ML25328A209
| ML25328A209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000614 |
| Issue date: | 11/24/2025 |
| From: | Perales M Perales, Allmon & Ice, P.C., San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57542, 50-614-CP, EPID 25-991-01-CP-BD01 | |
| Download: ML25328A209 (0) | |
Text
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
Long Mott Energy, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
§
§
§
§
§
§ Docket No. 50-614-CP November 24, 2025 SAN ANTONIO BAY ESTUARINE WATERKEEPERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING BASED ON SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION NOW COMES San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper (Waterkeeper or Petitioner), by and through counsel, and submits this Reply in Support of the Supplement to Waterkeepers Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI Reply) in the above-captioned proceeding.
I.
INTRODUCTION Both NRC Staff and LME maintain that Waterkeepers SUNSI Contention should be rejected because ((
))SRI Further, both argue that LME provided all the information required in its AIA to comply with the applicable rules. Both miss the mark.
While a detailed aircraft impact assessment may not be required at the CPA stage, compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(13) is required, and this rule incorporates by 1 NRC SUNSI Response, p. 15; LME SUNSI Response, p. 7.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 2
reference 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b). Waterkeepers SUNSI Contention maintains that LME failed to comply with these requirements, because ((
))SRI II.
Waterkeepers SUNSI Contention is admissible.
A.
Even at the CPA Stage, compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(13)and thus with 10 C.F.R. § 50.150is mandatory.
As an initial matter, LME maintains that Waterkeepers SUNSI Contention should be rejected because Waterkeeper seems unaware that ((
))SRI LME argues that because Waterkeeper has misread the application, its SUNSI Contention is without basis.2 In its SUNSI Contention, Waterkeeper adopted the nomenclature used by LME in its CPA. Section 3.12 of LMEs PSAR bears the heading: Aircraft Impact Assessment.3 It provides as follows:
The aircraft impact assessment (AIA) description required by 10 CFR 50.34(a)(13) is designated as security-related sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), commonly referred to as security-related information (SRI). As such, the AIA is segregated from the PSAR and located in CPA Part VII to facilitate appropriate control of SRI to prevent inadvertent release to unauthorized individuals. The AIA contained in CPA Part VII is incorporated by reference into this section in its entirety.4 2 LME SUNSI Response, p. 7.
3 See, e.g., LME-CPA, Part II-VI (Master Table of Contents); LME-CPA, p. 3.12-1 (Aircraft Impact Assessment); ((
))SRI.
4 LME-CPA, p. 3.12-1.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 3
That Waterkeeper used the term AIA in its SUNSI Contention does not render it inadmissible, LMEs argument to the contrary notwithstanding.
Next, LME argues that Waterkeeper did not specifically cite 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b),
in support of its SUNSI Contention.5 Waterkeepers SUNSI Contention was as follows:
((
))SRI This Contention directly challenges ((
))SRI As described above, 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(13) incorporates by reference 10 C.F.R.
§ 50.150(b). And 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b), in turn, requires the CPA to include a description of: (1) The design features and functional capabilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
[10 C.F.R. § 50.150] section; and (2) How the design features and functional capabilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this [10 C.F.R. § 50.150] section meet the assessment requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.7 In other words, 50.150(b) incorporates by reference 50.150(a)(1), as ((
))SRI Finally, both LME and NRC Staff argue that because LMEs application is a construction permit application and because the ((
))SRI 5 LME SUNSI Response, p. 8. Notably, NRC Staff does not join in this argument.
6 LME-CPA, Part VII-III.
7 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b).
8 LME-CPA, Part VII-VII ((
))SRI
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 4
They further argue that Waterkeepers SUNSI Contention fails to specify ((
))SRI LME contends that Waterkeepers Contention is akin to a rule challenge, because Waterkeeper seeks a more detailed assessment than is required by 10 C.F.R. § 50.150, for construction permit applications.
While 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b) does not require that a final assessment be included in a construction permit AIA, it does require a description of how the assessment requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(a)(1) are met, for purposes of a CPA. This was made clear in the NRCs Response to a comment submitted by LMEs counsel:
However, 10 CFR 50.150(b) does require that a description of the design features and functional capabilities credited by the applicant to show that the facility can withstand the effects of the aircraft impact be included in the PSAR or FSAR submitted with the relevant application. In addition, the PSAR or FSAR must contain a description of how such design features and functional capabilities meet the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1).9 And while the description may be based on preliminary design information at the construction permit stage, it is necessary to require applicants to perform the aircraft impact assessment at both [the construction permit and operating license] stages and to include the required information in both applications based on the level of design information available at the time of each application.10 9 74 Fed. Reg. at 28,124.
10 74 Fed. Reg. at 28,126.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 5
In short, Waterkeeper need not challenge any rule to support its SUNSI Contentioncontrary to LMEs argument. The existing rules require a description of How the design features and functional capabilities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
[10 C.F.R. § 50.150] section meet the assessment requirements in paragraph (a)(1).
Waterkeeper maintains that ((
))SRI B.
((
))SRI In its SUNSI Response, ((
))SRI NRC Staffs Response maintains that the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b) are satisfied, in part, because LME provides that the ((
))SRI But neither LME nor NRC Staff explains how this information satisfies the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.150(b). Neither explains how the statement that ((
11 LME SUNSI Response, p. 7.
12 NRC Staff SUNSI Response, p. 16.
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 6
))SRI III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Waterkeepers Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing should be granted, and its SUNSI Contention should be considered admissible.
Date: November 24, 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
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
Long Mott Energy, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
§
§
§
§
§
§ Docket No. 50-614-CP November 24, 2025 COUNSELS CERTIFICATION Pursuant to the Memorandum and Order Regarding Protective Order Noncompliance dated September 4, 2025, I hereby certify that I have reviewed the Protective Order and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the foregoing document is in compliance with the Protective Orders terms. Per the terms of Paragraph 10 of the July 22, 2025 Protective Order Governing SUNSI, Applicant's counsel provided written approval of the redactions in this filing via email to Waterkeeper's counsel, as follows:
"We agree that the document does not contain any unredacted SUNSI."
Date: November 24, 2025 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
CONTAINS SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO NRC PROTECTIVE ORDER 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
Long Mott Energy, LLC (Long Mott Generating Station)
§
§
§
§
§
§ Docket No. 50-614-CP November 24, 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that, on November 24, 2025, copies of the foregoing San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeepers Reply in Support of the Supplement to Waterkeepers Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing Based on Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 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