ML25339A186
| ML25339A186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000614 |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2025 |
| From: | Perales M Perales, Allmon & Ice, P.C., San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57549, SLBP 25-991-01-CP-BD01, 50-614-CP | |
| Download: ML25339A186 (0) | |
Text
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 December 5, 2025 SAN ANTONIO BAY ESTUARINE WATERKEEPERS MOTION TO AMEND CONTENTION 1 BASED ON PSAR SUPPLEMENT 1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper (Waterkeeper or Petitioner) submits this Motion to Amend Contention 1, by which it seeks leave to amend Contention 1 to clarify and explain that Long Mott Energy, LLCs (LME) Supplement 1 to its Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) for its Construction Permit Application (CPA) does not resolve the dispute raised by Waterkeepers Contention 1 in its August 11, 2025, Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing. Further, Waterkeeper seeks leave to amend its Contention 1 to add that LMEs PSAR Supplement 1 fails to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.35(a).
I.
Introduction The Boards August 28, 2025 Initial Prehearing Order set the deadline for filing new/amended contentions within 30 days of the date upon which the information that is the basis of the motion becomes available to the petitioner/intervenor. LME submitted Supplement 1 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report by cover letter dated September 26, 2025 (ML25269A126). The Supplement was added to the Commissions ADAMS
2 Public Search database on the same day. Accordingly, the original deadline for filing a new/amended contention based on this Supplement was October 27, 2025. However, as discussed in the Boards October 1, 2025 and November 13, 2025 Orders, due to the lapse in government funding, all filing deadlines affected by the shutdown... have been extended by 43 days, making the new deadline December 8, 2025. Therefore, this filing is timely.
By this Motion, Waterkeeper seeks to amend its Contention to clarify that the portion of the contention addressing the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8) has not been resolved by LMEs Supplement 1 to its PSAR. LMEs Supplement 1 does not moot the contention because it does not address the basis for Waterkeepers contentionthat is, the supplemental information provides a schedule for conducting fuel testing but offers insufficient information to satisfy the substantive requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8).
Waterkeeper further contends that Supplement 1 fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 50.35(a) for the reasons described below.
II.
Contention 1 In its Petition, the Basis for Waterkeepers Contention 1 included several subparts.
Among those was: LMEs proposal to conduct fuel testing in the future does not comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(4) and (a)(8).1 This basis statement was supported by Dr. Edwin Lymans Declaration.2 1 Waterkeepers Petition, p. 20; see also id., p. 18 (noting that there has been no testing of sufficiently representative fuel manufactured at a commercial scale and that AGR program test data is not available for the pebble fuel forms that the Xe-100 will use).
2 See, e.g., Waterkeepers Petition, Ex. E, Dr. Lyman Declaration, pp. 6, 10, 12.
3 In their Answer to Waterkeepers Petition, the NRC Staff indicated that in their estimation, this part of Contention 1 was admissible.3 In their Answer, the NRC Staff recognized Waterkeepers argument that LME fails to meet NRC requirements for use of functional containment and mechanistic source term in 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8) because LMEs Application lacks existing representational fuel data to demonstrate the adequacy of the design and that specific assumptions LME uses about fuel performance, a key part of LMEs functional containment, have not been validated.4 The Staff characterized Waterkeepers Contention as a contention of omission.5 LME, on the other hand, asserted that Rule 50.34(a)(8) does not apply because any testing that may be necessary does not fall within the definition of research and development.6 A.
LMEs Supplement 1 to the PSAR The revised PSAR adds references to an X-energy Pebble Reactor Test fuel irradiation campaign, followed by four bullet points, and to an X-energy Pebble Loading Results Examination test campaign, with three bullet points. There is also a general reference to evaluation models to predict fission product release from fuel pebbles under operating, design, and licensing basis event conditions.7 And finally, Supplement 1 includes a table with periods of performance.8 3 NRC Staff Answer, p. 11.
4 NRC Staff Answer, pp. 13-15.
5 NRC Staff Answer, p. 15.
6 LMEs Answer, p. 48 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 50.2).
7 LME PSAR, Supp. 1, 6.4-21 through 6.4-22.
8 LME PSAR, Supp. 1, 6.4-23.
4 In its cover letter, LME describes Supplement 1 to its PSAR as providing further identification and descriptions of the confirmatory testing and analysis activities that will be conducted for fuel qualification and a schedule for those activities.9 By that same letter, LME maintains that this information is not required by 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8) because the proposed confirmatory testing does not fall within the definition of research and development as defined by 10 C.F.R. § 50.2.10 In their Answer to Waterkeepers Petition,, the NRC Staff had indicated that they agree that Contention 1 raises a valid contention. Now, via their Notification Regarding Supplemental Information, dated December 3, 2025, the Staff indicate that because the omitted information required by 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8) has been supplied by LME in Supplement 1 to the PSAR, the Staff views the supplemental information to be sufficient to moot the portion of Contention 1 related to 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8), though the Staff takes no position on the adequacy of LMEs supplemental information.11 As explained more fully below, Waterkeeper maintains that Supplement 1 does not resolve the concerns raised in its Petition, as supported by Dr. Lymans Declaration.
Waterkeeper seeks to amend its Contention 1 to provide clarity that Waterkeepers critiques remain applicable, including with regard to LMEs Supplement 1. Waterkeeper also seeks to add that Supplement 1 fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 50.35(a).
B.
Waterkeepers Amended Contention & Basis Statement 9 LME Cover letter to Supp. 1 to PSAR (Sept. 26, 2025) (ML25269A126).
10 Id.
11 NRC Staff Notification Regarding Supplemental Information, pdf p. 5 (Dec. 3, 2025).
5 Waterkeeper continues to maintain that Supplement 1 fails to comply with 10 C.F.R.
§ 50.34(a)(8) for the reasons described in its Contention 1, as supported by Dr. Lymans Declaration. That contention was not one of omission, but one of inadequacy. For instance, Dr. Lyman explained that given the current unavailability of as-manufactured fuel from the yet-to-be-built TRISO-X facility, as well as the length of time such tests have taken historically to yield data, it is not likely that useful results will be available by the time the operating license is submitted or by the time the NRC acts on the LM-CPA.12 He further explained that to conduct required testing by 2033 (the date cited by LME for completion of construction), LME would be required to implement a far more abbreviated schedule for irradiation, testing, and post-irradiation examination than the actual timetable of the AGR program, which is not reasonably achievable.13 Dr. Lymans critiques apply to LMEs Supplement 1 as well. Details of the test program, including peak fuel burnups to be achieved and peak fuel temperatures to be tested under accident conditions, remain absent from Supplement 1. LME has also failed to demonstrate how its proposed timeline in Supplement 1, which is abbreviated compared to historical fuel irradiation tests such as the AGR-3/4 campaign, will yield sufficient results to validate the adequacy of the functional containment approach.
Waterkeeper seeks to amend Contention 1 to add that in addition to LMEs failure to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8), LMEs Supplement 1 fails to comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.35(a). That regulation provides, in relevant part:
12 Dr. Lyman Declaration, p. 12.
13 Id.
6 When an applicant has not supplied initially all of the technical information required to comply the application and support the issuance of a construction permit which approves all proposed design features, the Commission may issue a construction permit if the Commission finds that... (3) safety features or components, if any, which require research and development have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted, a research and development program reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components; and that (4) on the basis of the foregoing, there is reasonable assurance that, (i) such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for completion of construction of the proposed facility, and (ii) taking into consideration the site criteria contained in part 100 of this chapter, the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
(Emphasis added.) For the reasons described in Dr. Lymans Declaration, and summarized below, the requirements of this rule are not addressed.
In his declaration, Dr. Lyman quoted from the July 25, 2025, ACRS letter: The source term from TRISO fuel in a high temperature gas-cooled reactor is a strong function of the initial level of manufacturing defects (heavy metal contamination, SiC defects), the in-service failures under irradiation, and the incremental failures during postulated accidents. Because of the importance to the overall functional containment strategy, the initial fuel failure fractions used in the X-energy safety analysis approach must bound actual manufacturing data.14 Yet, as Dr. Lyman explained, validation of as-manufactured defect rate assumptions is not possible,15 and Supplement 1 does not change that impossibility. There has been no testing of sufficiently representative fuel manufactured at 14 Dr. Lymans Declaration, pp. 5-6.
15 Dr. Lymans Declaration, p. 6.
7 a commercial scale;16 Supplement 1 does not propose testing of sufficiently representative fuel manufactured at a commercial scale. Instead, Supplement 1 proposes testing small quantities of fuel that were fabricated under carefully controlled lab-scale conditions at a pilot plant.
LME characterizes its testing program as confirmatory, but it is worth noting that the particular UCO-based pebble fuel form that LME proposes to use had not undergone any testing yet, anywhere, prior to the start of its current campaign. In particular, [t]he AGR program test data for UCO fuel is only available for compacts rather than the pebble fuel forms that the Xe-100 will use. This has been noted as a significant limitation in the use of AGR data for assessing the effectiveness of the Xe-100 fuel matrix as a component of the functional containment.17 That the proposed testing campaigns are considered research and development is hardly debatable. Even NRC Staff considered the testing campaigns as research and development, subject to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(a)(8).18 For the reasons summarized above and described in greater detail in Dr. Lymans Declaration, the sparse information added to the PSAR by Supplement 1 is inadequate to ensure compliance with 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.34(a)(8) and 50.35(a). Waterkeepers Contention 16 Dr. Lymans Declaration, p. 11.
17 Dr. Lymans Declaration, p. 10 (citing X Energy, LLC - Safety Evaluation of XE-100 Topical Report, TRISO-X Pebble Fuel Qualification Methodology, Rev. 3, p. 6 (March 29, 2023)).
18 NRC Staff Answer, p. 15;see also Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), Review of Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Advanced Reactor ApplicationsRoadmap, DANU-ISG-2022-01, Appendix C, p. 14 (Fuel Qualification) (March 2024) (ML23277A139);NRC Staffs Safety Evaluation Related to the Kairos Power LLC Construction Permit Application for the Hermes 2 Test Reactor Facility Dockets 50-611 & 50-612, Appendix A.3, p. A-22 (July 2024) (ML24200A115), wherein Fuel Qualification Methodology is listed under Research and Development Items.
8 1 remains applicable, despite LMEs submission of PSAR Supplement 1. Supplement 1 fails to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.34(a)(8) and 50.35(a).
III.
Good cause exists for this filing.
Waterkeeper respectfully submits that it satisfies the good cause standard in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c)(i)-(iii) for its amended contention. This information is new and materially different from what was presented in the original PSAR, as discussed above.
Indeed, the Staff continues to review the adequacy of Supplement 1, though they have already changed their position regarding Waterkeepers Contention based on this new information..
This filing is being submitted in a timely fashion. As explained above, LMEs PSAR Supplement 1 was not available until September 26, 2025. Accordingly, the original deadline for filing a new/amended contention based on this Supplement was October 27, 2025. However, as discussed in the Boards October 1, 2025 and November 13, 2025 Orders, due to the lapse in government funding, all filing deadlines affected by the shutdown... have been extended by 43 days, making the new deadline December 8, 2025.
IV.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Waterkeepers Motion to Amend Contention 1 Based on PSAR Supplement 1 should be granted.
Date: December 5, 2025
9 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
10 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 December 5, 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that, on December 5, 2025, copies of the foregoing San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeepers Motion to Amend Contention 1 Based on PSAR Supplement 1 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