ML25272A231

Memorandum and Order (Providing Administrative Information and Questions for Prehearing Conference)

ML25272A231
Person / Time
Site:	05000614
Issue date:	09/29/2025
From:	Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Danni Smith, Nicholas Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57494, ASLBP 25-991-01-CP-BD01, 50-614-CP
Download: ML25272A231 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Before Administrative Judges:

Stefan R. Wolfe, Chair Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. David A. Smith In the Matter of LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)

Docket No. 50-614-CP ASLBP No. 25-991-01-CP-BD01 September 29, 2025 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Providing Administrative Information and Questions for Prehearing Conference)

On Monday, October 6, 2025, at 10:00 am Eastern Time (ET), the Licensing Board will hold a prehearing conference oral argument on issues raised in the hearing request of San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper (Petitioner).1 The argument will be held virtually, using the Microsoft Teams platform.2 Petitioner, Long Mott Energy (LME), and the NRC Staff should be prepared to answer the Boards questions about any aspect of its pleadings. This includes questions on LMEs motion to strike portions of Petitioners reply.3 However, some specific questions, as well as 1 See Licensing Board Order (Scheduling Initial Prehearing Conference) (Sept. 16, 2025)

(unpublished).

2 The Board is aware that there may be a lapse of appropriations which may cause the postponement of the oral argument. Should there be such a postponement, in addition to any public announcements made by the Commission, participants will be notified by email.

Participants should continue to keep October 14, 2025, available.

3 [LMEs] Motion to Strike Portions of [Petitioners] September 12, 2025 Reply (Sept. 22, 2025).

general subject areas in which Board members anticipate additional questions, are set forth in the Appendix to this order.

Members of the public and other interested persons who wish to listen to the argument may access the listen-only line by dialing (301) 576-2978 and entering passcode 198 879 573 followed by the # sign. After successful entry of the passcode, the following message will be heard: You are not allowed to unmute. To raise your hand press *5. Please note that this telephone line is not being monitored and pressing *5 will not allow participation in the conference.

A transcript will be made publicly available shortly after the conference in the NRCs electronic hearing docket.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Stefan R. Wolfe, Chair ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland September 29, 2025

/RA/

APPENDIX: Questions and Subject Areas to Anticipate

1. In challenging petitioner San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeepers (Petitioner) representational standing, in its September 5, 2025 answer at 18-19, relative to the issue whether the proximity presumption is applicable in this proceeding, applicant Long Mott Energy, LLC, (LME) notes that each of the four modular 200 megawatt thermal (MWt) pebble bed high-temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR) units at its facility is eight times smaller than the smallest of the currently operating large light-water reactors (LLWRs) that generally were the focus of agency licensing proceedings when that presumption was developed.

Additionally, referencing the LME construction permit applications preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) (ML25090A061, at 2.1-5) and plume exposure pathway (PEP) emergency planning zone (EPZ) analysis (ML25090A066, at pdf. 43), in its answer LME indicates that the exclusion area boundary (EAB) for the facility as well as the PEP would coincide with the facility site boundary.

Further, LME declares that the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ component for LLWRs that corresponds roughly to the 50-mile proximity presumption is not applicable to HTGRs. In this regard, a change to the NRCs emergency planning requirements, specifically 10 C.F.R. § 50.160(b)(4), now requires only that an applicant describe the capabilities that support actions to prevent contaminated food and water from entering the ingestion pathway in the event of a radiological emergency, which in section 11.4.4 of its PSAR LME asserts it has done (ML25090A061, at 11.4-2).

In this respect, a proposal to locate the PEP EPZ at or within the site boundary/EAB likewise seems to be a feature of the other two advanced/modular reactor applications pending with the Commission, as outlined in the PSARs for the single-unit Kemmerer 840 MWt sodium-cooled fast reactor (ML24088A065, at 11.3-1) and the single-unit Clinch River 870 MWt BWRX-300 small modular reactor (ML25140A064, app. 13A, at 13A-1).

Additionally, in its September 5, 2025 answer at 6-7, noting that the 800 MWt combined power of the four LME units and LMEs proposed EPZ coincident with the facilitys site boundary suggests the 50-mile proximity presumption may not be appropriate for smaller, advanced reactors, the NRC Staff nonetheless concludes that because one of its members resides within four miles of the LME facility, Petitioner has made a showing sufficient to establish its proximity presumption-based representational standing.

Against this background:

A.

If the LME facility consisted of six or eight 200 MWt HTGR units, would that affect LMEs EPZ analysis such that the PEP EPZ would extend beyond the facilitys site boundary/EAB?

B.

If this facility consisted of only one 200 MWt HTGR unit, would that affect the Staffs conclusion about whether Waterkeeper has established proximity presumption-based representational standing given that one of its members resides four miles from the facility?

2. Figure 6.2-2 of the LME environmental report (ML25090A063, at 6.2-12) is a map showing the LME facilitys planned remote radiological monitoring and sampling locations, including thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD), ingestion, and airborne monitoring stations. In addition to a ring of TLD monitoring stations approximately five

miles from the facility, there are other TLD, ingestion, and airborne monitoring stations at various locations between 5 and 20 miles from the LME site.

A.

What is the regulatory basis for these various monitoring stations and the distance of their locations from the LME facility?

B.

Would the location of these stations change in terms of their distance from the LME site if there were (i) six or eight 200 MWt HTGR units on the site; or (ii) only one 200 MWt HTGR unit on the site?

3. In the context of Contention 3 challenging the adequacy of various aspects of LMEs financial qualifications-related exemption request, as this Board considers the extent of its authority to determine whether LMEs request for an exemption to a regulatory requirement should be allowed prior to an NRC Staff decision on whether to grant LMEs exemption request, assuming the Board concludes it has such authority, what is the scope of such a Board determination? Would this Board determine whether to grant (or deny) the exemption? Or would this Board determine whether the request for an exemption is sufficient such that the NRC Staff may (or may not) grant the exemption (i.e., a determination as to whether it is within the discretion of the NRC Staff to grant the exception)?

4. Also relative to Contention 3, is there any reason, either based on the agencys regulations or practical concerns, why this Board should not make a determination on the adequacy of the LME exemption request prior to the NRC Staff making its determination? If so, please be prepared to discuss the appropriate timing for a challenge to the exemption request and the basis for your view.

5. Contention 1 alleges the application fails to meet the regulatory requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.34. Please be prepared to discuss the specific parts of § 50.34 you believe are fairly raised (or not) by the petition.

6. Please be prepared to explain your factual assertions regarding maximum flood elevation. (See Waterkeeper Petition at 47; LME Answer at 83).

7. On page 17 of Waterkeepers petition, the petition alleges that the mechanistic source terms in the LM-CPAs containment demonstration fail to meet the minimum criteria for adequacy. The petition then lists eight points. For each point, what are the minimum criteria for adequacy and what is the source of those criteria?

8. Does the NRC have to approve models used for mechanistic source term development or simply determine if the modeling approach is acceptable? What is the basis for your view?

9. There is a line of agency cases questioning the admissibility of a contention that seeks to litigate a matter that is the subject of general rulemaking by the agency, such as Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974). Does this caselaw have any applicability relative to Contentions 3 and 4, which allege omissions that seemingly are the subject of agency proposed rules that could address such omissions?

10. To the extent you believe there are identified omissions in Contention 4 that make it a contention of omission, please describe which regulations require the alleged missing information.

11. 10 C.F.R. § 2.332(d) states that [w]here an environmental impact statement (EIS) is involved, hearings on environmental issues addressed in the EIS may not commence before the issuance of the final EIS. Is there any reason why this rule would not preclude an evidentiary hearing on any admitted aspect of Contention 4 prior to the Staffs issuance of the final EIS?

12. The ASLBP has not reviewed a stand-alone 10 C.F.R. Part 50 construction permit application for a power reactor in some time. Please be prepared to discuss which issues raised by Contentions 1, 3, and 4 are within the scope of a construction permit proceeding as compared to a proceeding on a Part 50 operating license application.

13. On September 26, 2025, LME notified the Board that it had filed a Supplement to its PSAR and that the supplement may have a bearing on the first contention. Please be prepared to discuss your view as to whether any part of the first contention is mooted by the supplement.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

LONG MOTT ENERGY, LLC.

)

Docket No. 50-614-CP

)

)

(Long Mott Generating Station)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Providing Administrative Information and Questions for Prehearing Conference) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Stefan R. Wolfe, Chair, Administrative Judge Nicholas G. Trikouros, Administrative Judge Dr. David A. Smith, Administrative Judge Whitlee Dean, Law Clerk Georgia Rock, Law Clerk Email: stefan.wolfe@nrc.gov nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov david.smith@nrc.gov whitlee.dean@nrc.gov georgia.rock@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan Vrahoretis, Esq.

David Roth, Esq.

Julie Ezell, Esq.

Sam Stephens, Esq.

Nick Mertz, Esq.

Stacy Schumann, Team Leader Anne Fream, Paralegal Georgia Hampton, Paralegal Email: susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov julie.ezell@nrc.gov samuel.stephens@nrc.gov nicolas.mertz@nrc.gov stacy.schumann@nrc.gov anne.fream@nrc.gov georgiann.hampton@nrc.gov Counsel for San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper Perales, Allmon, & Ice, P.C.

1206 San Antonio St.

Austin, Texas 78701 Marisa Perales, Esq.

Gweneth Lonergan, Lead Legal Asst.

Email: marisa@txenvirolaw.com gwyneth@txenvirolaw.com

Long Mott Energy, LLC., Docket No. 50-614-CP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Providing Administrative Information and Questions for Prehearing Conference) 2 Counsel for Long Mott Energy, LLC.

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP.

1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.

Alex Polonsky, Esq.

Email: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com alex.polonsky@morganlewis.com Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September 2025.

CLARA SOLA Digitally signed by CLARA SOLA Date: 2025.09.29 14:25:13 -04'00'