 (emphasis added).
61 Corrected Petition at 1 (emphasis added).
62 See, e.g., Attachment 1 hereto, passim .
rejected as beyond the permissible scope of contentions in this proceeding as set forth in the
January 2024 Federal Register Notice and CLI-22-3. 63
III. The Petitioners Have Failed to Present at Least One Admissible Contention as Required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(a) and (f)(1).
A. Requirements for Contention Admissibility
The requirements governing the admissibility of contentions are set forth in 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(f)(1)-(2). Specifically, a petitioner must set forth with particularity the contentions that
the petitioner seeks to raise and, for each contention, the petitioner must:
(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 64 (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding;65 (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action involved in the proceeding;66
63 The Staff notes that the Board in Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), LBP-24-03, 99 NRC __(slip op. at 14- 15) (Mar. 7, 2024) recently ruled that a petitioners proposedcontentions were within the scope of the second Turkey Point SLR proceeding, despite having referenced pre- existing information and having repeated its arguments made in the first SLR proceeding, since in both form and substance the contentions were based on the Draft EIS, and the petitioner made clear that i t remains unsatisfied with the Staffs treatment of these issues in the Draft SEIS. The Staff submits that the Boards decision in LBP 03 was erroneous, in that the Commission had clearly ruled in CLI-22-3 that the scope of a second SLR proceeding is to be limited to new information presented in the Staffs EIS. Further, even if the Turkey Point Boards ruling on scope was correct, its ruling is inapplicable here, where the Petitioners make only generalized claims and do not challenge any particular information or analysis presented in the December 2023 site-specific DEIS.
64 Contentions cannot be based on speculation and must have some reasonably specific factual or legal basis. Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI 20, 82 NRC 211, 221 (2015).
65 The scope of the proceeding is defined by the Commission in its initial hearing notice and order referring the proceeding to the licensing board. See Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 23, 52 NRC 327, 329 (2000). As a consequence, any contention that falls outside the specified scope of the proceeding must be rejected. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 11, 74 NRC 427 , 435- 36 (2011).
66 A dispute at issue is material if its resolution would make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding. Holtec International (Hi -STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), CLI 4, 91 NRC 167, 190 (2020) (internal quotations omitted).
(v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions that support the petitioner s position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely;67 and (vi) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact.68
Further, contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the
petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety analysis report, environmental
report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to a
petitioner. 69
The NRCs regulations governing contention admissibility are intended to focus litigation
on concrete issues and result in a clearer and more focused record for decision.70 The
67 The petitioner is obliged to present the facts and expert opinions necessary to support its contention.
See USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI- 06-10, 63 NRC 451, 457 (2006) (it is the petitioners responsibility to satisfy the basic contention admissibility requirements; boards should not have to search through a petition to uncover arguments and support for a contention, and may not simply infer unarticulated bases of contentions); s ee also Arizona Public Service Co., et. al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149, 155 (1991).
68 This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicants environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief.
Further, to show that a genuine dispute exists the contention must include references to specific portions of the application that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute and if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter, then the contention must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioners belief. Exelon Generation Co., LLC. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-20-11, 92 NRC 335, 342 (2020).
69 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2). As a general rule, for issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicants environmental report. Id. This general rule is not applicable here, as the Commission directed in CLI-22-3 that contentions are to be filed upon completion of the Staffs environmental evaluation.
70 See, e.g., Southern Nuclear Operating Co. Inc. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3) LBP-20-8, 92 NRC 28, 46 (2020) (quoting Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2202 (Jan. 14, 2004)); Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, NE),
LBP 15, 81 NRC 598, 601 (2015).
Commission has explained that the contention admissibility rules are strict by design.71
Failure to satisfy any of the six pleading requirements renders a contention inadmissible.72 As
noted above, the rules require a clear statement as to the basis for the contentions and the
submission of supporting information and references to specific documents and sources that
establish the validity of the contention.73
Although a petitioner does not have to prove its contention at the admissibility stage,74
the contention admissibility standards are meant to afford hearings only to those who proffer at
least some minimal factual and legal foundation in support of their contentions.75 The petitioner
must provide some support for the contention, either in the form of facts or expert testimony,
71 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2) CLI 5, 83 NRC 131, 136 (2016) (citing Dominion Nuclear Connecticut , Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001) and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI 1, 71 NRC 1, 7 (2010). The Commission has stated that it should not have to expend resources to support the hearing process unless there is an issue that is appropriate for, and susceptible to, resolution in an NRC hearing. Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2202 (Jan. 14, 2004) .
72 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2) CLI 5, 83 NRC 131, 136 (2016); see also Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 ), CLI- 99- 11, 49 NRC 328, 334- 35 (1999)
(the heightened contention admissibility rules are designed to preclude contentions based on little more than speculation). The requirements are intended, among other things, to ensure that a petitioner reviews the application and supporting documents prior to filing contentions; that contentions are supported by at least some facts or expert opinion known to the petitioner at the time of filing; and that there exists a genuine dispute before a contention is admitted for litigation, to avoid the practice of filing contentions that lack any factual support and seeking to flesh them out later through discovery. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 35, 34 NRC 163, 167- 68 (1991).
73 AmerGen Energy Co. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-06-24, 64 NRC 111, 118- 19 (2006)
74 Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-04-22, 60 NRC 125, 139 (2004).
75 Duke Energy Corporation (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3) , CLI 11, 49 NRC 328, 334.
and failure to do so requires that the contention be rejected.76 Any supporting material provided
by the petitioner is subject to scrutiny by the presiding officer,77 who must confirm that the proffered material provides adequate support for the contention.78 The Commission has long
held that the basis requirements are intended to: (1) ensure that the contention raises a matter
appropriate for adjudication in a particular proceeding; (2) establish a sufficient foundation for
the contention to warrant further inquiry into the assertion; and (3) put other parties sufficiently
on notice of the issues to be litigated.79
If a petitioner neglects to provide the requisite support for its contentions, then the
presiding officer should not make assumptions of fact that favor the petitioner or search for or
supply information that is lacking.80 Moreover, providing any material or document as a basis
for a contention without explaining its significance is grounds for the presiding officer to reject
the contention. 81 In sum, the information, facts, and expert opinions provided by the petitioner
76 Arizona Public Service Co., et. al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3),
CLI 12, 34 NRC 149, 155 (1991) ; accord, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2)
CLI 5, 83 NRC 131, 136 (2016) . See Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170 (This requirement does not call upon the intervener to make its case at this stage of the proceeding, but rather to indicate what facts or expert opinions, be it one fact or opinion or many, of which it is aware at that point in time [that] provide the basis for its contention.).
77 See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-919, 30 NRC 29, 48 (1989), vacated in part on other grounds and remanded , CLI 4, 31 NRC 333 (1990); see also Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP- 10-7, 71 NRC 391, 421 (2010).
78 See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation , (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB- 919, 30 NRC 29, 48 (1989) ; see also Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP- 10-7, 71 NRC 391, 421 (2010) .
79 Duke Energy Corporation (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3) , CLI 11, 49 NRC 328, 328; see also Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 -21 (1974) .
80 See USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI- 06-10, 63 NRC 451, 457 (2006) .
81 See Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 205 (2003).
are examined by the presiding officer to determine whether they provide adequate support for
the proffered contentions. 82
The Commission has held that, absent a waiver, a contention must be rejected if it
challenges applicable statutory requirements, regulations, or the basic structure of the
Commissions regulatory process.83 Contentions that are nothing more than a generalization
regarding the petitioner s view of what applicable policies ought to be must also be rejected.84
Further, attempts to advocate for requirements stricter than those imposed by regulation
constitute collateral attacks on the NRCs rules and are therefore inadmissible.85
B. Requirements for Environmental Review of License Renewal Applications
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 86, requires federal agencies to include in any recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on --
(i) The reasonably foreseeable environmental impact of the proposed agency action; (ii) Any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
82 American Centrifuge Plant , CLI 10, 63 NRC at 457; see Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP 7, 71 NRC 391, 421 (2010) .
83 As set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(a), no rule or regulation of the Commission is subject to attack in any adjudicatory proceeding, in the absence of a waiver petition granted by the Commission. Further, any contention that amounts to an attack on applicable statutory requirements or represents a challenge to the basic structure of the Commissions regulatory process must be rejected. Dominion Nuclear Conn.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI 14, 58 NRC 207, 218 (2003).
84 Dominion Nuclear Conn. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI 14, 58 NRC 207, 218 (2003).
85 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI 5, 75 NRC 301, 315 (2012)
(citations omitted); see Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB- 216, 8 AEC 13, 20- 21 (1974) (explaining that a contention that seeks to raise an issue that is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or that does not apply to the facility in question, or seeks to raise an issue that is not concrete or litigable must also be rejected).
86 NEPA, Section 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 4332, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
(iii) A reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal; (iv) The relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long- term productivity; and (v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented.
In accordance with its NEPA responsibilities, the NRC is required to take a hard look at
the environmental impacts of a proposed major federal action that could significantly affect the
environment, as well as reasonable alternatives to that action.87 This hard look is tempered
by a rule of reasonconsideration of environmental impacts need not address all theoretical
possibilities, but rather only those that have some possibility of occurring.88 An agency thus
need only address impacts that are reasonably foreseeable; the agency need not perform
analyses concerning events that would be considered worst case scenarios or those
considered remote and highly speculative.89 Further, NEPA does not call for certainty or
precision, but an estimate of anticipated (not unduly speculative) impacts.90 NEPA similarly
does not require review when the circumstances render review impossible.91 And NEPA gives
agencies broad discretion to keep their inquiries within appropriate and manageable
87 See Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI 3, 47 NRC 77, 87- 88 (1998) ; Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (Marsland Expansion Area), LBP 2, 89 NRC 18, 40 (2019).
88 Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (Marsland Expansion Area) , LBP 2, 89 NRC 18, 40 (quoting Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB -156, 6 AEC 831, 836 (1973)).
89 Holtec International (HI -STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility), LBP 4, 89 NRC 353, 357 (2019) (quoting Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 754- 55 (3d Cir. 1989)).
90 Crow Butte Resources, LBP 2, 89 NRC at 40 (quoting Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-05-20, 62 NRC 523, 536 (2005)).
91 The Supreme Court has observed that where it is not possible for an agency to analyze the environmental consequences of a proposed action or alternatives to it, requiring such analysis would have no factual predicate and under those circumstances an EIS is not required. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 401- 02 (1976).
boundaries. 92 As the Commission has observed, NEPA requires consideration of reasonable
alternatives, not all conceivable ones.93 Further, the Staffs EISs need only discuss those
alternatives that will bring about the ends of the proposed actiona principle equally
applicable to Environmental Reports.94
C. The Petitioners Contentions Do Not Satisfy the Regulations Governing the Admissibility of Contentions.
In their Petition, the Petitioners contend that the Draft SEIS [sic] fails to address [the]
environmental significance of [the] 2011 Mineral Earthquake; provides incomplete, inadequate,
incorrect or misleading data and analyses in support of its general conclusion that severe
accident impacts are small; and fails to address the effects of climate change on accident
risk. 95 The Petitioners proffer three contentions exp ounding upon these claims, supported by
the Declaration of Jeffrey T. Mitman. 96
Significantly, as discussed below, the Petition ers contentions challenge the site-specific
accident analyses that were presented in other documents - including the Staffs EIS for initial
license renewal, the August 2021 DSEIS, and/or the Applicants site -specific ER - rather than
challenge new information or analyses contained in the December 2023 DEIS. Moreover, while
the Petitioners assert that various matters should have been included in the Staffs analyses,
they do not point to any specific flaws in thos e analyses. In addition, they fail to provide any
reason to believe that consideration of the matters raised in their contentions would have any
discernible effect on the outcome of the Applicants or Staff analyses - which had already
92 Crow Butte Resources, LBP 2, 89 NRC at 40 (quoting Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77, 103 (1998) .
93 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI 5, 75 NRC 301, 338 (2012).
94 Id. at 339 (footnotes and quotation marks omitted).
95 Corrected Petition at 2.
96 Declaration of Jeffrey T. Mitman (Mar. 27, 2024) (Mitman Declaration) (Petition, Attachment 1).
considered the effects of the 2011 Mineral, Virginia earthquake and other external event
hazards, including those that may occur due to climate change.
Further, the contentions repeatedly seek to raise issues concerning the impact of
seismic events or climate change on plant safety97 - which the NRC addresses outside the
scope of license renewal98 - rather than challenge the Staffs evaluation of the environmental
impacts of an accident caused by such events.
In sum, the Petitioners fail to d emonstrate (a) that the issues they raise aris e from new
information contained in the DEIS; (b) that the issues raised are within the scope of the
proceeding as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i ii) ; (c) that the issue raised in the
contention[s] is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action involved in the
proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv) ; and (d) that they provided sufficient
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material
issue of law or fact, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The contentions should
therefore be rejected.
97 See, e.g., Corrected Petition at 5- 6 (discussing the required design basis for nuclear power plants to withstand natural phenomena such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches, citing 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2); id. at 8- 9 (citing the Council on Environmental Qualitys advice to federal agencies to consider the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change on infrastructure investments.).
98 Importantly, the NRC considers the ability of a nuclear power plant to withstand external hazards such seismic events and hazards resulting from climate change as part of its initial licensing reviews and continued oversight of nuclear power plant safety. See North Anna, LBP 4, 93 NRC at n.15, dismissed, CLI 3,95 NRC 40 (2022), quoting 2013 LR GEIS at 3 -52 ( Changes in potential seismic hazards are not within the scope of the license renewal environmental review, except, where appropriate, during the analysis of [SAMAs], because any such changes would not be the result of continued operation of the nuclear power plant. Seismic design issues are considered during site-specific safety reviews and, more specifically, are addressed on an ongoing basis through the reactor oversight process and other NRC safety programs, such as the Generic Issues Program, which are separate from the license renewal process. When new seismic hazard information becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information, through the appropriate program, to determine if any changes are needed at one or more existing plants.) See also, Final rule, Mitigation of Beyond- Design- Basis Events. 84 Fed. Reg.
39, 684 (Aug. 9, 2019) (establishing requirements for enhancing protection against accidents resulting from natural phenomena, mitigating the consequences of such accidents, and ensuring emergency preparedness for beyond- design- basis events, following the Fukushima accident). Cf . NEI 01, Rev. A, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Guidance Document (ML060530203);
NEI-17-04, Rev. 1, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for SAMA (ML19318D216) .
- 1. Contention 1: Draft SEIS Fails to Address Environmental Significance of the 2011 Mineral Earthquake. 99
In Contention 1, the Petitioners claim that the Draft SEIS fails to address the
environmental significance of the 2011 Mineral Earthquake , whose epicenter was a short
distance from the two reactors and whose ground motion exceeded the design basis levels for
both reactors. 100 The Petitioners then assert a safety issue, claiming as follows:
By exceeding the reactors design basis, the earthquake disproved the assumption underlying the NRCs issuance of operating licenses in 1978 (for Unit 1) and 1980 (for Unit 2) and renewal of those licenses [in] 2003, that the reactors could be operated safely and without significant adverse environmental impacts because their [structures, systems, and components]
were built to a design basis of sufficient rigor to protect against likely earthquakes. This assumption can also be found in the 2013 License Renewal GEIS and the Draft SEIS for the North Anna SLR application. 101
The Petitioners assert that the NRC must explicitly address . . . whether the
environmental impacts of operating North Anna Units 1 and 2 in noncompliance with its design
basis for an additional twenty years will have significant impacts, and they cite Mr. Mitmans
Declaration to support their claim that the Staff fails to acknowledge [ ] or explain the
99 Contention 1 raises various safety concerns regarding (a) the 2011 Mineral Virginia earthquake and the sufficiency of actions taken by the NRC in response to the March 2011 Fukushima earthquake and tsunami. See Corrected Petition at 9-11. The Staff notes that the Board addressed those matters at length in LBP 4. SeeNorth Anna, LBP- 21-4, 93 NRC 179(2021), dismissed, CLI 3, 95 NRC 40 (2022).
The Staff addressed those matters at length in its response to the Petitioners previous petition to intervene. See NRC Staff Answer to Hearing Request, Petition to Intervene, and Petition for Waiver Filed by Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Alliance For Progressive Virginia (Jan. 8, 2020), at 8-13. In that Answer, the Staff, in part, described (1) North Annas Design Basis Earthquake; (2) the 2011 Mineral Earthquake and its significance for North Anna; (3) the NRCs approval of North Annas Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment in April 2019 ( which concludedthat the results and risk insights provided by the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment support the NRCs determination that no further response or regulatory actions are required, and the Applicants actions and experience gained after the 2011 Mineral Earthquake provide additional assurance regarding North Anna's ability to handle a beyond design basis seismic event); and (4) the NRCs actions in response to the 2011 Fukushima earthquake and tsunami. The Staff incorporates that discussion by reference herein.
100 Corrected Petition at 9.
101 Id. at 9- 10.
fundamental difference between a finding of no significant or small impact that is based on a
deterministic analysis and a finding of no significant impact that is based on a probabilistic
analysis. 102 They further cite Mr. Mitmans opinion that a deterministic analysis is more
conservative than a probabilistic analysis in assessing plant safety; that the Staff should explain
the difference and how its assessment of risk has changed as a result of the Mineral
Earthquake ; and that the Staff should explain what it has done to evaluate the potential that
safety systems, which are assumed to survive a beyond- design- basis earthquake only once will
be able to perform their safety functions when the next earthquake occurs. 103 Finally, the
Petitioners claim that the Draft SEIS [sic] does not address or reconcile a disparity between
the results of the seismic risk analyses performed by the NRC for North Anna Unit 3 , which
resulted in a requirement for seismic upgrades, versus its analyses for Units 1 and 2 , which
resulted in no requirements for seismic upgrades other than a set of nonpedigree commercial-
grade FLEX components with significantly lower reliability. 104
Contention 1 should be rejected, in that it seeks to raise issues concerning the safety of
continued operation of North Anna Units 1 and 2 , rather than present a challenge to the Staffs
evaluation of the environmental impacts of a beyond- design- basis earthquake. Significantly,
nowhere does Contention 1 challenge the Staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of
either a design- basis earthquake or a beyond -design- basis earthquake such as the 2011
Mineral Earthquake. Rather, it repeatedly seeks to challenge the Staffs safety determinations -
which were made concerning the safety of continued operation of the facility and which are
102 Id. at 10.
103 Id. at 10- 11.
104 Id. at 11.
wholly beyond the scope of subsequent license renewal105 - and fails to confront the Staffs
December 2023 DEIS evaluation of new and significant information that could affect its previous
determinations regarding accidents that might occur due to either design- basis or beyond-
design basis events.
Nor is this the first time that the Petitioners have sought to challenge the safety of North
Annas continued operation in light of the 2011 Mineral Earthquake. In their previous petition to
intervene, which the Board rejected in LBP 4, the Petitioners claimed that the Applicants ER
failed to address the environmental significance of the Mineral Earthquake. The Petitioners
argued , in part - just as they argue here, in Contention 1 - that because the Mineral E arthquake
exceeded North Annas design basis, the assumption that those reactors could be operated
safely and without significant adverse environmental impacts was disproved; and they asserted
that the Applicant must analyze the probability and consequences of reactor accidents due to
105 The safety standards for license renewal are set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 54.29 (Standards for issuance of a renewed license); these include requirements for (1) managing the effects of aging, and (2) time- limited aging analyses. Issues concerning the safety of continued operation of a nuclear power plant, that are not unique to license renewal, are addressed as part of the NRCs oversight of operating reactors and are beyond the scope of this proceeding. See generally, Final rule; Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions, 88 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,464- 65 (May 8, 1995). As stated by the Commission:
In developing the previous license renewal rule, the Commission concluded that issues material to the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license are to be confined to those issues that the Commission determines are uniquely relevant to protecting the public health and safety and preserving common defense and security during the period of extended operation. Other issues would, by definition, have a relevance to the safety and security of the public during current plant operation. Given the Commissions ongoing obligation to oversee the safety and security of operating reactors, issues that are relevant to current plant operation will be addressed by the existing regulatory process within the present license term rather than deferred until the time of license renewal. . . . [W]ith the exception of age- related degradation unique to license renewal and possibly a few other issues related to safety only during the period of extended operation of nuclear power plants, the regulatory process is adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating plants provides and maintains an acceptable level of safety so that operation will not be inimical to public health and safety or common defense and security. . . .
Id. Cf . Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI 36, 60 NRC 631, 637- 38 (2004); Turkey Point, CLI 3, 91 NRC at 151 (2020), rev'd on other grounds, CLI 2, 95 NRC 26 (2022).
earthquakes in the SLR term. 106 The Board rejected this contention in LBP- 21-4, finding, in part,
that the Petitioners claims lacked support and failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of
material fact, in that the Applicants ER relied, in part, on a seismic p robabilistic risk
assessment (PRA) that took into account the 2011 Mineral earthquake. 107 Contention 1 should
be rejected for this reason, as well.
While Contention 1, itself, does not point to any alleged deficiencies in the Staffs DEIS,
the contention cites and relies upon Sections B and C.1 of Mr. Mitmans Declaration, 108 in which
Mr. Mitman provides details regarding his concerns for the seismic safety of North A nna Units 1
and 2. In addition, Mr. Mitman states that he reviewed the Draft SEIS [sic] with particular
attention to Section 3.11.6.9 and Appendix F ;109 and he asserts that the Draft SEIS conclusion
that the environmental impacts of reactor accidents at [North Anna] during an SLR term are
SMALL lacks adequate supporting factual data and/or qualitative information and does not
reflect the use of sufficiently rigorous or up -to-date analytical methods with respect to . . . the
environmental significance of the 2011 Mineral Earthquake . . . . 110
Upon examination of Mr. Mitmans claims, it is difficult to discern any specific
deficiencies that he has identified in the DEIS. Rather, his claims are general in nature, without
reference to any specific assumption, input, calculation, or methodology that he believes to be
inadequate in the DEIS. Nor does he provide any specific assumption, input , calculation or
106 See 2020 Petition at 13.
107 North Anna, LBP 4, 93 NRC 179(2021), dismissed, CLI-22-3, 95NRC 40 (2022). The Board held, in pertinent part, that the Petitioners generalized claims of missing or inadequate discussion, unsupported by any relevant technical analysis, fails to cross the threshold of providing sufficient factual or expert opinion support or of establishing a material dispute with the application, as required by section 2.309(f)(1)(v)-(vi). Id. at 211- 12.
108 Corrected Petition at 11; See Mitman Declaration, §§ B and C.1 (¶¶ 8- 30), at 3- 8.
109 Mitman Declaration ¶ 23, at 7. In support of his Declaration, Mr. Mitman cites and relies, in part, upon a technical report attached to his Declaration. See Technical Review of [NRCs] Draft Site- Specific Environmental Impact Statement for Subsequent License Renewal of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 With Respect to Accident Analysis Submitted by Jeffrey T. Mitman to the [NRC] on behalf of Beyond Nuclear, Inc. (Feb. 22, 2024) (Mitman Report).
110 Mitman Declaration ¶ 24, at 7- 8.
methodology of his own, which he believes would lead to a result different from the DEIS
conclusions, or any analysis showing that the Staff erred in concluding (a) that the
environmental impacts of design basis accidents are SMALL; 111 (b) that the probability-weighted
consequences of severe accidents are SMALL; 112 and (c) that there are no additional SAMAs
that warrant imposition. 113 Moreover, as discussed in response to Contention 2, infra, the
Petitioners and Mr. Mitman do not challenge any new information or analysis contained in the
DEIS discussion of accident consequences; rather, their claims appear to pertain to the
analyses and conclusions contained in (a) the 1996 GEIS, (b) the Staffs EIS for initial license
renewal at North Anna, 114 and (c) the Applicants supplemental ER for North Anna SLR - none
of which are addressed in Contention 1 or Mr. Mitmans Declaration. Thus, Contention 1 and
Sections B and C.1 of Mr. Mitmans Declaration fail to provide a specific basis, with supporting
documents or sources, to show a genuine dispute with the applicant or licensee on a material
issue of law or fact within the scope of this proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) (v)
and (vi). 115
Further, wholly apart from the issues discussed above, there is no basis for the
Petitioners claim that Contention 1 falls within the scope of new information as described in
the hearing notice. 116 The Petitioners base this claim on their view that the information
concerns a new reactor-specific accident analysis in the Draft SEIS [sic] that takes the place of
a previous environmental analysis for which the NRC had unlawfully relied on the 2013 License
111 Attachment 1 at F -5.
112 Id. at F F-20.
113 Id. at F F-27.
114 NUREG-1437, Supp. 7, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding North Anna, Units 1 and 2, Final Report (Nov. 2002) (ML023380542 and ML023380567) (hereafter 2002 North Anna LR EIS), at 5- 4.
115 See Mitman Declaration, passim.
116 Corrected Petition at 12.
Renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). 117 In fact, however, although the
impacts of design basis accidents were addressed in the 2013 GEIS and the 2021 DSEIS as a
generic Category 1 issue, the December 2023 DEIS evaluated design- basis accidents on a
site-specific basis; 118 nowhere does Contention 1 address that site -specific evaluation.
Moreover, accidents caused by beyond- design- basis events are evaluated as part of the Staffs
analysis of SAMAs; those analyses are discussed in Appendix F of the August 2021 DSEIS, as
republished in the December 2023 DEIS. Mr. Mitmans Declaration does not establish any
basis for disputing the Staffs conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences of severe
accidents are SMALL, or that the imposition of any severe accident mitigation alternative may
be warranted beyond the SAMAs that were considered by the Staff. Accordingly, Contention 1
fails to demonstrate that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material
issue of law or fact, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The contention should therefore
be rejected.
- 2. Contention 2: Draft SEIS does not contain a complete or adequately rigorous evaluation of accident risks. 119
In Contention 2, the Petitioners assert that the Draft SEIS 120 lacks a complete or
adequately rigorous evaluation of accident risks because essential data are missing and
important analytical assertions are erroneous or misleading, and that the Staff therefore lacks
an adequate basis for concluding that the environmental impacts of accidents during a license
117 Id.
118 See DEIS at F-5.
119 Corrected Petition at 12-15.
120 The Petitioners and Mr. Mitman appear to refer to the December 2023 DEIS as the Draft SEIS . In NRC parlance, however, a DSEIS is a draft s upplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for license renewal. In contrast, the December 2023 DEIS is a site-specific draft EIS and is not a supplement to the license renewal GEIS.
renewal term are SMALL. 121 Relying upon Section C.2 of Mr. Mitmans Declaration, 122 the
Petitioners assert that:
- The Draft SEIS is inadequate in making broad generalizations about external event core damage frequency (CDF) based on extrapolations from internal event CDF values and limited actual plant-specific values for external event CDF.
- In finding that the environmental impacts [sic] 123 of severe accidents are SMALL, the Staff ignores its own data regarding seismic and fire [CDF] that indicate these impacts are significant, and disregards the fact that the 2011 Mineral Earthquake, by itself, increased the risk of an earthquake severe enough to damage safety equipment.
- The Draft SEIS assertion at page F-26 that there has been a substantial decrease in internal event CDF is erroneous, and this error affects other estimates such as the estimate of population dose risk.
- The Draft SEIS fails to demonstrate consideration of external flooding risk with subsequent ingress of water into the turbine building. As demonstrated by Mr. Mitmans Declaration, flooding poses a significant accident risk that has not been addressed in the Draft SEIS.
- The Draft SEIS makes misleading statements about the NRCs review of Fukushima-related information relevant to North Anna and risk improvements obtained by NRC and license[e] efforts after September 2001.
- The Draft SEIS takes inappropriate credit for reductions in environmental risk that are not reflected in the PRA for NAPS.
- The Draft SEIS fails to demonstrate consideration of uncertainties with respect to the conclusion that severe accident impacts are SMALL.
- The Draft SEIS does not address the environmental impacts of concurrent multi-unit accidents.
- The Draft SEIS SAMA analysis is deficient in multiple respects, including failure to consider SAMAs that meet criteria for consideration, and failure to provide documentation of an NRC audit relied on to conclude that [Virginia Electric and Power Companys] approach to its SAMA analysis was methodical and reasonable.124
121 Id. at 12.
122 Id. at 12 and 14. See Mitman Declaration, § C.2 (¶¶ 31-47), at 9-14.
123 The Staff did not find that the environmental impacts of severe accident s are SMALL ; rather, the Staff found that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL. See Attachment 1 at F-18.
124 Corrected Petition at 1 3-14.
While these assertions cite various statements in the Draft SEIS, which the Staff
published in August 2021, it is unclear whether the Petitioners meant to refer to the December
2023 DEIS or whether they dispute any new information that appeared in the December 2023
DEIS. Moreover, even if they were referring to the December 2023 DEIS , the Petitioners and
Mr. Mitman appear to misunderstand the analyses that support the Staffs determination - and
they altogether fail to cite or challenge those analyses in their contention and Declaration.
In this regard, the Staff notes that the NRC considered the consequences of severe
accidents in developing the 1996 GEIS, and determined, on a generic basis, that the probability -
weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL. 125 In reaching this generic
determination, the GEIS specifically considered North Anna site -specific information. 126 T he
Staff further considered the probability-weighted offsite consequences of severe accidents at
North Anna, on a site- specific basis, in its EIS for initial license renewal; there, the Staff
evaluated North Annas offsite accident risk (including population dose risk). The Staff
determined that it had not identified any significant new information with regard to the
consequences from severe accidents.127 The Staff concluded that there are no impacts of
severe accidents at North Anna beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which had concluded that
the probability-weighted offsite consequences of severe accidents during license renewal we re
SMALL. 128 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the staff then reviewed SAMAs for
North Anna Units 1 and 2. 129
Having conducted a SAMA analysis for North Anna in the initial license renewal EIS, the
Staff was not required to conduct a completely new SAMA analysis for subsequent license
125 1996 GEIS at 5-114 and 5-115.
126 1996 GEIS at 5-21, 5-34,5-40, 5-45 , 5-47 , Tables 5.3, 5.6, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 .
127 2002 North Anna LR EIS, at 5- 4; see id. at 5-5 to 5-12, Table 5- 4, 5- 2, 5-3.
128 Id. at 5 5-4.
129 Id. at 5- 4 - 5-28.
renewal. 130 Accordingly, the Staffs August 2021 D raft SEIS for subsequent license renewal did
not repeat the previous SAMA analysis; rather, consistent with Commission regulations , 131 the
Draft SEIS considered whether there was any new and significant information that would
warrant a different conclusion than it had reached previously, and it then reconfirmed its
previous conclusion (finding that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at
North Anna were actually considerably lower than had been predicted previously) . 132 In
December 2023, the Staffs DEIS reproduced the August 2021 DSEIS evaluation, which the
Staff updated to consider any new and significant information that had arisen since the DSEIS
was published. 133
Significantly, the Staffs analysis in the 2021 DSEIS cited the Applicants ER, in which
the Applicant explicitly considered the Mineral VA earthquake, and relied upon that information
in concluding that there was no new and significant information that would warrant a different
conclusion regarding the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents. Mr. Mitman
and the Petitioners nowhere cite the A pplicants first SLR ER or its 2022 ER supplement , nor do
they contest the Staffs review and reliance on those documents; indeed, they appear to
misunderstand the history of these analyses, and fail to point to any particular aspect of these
analyses with specificity, to support their general ized claims that the Staffs SAMA analyses
were deficient.
For example, the Petitioners and Mr. Mitman claim that the Draft SEIS makes broad
generalizations about external event CDF based on extrapolations from internal event CDF
130 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c) (3)(ii)(L).
131 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(3) (ii)(L) and 51.53(c)(3)( (iv).
132 See DSEIS at F-18; Attachment 1 at F F-20.
133 See 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iv ) (requiring a license renewal applicants environmental report to contain any new and significant information regarding the environmental imp acts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware).
values and limited actual plant-specific values for external event CDF ; 134 that Appendix F looks
at external events by focusing exclusively on seismic issues [and] ignores other external events
such as flooding, external fires (e.g., forest and wildfires), tornadoes, etc. ; that t hese additional
external events, especially flooding, may not be ignored without serious[ly] underestimating
environmental impacts ; and that increased frequency and severity of weather-induced external
events . . . must be considered. 135 However, the Petitioners and Mr. Mitman fail to observe that
the Staffs evaluation of new and significant information considered new information regarding
external events and determined that the external event increase was less than the factor of 25
decrease in the North Anna internal events CDF, a nd therefore the new information did not
affect the Staffs conclusions. 136 Further, contrary to Mr. Mitmans claims, the Staffs analysis
considered numerous types of external events - including high winds, external flooding and
other external events - rather than only seismic events , as the Petitioners and Mr. Mitman have
alleged. 137
Similarly, while the Petitioners and Mr. Mitman claim that the Staff ignore[d] its own data
regarding seismic and fire [CDF] and ignored the increased risk of an earthquake severe
enough to damage safety equipment, posed by the 2011 Mineral Earthquake, 138 they ignore the
fact that the Staffs analysis did in fact consider such matters. 139 Likewise, while they claim that
the Staff erred (at page F-26) in stating that there has been a substantial decrease in internal
134 Mitman Declaration, ¶ 31 at 9.
135 Id. In support of this claim, Mr. Mitman cites the Draft SEIS at page F-10 lines 24-37 for the absence of a discussion of flooding, fires, high winds, etc. Id. at 9 n.28.
136 See Attachment 1 at F 13, and F 19 - F-20.
137 See Id. at F-11. As stated in the DEIS, the PRA model used in the external events section reflected the most up to date understanding of nuclear power plant risk at the time of analysis. Id. Cf. 2002 North Anna LR EIS at 5-9.
138 Mitman Declaration, ¶ 32 at 9.
139 See DEIS at F-10.
event CDF, 140 they ignore the fact that this statement reflected the Staffs consideration that the
current North Anna internal events PRA model of record has a CDF of approximately 1.36 x 10 -
6/year, 141 which represents a 96- percent reduction ( a factor of 25 reduction) in CDF for each unit
at North Anna. 142 Mr. Mitman and the Petitioners ignore this information. Moreover, while the
Petitioners and Mr. Mitman make numerous generalized claims that the Staffs SAMA analysis
was deficient, they fail to point to any specific statements in the Staffs description of that
analysis that would support such claims.
- 3. Contention 3: Draft SEIS fails to address the effects of Climate change on accident risk. 143
Amended Contention 3:
The Draft SEIS fails to satisfy NEPA or NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.71 because it does not address the effects of climate change on accident risk. No such discussion can be found in Section 3.11.6.9 or Appendix F. To the contrary, the NRC asserts that the effects of climate change are outside the scope of the NRC staffs SLR review. In support of this assertion, the NRC claims to consider climate-related information in its licensing reviews and ongoing oversight. But this is exactly the kind of blindered reasoning that was rejected in State of New York. The fact that NRC plans to address climate change risks in the future does not excuse the agency from addressing the risks as they are understood at this time. Only if the NRC can say that the effects of climate change are so small as to be remote and speculative can it avoid addressingthose effects in its environmental review. And the Executive Branch of the U.S.
government, including [the Council on Environmental Quality] and other federal agencies, has stated in no uncertain terms that climate change poses a current and future threat to critical
140 Mitman Declaration, ¶ 32 at 9
141 See DEIS at F-9, citing (Virginia Electric and Power Co., Appendix E Applicant's Environmental Report Subsequent Operating License Renewal Stage North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2. (ML20246G698)
142 See DEIS at F-9.
143 Corrected Petition at 15-17. Contention 3 states that it relies upon Mr. Mitmans Declaration, generally without specifying which statements inhis Declaration support the contention, other than ¶¶ 48 and 51.
See Corrected Petition at 16 and 17 . This makes it difficult to discern which statements inhis Declaration are relied upon to support Contention 3; the Staff assumes , however, that Contention 3 relies upon Section C.3 (Inadequate Discussion [of the] Effects of Climate C hange on Accident Risk) of the Declaration, although this section of the Declaration is not cited in the petition or corrected petition.
infrastructure that should be addressed now in NEPA reviews and all other decision- making processes.
Further, as set forth in Mr. Mitmans Declaration, the Draft SEIS failure to address climate change impacts on accident risk constitutes a significant deficiency because climate change demonstrably affects the frequency and intensity of some external events and therefore has the potential to significantly increase accident risks. Moreover, the frequency and intensity of climate change effects are increasing over time.
Mr. Mitman also presents an illustration of how the reasonably foreseeable increase in the frequency and volume of flooding could significantly increase the risk of a serious accident at NAPS.
This is just one example of the increased accident risk that can be reasonably expected due to climate change and that should be addressed in the Draft SEIS. 144
In Contention 3, the Petitioners argue that the December 2023 DEIS is incomplete
because it does not discuss climate change impacts on accident risk.145 The Petitioners claim
that climate change affects accident risk because it demonstrably affects the frequency and
intensity of some external events, including the frequency and volume of flooding.146 Moreover,
the Petitioners claim (incorrectly) that the Staffs Draft EIS stated that the effects of climate
change are outside the scope of the NRC staffs SLR review147 -- which they argue is contrary
to federal guidance148 and NEPA. 149 Significantly, however, the Petitioners assertion is
incorrect and misleading, in that it omits important text in the quoted statement; the complete
144 Motion by Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club to Amend Their Contention 3 Regarding Failure to Consider Environmental Impacts of Climate Change (Apr. 11, 2024) (Amended Contention), at 2-3 (footnote numbers within the text omitted) .
145 Id.
146 Id at 16- 17, citing to Mitman Declaration at ¶ 48, 51.
147 Id at 16. This is a significant omission, as even Mr. Mitmans Declaration, upon which the Petitioners rely, acknowledges that various sections of the Draft SEIS [do] address climate change. Mitman Declaration, ¶ 48.
148 Corrected Petition at 8 (citing Council on Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, 88 Fed. Reg. 1196, 1209 (Jan. 9, 2023)).
149 Corrected Petition at 8.
statement in the DEIS, improperly quoted by the Petitioners, was: The effects of climate
change on North Anna structures, systems, and components are outside the scope of the NRC
staffs environmental review - clearly indicating that what is omitted from license renewal
reviews is the effect of climate change on plant safety, not the environmental impacts of climate change, as the Petitioners claimed. 150
As discussed in Section III. A above, to be admissible in this proceeding, a contention
must meet the general admissibility requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) and must demonstrate
that the claims being made are within the scope of the proceeding. Contention 3 fails to satisfy
these requirements, in that it raises issues that fall outside the scope of this proceeding ,
impermissibly challenges the NRCs regulations concerning the safety issues that may be raised
in a license renewal proceeding, andfails to show the existence of a genuine dispute of material
fact concerning new information contained in the DEIS. This is because, as explained below,
the scope of this proceeding was specifically limited by the Commission in CLI-22-3 and the
January 2024 Federal Register Notice to contentions based on new information in the site-specific [EIS]151 - and contrary to this requirement, Contention 3 is not based on new
information in the Draft EIS. Rather, the Petitioners assertions concern the effect of
environmental conditions on the safety of a nuclear power plant, which is outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding.152 Moreover, even if their claims were within scope, they fail to
identify the specific analysis or statements in the DEIS that they wish to challenge, and do not
identify a genuine dispute with the Draft EIS that is material to the license renewal decision, as
required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) -(vi). The proposed contention must therefore be rejected.
150 CompareDEIS at 3-194 with Corrected Petition at 16 (the underlined text was omitted by the Petitioners in their recitation of the DEIS language).
151 CLI 3, 95 NRC at 42.
152 See Turkey Point, CLI 23, 52 NRC at 329.
As discussed in Section II above, the scope of this SLR proceeding was specifically
limited by the Commission in CLI 3 to contentions based on new information in the site-
specific [EIS] 153 - and Contention 3 is not based on new information in the Draft EIS. Indeed,
the Petitioners recognize that their contentions must fall within the limited scope of this
proceeding, asserting that Contention 3 is within scope and that it addresses new information
because it concerns a new reactor -specific accident analysis in the draft SEIS that takes the
place of a previous environmental analysis for which the NRC had unlawfully relied on [2013 LR
GEIS]. 154 However, contrary to their assertion, the Draft EIS does not provide a new reactor-
specific accident analysis . . . that takes the place of a previous environmental analysis; rather,
the December 2023 DEIS reproduces the discussion contained in the August 2021 Draft SEIS,
with minor updates. 155 Nor does the DEIS provide new inf ormation on the effects of climate
change on the safety of North Anna, as that determination is not within the scope of the NRCs
environmental review, as stated in the August 2021 Draft SEIS and restated in the December
2023 DEIS. 156 In sum, Contention 3 constitute s a challenge to the NRCs safety determinations
and does not challenge new information presented in the DEIS. For this reason, Contention 3
falls outside the permissible scope of this proceeding and should be rejected.
Contention 3 should also be rejected because it raises safety issues that are beyond the
scope of this license renewal proceeding. As discussed above with respect to Contention 1,
safety issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding - and, in any event, the safety issues
153 CLI 3, 95 NRC at 42.
154 Corrected Petition at 17- 18.
155 See Attachment 1 hereto, at 3-139. The discussion of climate change impacts to environmental resource areas were previously included under cumulative impacts in the 2021 draft SEIS (Section 3.16, page 3- 162, 3- 163, and 3- 164). These discussions were removed from cumulative impacts and included under Section 3.15.3.2 (page 3- 195) for the draft site- specific EIS. These may appear like new discussions, but they were just moved from one section to another between the 2021 Draft SEIS and the 2023 Draft site- specific EIS.
156 The statement that [t]he effects of climate change on North Anna structures, systems, and components are outside the scope of the NRC staffs SLR environmental review was moved from 3.15.3 on page 3- 160 in the 2021 draft SEIS to 3.14.3.2 on page 3- 194 in the new Draft EIS.
raised in this contention do not address the safety requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 54. 157 With
respect to safety issues, contentions are limited to concerns regarding the applicants aging
management programs and time-limited aging analyses. 158 Similarly, contentions may address
the environmental effects, including any cumulative effects, of the proposed action159 - but as
the Commission has repeatedly explained, the effects of environmental conditions on a nuclear
power plant, as opposed to the effects of the plant on the environment, are not within the scope of license renewal proceedings.160 Therefore, the Petitioners argument that the Staffs
environmental review is inconsistent with federal guidance161 and NEPA162 because it does not
address the impacts of climate change on plant safety amounts to a challenge to the NRCs
regulations governing the scope of safety issues that may be raised in a license renewal
proceeding. 163 As provided in 10 C.F.R. § 2.335, no rule or regulation of the Commission may be
subject to attack in an adjudicatory proceeding unless the proponent files a petition for waiver of
the rule or regulation. Because the Petitioners have not filed such a petition for waiver, their
challenges to the scope of safety concerns that may be r aised in a license renewal proceeding
should be rejected.164
157 See Oconee, CLI 3, 95 NRC at 42; see also Turkey Point, CLI 6, 95 NRC at 115 (Our ruling in CLI 2 did not disturb the safety review.); Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 17, 54 NRC 3, 6-10 (2001) (explaining that the Staffs safety review of license renewal applications is limited as described in 10 C.F.R. Part 54).
158 10 C.F.R. § § 54.21 and 54.29.
159 See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. § § 51.71(d) and 51.95(c).
160 See, e.g., Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 21, 82NRC 295, 304 (2015).
161 Corrected Petition at 75 (citing Council on Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Interim guidance, request for comments, 88 Fed. Reg. 1196, 1209(Jan. 9, 2023).
162 Id. at 79- 80.
163 As explained supraat 22, the NRC considers the impacts on plant safety of matters such as climate change as part of its ongoing oversight of nuclear power plants, outside the scope of license renewal, because such considerations are not unique to l icense renewal. Moreover, the cited federal guidance regarding climate change is just that guidanceand it does not impose legally binding requirements on the NRC. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 1197 n.4.
164 Millstone, CLI 14, 58 NRC at 218.
The Staff notes that in a recent decision, the Board in the Turkey Point SLR proceeding
accepted a petitioner s claim that its contention was challenging the Draft EIS and not the safety
analysis, and it therefore interpreted it as an environmental contention; 165 such a determination
would be incorrect in this proceeding. Here, the Petitioners do not explain how their contention
concerns the impacts of the proposed action (i.e., continued operation for an additional 20
years) on the environment, as distinct from the impacts of environmental conditions on the plant.
While the contention discusses how climate change can impact accident risk, the Petitioners
never explain how climate change impacts on accident risk could affect the Staff s
environmental impacts analysis, which is the focus of the Draft EIS. Thus, nowhere in the
contention do the Petitioners specify how their concerns would affect any analysis performed by
the Staff in the Draft EIS , which is required for the contention to establish a genuine dispute of
material fact with the requisite specificity as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).
Further, Contention 3 fails to identify a genuine dispute with the Draft EIS that is material
to the license renewal decision in this proceeding. For a contention to show that a genuine
dispute exists, the contention must include references to specific portions of the application that
the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, and if the petitioner
believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter, then the
contention must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner s belief.166
Contention 3 fails to satisfy these requirements, in that it fails to identify with specificity the
portions of the DEIS that they dispute, and fails to provide sufficient support for their contention.
165 Turkey Point, LBP 03, 99 NRC at __, slip op. at 3 2 (taking the petitioner at its word that it seeks to challenge the Draft [EIS] and does not seek to challenge the Staffs safety analysis but concluding that such an environmental contention is not admissible because it does not provide sufficient information to show that a genuine, material dispute exists with the Draft EIS).
166 Exelon Generation Co., LLC. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI 11, 92 NRC 335, 342 (Nov. 12, 2020).
First, the Petitioners fail to cite with enough specificity the analyses in the Draft EIS that
they claim are lacking. The Draft EIS discusses the environmental impacts of design- basis
accidents and severe accidents at length.167 The Petitioners only claim is that the discussion
they believe is missing cannot be found in Section 3.11.6.9 or Appendix F. 168 However, the
Petitioners claims do not provide sufficient specificity to allow one to understand what they
claim is deficient. Appendix F contains a discussion of numerous analyses (i.e. internal events
information, new source term information, use of BEIR VII risk coefficients, consideration of
external events, etc.). 169 The Petitioners fail to state where within the many different types and
levels of analysis they believe the Staff did not consider any required information. This omission
is significant. In Turkey Point, the petitioner similarly made what the Board described as only a
passing reference to a portion of the Staffs analysis, which the Board determined had failed to
sufficiently tie the petitioner s claim directly to the Staff s Draft EIS and the contention was
therefore inadmissible. 170 In Turkey Point, the contention similarly asserted that the Draft EIS
failed to consider the effects of climate change on accident risk, and relied on nearly identical
points set out in a similar declaration by Mr. Mitman. 171 Just as the Board in Turkey Point
rejected that contention due to its lack of specificity, Contention 3 should be rejected here. 172
Further, Mr. Mitman makes various assertions in Section C.3 of his Declaration, as to
how climate change could affect plant safety and an accident analysis. However, those
statements are entirely general in nature, in which he states his views of how an accident
analysis should be conducted, without pointing to any specific allegations of deficiencies in the
167 See Attachment 1 at Appendix F.
168 Corrected Petition at 16. T he Petitioners included in their original hearing request Mr. Mitmans Technical Review, but the Petitioners do not cite that document in Contention 3. Instead, the Petitioners only rely on Mr. Mitmans Declaration and cite to two specific declarations within that Declaration.
169 Draft SEIS Appendix F at F-17.
170 LBP 03 at 33- 34.
171 Id. at 32- 34.
172 Id.
Staffs DEIS.173 Indeed, his only claims regarding the adequacy of the DEIS appear in ¶¶ 48
and 51 of the Declaration - but even there, he merely claims that the Draft EIS does not
address climate changes [sic] impacts on accident risks in Sections 3.11.6.9 or Appendix F , and
that the DEIS is ina dequate because climate change will increase the frequency and severity of
these [unspecified] types of events. 174 These general assertions, however, fail to identify, with
specificity, any particular aspect of the Staffs accident analyses that Mr. Mitman believes to be
inadequate and fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact, as required by 10 C.F.R.
§§ 2.309(f)(1)(i), (ii) and (vi) . Accordingly, Mr. Mitmans Declaration does not support the
admission of Contention 3.
While the Petitioners amended Contention 3 to cite a recent report by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) 175 in addition to their reliance on the Mitman Declaration, this addition
does not solve the lack of specificity. The GAO Report adds to the contentions basis, but the
Petitioners again fail to connect it to the Draft EIS or explain what analysis in the Draft EIS is
affected by the report or why it renders the DEIS inadequate. 176 Since the Petitioners fail to do
this, Contention 3 should be rejected for lacking the specificity and for failing to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact, as required by 10 C.F.R. § § 2.309(f)(1)( (i), (iii) and (vi).
Second, the Petitioners fail to provide sufficient support for their contention. This is
because, just like the petitioner in Turkey Point, the Petitioners here rely on nearly identical
points of a Mitman Declaration that repeatedly speculates as to how climate change impacts
could be significant; however, as the Board observed in Turkey Point, they did not provide[ ]
173 See Mitman Declaration, Section C.2, at 15- 17.
174 Id. at 15.
175 GAO-106326, Nuclear Power Plants: NRC Should Take Actions to Fully Consider the Potential Effects of Climate Change (April 2024) (GAO-106326 or the GAO Report).
176 As noted below, this is particularly important since the GAO Report itself is focused on safety analysis and does not make any claims on the Staffs environmental impacts analysis. However, it did briefly talk about renewal.
sufficient support to raise a genuine material dispute. 177 Here, as in Turkey Point , the
contention and supporting declaration failed to tie the Petitioners claims about climate change
impacts directly to the environmental impact analysis performed by the Staff. 178 Additionally, the
Petitioners failed to tie their claims here to any specific alleged deficiency in the DEIS evaluation
of accident risks. Contention 3 should therefore be rejected for failing to satisfy the
requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(f)(1)((i), (iii) and (vi).
Further, as stated above, the Petitioners and Mr. Mitman fail to observe that in Section
5.5.2.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the generic analysis applies to all
plants and that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto
open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts of severe
accidents are of small significance for all plants.179 For North Anna, the predicted risks are the
total 95-percent upper-confidence bound (UCB) metrics in Table 5.9 , Table 5.10 and Table 5.11 .
Thus, th e risk of external events and uncertainties was considered in the 1996 GEIS
evaluation. 180 The 1996 GEIS was the basis for the 1996 rule regarding the probability weighted
consequences of an accident to the public. In the statements of consideration of the rule, the
Commission concluded:
In conclusion, the GEIS analysis of severe accident consequences and risk is adequate, and additional plant specific analysis of these impacts is not required. However, because the ongoing regulatory program related to severe accident mitigation (i.e., IPE and IPEEE) has not been completed for all plants and consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives has not been included in an EIS or supplemental EIS related to plant
177 LBP 03, at 32- 34.
178 Id.
179 1996 GEIS at 5-114 and 5- 115.
180 1996 GEIS at Section 5.3.4. The 95th upper confidence bound values were used in the 1996 GEIS, and were determined to be reasonable upper bound estimates of risk, to account for uncertainty of the mean value. Id. at 5-114 -- 115. Since upper-confidence metrics were used, uncertainties regarding unknowns bound the potential increases in risk at North Anna from accidents due to external events such as climate-change induced events, and seismic events like the Mineral Earthquake. This conservatism is apparent upon comparing the North Anna population dose risk estimates in the 1996 GEIS with later estimates for North Anna. See DEIS at F-11; Attachment 1 at F F-13.
operations for all plants, a site-specific consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives is required at license renewal for those plants for which this consideration has not been performed.
The Commission expects that if these reviews identify any changes as being cost beneficial, such changes generally would be procedural and programmatic fixes, with any hardware changes being only minor in nature and few in number.181
Consistent with the Commissions deter mination, the Staff considered severe accident
mitigation alternatives for North Anna during initial license renewal.182 As stated in the North
Anna initial license renewal EIS, after conducting that analysis, the Staff concluded that there
are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS. However, as required,
the Staff evaluated SAMAs for North Anna initial license renewal, and developed a plant-specific
population dose risk value and risk profile to compare to the 1996 GEIS values , to confirm that
the probability-weighted consequences for severe accidents at North Anna were SMALL. 183
The 1996 GEIS and the North Anna initial license renewal SAMA analysis are
comprehensive severe accident consequence analyses that account for external events and
consider uncertainties, as Mr. Mitman and the Petitioners allege is required. While Mr. Mitman
and the Petitioners claim that a comprehensive analysis should be performed now for
subsequent license renewal at North Anna, they ignore the fact that the Commissions
regulations do not require another comprehensive SAMA analysis to be performed; rather, SLR
applicants and the Staff are directed to consider any new and significant informationthat has
arisen, and to evaluate how that information might affect the prior analyses. 184 That is precisely
what the Applicant and Staff have done for North Anna SLR. Thus the Applicant (in its ER, as
supplemented) and the Staff (in both its 2021 DSEIS and 2023 DEIS) considered any new and
181 Final rule, Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed.
Reg. 28,467, 28, 481(Aug. 5, 1996) (emphasis added).
182 2002 North Anna LR EIS at 5-16to 5- 21.
183 North Anna Initial LR EIS at Table 5-4. The Staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and offsite doses in section 5.2.2.2 of the EIS for Initial LR .
184 See 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) and 51.53(c)(3)((iv).
significant information that might affect their pr evious conclusions. 185 In particular, the
December 2023 DEIS considered the effect of new and significant information (such as changes
in CDF values) on accident risk, on a site-specific basis. 186
Thus, potential external events (whether or not due to climate -change) were considered
and accounted for in the DEIS conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences of a
severe accident are SMALL. 187 Moreover, the Petitioners do not explain how any of the
information they claim is missing would impact any particular analysis or material determination
presented in the DEIS, or would affect the Staff s determinations that the impacts of design
basis accidents, and the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents, are SMALL.
While the Petitioners amended their contention to cite the GAO report, they have still
failed to provide sufficient support for their contention.188 The subject of the GAO report, as the
Petitioners admit in their amended contention, is not environmental reports and environmental
impact analyses, but reactor safety analysis.189 While the Petitioners attempt to paper over this
distinction by stating that the report supports their contention because accident risks are part of
the environmental review, they fail to explain any connection between the GAO Report and the
DEIS evaluation. 190 Indeed, the GAO Report makes no claims about whether its findings and
185 See Attachment 1 at F F-29. Additionally, in 2008, the NRC completed a State-of-the- Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) project for Surry (like North Anna, the Surry Units are Westinghouse PWRs with a large containment), located near North Anna. The SOARCA project was initiated to develop best estimates of the offsite radiological health consequences for potential severe reactor accidents. That information was considered by the Staff for North Anna SLR, See Attachment 1 at F-13 and F-22 to F-23.
186 DEIS at F-1, F-5, F-18.
187 DEIS at Section F.3.10; Attachment 1 at F F-20. See 2002 North Anna LR EIS at 5-9.
188 Amended Contention at 3- 6.
189 Amended Contention at 6. The Petitioners state, GAO -106326 describes this concern in terms of reactor safety rather than environmental impacts, but they then proceed to argue that the report is relevant to the NRCs environmental review because accident risks are a lawful subject of that review.
Id. The Peti tioners argument thus seeks to transform GAOs safety concerns into something else, without showing how that report calls into question the Staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of North Anna SLR.
190 Id.
contents would be applicable to any environmental reviews performed by the NRC. Inasmuch
as the Petitioners fail to explain why this report is relevant to the environmental evaluation
performed in the North Anna Draft EIS, they have failed to provide sufficient support for their
contention, and it therefore should be rejected.
In sum, Contention 3 is not within the scope of this proceeding and does not meet the
requirements for contention admissibility, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) (ii), (v) and(vi).
Contention 3 should therefore be rejected.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Staff submits that Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra
Club have failed to proffer at least one admissible contention. Accordingly, the Petitioners
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should be denied .
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287 -9194 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov
Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
Reuben I. Siegman Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-5006 E-mail: Reuben.Siegman@nrc.gov
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day of May 2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER . Docket Nos. 50 -338-SLR- 2 COMPANY 50- 339-SLR- 2
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
Certificate of Service
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFF
ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY BEYOND
NUCLEAR INC. AND SIERRA CLUB, INC. dated May 6, 2024, together with ATTACHMENT 1
thereto, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing
System), in the captioned proceeding, this 6th day of May, 2024.
/Signed (electronically) by/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555- 0001 Telephone: 301-287-9194 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov
Dated at Rockville, MD this 6th day of May, 2024