ML25239A661
| ML25239A661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000614 |
| Issue date: | 08/27/2025 |
| From: | Perales M Perales, Allmon & Ice, P.C., San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 25-991-01-CP-BD01, RAS 57463, Long Mott Energy 50-614-CP | |
| Download: ML25239A661 (0) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
Long Mott Energy, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
§
§
§
§
§
§ Docket No. 50-614-CP August 27, 2025 SAN ANTONIO BAY ESTUARINE WATERKEEPERS RESPONSE TO LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLCS NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL AVAILABILITY OF SUNSI TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS, PROTECTIVE ORDER NONCOMPLIANCE, AND REQUEST FOR WATERKEEPER TO PROVIDE SUNSI LOGS NOW COMES San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper (Waterkeeper or Petitioner), by and through counsel, and submits this Response to Long Mott Energy, LLCs (LME) Notification of Potential Availability of SUNSI to Unauthorized Persons, Protective Order Noncompliance, and Request for Waterkeeper to Provide SUNSI Logs (Notification). Because Waterkeeper has addressed all issues raised in LMEs Notification, Waterkeeper maintains that no further action is needed, at this time, in response to LMEs Notification.
I.
Introduction By its Notification filing, LME purports to inform the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) about: (1) information suggesting that Waterkeeper provided non-public security-related information to an unauthorized person; (2) Waterkeepers non-compliance with certain document filing requirements in the Protective Order; and (3)
LMEs request that Waterkeeper provide logs documenting the handling of SUNSI
2 materials within the possession or control of Authorized Persons, under the terms of the Protective Order. This Notification stems from Waterkeepers filing, on Monday, August 25, 2025, of its Supplement to Its Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (Supplemental Contention).
More specifically, because Claire Krebs was included in the signature block of the Supplemental Contention, and because Ms. Krebs is not among the persons authorized to access SUNSI data, LME is concerned that Ms. Krebs had access to SUNSI information in violation of the Protective Order. In addition, although the Supplemental Contention was filed on the non-public docket, it did not bear the required markers indicating that it included SUNSI or Security-Related Information.
Waterkeeper has informed LMEs counsel that no SUNSI information has been shared with any unauthorized person. Waterkeepers counsel has also already notified LMEs counsel that the requested logs will be provided within five business days from the date of the request, as required by the terms of the Protective Order. With regard to the missing markers from the Supplemental Contention submitted on August 25, Waterkeeper will file a corrected version of the document todayAugust 27, 2025.1 Waterkeeper maintains that it has sought to resolve all the issues that LME complains of in its Notification to the Board. Additional details follow.
1 This Response does not contain any SUNSI information.
3 II.
Clarification of representations in LMEs Notification LME represents in its Notification that it advised Waterkeepers counsel on August 26 of the circumstances detailed in its Notification to the Board, so that Waterkeeper could take prompt and appropriate action. Missing from LMEs Notification to the Board was the fact that Waterkeepers counsel responded to LMEs communicationbefore LME filed its Notification with the Board. In that response, Waterkeepers counsel advised that no SUNSI information had been shared with any unauthorized person, and that the inclusion of Ms. Krebs name in the signature block of Mondays filing was in error.
Waterkeepers counsel further provided information detailing how drafts of Waterkeepers Supplemental Contention were shared and with whomto ensure compliance with the terms of the Protective Order. In fact, Waterkeepers counsel provided more details than requiredinforming LMEs counsel that Ms. Krebs has been on vacation and thus, did not play any part in the drafting and filing of Mondays Supplemental Contention.
In addition, LMEs Notification states that Waterkeepers Supplemental Contention includes two signature blocks that were signed by two attorneys, only one of whom is authorized to access SUNSI documents, and that this indicates that both attorneys are familiar with the contents of the document.2 In fact, the Supplemental SUNSI Contention includes one signature block with only one signature, though it bears the names of two attorneys: Marisa Perales (who is authorized to access SUNSI information) and Claire 2 LMEs Notification, p. 2 (Aug. 26, 2025).
4 Krebs (who is not authorized to access such information). The only signature included on the document is Marisa Perales signature.
III.
Ms. Krebs name was included in error.
As explained to LMEs counsel, Ms. Krebs name was included in error. Ms. Krebs provided no input regarding the Supplemental Contention and has not had access to any SUNSI-related information. In fact, Ms. Krebs has been on vacation since August 19.
IV.
Waterkeeper will submit a corrected version of its Supplemental Contention.
Waterkeeper will re-submit its Supplemental Contention, today, August 27, 2025, with the required markers indicating that the document includes Security-Related Information. As with the initial version of the Supplemental Contention, Waterkeeper will file the document on the non-public docket.
V.
Waterkeeper has informed LMEs counsel that the requested logs will be provided.
Waterkeepers counsel has already committed to provide LME the requested logs documenting the handling of SUNSI information by Waterkeepers authorized representatives and consultants. The logs will be provided within five business days from the date of the request, as specified in the Protective Order.
In addition, Waterkeeper has already explained to LMEs counsel, informally and in writing, how drafts of the Supplemental Contention were prepared, stored, and shared and with whomto ensure compliance with the Protective Order. In that same communication, Waterkeeper explained that Ms. Krebs played no role in preparing or
5 reviewing the draft Supplemental Contention. This information was shared with LMEs counsel before they submitted their Notification to the Board.
VI.
Conclusion LMEs Notification includes no specific request for relief from this Board. Further, Waterkeeper has already agreed to provide LME with the logs it has requested.
Waterkeeper maintains that no further action is necessary at this time.
Date: August 27, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Marisa Perales Marisa Perales Texas Bar No. 24002750 marisa@txenvirolaw.com PERALES, ALLMON & ICE, P.C.
1206 San Antonio St.
Austin, Texas 78701 512-469-6000 (t) l 512-482-9346 (f)
Counsel for San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
Long Mott Energy, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
§
§
§
§
§
§ Docket No. 50-614-CP August 11, 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that, on August 27, 2025, copies of the foregoing San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeepers Response to Long Mott Energy, LLCs Notification of Potential Availability of SUNSI to Unauthorized Persons, Protective Order Noncompliance, and Request for Waterkeeper to Provide SUNSI Logs were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned docket.
Signed (electronically) by Marisa Perales Marisa Perales Texas Bar No. 24002750 marisa@txenvirolaw.com PERALES, ALLMON & ICE, P.C.
1206 San Antonio St.
Austin, Texas 78701 512-469-6000 (t) l 512-482-9346 (f)
Counsel for San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper